CHAPTER VIII.

_COMMENCEMENT OF THE CALVINIAN

CONTROVERSY._

1770 AND 1771.

DURING his absence from England, Fletcher wrote several letters to the

masters and students of the Countess of Huntingdon’s College at

Trevecca;[205] but none of these have been published, and, probably,

none of them now exist. Immediately after his return, and before he had

an opportunity of visiting the College, he indited the following

remarkable epistle:—

“MADELEY, _July 23, 1770_.

“To the masters and students of Lady Huntingdon’s College.

“Grace, mercy, and peace attend you, my dear brethren, from God our

Father, and from our Lord and Brother Jesus Christ!

“_Brother_, do I say? Should I not rather have written _All_? Is not

He _all and in all_? _All_ to believers, for He is their God, as the

λογος (_the Word_), and their Friend, Brother, Father, Spouse, etc.,

etc., etc., as He is λογος γενομενος σαρξ (_the Word made flesh_).

From Him, through Him, and in Him, I salute you in the Spirit. I

believe He is here with me, and in me. I believe He is yonder with

you, and in you; for ‘in Him we live, move, and have,’ not only our

animal, but rational and spiritual, ‘being.’ May the powerful grain of

faith remove the mountain of remaining unbelief, that you and I may

see things as God sees them! When this is the case, we shall discover

that the Creator is _All_ indeed, and that creatures, which we are

wont to put in His place, are mere nothings, passing clouds that our

Sun of Righteousness has thought fit to clothe Himself with, and paint

some of His glories upon. In an instant, He could scatter them into

their original nothing, or resorb them for ever, and stand without

competitor, יחוה, the _Being_.

“But suppose that all creatures should stand for ever, little

signatures of God, what are they even in their most glorious estate,

but as tapers kindled by His light, as well as formed by His power?

Now conceive a Sun, a spiritual Sun, whose centre is everywhere, whose

circumference can be found nowhere; a Sun whose lustre as much

surpasses the brightness of the luminary that rules the day, as the

Creator surpasses the creature; and say, What are the twinkling tapers

of good men on earth,—what is the smoking flax of wicked

creatures,—what the glittering stars of saints in heaven? Why, they

are all lost in His transcendent glory, and if any one of these would

set himself up as an object of esteem, regard, or admiration, he must

indeed be mad with _self_ and _pride_. He must be, as dear Mr. Howell

Harris has often told us, a foolish apostate, a devil.

“Understand this, believe this, and you will sink to unknown depths of

self-horror, for having aspired at being _somebody_, self-humiliation

at seeing yourself _nobody_, or what is worse an _evil-body_.

“But I would not have you dwell even upon this evil, so as to lose

sight of your Sun, unless it be to see Him covered, on this account,

with our flesh and blood, and wrapt in the cloud of our nature. Then

you will cry out with St. Paul, ‘O the depth!’ Then, finding the

manhood is again resorbed into the Godhead, you will gladly renounce

all selfish, separate existence in Adam and from Adam. You will take

Christ to be your life; you will become His members by eating His

flesh and drinking His blood; you will consider His flesh as your

flesh, His bone as your bone, His Spirit as your spirit, His

righteousness as your righteousness, His cross as your cross, and His

crown (whether of thorns or glory) as your crown. You will reckon

yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through

this dear Redeemer. You will renounce propriety; you will heartily and

gladly say, ‘Not I, not I, but Christ liveth; and only _because He

lives_, I do, and shall live also.’

“When it is so with us, then we are creatures in our Creator, and

redeemed creatures in our Redeemer. Then we understand and feel what

He says, ‘Without Me the Creator, ye are nothing; without Me the

Saviour, ye can do nothing.’ ‘The moment I consider Christ and myself

as two, I am gone,’ says Luther; and I say so too. I am gone into

self, and into Antichrist; for that which will be _something_, will

not let Christ be _all_; and that which will not let Christ be all,

must certainly be Antichrist. What a poor, jejune, dry thing is

doctrinal Christianity, compared with the clear and _heartfelt assent_

that the believer gives to these fundamental truths! What life, what

strength, what comfort flow out from them! O my friends, let us

believe, and we shall see, taste, and handle the Word of Life. When I

stand in unbelief, I am like a drop of muddy water drying up in the

sun of temptation. I can neither comfort, nor help, nor preserve

myself. When I do believe and close in with Christ, I am like that

same drop losing itself in a boundless, bottomless sea of purity,

light, life, power, and love. There _my good_ and _my evil_ are

equally nothing; equally swallowed up; and grace reigns through

righteousness unto eternal life.

“There I wish you all to be. There I beg you and I may meet with all

God’s children. I long to see you that I may impart unto you (should

God make use of such a worm) some spiritual gift, and that I may be

comforted by the mutual faith of you and me, and by your growth in

grace, and in divine as well as human wisdom, during my long absence.

I hope matters will be so contrived that I may be with you, to behold

your order, before the anniversary. Meanwhile, I remain your

affectionate fellow-labourer and servant in the Gospel of Christ,

“JOHN FLETCHER.”[206]

Footnote 205:

Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.“

Footnote 206:

Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.“

No wonder that the visits of a man breathing such a spirit were

welcomed. Mr. Benson, the head master of the College, writes:—

“He 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; not only by every student, but by every member of the family.

“And indeed he was worthy. The reader will pardon me, if he thinks 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, his _whole conversation was in heaven_. His _life_, from day

to day, was _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. 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, 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 that 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 (though that too

may be useful in its place), after speaking awhile in the schoolroom,

he used frequently to say, ‘As many of you as are athirst for the

fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.’ On this, many of us

instantly followed him, and there continued till noon, _for two or

three hours_, praying for one another, till we could bear to kneel no

longer. This was done, not once or twice, but many times; and I have

sometimes seen him, on these occasions—once in particular—so filled

with the love of God, that he cried out, ‘O my God, withhold Thy hand,

or the vessel will burst!’ But he afterwards told me, he was afraid he

had grieved the Spirit of God, and that he ought to have prayed that

the Lord would have enlarged the vessel, or have suffered it to break,

that the soul might have had no further bar to its enjoyment of the

Supreme Good.

“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 to as many of the neighbours as desired to be present. 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. His devout soul, always burning with love and zeal, led him to

intermingle prayer with all he uttered. His manner was so solemn and,

at the same time, so mild and insinuating, that it was hardly possible

for any one to be in his company without being 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, that he was so different from 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.”[207]

Footnote 207:

Wesley’s “Life of Fletcher.“

This, to some, may appear excessive eulogy; and, therefore, the reader

is reminded that Joseph Benson, who wrote it, was not a weak-minded

fanatic, but a man of robust understanding, a classical scholar of no

mean attainments, an able commentator on the Old and New Testaments, one

of the most powerful and successful preachers of his times, and twice

President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference. Such a man was not

likely to write random words. He knew Fletcher, and, to the best of his

power, described him accurately. And, further, it must be remembered

that Benson’s testimony was endorsed by Wesley, who inserted it verbatim

in his “Life of Fletcher.“

Such was Fletcher; and yet this half-angelic man had soon to leave

Trevecca! The reasons for this must now be given. The subject will be

far from pleasant; but, in a Life of Fletcher, it cannot be evaded. For

some time past, the storm of the Calvinian controversy had been brewing;

now the crisis came, and the storm burst with terrific violence.

Before proceeding, however, with the history of the controversy, there

is a letter belonging to this period too interesting to be omitted.

David Simpson, who had belonged to Rowland Hill’s Methodist Society, at

Cambridge, had recently received episcopal ordination, and begun his

famous ministry. Like Wesley, Whitefield, Berridge, Rowland Hill, and

others, he was inclined to become, to some extent, an itinerant

preacher, and, therefore, _irregular_. He was only twenty-four years of

age, without experience, and in need of counsel. Accordingly, he wrote

to Fletcher, who returned the following answer:—

“MADELEY, _August 4, 1770_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—I have sometimes preached in licensed places,

but have never been censured for it. Perhaps it is because my

superiors in the Church think me not worth their notice, and despair

of shackling me with their unevangelical regularity. If the Bishop

were to take me to task about this piece of irregularity, I would

observe,—

“1. That the canons of men cannot overthrow the canons of God. ‘Preach

the word. Be instant in season and out of season.’ ‘The time cometh,

and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship,’ particularly and

exclusively of all other places, neither upon mount Gerizim, nor upon

mount Zion; but they shall worship everywhere in spirit and in truth.

The contrary canons are Jewish, and subversive of the liberty

wherewith Christ hath made us free; yea, contrary to the right of

Churchmen, which must, at least, include the privilege of dissenters.

“2. Before the Bishop shackled me with canons, he charged me to ‘look

for Christ’s lost sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for His

children who are in the midst of this wicked world;’ and these sheep,

etc., I will try to gather whenever I meet them. We have a general

canon:—‘While we have time, let us do good to all men, and especially

to them who are of the household of faith.’ ‘Go into all the world,

and preach the Gospel to every creature’ willing to hear it.

“A Justice of the Peace would once prosecute me upon the Conventicle

Act; but, when it came to the point, he durst not do it. Some of my

parishioners went and complained to the Bishop about my conventicles.

I wrote to the Registrar that I hoped his Lordship, who had given me

the above-mentioned charge at my ordination, would not be against my

following it; that I thought it hard the tipplers should have twenty

or thirty tippling-houses, the papists one meeting-house, and the

dissenters three or four, in my parish, undisturbed, and that I should

be disturbed, because I would not have God’s Word confined to one

house; and that, with respect to the canons, it would be absurd to put

them in force against preaching clergymen, when they were set aside

with respect to catechising, tippling, gaming, and carding clergymen;

that I did not desire his Lordship to patronize me, in an especial

manner, in the use of my Christian liberty; but that I hoped he would

connive at it.

“Whether they received my letter or not, I do not know; but they never

attempted to molest me.

“Be modestly and steadily bold for God, and your enemies will be more

afraid of you than you of them; or if God will honour you with the

badge of persecution, He will comfort and bless you the more for it.

May the God of all grace and power be with you more and more! Ask it,

dear Sir, for your brother and servant in Christ,

“J. FLETCHER.”[208]

Footnote 208:

Fletcher’s Works, vol. viii., p. 257.

Fletcher had been only a few weeks at home, when Wesley opened the

Annual Conference of his Itinerant Preachers. This took place in London,

on August 7, 1770. The twenty-eighth question of that Conference was,

“What can be done to revive the work of God where it is decayed?” In

answering this, it was resolved, 1. That there must be more visitation

from house to house; 2. That the books Wesley had printed should be more

widely dispersed; 3. That there should be more field-preaching; 4. That

there should be preaching at five o’clock in the morning wherever twenty

hearers could be obtained; 5. That evils in congregational singing

should be corrected; 6. That four fast-days should be observed every

year; 7. That the Methodists must be taught to seek and expect, not only

_gradual_, but “instantaneous sanctification”; 8. That every Itinerant

Preacher, “in every large town, should spend an hour with the children”

of the Methodists every week; 9. That no itinerant preacher should be so

appointed to preach on Sundays, as to keep him “from church above two

Sundays in four.”

The last answer to the question is the only one that concerns the Life

of Fletcher, and must be given verbatim. Continuing to instruct and

direct his preachers, Wesley observed, lastly,—

“Take heed to your doctrine.

“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,’ εργαζεσθε, 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 who 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.

“7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn

from a matter of fact. God does in fact justify those who, by their

own confession, neither feared God nor wrought righteousness. Is this

an exception to the general rule?

“It is a doubt, God makes any exception at all. But how are we sure

that the person in question never did fear God and work righteousness?

His own saying so is not proof; for we know how all that are convinced

of sin undervalue themselves in every respect.

“8. Does not talking of a justified or a sanctified _state_ tend to

mislead men, almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done

in one moment? Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or

displeasing to God, ‘according to our works.’ According to the whole

of our inward tempers, and our outward behaviour.”[209]

Footnote 209:

“Minutes of the Methodist Conferences,” vol. i., p. 97.

For the next five years (1770–1775), Fletcher made it his duty to

explain and defend these theological theses; and a review of this

quinquennial controversy—as concise as possible—must now be attempted.

Eight days after the close of Wesley’s Conference, Lady Huntingdon, with

the Rev. Walter Shirley and the Rev. Henry Venn, arrived at Mr.

Ireland’s residence at Brislington, on their way to Trevecca to attend

the services in connection with the anniversary of the College. Wesley

had been at the anniversary a year ago, and had been invited to be at

the present one. Accordingly, he remained in Bristol with the

expectation of accompanying her ladyship to Wales, but, horrified by the

doctrinal minutes of his late Conference, she wrote to him saying that,

until he renounced such doctrines, she must exclude him from all her

pulpits. Wesley returned no reply to this communication, but, next day,

calmly and quietly set out for Cornwall.[210]

Footnote 210:

It is said that when Shirley sent her ladyship a copy of Wesley’s

Doctrinal Minutes, she burnt it. (Bogue and Bennett’s “History of

Dissenters.“)

The day after this, the Countess, accompanied by Shirley and Venn, Lady

Anne Erskine, Miss Orton, Mr. Ireland, and Mr. Lloyd, started for

Trevecca, where Fletcher, the President of the College, was ready to

receive them. Here, also, were assembled three of the Methodist

clergymen in Wales, William Williams, Peter Williams, and Daniel

Rowlands; likewise Howell Harris, and several other lay preachers and

exhorters. On Wednesday, August 23, at nine in the morning, Shirley

administered the Lord’s Supper; at ten, Fletcher preached; at two in the

afternoon, Venn addressed the students; and at four, Howell Harris

addressed a large congregation in the court of the College. On Thursday

morning, August 24, Venn administered the sacrament; at ten, Daniel

Rowlands and William Williams preached in the court; at two, Shirley

examined the students, and gave an exhortation; at four, Peter Williams

discoursed in the chapel, and some of the lay preachers in the court. In

the evening Berridge arrived at the College.

On Friday, August 24, the anniversary day of the opening, a public

prayer-meeting was held in the chapel, at six o’clock in the morning,

when Rowlands, Williams, Harris, and Berridge offered prayer; after

which Fletcher, as President of the College, administered the Lord’s

Supper, first to ten clergymen, then to the students, then to Lady

Huntingdon and her household, and then to the congregation in general.

Public service began at ten. A scaffold was erected in the court, on

which sat all the clergy, dissenting ministers, lay preachers, and

students. Fletcher read the liturgy of the Church of England, Peter

Williams offered extemporary prayer, the vast congregation sang most

lustily the glorious hymn of heretical Wesley, beginning with the line,

“Arm of the Lord, awake, awake!“

Shirley preached from the words, “For after that, in the wisdom of God,

it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that

believe.” Then William Williams followed with a sermon in Welsh. At two,

her ladyship’s guests all dined, the people in the chapel and in the

court continuing to sing and pray. At three, Berridge discoursed from,

“They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them,

and confirming the word with signs following.” After him, Daniel

Rowlands, in his own eloquent and powerful manner, addressed the

multitude in Welsh, taking as his text, “We preach Christ crucified.” In

the evening, Venn delivered a sort of charge to the ministers, students,

and lay preachers, from the text, “Preach the word; be instant in

season, out of season;” and Fletcher concluded the services of the

anniversary by offering prayer.

The next morning, however, at seven o’clock, these godly and earnest

people held another prayer-meeting in the chapel, in which Shirley,

Venn, Berridge, and Fletcher took part. On the day following, Sunday,

August 26, Venn and Berridge preached, and then this memorable

assemblage dispersed, Lady Huntingdon proceeding, by way of Berwick and

Worcester, to Bristol, where she met Charles Wesley, and, despite the

heresy of his brother and the itinerants at the late Conference, took

him to Bath to preach several times in her chapel in that city.[211]

Footnote 211:

“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., pp. 106–109.

Truly, these were glorious days; but, mournful to relate, they were soon

followed by days of strife and bitterness. Wesley was accused of having

renounced the doctrines of the Reformation. He was traduced as a

Pelagian, a Pharisee, a Papist, an Antichrist.[212] All this was unjust

and untrue. In less than four months after the memorable Conference of

1770, Wesley preached his “Sermon on the Death of Whitefield,” in which

he said:—

“The fundamental point of Mr. Whitefield was, give God all the glory

of whatever is good in man; and, in the business of salvation, set

Christ as high, and man as low as possible. With this point, he and

his friends at Oxford, the original Methodists (so-called) set out.

Their grand principle was, there is no _power_ (by nature) and _no

merit_ in man. They insisted, all power to think, speak, or act right,

is in and from the Spirit of Christ; and all merit is (not in man, how

high soever in grace, but merely) in the blood of Christ. So he and

they taught: There is no power in man, till it is given him from

above, to do one good work, to speak one good word, or to form one

good desire. For it is not enough to say, all are _sick of sin_: no,

we are all _dead in trespasses and sins_. It follows that all the

children of men are _by nature children of wrath_. We are all _guilty

before God_, liable to death temporal and eternal.

“And we are all helpless, both with regard to the power and to the

guilt of sin. For _who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean_?

None less than the Almighty. Who can raise those that are _dead_,

spiritually dead in sin? None but He who raised us from the dust of

the earth. But on what consideration will He do this? _Not for works

of righteousness that we have done. The dead cannot praise Thee, O

Lord!_ nor do anything for the sake of which they should be raised to

life. Whatever therefore God does, He does it merely for the sake of

His well-beloved Son: _He was wounded for our transgressions, He was

bruised for our iniquities. He Himself bore all our sin in His own

body upon the tree. He was delivered for our offences, and rose again

for our justification._ Here then is the sole _meritorious cause_ of

every blessing we do or can enjoy: in particular of our pardon and

acceptance with God, of our free and full justification. But by what

means do we become interested in what Christ has done and suffered?

_Not by works, lest any man should boast_; but by faith alone. _We

conclude_, says the Apostle, _that a man is justified by faith,

without the works of the law_. And _to as many as_ thus _receive Him,

giveth He power to become the sons of God: even to those that believe

in His name, who are born, not of the will of man, but of God_.

“And _except a man be thus born again, he cannot see the kingdom of

God._ But all who are thus _born of the Spirit_, have _the kingdom of

God within_ them. Christ sets up His kingdom in their

hearts—_righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost_. That _mind

is in them, which was in Christ Jesus_, enabling them to _walk as

Christ also walked_. His indwelling Spirit makes them both holy in

heart, and _holy in all manner of conversation_. But still, seeing all

this is a free gift, through the righteousness and blood of Christ,

there is eternally the same reason to remember, _He that glorieth, let

him glory in the Lord_.

“You are not ignorant, that these are the fundamental doctrines which

he (Mr. Whitefield) everywhere insisted on. And may they not be summed

up, as it were, in two words, _The new birth, and justification by

faith_. These let us insist upon, with all boldness, at all times, and

in all places. In public (those of us who are called thereto), and, at

all opportunities, in private. Keep close to these good old

unfashionable doctrines, how many soever contradict and blaspheme. Go

on, my brethren, in the _name of the Lord, and in the power of His

might_. With all care and diligence, _keep that safe which is

committed to your trust_: knowing that _heaven and earth shall pass

away_; but this truth _shall not pass away_.”[213]

Footnote 212:

Fletcher’s Works, vol. i., p. 209.

Footnote 213:

Wesley’s “Sermon on the Death of Whitefield,” p. 26.

Thus did Wesley address the crowds of Calvinists, in Whitefield’s two

London chapels, on Sunday, November 18, 1770. There can be no doubt that

he meant this to be an answer to the misrepresentations and calumnies

launched against him, on account of the doctrinal minutes of his recent

Conference. It ought to have been sufficient to silence his adversaries,

but it was not. Passion is more easily excited than appeased. In a

letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, Lady Glenorchy[214] wrote:—

“EDINBURGH, _January 10, 1771_.

“Your ladyship’s account of what occurred at Mr. Wesley’s last

Conference does not surprise me. I have since seen the Minutes, and

must bear my feeble testimony against the sentiments contained in

them. May the Lord God of Israel be with you, and enable you to make a

firm stand in defence of a free-grace Gospel! Lady Anne’s letter has

told me all you have been doing in this momentous affair. When you

next write to dear Mr. Shirley, give my kindest regards to him, and

also to Mr. Venn, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Romaine. From what Lady Anne

says, I fear very much for Mr. Fletcher that he will be carried off by

Mr. Wesley’s influence. What will be the end of this business I know

not. I know Mr. Wesley is greatly displeased with me, though I have

always countenanced his preachers; but now I find this cannot be done

by me any longer. Nevertheless, I respect him highly, and pray that he

may be led in the way of truth.”[215]

Footnote 214:

Lady Glenorchy opened a number of chapels, both in Scotland and

England, and did her utmost to supply them with evangelical ministers.

She was, in fact, the Lady Huntingdon of Scotland.

Footnote 215:

“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 111.

Lady Glenorchy executed her conscientious threat. Lady Huntingdon had

already done the same. Further action was taken. Joseph Benson was

dismissed from Trevecca College, because he adhered to the doctrines of

Wesley. The good Countess, however, gave him the following certificate:—

“This is to certify that Mr. Joseph Benson was master for the

languages in my College at Talgarth for nine months, and that, during

that time, from his capacity, sobriety, and diligence, he acquitted

himself properly in that character; and I am ready at any time to

testify this on his behalf whenever required.

“College, _January 17, 1771_.

S. HUNTINGDON.”[216]

Footnote 216:

Macdonald’s “Life of Benson.”

Benson was unexceptionable as a classical master; but, in her ladyship’s

opinion, he was a heretic in theological dogmas, because he did not

believe the doctrine of absolute predestination.[217] Fletcher, the

president of the college, was dissatisfied with her ladyship’s dismissal

of the master, and wrote to her as follows:—

“_January 7, 1771._

“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; for,

in my present view of things, I must hold that sentiment, if I believe

that the Bible is true, and that God is love.

“For my part, I am no party-man. In the Lord, I am your servant, and

that of your every student; but I cannot give up the honour of being

connected with my old friends, who, notwithstanding their failings,

are entitled to my respect, gratitude, and assistance, could I

occasionally give them any. Mr. Wesley shall always be welcome to my

pulpit, and I shall gladly bear my testimony in his, as well as in Mr.

Whitefield’s. But if your ladyship forbid your students to preach for

the one, and offer them to preach for the other at every turn; and if

a master is discarded for believing that Christ died for all; then

prejudice reigns, charity is cruelly wounded, and party spirit shouts,

prevails, and triumphs.”

Footnote 217:

Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”

On the same day, Fletcher wrote to the dismissed Benson the following:—

“_January 7, 1771._

“DEAR SIR,—The same post brought me yours, and two from my lady, and

one from Mr. Williams.[218] Their letters contained no charges, but

general ones, which with me go for nothing. If the procedure you

mention be fact, and your letter be a fair account of the transactions

and words relative to your discharge, a false step has been taken. I

write by this post to her ladyship on the affair, with all possible

plainness. If the plan of the college be overthrown, I have nothing

more to say to it. I will keep to my tent for one; the confined tool

of any one party I never was, and never will be. If the blow that

should have been struck at _the dead spirit_, is struck at _dead_

Arminius, or _absent_ Mr. Wesley,—if a master is turned away without

any fault, it is time for me to stand up with firmness, or to

withdraw.

“Take care, my dear Sir, not to make matters worse than they are; and

cast a mantle of forgiving love over the circumstances that might

injure the cause of God, so far as it is put into the hands of that

eminent lady, who has so well deserved of the Church of Christ. Rather

suffer in silence, than make a noise to cause the Philistines to

triumph. Do not let go your expectation of a baptism from above. May

you be supported in this and every other trial! Farewell!

“J. FLETCHER.”

Footnote 218:

A clergyman, who, professing to be under serious impressions, had been

permitted by her ladyship to stay a few weeks at the college; but was

neither master nor student. Fletcher termed him “a bird of passage.”

Two days later, Fletcher wrote again to Benson as follows:—

“_January 9, 1771._

“I am determined to stand or fall with the liberty of the College. As

I entered it a free place, I must quit it the moment it is a harbour

for party spirit.

“As I am resolved to clear up this matter or quit my province, I beg

you will help me to as many _facts_ and _words_, _truly done_, and

_really spoken_, as you can; whereby I may show that false reports,

groundless suspicions, party spirit against Mr. Wesley, arbitrary

proceedings, and unscriptural impulses, hold the reins and manage

affairs in the College; as also that the balance of opinions is not

maintained, and Mr. Wesley’s opinions are dreaded, and struck at, more

than deadness of heart, and a wrong conduct.

“So far as we can, let us keep this matter to ourselves. When you

speak of it to others, rather endeavour to palliate than aggravate

what has been wrong in your opposers. Remember that great lady has

been an instrument of great good, and that there are great

inconsistencies attending the greatest and best of men. Possess your

soul in patience. See the salvation of God; and believe, though

against hope, that light will spring out of darkness.

“I am, with concern for you and that poor College,

“Yours, in Jesus,

“J. FLETCHER.”

On February 20, Fletcher set out for the College;[219] and, on his

return to Madeley, he wrote to Wesley the following hitherto unpublished

letter:—

“MADELEY, _March 18, 1771_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,—I was sorry not to have had it in my power to meet

you in Shropshire,[220] and give you, by word of mouth, an account of

what passed at Lady Huntingdon’s College respecting you, at my last

visit there.

“The hasty admitting of subjects that did not appear to me proper; the

sanguine hopes they would turn out against probability, the divisions

at Brecknock and the Hay, and some things that I did not approve in

Mr. Benson’s dismission, gave me a disgust to the College.

Nevertheless, I went to try to make the best of the matter; but I

found at my arrival that the students had been armed by Mr. Shirley

against the point I had, with some success, maintained when I was

there before, namely, internal conversion by the power of the Holy

Ghost dwelling in the heart by faith. He called it _perfection_, and

as such baited it out of the place.

“I saw the College was no longer my place, as I was not likely to do

or receive any good there, especially as Calvinism strongly prevailed.

Under these circumstances, and humbling views of my insufficiency, I

told my lady and all around me, I resigned the place of

superintendent; nevertheless, I would stay awhile to supply the want

of a master.

“In the meantime, an extract of your last Minutes was sent to my lady,

who wept much over it, through an honest fear that you had fairly and

fully given up the grand point of the Methodists, free justification,

_articulum stantis vel cadentis ecclesiæ_. The heresy appeared

horrible, worth being publicly opposed, and such as a true believer

ought to be ready to burn against. I tried to soften matters, but in

vain. The students were commanded to write their sentiments upon your

doctrine of salvation by works, working for life, the merit of works,

etc.; and whoever did not fully disavow it, was to quit the College. I

wrote among the rest, and showed the absurdity of inferring from these

Minutes that you had renounced the Protestant doctrine and the

atonement. I defended your sentiments, by explaining them as I have

heard you do, and only blamed the unguarded and not sufficiently

explicit manner in which they were worded. I concluded by saying,

that, as, after Lady Huntingdon’s declaration, I could no longer stay

in the College, but as an intruder, I _absolutely_ resigned my place,

as I must appear to all around as great a heretic as yourself.

“This step had a better effect than I expected. My lady weighed with

candour what I had advanced, though she thought it too bad to be laid

before the students. In short, I retired in peace and as peacemaker,

the servant and no more the principal of the College. I advised Lady

Huntingdon to choose a moderate Calvinist in my place, and recommended

Mr. Rowland Hill. The College will take quite a Calvinist turn, and an

itinerant ministry will go out of it to feed the Church of God of that

sentimental denomination. I strongly recommended them to set fire to

the harvest of the Philistines, and not to that of their fellow

Israelites who cannot pronounce Shibboleth in their way. My lady

seemed quite disposed for peace last Friday;[221] and she will write

to you to beg you will explain yourself upon the Minutes, that she and

the College may see you are not _an enemy to grace_, and may be

friends at a distance, instead of open adversaries.

“And now, my dear Sir, I beseech you to put on all the bowels of mercy

and condescension that are in Christ, to hope the College and its

foundress mean well; and give them all the satisfaction you can. I

need not bring to your remembrance the words of the Apostle, ‘As much

as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.’ I trust they are graven

on your heart, and that, should war ensue, your moderation will still

appear to all men. The points that will most stop the mouth of our

friend are the total fall of man, and his utter inability to do any

good of himself; the absolute necessity of the grace and Spirit of God

to raise even a good thought or desire in the heart; the Lord

rewarding no work, or accepting of none, but so far as they proceed

from His preventing, convincing, and converting grace; the blood and

righteousness of Christ being the sole meritorious cause of our

salvation, and the only spring of all acceptable works, whether we do

them spontaneously from life or for more abundant life.

“I look upon Lady Huntingdon as an eminent servant of God, an honest,

gracious person, but not above the reach of prejudice; and where

prejudice misleads her, her warm heart makes her go rather too fast.

It is in your power greatly to break, if not altogether to remove, the

prejudice she has conceived against you, and to become all things to

her, that you may not cause her to stumble in the greatness of her

zeal for the Lord. The best way to get the Calvinists to allow us

_something_, is to grant them _all_ we possibly can.

“As your enemies will particularly watch your writings and sermons,

and Satan your heart to find an occasion against you by

self-righteousness and dependence upon your great works, my prayer is

that you may fully disappoint them, by guarding the Gospel truth in

your own heart and life and doctrine, as much from the legal as the

antinomian extreme, between which it invariably lies.

“With respect to me, I am not yet a Christian in the full sense of the

word; but I follow after, if so be I may apprehend that for which I am

apprehended of Christ. Take no notice of my scrawl. Pray for, and

direct, Rev. and dear Sir, your affectionate friend and unworthy

servant in Christ,

“J. FLETCHER.

“To

“The Rev. Mr. John Wesley,

“At the Octagone,

“Chester.” (Salop postmark.)

Footnote 219:

“Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. iii., p. 88.

Footnote 220:

Wesley was at Wem only three days before this letter was written.

Footnote 221:

The day Wesley was at Wem, namely, March 15.

Four days after the date of this letter, Fletcher wrote to Benson,

giving him some of the particulars just recited; but also mentioning

other facts, too interesting and important to be omitted here.

“_March 22, 1771._

“MY DEAR FRIEND.—On my arrival at the College, I found all very quiet,

I fear through the enemy keeping his goods in peace. While I preached

the next day, I found myself as much shackled as ever I was in my

life; and, after private prayer, I concluded I was not in my place.

The same day[222] I resigned my office to my lady; and, on Wednesday,

to the students and the Lord. Nevertheless, I went on as usual, only I

had no heart to give little charges to the students, as before. I

should possibly have got over it as a temptation, if several

circumstances had not confirmed me in my design. Two I shall mention.

When Mr. Shirley was at the College, what you had written upon the

‘baptism of the Holy Ghost’ was taken to pieces. Mr. Shirley

maintained that the prophecy of Joel (Acts ii.) had its complete

fulfilment on the day of Pentecost; and thus he turned the stream of

living waters into imperceptible dews, _nemine contradicente_, except

two, who made one or two feeble objections; so that the point was, in

my judgment, turned out of the College after you, and was abused under

the name of ‘Perfection.’ This showed I was not likely to receive or

do any good there.

“Some days after my arrival, however, I preached the good old doctrine

before my Lady and Mr. H——. The latter also talked of imperceptible

influences, and the former thanked me; but, in my apprehension,

spoiled all by going to the College the next day, to give a charge

partly against _Perfection_, in my absence.

“Last Friday, I left them all in peace, the _servant_, but no more the

_president of the College_. My lady behaved with great candour and

condescension towards me in the affair. As for you, you are still out

of her books, and are likely so to continue. Your last letters have

only thrown oil on the fire. All was seen in the same light in which

Mr. Wesley’s letter appeared. You were accused of having alienated my

heart from the College, but I have cleared you.

“I rejoice that your desires after a larger measure of the Holy Spirit

increase. Part rather with your heart’s blood than with them. Let me

meet you at the throne of grace; and send me word how you dispose of

yourself. If you are at a loss for a prophet’s room, remember I have

one here.

“J. FLETCHER.”[223]

Footnote 222:

Wesley says he “_spent the day_ in fasting and prayer.” (Wesley’s

Works, vol. vii., p. 416.)

Footnote 223:

Benson’s Life, by Macdonald.

To these letters must be added a verbatim copy of an important document,

altogether in Fletcher’s own handwriting, and never published until now.

“An account of John Fletcher’s case, with the reasons that have induced

him to resign the superintendency of the Countess of Huntingdon’s

College in Wales.

“I was first connected with Mr. Wesley, under whom, for love and

gratitude’s sake, I occasionally laboured some years.

“By Mr. C. Wesley I had the honour of being presented to Lady

Huntingdon, who kindly admitted me to the office of a private

chaplain, and granted me full leave to assist my old friends as often

as I would.

“By means of her ladyship I was afterwards introduced to Mr.

Whitefield, and had the honour of assisting him also both in London

and Bristol, and found myself peculiarly happy in showing, by my equal

readiness to throw my mite of assistance where it was accepted, that

though I was the Lord’s free man I delighted to be the common servant

of all. I was glad also to have from time to time an opportunity of

bearing a kind of practical testimony against the spirit of party and

division, which, to my great grief, crumbled the Church of Christ

around me.

“After taking a dangerous turn into the doctrines of election and

reprobation, my sentiments settled at last into the anti-Calvinist

way, in which Mr. Wesley was rooted. Notwithstanding this, it became a

steady, invariable point with me never to be so attached to his, or

any one party, as to be shy of, much less break with another.

“I had soon an opportunity of being closely tried in my spirit of

catholic love. Mr. Maxfield separated from his and my old friend Mr.

Wesley. I thought him rather in the wrong, and Mr. Wesley was my

oldest acquaintance. Notwithstanding, I ventured upon the loss of his

friendship, and of my connection with him, by publicly assisting Mr.

Maxfield when the breach between them was widest, and the press

groaned under the unkind productions of their unhappy division.[224]

Though I touched Mr. Wesley’s friendship in the tenderest part, he

bore with me, and his patience increased my regard for him; nor is it

at all abated now, though I have had little opportunity to show it

him, having hardly exchanged one or two letters with him these many

years.

“Soon after Lady Huntingdon founded her College, and partly by her

unmerited esteem, partly by Providence, and partly by my desire to be

a Gibeonite to God’s people and hew wood if I could not draw water, I

was brought to have a principal share in the management of it. The

free spirit that breathed in the noble foundress’s proposals, and the

general terms of admittance, suited my catholic taste, and the liberty

of sentiment granted to all that firmly maintained our total fall in

Adam, attached me no less to the institution than its excellence and

the prospect of its usefulness.

“Scruples nevertheless rose in my mind. The first was a fear lest

improper subjects, persons destitute either of grace or gifts, perhaps

of both, were admitted with the greatest readiness, and kept upon the

foundation with the most sanguine hopes that a day of Pentecost would

make them what they did not appear to me to be as yet—Christians and

preachers. Flattering myself that it would be so, after some modest

expostulations I submitted my judgment to that of the noble foundress,

whose light I think in general as superior to mine as is her rank and

grace.

“The Brecknock division[225] broke out. I suddenly tried to prevent

it, but it took place, and secretly wounded my catholic spirit.

Nevertheless, hopes that the Lord might overrule it for good soon

healed the wound. This brought on a rupture between my two dear and

honoured friends, the foundress of the college and Mr. Wesley. An

unkind, though I hope well-meant letter, was wrote on the occasion by

one, and was unkindly received, yea, looked upon as highly insulting,

by the other. I saw the advantage of the enemy. I blamed, and yet I

loved them both. Where I could not soften matters I remained neuter.

Hence, however, arose a difficulty how I should be faithful to my lady

without being unfaithful to Mr. Wesley. Meantime, the prejudice seemed

to me to rise, and somewhat sowed the seeds of the Hay division. Mr.

Benson’s dismission followed, and though I hope it was from the Lord,

yet I could not help blaming the manner in which it was conducted.

“Lady Huntingdon said on the occasion, nobody that held Mr. Wesley’s

opinions should stay in the College; every Arminian should quit the

place. This wounded again my catholic spirit, and appeared to me a

breach of the privilege most solemnly granted to the members of the

College at the opening of it. I thought that my lady had no right to

impose such a law—a law so contrary to her first proposals—till it had

received a proper sanction by a majority of the votes both of masters

and students, and till leave had been granted to those who could not

in conscience come into it to withdraw quietly, without the odium of

an expulsion. I observed that if this was the case, I looked upon

myself as discharged, because I for one could no more believe that

Christ did not taste death for every man, than I could believe God was

not truth and love; and because all the sentiments of Mr. Wesley

obnoxious to the Calvinist, except perfection, are inseparably

connected with general redemption.

“With regard to perfection itself, I believe that when Mr. Wesley is

altogether consistent upon that subject, he means absolutely nothing

by it but the full cluster of Gospel blessings, which Lady Huntingdon

so warmly presses the students to pursue; namely, Gospel faith, the

immediate revelation of Christ, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the

Spirit of adoption, the kingdom that cannot be moved, the element of

forgiving love, deep and uninterrupted poverty of spirit, and, in a

word, a standing upon Mount Sion and enjoying its great and glorious

privileges. And I am fully persuaded that, in this respect, there is

more misunderstanding between my lady and Mr. Wesley about words and

modes of expression than about things and essential principles. All

the difference between them seems to _me_ to consist in this: my lady

is more for looking to the misery and depth of the fall; Mr. Wesley

more for considering the power and effects of the recovery. My lady

speaks glorious things of free grace; and Mr. Wesley inculcates the

glorious use we ought to make of it. Both appear to me to maintain one

and the same truth, and to guard it; my lady against the Legalists,

Mr. Wesley against the Antinomians. If, therefore, they do not

understand one another, and fall out by the way, I shall think it is a

great pity, and shall continue to be, at least in my heart, the loving

servant of both; though both will possibly think me prejudiced for not

seeing just as they do.

“I was also grieved that my lady should have received for truth so

absurd an imagination as that of Mr. Wesley being willing to give £100

a-year to a rigid Calvinist in bondage, who just read prayers with a

Welsh accent, and that wise Benson made the foolish proposal to him,

when Benson, to my certain knowledge, feared his head was at times a

little affected. And I began to fear lest my lady should, upon the

most improbable assertions, receive unfavourable impressions against

me, as she had done against her old friend Mr. Wesley, especially as

my particular regard for him was still the same.

“Be that as it will, my regard for Lady Huntingdon and the students

made me send her ladyship my sentimental creed, that, if she did not

disapprove of it, I might come to the College; and I came, to my

thinking and feeling, as free and as happy as ever, and was quite free

on the Saturday evening and the next morning till noon, when the

little commission and authority I had to exhort the students was quite

taken away from me. As I preached in the chapel, an uncommon weight

came upon me on a sudden, and it was not without much difficulty that

I struggled under it through the rest of my sermon. As soon as the

service was over, I retired to my room in very great heaviness and

distress. I saw in the clearest light that I was not in my place, and

must no longer preside in the College. From that time, I had no heart

to speak to the students on the things of God. So clear and strong was

my conviction that I mentioned it directly to Mr. Howell Harris, and

that very evening to my lady, and to all the students on the next

Wednesday; and as I concluded our morning meeting with prayer, I was

led solemnly upon my knees to resign my charge to God, and to pray for

a proper person to preside in my place.

“Nevertheless my high regard for my lady, and my love for the

students, prevented me from being faithful to my conviction, and I

would have quenched it, if I had been able. But several things

happened which gave me courage to be faithful.

“Lady Huntingdon showed me a letter to Hook, which she had read to the

students; and, though I admired the honesty and impartiality that

appeared in it, I afterwards thought hard of that expression, that

every one who held eternal justification must quit the College. This

appeared to me as severe upon consistent Calvinists, as the like

expression before upon consistent Arminians, as, I believe, every

Predestinarian, who will not contradict himself, must hold himself

eternally justified in God’s sight.

“I had reason to fear Mr. Shirley, that great minister whom I honour

much in the Lord, had said he would oppose through the world the

doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which I am bound in

conscience to maintain among all professors, especially in the

College. From these different views of things, I saw difficulties

would perpetually arise to her ladyship, the College, and myself.

“I was also grieved that when he tried his well-meant zeal (though it

was not, in my judgment, zeal according to knowledge) to explode the

baptism of the Holy Ghost, and laugh it out of the College, after

having dressed it in a fool’s coat and called it Perfection, most of

the students had tamely allowed him that Joel’s prophecy was entirely

fulfilled upon the hundred and twenty disciples on the day of

Pentecost, that believers are to grow in grace by imperceptible dews,

and that we can do very well without a remarkable shower of grace and

Divine effusion of power, opening in us the well of living water that

is to flow to everlasting life.

“As it appeared to me they had, in a good degree, given up their

little expectation of this Gospel blessing, and renounced the grand

point which I apprehended was to be firmly maintained and vigorously

pursued in the College, I did not feel the same liberty with them in

prayer, and found that, as matters were and appeared likely to

continue, my convictions and desires would rather be damped than

cherished among them.

“Nor, indeed, did I see, upon this new plan, any advantage this

College was to have more than the academy at Abergavenny, itinerancy

excepted; so that I feared many would get into the habit of preaching

by rote, and of talking of the power without heartily waiting for it,

which made me give up my hopes that those who have not gifts should

ever be useful preachers, as a day of Pentecost and power from on high

can alone supply the want of them.

“My lady, likewise, appeared to me so excessively afraid of

Perfection, that she seemed to take umbrage at a harmless expression I

had used in a letter hastily written to a friend, ‘_The fiery baptism

will burn up self_,’—an expression which I had caught from Mr. Harris,

who frequently uses it, though no one will accuse him of befriending

Mr. Wesley’s doctrine of Perfection. Whatsoever he means by it, I mean

nothing but to convey the idea of a power that enables us to say, with

a tolerable degree of propriety, as St. Paul, ‘I live not, but Christ

lives in me;’ and I saw that, if I was faithful to my light,

misapprehensions of the like kind, and well or ill grounded fears,

would perpetually arise.

“But what weighed most with me, next to what passed in my heart, the

third Sunday in Lent, was the strong light in which I saw the great

difficulty arising from the difference of sentiments between the

students and myself. I had frequently observed that, if I tried to

stir up those who appeared to be carnally secure, or spiritually

asleep on their soft doctrinal pillows, they directly fancied I aimed

at robbing them of one of their jewels, the doctrine of perseverance,

though the Searcher of hearts knows I had not the least thought about

it. By the same stratagem of the enemy, when I exhorted loiterers to

leave the things that are behind, and press toward the mark for the

prize of our high calling in Christ, they imagined I wanted to drive

them to the brink of some horrible precipice, or into the jaws of some

monster called Perfection, in which notion they were possibly

confirmed not only by Mr. Shirley’s positive assertions, but by

frequent hints thrown out by her ladyship herself upon the danger of

that imaginary bugbear. Alas! how needless it is to give charges

against sinless Perfection to young men who believe no such thing is

to be attained, and who live mostly under the power of the carnal

mind. What must be the consequence if grace does not interpose? What,

but a settling upon the lees of nature and formality, and a singing of

a soft requiem to the drowsy hearts of those who are not really alive

to God? What makes me think so, is the frequent opportunities I have

had to observe that a word which may too indirectly countenance sin,

by the craft and power of Satan and the prevalence of natural

corruption, goes farther than twenty directly and powerfully thundered

against it.

“Again. The light of most Calvinists is such that they cannot believe

a man knows anything of free grace who does not enter into all their

sentiments. Of this, a moderate one gave me lately a particular

instance, by telling me point blank, I was in a damnable heresy, and

never knew anything of myself or of true grace, because I had said,

sinners perish for resisting and quenching the Spirit of grace. Hence,

I conclude, and not without a premise, that it would be as ridiculous

in me to expect the majority of students to follow my directions, as

it would be to hope that young men who have good eyes should follow a

person whom they believe almost if not altogether blind.

“Things appeared to me in this light, when the uneasiness of my lady

occasioned by Mr. Wesley’s Minutes showed itself. I admired her zeal

for the grand truths of the Gospel. Appearances were for her, and I

could not excuse Mr. Wesley’s unguarded expressions, any more than my

lady’s great warmth against them; her ladyship having mentioned again

and again that they were horrible and abominable, and that she must

burn against them, and at last added, that, whosoever in the College

did not fully and without any evasion disavow them should not stay in

her College, etc. Accordingly, an order came for the students and

masters to write their sentiments upon them. I thought I would not lay

that burden upon others without touching it myself, and, following the

light in which I could see and trace Mr. Wesley’s doctrines from a

long acquaintance with his sentiments, I blamed the unguarded and not

sufficiently explicit manner in which they were worded, but approving

the doctrines themselves as agreeable to what appears to me the

analogy of faith. All the College, I suppose, rose with one voice

against them, which must make me appear strangely heterodox, if not

altogether a heretic worse than Mr. Wesley. This consideration,

together with my lady’s repeated declaration that every student who

did not disavow them should quit the College, gave me at last courage

to do absolutely what I had done in a partial manner near a fortnight

before, namely, to resign the office of Principal of the College,

which I saw I could no longer discharge with honour, with a good

conscience, or any probability of success.

“If I know anything of my own heart, I can truly say, I have not taken

this step from pique or chagrin, nor from any supposed unkindness in

her ladyship or the students, whose undeserved regard and peculiar

respect for me have made me feel the greatest reluctance to comply

with what I esteem the order of the Lord and the explicit dictate of

my own conscience, confirmed by the train of circumstances which I

have mentioned.

“My high esteem for her ladyship is not at all abated. My love to the

students, and regard for the College are the same. Nay, I can truly

say, my regard for them goads me away, as I see nothing but a scene of

confusion, distraction, and jealousy if I stay. The whole of this

affair appears to me to be from the Lord, and it is my sentiment,

that, as the College has naturally been filled with Calvinists, is

providentially founded near a Calvinist academy in Wales, a Calvinist

country, an itinerant ministry is to go forth from it to feed chiefly

the Church of God of that sentimental denomination. In order to this,

a moderate, lively Calvinist must superintend, under the noble

foundress, and, as a token that her ladyship is not dissatisfied with

my conduct, I humbly beg she would give me leave to recommend my

successor to her.

“Mr. Whitefield is dead; some of his forlorn congregation have already

been blessed under the ministry of the students; who is more proper to

head them than he whom the religious world begins to call the young

Whitefield, Mr. Rowland Hill? His remarkable sufferings for Christ’s

sake, entitle him to the honour of presiding over this work; and I

hope the Lord will make him willing to accept an office for which he

seems to be so well fitted by his popularity and success.

“If it be objected that he is young, I reply, he is older than Mr.

Whitefield was when he set out upon his great errand, and that the

warmth of his heart, the ripeness of his zeal, and the amazing

steadiness of his conduct for years, under the greatest difficulty

both at home and abroad, together with the many seals God has already

given to His ministry in various parts of the kingdom, ought greatly

to turn the scale in his favour. And, indeed, what is an old Saul to a

young David? And who deserves most the name and honour of a father?

He, or myself? Without hesitating, I answer Mr. Rowland Hill, who has

perhaps begotten more children to God in one discourse than I have in

all my poor labour these fourteen years.”

Footnote 224:

After many unhappy contentions, and much forbearance on Wesley’s part,

Thomas Maxfield seceded from Wesley in 1763. Maxfield has been far

more highly honoured in Methodist histories and biographies than his

merits warranted.

Footnote 225:

I have failed in my endeavour to ascertain what is meant by the

“Brecknock division.” There can be no doubt, however, that Wesley met

with great annoyance in that part of Wales. Previous to the opening of

Trevecca College, he wrote:—

“1767. September 2.—I found the work of God in Pembrokeshire had been

exceedingly hindered, chiefly by Mr. Davies’s preachers, who had

continually inveighed against ours, and thereby frightened abundance

of people from hearing or coming near them. This had sometimes

provoked them to retort, which always made a bad matter worse. The

advice, therefore, which I gave them was:—1. Let all the people

sacredly abstain from backbiting, tale-bearing, evil-speaking. 2. Let

all our preachers abstain from returning railing for railing, either

in public or in private, as well as from disputing. 3. Let them never

preach controversy, but plain, practical, and experimental religion.”

A year and a half after Fletcher left Trevecca, Wesley wrote again in

his journal:—

“1772. August 14.—About noon, at the request of my old friend Howell

Harris, I preached at Trevecca, on the strait gate, and we found our

hearts knit together as at the beginning. He said, ‘I have borne with

these pert, ignorant young men, vulgarly called students, till I

cannot in conscience bear any longer. They preach barefaced

reprobation, and so broad antinomianism, that I have been constrained

to oppose them to the face, even in the public congregation.’ It is no

wonder they should preach thus. What better can be expected from raw

lads of little understanding, little learning, and no experience?”

This long document is endorsed “Letter to Lady Huntingdon.” It would be

easy to make it the text for a long sermon; but want of space forbids

the attempt to do this. Besides, intelligent readers are quite competent

to form just opinions respecting it. Suffice it to say, that it is of

high importance, as containing, by far, the fullest account ever

published of the reasons why Fletcher took a step which led to great

events he never contemplated. Had he continued to be the Superintendent

of the Trevecca College, it is probable that the Calvinian controversy

would not have grown to such wide dimensions. That, however, is not a

proof of imprudence on Fletcher’s part; for, as every one who knows the

history of that controversy is well aware, it was impossible for the

great religious movement of the last century to proceed without the

doctrines in Wesley’s Minutes being thoroughly examined, discussed, and

settled.

Wesley preached his sermon on the death of Whitefield on November 18,

1770. Six weeks afterwards, it was respectfully attacked in the January

number of the Calvinists’ periodical, the _Gospel Magazine_. Two months

later, the same magazine made a furious assault on Walter Sellon’s

“Defence of God’s Sovereignty,” stigmatizing it as “A mite of reprobate

silver, cast into the _Foundery_, and coming out thence, bearing the

impress of that pride, self-righteousness, and self-sufficiency, natural

to men in their fallen unrenewed state.” “This performance,” continues

the reviewer, “is extolled to the very skies by the Arminians. It is

calculated for their meridian, and well establishes the haughty system

of their own works and faithfulness, in opposition to the grace of the

Gospel, and the faithfulness of a covenant God, in the finished

salvation of sinners by Jesus Christ.”

In May, the same periodical printed Wesley’s “Minutes,” and branded them

as “the very doctrines of Popery, yea, of Popery unmasked.” The number

for the month of June contained an article of twelve pages, entitled, “A

Comment or Paraphrase on the Extract from the Minutes of the Rev. Mr.

Wesley, etc.” The temper and the unfairness of the article may be judged

by the paraphrase on the first Minute, “_Take heed to your doctrine_.”

That is, remarks the commentator,—

“Beware, in your preaching, of ascribing the whole and sole glory of

salvation, from first to last, to the free unmerited grace of God in

Christ Jesus. Be cautious how you sink man below his dignity, rob him

of his excellency, strip him of the power of His free-will and

abilities to perform his part in the work of salvation, and so deprive

him of all trust in himself, hope from himself, and boasting of

himself; for hence will be an end of self-seeking, self-righteousness,

and self-soothing. Then would he sink into self-despair. Take heed to

this.”

Meanwhile, Fletcher wrote to Wesley as follows:—

“MADELEY, _June 24, 1771_.[226]

“DEAR SIR,—When I left Wales, where I had stood in the gap for peace,

I thought my poor endeavours were not altogether vain. Lady Huntingdon

said she would write civilly to you, and desire you to explain

yourself about your ‘Minutes.’ I suppose you have not heard from her,

for she wrote me word, since then, that she believed she must not

meddle in the affair. At least, that is what I made of her letter.

Upon receiving yours from Chester, I cut off that part of it where you

expressed your belief of what is eminently called by us the doctrine

of free grace, and sent it to the College, with a desire it might be

sent to Lady Huntingdon. She has returned it to me, with a letter, in

which she expresses the greatest disapprobation of it. The purport of

her letter is, to charge you with tergiversation, and me with being

the dupe of your impositions. She has also written in stronger terms

to her College.

“Things I hoped would have remained there; but how am I surprised and

grieved to see zeal borrowing the horn of discord, and sounding an

alarm throughout the religious world against you. Mr. Hatton called

upon me last night, and showed me a printed circular, which, I

suppose, is, or will be, sent to the serious clergy and laity

throughout the land. I have received none, as I have lost, I suppose,

my reputation of being a ‘_real Protestant_,’ by what I wrote upon

your ‘Minutes’ in Wales.

“This is an exact copy of the printed letter—

“‘SIR,—Whereas Mr. Wesley’s Conference is to be held at Bristol, on

Tuesday, the 6th of August next, it is proposed by Lady Huntingdon and

many other Christian friends (real Protestants), to have a meeting at

Bristol at the same time, of such principal persons, both clergy and

laity, who disapprove of the underwritten ‘Minutes;’ and, as the same

are thought injurious to the very _fundamental_ principles of

Christianity, it is further proposed that they go in a body to the

said Conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said

Minutes; and, in case of a refusal, that they sign and publish their

protest against them. Your presence, Sir, on this occasion, is

particularly requested; but, if it should not suit your convenience to

be there, it is desired that you will transmit your sentiments on the

subject to such persons as you think proper to produce them. It is

submitted to you, whether it would not be right, in the opposition to

be made to such a _dreadful heresy_, to recommend it to as many of

your Christian friends, as well of the dissenters as of the

Established Church, as you can prevail on to be there, the cause being

of so public a nature.

“‘I am, Sir, your obedient servant,—WALTER SHIRLEY.

“‘P.S.—Your answer is desired, directed to the Countess of Huntingdon;

or the Rev. Mr. Shirley; or John Lloyd, Esq., in Bath; or Mr. James

Ireland, merchant, Bristol; or to Thomas Powis, Esq., at Berwick, near

Shrewsbury; or to Richard Hill, Esq., at Hawkstone, near Whitchurch,

Shropshire. Lodgings will be provided. Inquire at Mr. Ireland’s,

Bristol.’

“I think it my duty, dear Sir, to give you the earliest intelligence

of this bold onset, and to assure you that, upon the evangelical

principles mentioned in your last letter to me, I, for one, shall be

glad to stand by you and your doctrine to the last, hoping that you

will gladly remove stumbling-blocks out of the way of the weak, and

alter such expressions as may create prejudice in the hearts of those

who are inclined to admit it.

“I write to Mr. Shirley to expostulate with him, and to request him to

call in his circular letter. He is the last man that should attack

you. His sermons contain propositions much more heretical and

anti-Calvinistical than your ‘Minutes.’ If my letters have not the

desired effect, I shall probably, if you approve of them and correct

them, make them public for your justification.

“I find Mr. Ireland is to write to make you _tamely recant_ without

measuring swords, or breaking a pike with our _real Protestants_. I

wrote to him also.

“I am, dear Sir, your unworthy servant in the Gospel,

“JOHN FLETCHER.

“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley,

“At his Preaching House in Dublin,

“Ireland.”

Footnote 226:

This letter is inserted in the “Life and Times of Wesley,” where it

was published for the _first_ time. It is reproduced here, because

Fletcher’s life would not be complete without it.—L. T.

Lady Huntingdon did not write to Wesley, but he wrote a long and

faithful letter to her, dated June 19, 1771, in which he insisted that

the doctrines he preached now were the same as he had preached for above

thirty years.[227]

Shirley did not “call in his circular letter.” It would have been more

to the honour of himself and his friends had he done so; for, when

Wesley’s Conference assembled on August 6, the response to it was

ridiculous. Of all “the serious clergy and laity throughout the land,”

only Shirley himself, and the Rev. Cradock Glascott, and the Rev. Mr.

Owen, ministers officiating in the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapels,

together with Messrs. Lloyd, Ireland, and Winter, and two students (!)

from Trevecca College attended. After what had taken place, Wesley,

without arrogance, might have disdained these insignificant self-elected

deputies; but he graciously allowed them to enter his Conference. First

of all, Wesley prayed; then Shirley asked if the letters[228] of himself

and the Countess of Huntingdon had been read to the Conference; and,

being answered in the negative, he asked leave to read them himself,

which was granted. A long conversation followed, and then Shirley

produced a written declaration which he wished the Conference to sign.

Wesley examined it, and made some alterations, which Shirley says were

“not very material;” and then Wesley and fifty-three of his itinerant

preachers appended to it their signatures. The declaration was as

follows:—

“Whereas the doctrinal points in the Minutes of a Conference, held in

London, August 7, 1770, have been understood to favour justification

by works; now the Rev. John Wesley and others assembled in Conference,

do declare that we had no such meaning, and that we abhor the doctrine

of Justification by Works as a most perilous and abominable doctrine:

and, as the said Minutes are not sufficiently guarded in the way they

are expressed, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that

we have no trust or confidence but in the alone merits of our Lord and

Saviour Jesus Christ, for Justification or Salvation, either in life,

death, or the day of judgment: and, though no one is a real Christian

believer, (and consequently cannot be saved) who doth not good works,

where there is time and opportunity, yet our works have no part in

meriting or purchasing our salvation from first to last, either in

whole or in part.”

Footnote 227:

“Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. iii., p. 93.

Footnote 228:

The letter of the Countess, dated “August 2, 1771,” in substance was

an apology for the apparently presumptuous way in which she and her

friends had proposed to invade Wesley’s Conference; accompanied with

an excuse founded on the fact that they regarded Wesley’s “Minutes,”

of 1770, as “repugnant to Scripture, the whole plan of man’s salvation

under the new covenant of grace, and also to the clear meaning of our

Established Church, as well as to that of all other Protestant

Churches.” Shirley’s letter was to the same effect. (See Shirley’s

“Narrative of the Principal Circumstances relative to the Rev Mr.

Wesley’s late Conference, held in Bristol, August 6, 1771.”)

This declaration being signed by Wesley and all the Itinerant Preachers

present (except Thomas Olivers), Shirley was required “to make some

public acknowledgment that he had mistaken the meaning of the

‘Minutes,’” At first he hesitated, but, “a few days afterwards, sent

Wesley the following message, with which,” says Shirley, “he was very

well pleased”:—

“Mr. Shirley’s Christian respects wait on Mr. Wesley. The declaration

agreed to in Conference August 8, 1771, has convinced Mr. Shirley he

had mistaken the meaning of the doctrinal points in the Minutes of the

Conference, held in London August 7, 1770; and he hereby wishes to

testify the full satisfaction he has in the said declaration, and his

hearty concurrence and agreement with the same.”

It might have been thought that here the fracas would have ended; and

so, perhaps, it would, had it not been for an incident which must now be

mentioned.

Fletcher had already written his “First Check to Antinomianism.” It was

finished on July 29,[229] and Wesley immediately put it into the hands

of his printer, William Pine, of Bristol, to be printed and published;

and the manuscript was being set up in type at the very time that

Shirley and his friends were at Wesley’s Conference. The Conference

began on Tuesday, August 6. Wesley writes:—

“We had more preachers than usual at the Conference, in consequence of

Mr. Shirley’s circular letter. At ten on _Thursday_ morning, he came

with nine or ten of his friends. We conversed freely for about two

hours, and I believe they were satisfied that we were not so ‘dreadful

heretics’ as they imagined, but were tolerably sound in the

faith.”[230]

Footnote 229:

It is a notable fact that Wesley had spent the three previous days

with Fletcher. Hence the following from Wesley’s Journal:—

“1771. _Friday_, July 26. I went on to Shrewsbury, where Mr. Fletcher

met me.—_Sunday_, 28. I preached at Madeley, morning and afternoon.

The church would not near contain the congregation; but the window

near the pulpit being open, those without could hear as well as those

within.—_Monday_, 29. I went on to Worcester.”

Probably Wesley took Fletcher’s manuscript away with him.

Footnote 230:

Wesley’s Journal.

The next day, Friday, August 9, Shirley was informed that Fletcher’s

manuscript was being printed. He and his friends appealed to Wesley to

stop the press. Mr. Ireland, in particular, who had already written to

Fletcher an account of the preceding day’s amicable proceedings,

entreated Wesley to wait till he (Ireland) could receive an answer to

his letter. He ventured to assure Wesley that if Fletcher were upon the

spot he would suppress the publication; and he himself offered to defray

all the expense that had been incurred. Wesley answered, “I will

consider it;” and, at the same time, he told his visitors that “he had

corrected all the _tart_ expressions in” the manuscript.[231]

Footnote 231:

Shirley’s “Narrative.”

Wesley spent Saturday and Sunday in Bristol; and then, on Monday, August

12, he “set out for Wales.” Three days afterwards, Mr. Ireland received

a letter from Fletcher, who wrote:—

“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.”[232]

Footnote 232:

Shirley’s “Narrative.”

Wesley having departed from Bristol, Mr. Ireland at once went to Mr.

Pine, the printer, and showed him Fletcher’s letter; and the same

evening Mr. Pine communicated its contents to the Bristol preachers. The

next morning, Friday, August 16, Mr. Ireland sent to the preachers a

_copy_ of Fletcher’s letter; and, in a letter from himself, told them

that Fletcher “supposed the book was out; but, even in that case, he

wished it to be suppressed.” Mr. Ireland entreated them to defer the

publication till they had further authority from Fletcher and Wesley,

“and engaged to be accountable for every consequence.”[233]

Footnote 233:

_Ibid._

While Mr. Ireland was making these strenuous efforts to suppress the

publication, Wesley wrote to the Countess of Huntingdon as follows:—

“1771. August 14.—When I received your ladyship’s letter of the 2nd

inst., I immediately saw that it required an answer, only I waited

till the hurry of Conference was over, that I might do nothing rashly.

I know your ladyship would not servilely ‘deny the truth;’ neither

would I; especially that great truth, justification by faith, for

which I have given up all my worldly hopes, my friends, my reputation;

yea, for which I have so often hazarded my life, and by the grace of

God will do again. The principles established in the ‘_Minutes_’ I

apprehend to be no way contrary to this; or to that faith which was

once delivered to the saints. I believe whoever calmly considers Mr.

Fletcher’s letters will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, ‘zeal

against those principles’ is no less than zeal against the truth, and

against the _honour_ of our Lord. The preservation of His honour

appears so sacred to me, and has done for above these forty years,

that I have counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of

it. But till Mr. Fletcher’s printed letters are answered, I must think

everything spoken against those ‘_Minutes_’ is totally destructive of

_His honour_, and a palpable affront to Him both as our Prophet and

Priest, but more especially as our King. Those letters, therefore,

which could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our

Lord, largely prove that the ‘_Minutes_’ lay no other foundation than

that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and

teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years. Indeed, it

would be amazing that God should at this day prosper my labours, as

much if not more than ever, by convincing as well as converting

sinners, if I was ‘_establishing another foundation, repugnant to the

whole plan of man’s salvation under the covenant of grace, as well as

the clear meaning of our Established Church and all other Protestant

Churches_.’ This is a charge indeed! But I plead, not guilty; and till

it is proved upon me, I must subscribe myself, my dear lady, your

ladyship’s affectionate but much injured servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[234]

Footnote 234:

Whitehead’s “Life of Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 350.

Thus, by Wesley’s firmness, Fletcher’s manuscript, without any delay,

was printed and published. Its title was, “A Vindication of the Rev. Mr.

Wesley’s Last Minutes: Occasioned by a circular printed Letter, inviting

principal Persons, both Clergy and Laity, as well of the Dissenters as

of the Established Church, who disapprove of those Minutes, to oppose

them in a Body, as a dreadful Heresy: And designed to remove Prejudice,

check Rashness, promote Forbearance, defend the Character of an eminent

Minister of Christ, and prevent some important Scriptural Truths from

being hastily branded as heretical. In Five Letters, to the Hon. and

Rev. Author of the Circular Letter. By a Lover of Quietness and Liberty

of Conscience. Bristol: Printed by W. Pine, in Wine Street, 1771.” 12

mo., 98 pp.

The publication roused again the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, who

immediately prepared and published “A Narrative of the principal

Circumstances relative to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late Conference, held in

Bristol, August the 6th, 1771, at which the Rev. Mr. Shirley, and

others, his Friends, were present. With a Declaration then agreed to by

Mr. Wesley, and Fifty-three of the Preachers in Connection with him. In

a Letter to a Friend. By the Rev. Mr. Shirley. Bath: 1771.” 12mo., 24

pp.

Upon the whole, Mr. Shirley’s “Narrative” was truthful, fair, and

respectful.[235] It is dated “Bath, September 12, 1771.” He apprised

Fletcher of its contents, and of his intention to publish it; and

Fletcher, in reply, wrote the following letter, which completes the

history of the commencement of the great Calvinistical controversy:—

“MADELEY, _September 11, 1771_.

“REV. AND DEAR SIR,—It is extremely proper, nay, it is highly

necessary, that the public should be informed how much like a minister

of the Prince of Peace, and a meek, humble, loving brother in the

Gospel of Christ, you behaved at the Conference. Had I been there, I

would gladly have taken upon me to proclaim these tidings of joy to

the lovers of Zion’s peace. Your conduct at that time of love is

certainly the best excuse for the hasty step you had taken; as my

desire of stopping my ‘_Vindication_,’ upon hearing of it, is the best

apology I can make for my severity to you.

“I am not averse at all, Sir, to your publishing the passages you

mention out of my letters to Mr. Ireland. They show my peculiar love

and respect for you, which I shall at all times think an honour; and,

at this juncture, shall feel a peculiar pleasure to see proclaimed to

the world. They apologize for my calling myself ‘_a lover of

quietness_,’ when I unfortunately prove _a son of contention_; and

they demonstrate that I am not altogether void of the fear that

becomes an awkward, inexperienced surgeon, when he ventures to open a

vein in the arm of a person for whom he has the highest regard. How

natural is it for him to tremble, lest by missing the intended vein,

and pricking an unseen artery, he should have done irreparable

mischief instead of an useful operation!

“But while you do me the kindness of publishing those passages, permit

me, Sir, to do Mr. Wesley the justice of informing him, I had also

written to Mr. Ireland, that, ‘whether my _Letters_ were suppressed or

not, the ‘_Minutes_’ _must_ be vindicated,—that Mr. Wesley owed it to

the Church, to the _real Protestants_, to all his Societies, and to

his own aspersed character,—and that, after all, the controversy did

not seem to me to be so much whether the ‘_Minutes_’ should stand, as

whether the Antinomian Gospel of Dr. Crisp[236] should prevail over

the practical Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“I must also, Sir, beg leave to let my vindicated friend know, that,

in the very letter where I so earnestly entreated Mr. Ireland to stop

the publication of my Letters to you, and offered to take the whole

expense of the impression upon myself, though I should be obliged to

sell my last shirt to defray it, I added that, ‘If they were

published, I must look upon it as a _necessary evil_, or

_misfortune_.’ Which of the two words I used I do not justly

recollect: a _misfortune_ for you and me, who must appear inconsistent

to the world;—you, Sir, with your Sermons,[237] and I with my

Title-page; and nevertheless _necessary_ to vindicate misrepresented

truth, defend an eminent minister of Christ, and stem the torrent of

Antinomianism.

“It may not be improper, also, to observe to you, Sir, that when I

presented Mr. Wesley with my ‘Vindication,’ I begged he would correct

it, and take away whatever might be unkind or too sharp: urging that

though I meant no unkindness, I was not a proper judge of what I had

written under peculiarly delicate and trying circumstances, as well as

in a great hurry; and did not, therefore, dare to trust either my pen,

my head, or my heart. He was no sooner gone” (from Bristol) “than I

sent a letter after him to repeat and urge the same request; and he

wrote me word, that he had ‘expunged every tart expression.’ _If he

has_ (for I have not yet seen what alterations his friendly pen has

made) I am reconciled to the publication; and _that he has_, I have

reason to hope from the letters of two judicious London friends, who

calmed my fears, lest I should have treated you with unkindness.

“One of them says, ’I reverence Mr. Shirley for his candid

acknowledgment of his hastiness in judging. I commend the Calvinists

at the Conference for their justice to Mr. Wesley, and their

acquiescence in the Declaration of the Preachers in connexion with

him. But is that Declaration, however dispersed, a remedy adequate to

the evil done, not only to Mr. Wesley, but to the cause and work of

God? Several Calvinists, in eagerness of malice, had dispersed their

calumnies through the three kingdoms. A truly excellent person

herself,[238] in her mistaken zeal, had represented him as _a papist

unmasked, a heretic, an apostate_. A clergyman of the first reputation

informs me _a Poem on his Apostacy_ is just coming out.[239] Letters

have been sent to every serious Churchman and Dissenter through the

land, together with the _Gospel Magazine_. Great are the shoutings,

“_And now that he lieth let him rise up no more_.” This is all the

cry. His dearest friends and children are staggered, and scarce know

what to think. You, in your corner, cannot conceive the mischief that

has been done, and is still doing. But your letters, in the hand of

Providence, may answer the good ends you proposed by writing them. You

have not been too severe to dear Mr. Shirley, moderate Calvinists

themselves being judges, but very kind and friendly to set a good

mistaken man right, and probably to preserve him from the like

rashness as long as he lives. Be not troubled, therefore, but cast

your care upon the Lord.’

“My other friend says, ‘Considering what harm the Circular Letter has

done, and what a useless satisfaction Mr. Shirley has given by his

vague acknowledgment, it is no more than just and equitable that your

Letters should be published.’

“Now, Sir, as I never saw that _acknowledgment_, nor the _softening

corrections_ made by Mr. Wesley in my ‘Vindication;’ as I was not

informed of some of the above-mentioned particulars when I was so

eager to prevent the publication of my Letters; and as I have reason

to think that, through the desire of an immediate peace, the festering

wound was rather skinned over than probed to the bottom,—all I can say

about this publication is, what I wrote to our common friend, namely,

that ‘I must look upon it as a _necessary evil_.’

“I am glad, Sir, you do not direct your letter to Mr. Olivers,[240]

who was so busy in publishing my ‘Vindication;’ for, by a letter I

have just received from Bristol, I am informed he did not hear how

desirous I was to call it in, till he had actually given out, before a

whole congregation, it would be sold. Besides, he would have pleaded

with smartness that he never approved of a patched-up peace,—that he

bore his testimony against it at the time it was made,—and that he had

a personal right to produce _my_ arguments, since both parties refused

to hear _his_ at the Conference.

“If your Letter is friendly, Sir, and you print it in the same size as

my ‘Vindication,’ I shall gladly buy £10 worth of the copies, and

order them to be stitched with my ‘Vindication,’ and given gratis to

the purchasers of it; as well to do you justice, as to convince the

world that we make a loving war; and also to demonstrate how much I

regard your respectable character, and honour your dear person. Mr.

Wesley’s heart is, I am persuaded, too full of brotherly love to deny

me the pleasure of thus showing you how sincerely I am, Rev. and dear

Sir, your obedient servant,

“JOHN FLETCHER.”

Footnote 235:

That there might be no misunderstanding between them, Fletcher, on the

same day, sent Wesley “the substance, and almost the very words,” of

this letter to Shirley.

Footnote 236:

The Rev. Tobias Crisp, D.D., a divine of the Church of England, born

in London in 1600, and who died in 1643. He was educated at Eton,

thence he removed to Cambridge, and afterwards to Oriel College,

Oxford. At the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed Rector of

Brinkworth, in Wiltshire. Early in life, he was a favourer of the

doctrines of Arminianism; afterwards, he became the champion of

Antinomianism. His sermons, in three volumes, were printed after his

death. It is said that, though the tenets he embraced seem to be a

plea for licentiousness, he himself was remarkable for the purity and

modesty of his manners.

Footnote 237:

A few years ago, Shirley had published “Twelve Sermons, preached on

several occasions,” 12mo., 189 pp.

Footnote 238:

Lady Huntingdon.

Footnote 239:

This was published in the _Gospel Magazine_, in the same month as

Wesley’s Conference was held. It was signed “Cleon,” and dated

“London, June 17, 1771.” Speaking of Wesley, “Cleon” says,—

“Pride prompts him on, and Satan now has gained

A conquest o’er perverted truth retained;

At best perverted, glaring now appears,

The pride of Rome, the lie of num’rous years.”

Footnote 240:

Thomas Olivers, who for several years, corrected proof sheets for

Wesley.

The reader has now as full an account as can be given of the way in

which the long and angry war between _Wesleyan_ Methodism and

_Calvinian_ Methodism was begun. It is difficult to say, decidedly, who

was to blame for it. Wesley had a perfect right—in fact, under existing

circumstances, he was almost bound by duty—to publish his theological

theses; but it was unfortunate that, to use the words of himself and his

fifty-three preachers, “_they were not sufficiently guarded_ in the way

they were expressed.”

The Countess of Huntingdon and her nephew, the Hon. and Rev. Walter

Shirley, had a perfect right to take counsel with their Calvinian

friends respecting Wesley’s “Minutes;” but it was offensive arrogance to

propose to “_go in a body to_ Wesley’s _Conference, and insist upon a

formal recantation of the said Minutes_.” Wesley was under no obligation

to either Lady Huntingdon or Walter Shirley; and their issuing of the

“Circular Letter” was pure impertinence, though, no doubt, they thought

it a Christian duty.

Fletcher had a perfect right to explain and vindicate Wesley’s

‘Minutes,’ and to send Wesley his manuscript to be printed and

published; and Wesley had a perfect right to avail himself of this

permission.

Mr. Ireland had a perfect right to entreat Wesley’s printer to delay the

publication till he (Ireland) received an answer to the letter he had

sent to Fletcher; and Fletcher, though, perhaps, showing too much

flexibility of purpose, displayed Christian kindness of the highest

order in his reply; but that reply arrived in Bristol too late, for

Wesley had already left for Wales, and Wesley’s editor had publicly

announced that the “Vindication” would be published. Besides, Fletcher

himself, within five weeks after the time when Wesley’s Conference was

held, changed his opinion, told Mr. Ireland that “the ‘Minutes’ _must_

be vindicated,” and informed Shirley himself that he was “reconciled to

the publication” of his manuscript.

Nothing more need be said. Indeed, all, in substance, is said that can

be said; and it only remains to notice the 12mo pamphlet of 98 pages,

that gave such huge offence, and led to such serious consequences.

Fletcher presents:—

“I. A general view of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s doctrines.

“II. An account of the commendable design of his ‘Minutes.’

“III. A vindication of the propositions which they contain, by

arguments taken from Scripture, reason, and experience; and by

quotations from eminent Calvinist divines, who have said the same

things in different words.”

On the first of these points, he writes:—

“Mr. Wesley is accused of dreadful heresy; and may not I, an old

friend and acquaintance of his, be permitted to speak a word in his

favour? This step, I fear, will cost me my reputation (if I have any),

and involve me in the same condemnation with him, whose cause,

together with that of truth, I design to plead: but when humanity

prompts, gratitude calls, and friendship excites; when reason invites,

justice demands, truth requires, and conscience summons; he does not

deserve the name of a Christian friend, who, for any consideration,

hesitates to vindicate what he esteems truth, and to stand by an

aggrieved friend, brother, and father.

“1. For above these sixteen years, I have heard him frequently in his

chapels, and sometimes in my church; and I have familiarly conversed

and corresponded with him, and have often perused his numerous works

in verse and prose; and I can truly say, that, during all that time, I

have heard him, upon every proper occasion, steadily maintain the

total fall of man in Adam, and his utter inability to recover himself,

or take one step towards his recovery, ‘_without the grace of God

preventing him, that he may have a good will, and working with him

when he has that good will_.’

“2. I must likewise testify that he faithfully points out Christ as

the only way of salvation; and strongly recommends faith as the only

means of receiving Him, and all the benefits of His righteous life and

meritorious death; and truth obliges me to declare, that he frequently

expresses his detestation of the errors of modern Pharisees, who laugh

at original sin, set up the power of fallen man, cry down the

operations of God’s Spirit, deny the absolute necessity of the blood

and righteousness of Christ, and refuse Him the glory of all the good

that may be found in Jew or Gentile. You will not without difficulty

find in England, and perhaps in all the world, a minister who has

borne more frequent testimonies, either from the pulpit or the press,

against those dangerous errors.

“3. The next fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that of holiness

of heart and life; and no one can here accuse Mr. Wesley of leaning to

the Antinomian delusion, which ‘_makes void the law through_’ a

speculative and barren ‘_faith_’: on the contrary, he appears to be

peculiarly set for the defence of practical religion; for, instead of

representing Christ as the minister of sin, he sets Him forth as a

complete ‘Saviour from sin.’ Not satisfied to preach holiness begun,

he preaches finished holiness, and calls believers to such a degree of

heart-purifying faith, as may enable them continually to ‘_triumph in

Christ_,’ as being ‘_made to them sanctification_,’ as well as

‘_righteousness_.’ This he sometimes calls ‘full sanctification,’ the

state of _fathers_ in Christ, or ‘_the glorious liberty of the

children of God_:’ sometimes, a being ‘_strengthened, stablished, and

settled_;’ or ‘_being rooted and grounded in love_:’ but most commonly

he calls it, ‘Christian _Perfection_;’ a word which, though used by

the Apostles in the same sense, cannot be used by him without raising

the pity or indignation of one half of the religious world: some make

it the subject of their pious sneers and godly lampoons; while others

tell you roundly they ‘abhor it above everything in the creation.’

“4. But this is not all: he holds also general redemption, and its

necessary consequences, which some account ‘_dreadful heresies_.’ He

asserts, with St. Paul, that ‘_Christ, by the grace of God, tasted

death for every man_;’ and this _grace_ he calls ‘_free_,’ as

extending itself _freely_ to all. Nor can he help expressing his

surprise at those pious ministers, who maintain that the Saviour keeps

His grace, as they suppose He kept His blood, from the greatest part

of mankind, and yet engross to themselves the title of ‘_preachers of

free grace_.’

“5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley

lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching.

The first is, that ‘_All our salvation is of God in Christ_,’ and

therefore _of grace_: all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and

power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace,—grace most

absolutely free. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts,

with equal confidence, that, according to the Gospel dispensation,

‘_All our damnation is of ourselves_,’ by our obstinate unbelief and

avoidable unfaithfulness. He is persuaded the most complete system of

divinity is that in which neither of those two axioms is superseded:

it is bold and unscriptural to set up the one at the expense of the

other.”

These _extracts_ from Fletcher’s first letter are important, as showing

what Fletcher conceived to be Wesley’s fundamental doctrines; and it

must be borne in mind, that, Wesley having read and revised Fletcher’s

manuscript, Fletcher’s conception is stamped with Wesley’s own

authority.

Fletcher proceeds to explain and to defend Wesley’s “Minutes,” and to

show they were greatly needed. He says:—

“Mr. Wesley’s _design_ was to guard his preachers and their hearers

against Antinomian principles and practices, which spread like

wild-fire in some of his Societies; where persons, who spoke in the

most glorious manner of Christ, and their interest in His complete

salvation, have been found living in the greatest immoralities, or

indulging in the most unchristian tempers. Nor need I go far for a

proof of this sad assertion. In one of his Societies, not many miles

from my parish, a married man, who professed being in _a state of

justification and sanctification_, growing wise above what is written,

despised his brethren as legalists, and his teachers as persons not

clear in the Gospel. He instilled his principles into a serious young

woman; and what was the consequence? Why, they talked about ‘finished

salvation in Christ,’ and ‘the absurdity of perfection in the flesh,’

till a perfect child was conceived and born; and, to save appearances,

the woman swore it to a travelling man that cannot be heard of. Thus,

to avoid legality, they plunged into hypocrisy, fornication, adultery,

perjury, and the depth of ranterism. Is it not hard that a minister

should be traduced as guilty of _dreadful heresy_ for trying to put a

stop to such dreadful practices? And is it not high time that he

should cry to all that regard his warnings, ‘_Take heed to your

doctrine_’?”

Fletcher then proceeds to give a deplorable picture of many of the

professing Christians of the age, which, it is to be hoped, was too

darkly drawn, though it is difficult to prove it was. The following

extract shows that many of the Methodists were not better than their

neighbours, and that it was of paramount importance that Wesley’s

preachers should _take heed to their doctrine_:—

“Mr. Wesley has many persons in his Societies, (and would to God there

were none in ours!) who profess they were justified or sanctified in a

moment; but, instead of trusting in the living God, so _trust in what

was done in that moment_, as to give over taking up their cross

_daily_, and _watching unto prayer with all perseverance_. The

consequences are deplorable: they slide back into the spirit of the

world; and their tempers are no more regulated by the meek, gentle,

humble love of Jesus. Some inquire with the heathens, _What shall we

eat, and what shall we drink_ to please ourselves? Others evidently

_love the world; lay up treasures on earth_; or ask, _Wherewith shall

we be fashionably clothed?_ Therefore, _the love of the Father is not

in them_. And not a few are _led captive by the devil at his will_:

influenced by his unhappy suggestions, they harbour bitterness,

malice, and revenge: none is in the right but themselves, and ‘wisdom

shall die with them.’

“Now, Sir, Mr. Wesley cannot but fear it is not well with persons who

are in any of these cases: though everybody should join to extol them

as ‘dear children of God,’ he is persuaded that _Satan has beguiled

them, as he did Eve_; and he addresses them, as our Lord did the angel

of the church of Sardis,—‘I know thy works, that thou _hast a name,

that thou livest; and art dead_,’ or dying: ‘_Repent, therefore, and

strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have

not found thy works perfect before God._’”

When it is remembered that Fletcher’s manuscript was read and revised by

Wesley, before it was printed, the foregoing description of “_many

persons_” in Wesley’s Societies is possessed of more than ordinary

interest. Only ten years had elapsed since the great revival of

Christian perfection in those Societies, and yet such was the judgment

pronounced by Fletcher, and which Wesley sanctioned!

After explaining and defending all the doctrines contained in Wesley’s

“Minutes,” Fletcher concludes his fourth letter as follows:—

“Thus, Sir, have I looked out for the _heresy_, the _dreadful heresy_

of Mr. Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ by bringing all the propositions they

contain to the touchstone of Scripture and common sense; but, instead

of finding it, I have found the very marrow of the Gospel of Christ. I

have showed that the ‘Minutes’ contain nothing but what is truly

scriptural; and nothing but what the best Calvinist divines have

themselves, directly or indirectly, asserted; except, perhaps, the

sixth proposition concerning the merit of works; and, with respect to

this, I hope I have demonstrated, upon rational and evangelical

principles, that Mr. Wesley, far from _bringing in a damnable heresy_,

has done the Gospel justice, and Protestantism service, by candidly

giving up an old prejudice, equally contrary to Scripture and good

sense,—a piece of bigotry which has long hardened the papists against

the doctrine of salvation by the merit of Christ, and has added

inconceivable strength to the Antinomian delusion among us.

“One difficulty remains, and that is, to account for your attacking

Mr. Wesley, though you could not wound him without stabbing yourself.

Reserving my reflections upon this amazing step for another letter,

“I remain your astonished servant in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel,

“J. FLETCHER.”

As here indicated, the fifth and last letter contained that which most

offended Shirley. In his “Narrative,” Shirley remarks:—

“Mr. Wesley assured us he had corrected all the _tart_ expressions in

them” (that is, in Fletcher’s Letters). “Alas! _Qualia verba, quæ

facta!_ Whether there are _no tart_ expressions in the Letters, let

every one that hath seen them judge. But, perhaps, this learned

gentleman distinguishes between the _tart_ and the _bitter_. If all

the _tart_ expressions are corrected, I am sure there are enough of

the _bitter_ left.

“As to the Letters themselves, I shall have ‘the author’s’ pardon for

noticing two particular charges against me.

“1. I am supposed to want candour; as if I had put a forced

construction on the ‘Minutes,’ in order to bring Mr. Wesley in guilty.

Mr. Fletcher has attempted a ‘vindication’ of them; and, by breaking

them into sentences and half-sentences, and refining upon each of

these detached particles, he has done more than I could have expected,

even from his great abilities, in giving a new turn to the whole. But,

after reading his learned and elaborate ‘Vindication,’ when I cast my

eye over the ‘Minutes,’ and consider the whole as it stands in

context, I must own, I am just where I was: nothing _but the

‘Declaration’_ could ever convince me that justification by works was

not maintained and supported by the ‘Minutes.’

“2. The charge of _inconsistency_ is supported by quotations from my

sermons. To this, I beg leave to observe, that the passages quoted are

not altogether in point; neither do they maintain justification by

works in such direct and express terms as the ‘Minutes’ appear to do.

I must, however, own that they savour too strongly of mysticism and

free-will; and all I can say, on my behalf in this respect, is, that

they were written many years ago, at a time when I had more zeal than

light; that my present ministry, as well as my present way of

thinking, is very different; and that I have frequently expressed my

disapprobation of those sermons, nay wished they had been burnt.”

Shirley was nettled; and, after the imperious arrogance displayed in his

“Circular Letter,” he deserved to be. Fletcher’s fifth and last letter

is caustical; but not more so than the occasion justified. The following

is extracted from it:—

“HON. AND REV. SIR,—Having vindicated both some important doctrines of

the Gospel, and an eminent servant of Christ from the charge of

_dreadful heresy_, I will now take the liberty of a friend to

expostulate a little with _you_.

“When Brutus, among other senators, rushed upon Cæsar, the venerable

general said, ‘Art thou also among them? Even thou, my son?’ May not

Mr. Wesley address you, Sir, in the same words, and add, ‘If a body of

men must be raised to attack me, let some zealous follower of Dr.

Crisp, some hot-headed vindicator of reprobation and eternal

justification blow the trumpet, and put himself at their head; but let

it not be _you_, who believe with me that we are moral agents; that

God is love; that Jesus tasted death for every man; and that the Holy

Spirit shall not always strive with sinners. If you do not regard my

reputation, consider at least your own, and expose me not as a heretic

for advancing propositions, the substance of which you have avowed

before the sun.’

“But had those propositions, at length, appeared to you unsound, yea,

and had you never maintained them yourself, should you not, as a

Christian and a brother, have wrote to Mr. Wesley, acquainted him with

your objections, and desired him to solve them and explain himself, or

you should be obliged publicly to expose him?

“Was this condescension more than was due from you, Sir, and our other

friends, to a grey-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?

“Instead of this friendly method, as if you were a Barak, _commanded

by the Lord God of Israel_, you call _together the children of

Naphthali and Zebulun_: you convene, from England and Wales, clergy

and laity, Churchmen and Dissenters, to meet you at Bristol, where

they are, it seems, to be entertained in good and free quarters. And

for what grand expedition? Why, on a day appointed, you are to march

up _in a body_, not to attack Sisera and his iron chariots, but an old

Caleb, who, without meddling with you, quietly goes on to the conquest

of Canaan; not to desire, in a friendly manner, after a fair debate of

every proposition that appears dangerous, and, upon previous

conviction, that what is exceptionable may be given up; but to do what

I think was never done by nominal, much less by _real Protestants_. O

let it not be told in Rome, lest the sons of the Inquisition rejoice!

This mixed, this formidable body is to _insist upon_ Mr. Wesley and

the preachers in his connexion, _formally recanting_ their ‘Minutes,’

as _appearing injurious to the very fundamental principles of

Christianity_, and being _dreadfully heretical_. And this,

astonishing! without the least inquiry made into their meaning and

design, without a shadow of authority from our superiors in Church or

State, without an appeal _to the law and to the testimony_, without

form of process, without judge or jury, without so much as allowing

the poor heretics (who are condemned six weeks before they can

possibly be heard) to answer for themselves!

“How could you suppose, Sir, that Mr. Wesley and the preachers who

assemble with him are such weak men, as tamely to acknowledge

themselves heretics upon your _ipse dixit_? Suppose Mr. Wesley took it

in his head to convene all the divines that disapprove the extract of

Zanchius,[241] to go with him in a body to Mr. Toplady’s chapel, and

demand a formal recantation of that performance as heretical; yea, to

insist upon it, before they had ‘measured swords or broken a pike

together,’ would not the translator of Zanchius laugh at him, and ask

whether he thought to frighten him by his protests, or bully him into

orthodoxy?

“O, Sir, have we not fightings enough without, to employ all our time

and strength? Must we also declare war and promote fightings within?

Must we catch at every opportunity to stab one another, because the

livery of truth which we wear is not turned up in the same manner?

What can be more cruel than this? What can be more cutting to an old

minister of Christ, than to be traduced as a dreadful heretic, in

printed letters sent to the best men in the land, yea, through all

England and Scotland, and signed by a person of your rank and piety?

To have things that he knows not, that he never meant, laid to his

charge, and dispersed far and near? While he is gone to a neighbouring

kingdom,[242] to preach Jesus Christ, to have his friends prejudiced,

his foes elevated, and the fruit of his extensive ministry at the

point of being blasted? Put yourself in his place, Sir, and you will

see that the wound is deep and reaches the very heart.

“Our Elijah[243] has lately been translated to heaven. Grey-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 prophets, shall even _children_ in grace

and knowledge, openly traduce the venerable seer and his abundant

labours? When they see him run upon his Lord’s errands, shall they

cry, not, ‘_Go up, thou bald head_,’ but, ‘_Go up, thou heretic_’? O

Jesus of Nazareth, Thou rejected of men, Thou Who wast once called a

deceiver of the people, suffer it not; lest the raging bear of

persecution come suddenly out of the wood upon those sons of discord,

and tear them in pieces.”

Footnote 241:

In 1769, Toplady published “The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination

Stated and Asserted. Translated, in great measure, from the Latin of

Jerome Zanchius; with some Account of his Life prefixed.” 8vo. 134 pp.

An impious production, in the garb of piety.

Footnote 242:

Wesley was in Ireland from March 24 to July 22, 1771. It was during

this period that Shirley sent forth his offensive “Circular Letter.”

Footnote 243:

Whitefield, who died September 30, 1770.

Remembering the confidential and warm friendship that had existed

between Fletcher and the Countess of Huntingdon and her nephew, Walter

Shirley, it must be admitted that these “expostulations” were pungent;

but they were provoked by the arrogance of the offenders. It is true, as

already stated, that, on the evening before Wesley’s Conference

assembled, her ladyship and Shirley wrote letters to Wesley containing

half-hearted apologies for their “arbitrary way of proceeding” in the

“Circular Letter.” “It must be acknowledged,” said Shirley, “that, upon

the whole, the Circular Letter was too hastily drawn up and improperly

expressed; and, therefore, for the _offensive expressions_ in it, we

desire we may be hereby understood to make every suitable submission to

you, Sir, and to the gentlemen of the Conference.”[244] The apology was

proper; but it was not sufficient. The “Circular Letter,” branding

Wesley as a dreadful heretic, had been sent to a large number of

“principal persons, both clergy and laity,” throughout the three

kingdoms; whereas the letters of the Countess and her nephew were

private ones, addressed only to Wesley and his preachers. Moreover, the

apology was accompanied with a threat.

Footnote 244:

Shirley’s “Narrative.”

“I cannot but wish,” wrote Shirley, “that the recantation of the

Circular Letter may prevail as an example for the recantation of the

‘Minutes.’ If I should be unhappily disappointed in this respect, I

shall feel myself bound in conscience to yield my public testimony

against such doctrines as these, which appear to me subversive of the

_fundamentals_ of Christianity.”[245]

Footnote 245:

Shirley’s “Narrative.”

And, once more, the apology, such as it was, was sent too late, for

Fletcher had already written his “Vindication” of Wesley’s “Minutes;”

the manuscript had been sent to Wesley, and Wesley had revised it, and

committed it to the press.

The war was begun, and we must follow it to its termination, _so far as

Fletcher is concerned_; for it is impossible, in a work like this, to

notice _all_ the pamphlets that were published. Those who wish for

further information may turn to the “Life and Times of Wesley.”