_SECOND CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM_
1771.
WESLEY’S “Minutes” and Shirley’s “Circular Letter” created a commotion.
The Rev. Walter Sellon had recently published his “Church of England
Vindicated from the Charge of Absolute Predestination; as it is stated
and asserted by the Translator of Jerome Zanchius” [Toplady] “in his
Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nowell. Together with some Animadversions on his
Translation of Zanchius, his Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, and his
Sermon on 1 Tim. i. 10.” This not over-courteous publication was
reviewed in the August number of the _Gospel Magazine_ for 1771; and, no
doubt, the review had been read by the gentlemen who proposed to invade
Wesley’s Conference. It began as follows:—
“A composition of low scurrility and illiberal abuse, for which this
author and his coadjutors are remarkable. Not one Calvinist who comes
in his way escapes. He is so much given up to slander and defamation,
that he can no more refrain from defaming even the dead than from
slandering the living.”
Its last paragraph was the following; and these two citations will
enable the reader to form an opinion of the whole:—
“When we meet with erroneous systems set up in opposition to the Word
of God, we speak our mind freely of them, and aim to show the
dangerous tendency of them. But no sooner do we touch the cobweb
system of self-righteous Pharisees, but they cry out, with their
brethren of old to our Lord, ‘Thou reproachest us also.’ We cannot aim
to dissect and expose their opinions, but they cry out of slandering
their persons, and ‘Oh, you have no love to Mr. John!’ God bless Mr.
John! But who is Mr. John? Is he the standard of truth, the pinnacle
of orthodoxy, the touchstone by which truth is to be tried and known?
What is Mr. John? What is Mr. Walter? Men, frail men, and miserable
sinners like ourselves. All that we say of them is, As men, we love
them; as miserable sinners, we wish their salvation; as
fellow-creatures, we would not hurt a hair of their heads; whatever is
in our power to do them good, we would cheerfully minister unto them.”
In the September number of the same periodical, there was a letter,
signed “Simplex,” and dated “August 3, 1771, From the Neighbourhood of
the Foundery,” as follows:—
“SIR,—I have just read your last number, and am amazed at the
Declaration in it, as made by Mr. Wesley and his friends, at the late
Conference at Bristol. I am amazed at the wisdom of that great man
that he should devise a Declaration[246] couched in terms so ambiguous
as to satisfy his opponents, whilst, in reality, it denies not one
tittle clearly asserted in the ‘Minutes;’ and I am amazed at
gentlemen, who might have been acquainted with the unfathomable policy
of that dubious divine, not being more upon their guard than to have
been put off by such an unmeaning confession.
“Since the Conference, and, of course, since the making of this
Declaration, Mr. Fletcher has published a very warm, and not
ill-written ‘Vindication of the Minutes,’ which, from his intimacy
with Mr. Wesley, evidently shows that the gentleman in question never
meant to recant what he had declared in the ‘Minutes’ when he signed
the Declaration.[247]
“What can we think of this? You ask, What can we say to this? Why,
gentlemen, you may say that the fox has had sagacity enough to elude
his hunters. Or, in other words, that Mr. Wesley is, what I always
took him to be, a very wise man.
“Does this tend to clear up the affair? Yes. Taken in its connection
with Fletcher’s ‘Vindication of the Minutes,’ it very plainly clears
it up to every man; and shows that however these gentlemen may abhor
the doctrine of justification by the _merit_ of works, as most
perilous and abominable, they are determined to abide by the doctrine
of justification by works as a condition, which is all that is clearly
expressed in the ‘Minutes.’ If Cranmer and his brethren had drunk half
as deep into the spirit of Ignatius,” [Loyala!] “they had never been
brought to the stake for their doctrine; but might even have outwitted
the eagle-eyed Bishops of London and Winchester.”
Footnote 246:
This is a calumny. The Declaration was not drawn up by Wesley, but by
Shirley. “Wesley,” says Shirley, “made some, _not very material_,
alterations in it.”
Footnote 247:
Another misrepresentation; for Fletcher’s manuscript was committed to
the press before the Declaration was signed.
Another communication by “Simplex” must be noticed. Like his former
letter, it was printed in the _Gospel Magazine_. It was dated “From the
Neighbourhood of the Foundery, October 9, 1771,” and was addressed “To
the Rev. Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Olivers.” The
following are extracts from it:—
“Mr. Wesley is now an old man, and, according to the course of nature,
must in a little time have done with a lying world. Let him, like an
honest man, a Christian, that has heaven in his eye, and a sense of
the Divine presence upon his heart, tell us plainly whether he really
thinks that his continuance in the love of God, and the exercise of
faith, is owing to his own good management, or to the sovereignty and
freeness of the love of God and agency of the Holy Ghost?”
The _temper_ of this production is painfully displayed in its concluding
paragraph:—
“Should any reply be made to this letter, and might I be indulged with
liberty to choose my correspondent, I would most earnestly deprecate
having anything to do with the Reverend Mr. Walter Sellon, as I am no
adept in scolding, and am sorry to see the name of a Christian
minister prefaced to such foul and futile productions as those, of Mr.
Sellon’s pen. Mr. Fletcher’s pen is indeed more cleanly, but every
whit as unfair; and him I object to because he is apt to exclaim
against his opponents as enemies to Christian peace, even when he
himself does what he can to stab their reputation to the heart. He is
very apt grievously to complain of ill-usage from others, when, at the
same time, like a madman, he himself keeps flinging abroad firebrands,
arrows, and death amongst those who differ from him. Mr. Olivers
should be my man, if in future he will guard against shocking common
decency, as he has done in his letter to Mr. Toplady, where he is
pleased to call Mr. Hervey’s admirable letters to Mr. Wesley
_scurrilous_: which _indecency_, although borrowed indeed from _Mr.
Walter Sellon_, must needs have an influence fatal to Master Thomas
Olivers’ credit as a writer. As to the Rev. Mr. Wesley himself, I do
not expect that he can spare so much time as to give a satisfactory
answer to my querulous epistle, as it will require his being more
explicit than he has hitherto accustomed himself to be.”
Enough has been said to show the bitterness of feeling which had already
sprung up against Fletcher (to say nothing of Wesley, Sellon, and
Olivers), and that it was not surprising he was induced to defend
himself against such infamous attacks as those of “Simplex” and his
Calvinian friends.
Meanwhile, Shirley was passing through the press his “Narrative of the
Principal Circumstances relating to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late
Conference, held in Bristol August the 6th, 1771” (8 vo., 24 pp.)
Fletcher refers to this in the following extract from an unpublished
letter addressed to Joseph Benson, and kindly lent by Mr. G. J.
Stevenson:—
“MADELEY, _August 24, 1771_.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—How much water may rush out of a little opening! What
are our dear lady’s jealousies come to? Ah, poor College! They are
without a master, but not without a mistress. Their conduct and
charges of heresy stirred me up to write in defence of the ‘Minutes.’
The pamphlet is gone abroad _unseasonably_ in its present dress. The
_toga_ would now suit it, but it wears the _chlamys_. By this means,
the voice of the arguments will be lost in the cry of treachery.
“I received this morning a most kind letter from Mr. Shirley, whom I
now pity much. He will pass by me; but I fear Mr. Olivers will have
some cutting lashes. Mr. Shirley is gone to Wales, probably to consult
what to do in the present case. What a world! Methinks I dream when I
reflect that I have written on controversy; the last subject I thought
I should have meddled with. I expect to be smartly taken in hand and
soundly drubbed for it. Lord, prepare me for it, and for everything
that may make me cease from man, and above all from your unworthy
friend,
“J. FLETCHER.
“P.S. My kindest love to Mr. Mather.[248] I hope you are happy in each
other’s company. May you be both blessed, as being one heart, and one
soul, and colleagues in Jesus!”
Footnote 248:
Mr. Mather and Mr. Benson were now stationed in Wesley’s London
Circuit.
Instead of inflicting on Thomas Olivers what Fletcher calls “some
cutting lashes,” Shirley treated the sturdy Welshman with forbearance;
and if he used severity at all, not Wesley’s itinerant, but the Vicar of
Madeley was his victim.
Fletcher immediately prepared a reply to Shirley’s “Narrative;” and,
before the year was ended, published it, with the title, “A Second Check
to Antinomianism; occasioned by a Late Narrative, in Three Letters to
the Hon. and Rev. Author. By the Vindicator of the Reverend Mr. Wesley’s
Minutes.” 12mo, 120 pp. This “Second Check,” like the former one, was
revised by Wesley,[249] and, therefore, was issued with his approval.
Footnote 249:
See “The Second Part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism,” p. 11,
First Edition.
Fletcher’s first letter to Shirley begins as follows:—
“In my last private communication, I observed, Rev. Sir, that, if your
‘Narrative’ was kind, I would buy a number of copies, and give them
gratis to the purchasers of my book, that they might see all you can
possibly produce in your own defence, and do you all the justice your
proper behaviour at the Conference deserves. But, as it appears to me
there are some important mistakes in that performance, I neither dare
recommend it _absolutely_ to my friends, nor wish it, in the religious
world, the _full_ success you desire.
“I do not complain of its severity; on the contrary, considering the
sharpness of my fifth letter, I gratefully acknowledge it is _kinder_
than I had reason to expect. But permit me to tell you, Sir, I look
for _justice_ to the scriptural arguments I advance in defence of
truth, before I look for _kindness_ to my insignificant person, and
could be much sooner satisfied with the _former_, than with the
_latter_ alone. As I do not admire the fashionable method of advancing
general charges without supporting them by particular proofs, I shall
take the liberty of pointing out some mistakes in your ‘Narrative,’
and, by that means, endeavour to do justice to Mr. Wesley’s
‘Declaration,’ your own ‘Sermons,’ my ‘Vindication,’ and, above all,
to the cause of practical religion.”
Fletcher then proceeds to quote numerous texts of Scripture in support
of the doctrine of a second justification by works, and argues that it
“will rouse Antinomians out of their carnal security, stir up believers
to follow hard after holiness, and reconcile fatal differences among
Christians, and seeming contradictions in the Scripture.”
In sundry passages he treats the Antinomians with deserved severity;
but, in a long foot-note, observes:—
“I beg I may not be understood to level the following paragraphs, or
any part of these letters, at my pious _Calvinist_ brethren. God knows
how deeply I reverence many, who are immovably fixed in, what some
call, _the doctrines of grace_; how gladly (as conscious of their
genuine conversion and eminent usefulness) I would lie in the dust at
their feet to honour our Lord in His dear members; and how often I
have thought it a peculiar infelicity to dissent from such excellent
men, with whom I wanted both to live and die, and with whom I hope
soon to reign for ever.
“As these _real_ children of God lament the bad use Antinomians make
of their principles, I hope they will not be offended if I bear my
testimony against a growing evil, which they have frequently opposed
themselves. While the _Calvinists_ guard the _foundation_ against
_Pharisees_, they will, I hope, allow the _Remonstrants_ to guard the
_superstructure_ against _Antinomians_. If in doing these good offices
to the Church, we find ourselves obliged to bear a little hard upon
the peculiar sentiments of our opposite friends, let us do it in such
a manner as not to break the bonds of peace and brotherly kindness; so
shall our honest reproof become matter of useful exercise to that
_love_ which _thinketh no evil_, _hopeth all things_, _rejoiceth_ even
_in the_ galling _truth_, and is neither _quenched by many waters_,
nor damped by any opposition.”
In his second letter, Fletcher protests against Shirley recanting the
doctrines contained in his published sermons, and concludes as follows:—
“I assure you, Sir, I do not love the warlike dress of the Vindicator,
any more than David did the heavy armour of Saul. With gladness,
therefore, I cast it aside to throw myself at your feet, and protest
to you, that, though I thought it my _duty_ to write to you with the
utmost _plainness_, _frankness_, and _honesty_, the design of doing it
with _bitterness_ never entered my heart. However, for every ‘_bitter
expression_’ that may have dropped from my sharp, vindicating pen, I
ask you pardon; but it must be _in general_, for neither friends nor
foes have yet _particularly_ pointed out to me _one_ such expression.
“You condescend, Rev. Sir, to call me your ‘learned friend.’
_Learning_ is an accomplishment I never pretended to; but your
_friendship_ is an honour I shall always highly esteem, and do at this
time value above my own brother’s love. Appearances are a little
against me: I feel I am a thorn in your flesh; but I am persuaded it
is a _necessary_ one, and this persuasion reconciles me to the
thankless and disagreeable part I act. I can assure you, my dear Sir,
I love and honour you, as truly as I dislike the rashness of your
well-meant zeal. The motto I thought myself obliged to follow was, ‘_E
bello pax_;’ but that which I delight in is, ‘_In bello pax_.’ May we
make them harmonize till we learn war and polemic divinity no more!
“If in the meantime we offend our weak brethren, let us do something
to lessen the offence till it is removed. Let us show them we make war
without so much as shyness. Should you ever come to the next county,
as you did last summer, honour me with a line, and I shall gladly wait
upon you, and show you (if you permit me) the way to my pulpit, where
I shall think myself highly favoured to see you ‘secure the
foundation,’ and hear you enforce the doctrine of _justification by
faith_, which you fear we attack. And should I ever be within thirty
miles of the city where you reside, I shall go to submit myself to
you, and beg leave to assist you in reading prayers for you, or giving
the cup with you. Thus shall we convince the world how controversy may
be conscientiously carried on without interruption of brotherly love;
and I shall have the peculiar pleasure of testifying to you in person
how sincerely I am,
“Honoured and dear Sir,
“Your submissive and obedient servant, in the bond of a
_practical_
Gospel,
“J. FLETCHER.”
The third letter, to a large extent, is historical, and shows, with
terrific faithfulness, that not a few of the so-called evangelical
ministers and churches of a hundred years ago were far from what they
should have been, and that Wesley’s “Minutes” and Fletcher’s “Checks”
were greatly needed. Fletcher writes:—
“For some years, I have suspected there is more imaginary than
_unfeigned faith_ in most of those who pass for believers. With a
mixture of indignation and grief, have I seen them carelessly follow
the stream of corrupt nature, against which they should have manfully
wrestled. When they should have exclaimed against their
_Antinomianism_, I have heard them cry out against the _legality_ of
their wicked hearts; which, they said, still suggested they were to
_do something_ in order to salvation. Glad was I, therefore, when I
had attentively considered Mr. Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ to find they were
levelled at the very errors, which gave rise to an evil I had long
lamented in secret, but had wanted courage to resist and attack.”
“Do not imagine, Rev. Sir, I cry up God’s law, to drown the late cries
of _heresy_ and _apostacy_. I appeal to matter of fact and to your own
observations. Consider the religious world, and say if ‘Antinomianism’
is not, in general, a motto better adapted to the state of professing
congregations, societies, families, and individuals, than ‘_Holiness
unto the Lord_.’
“Begin with _congregations_, and cast your eyes upon the _hearers_. In
general, they have curious ‘_itching ears_,’ and ‘_will not endure
sound doctrine_.’ They say they ‘will have nothing but Christ;’ and
who could blame them if they would have Christ in all His offices?
Christ, with all His parables and sermons, cautions and precepts,
reproofs and expostulations, exhortations and threatenings? Who would
find fault with them, if they would have Christ with His poverty and
self-denial, His reproach and cross, His spirit and graces, His
prophets and apostles, His plain apparel and mean followers? But,
alas! it is not so. They will have _what_ they please of Christ, and
that too _as_ they please. They admire Him in one chapter, and know
not what to make of Him in another. If He asserts His authority as a
Lawgiver, they are ready to treat Him with as little ceremony as they
do Moses. If He says, ‘_Keep my commandments, I am a King_;’ like the
Jews of old, they rise against the awful declaration; or they _crown
Him_ as a _surety_, the better to ‘_set Him at nought_’ as a
_monarch_. If He adds to His ministers, ‘Go, and teach all nations _to
observe all things_ whatsoever I have _commanded_ you;’ they complain,
‘This is _the law_; give us _the gospel_, we can relish nothing but
the gospel.’”
“Hence it is that some preachers must choose comfortable subjects to
please their hearers; just as those, who make an entertainment for
nice persons, are obliged to study what will suit their difficult
taste. A multitude of important Scriptures can be produced, on which
no minister, who is unwilling to lose his reputation as an evangelical
preacher, must dare to speak in some pulpits, unless it is to explain
away or enervate their meaning.”
“Whence springs this almost general Antinomianism of our
congregations? Shall I conceal the sore because it festers in my own
breast? Shall I be partial? No! In the name of Him who is no respecter
of persons, I will confess my sin, and that of many of my brethren.
Though I am the least and the most unworthy of them all, I will follow
the dictates of my conscience, and use the authority of a minister of
Christ.
“Is not the Antinomianism of hearers fomented by that of preachers?
Does it not become us to take the greatest part of the blame upon
ourselves, according to the old adage, ‘Like priest, like people’? Is
it surprising that some of us should have an Antinomian audience? Do
we not make or keep it so? When did we preach such a practical sermon
as that of our Lord on the mount, or write such close letters as the
epistles of St. John? Alas! I doubt it is but seldom. Not living so
near to God ourselves as we should, we are afraid to come near the
consciences of our people. Some prefer popularity to plain-dealing. We
love to see a crowd of worldly-minded hearers, rather than a ‘_little
flock_,’ ‘_a peculiar people, zealous of good works_.’ Luther’s advice
to Melancthon, ‘So preach that those who do not fall out of love with
their sins, may fall out with thee,’ is more and more unfashionable.
Under pretence of drawing our hearers by love, some of us softly rock
the cradle of carnal security in which they sleep. The old Puritans
strongly insisted upon _personal holiness_, and the first Methodists
upon the _new birth_; but these doctrines seem to grow out of date.
The Gospel is cast into another mould. People, it seems, may now be
‘_in Christ_’ without being ‘_new creatures_,’ or new creatures
without casting ‘_old things_’ away. They may be God’s children
without God’s image; and be ‘_born of the Spirit_’ without ‘_the
fruits of the Spirit_.’ If our unregenerate hearers get orthodox ideas
about the way of salvation in their heads, evangelical phrases
concerning Jesus’ love in their mouths, and a warm zeal for our party
and favourite forms in their hearts, without any more ado, we help
them to rank themselves among the children of God. But, alas! this
self-adoption into the family of Christ will no more pass in heaven,
than self-imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”
“How few of our celebrated pulpits are there where more has not been
said, _at times_, for sin than against it! With what an air of
positiveness and assurance has that Barabbas, that murderer of Christ
and souls, been pleaded for! ‘It will humble us, make us watchful,
stir up our diligence, quicken our graces, endear Christ.’ That is, in
plain English, pride will beget humility, sloth will spur us on to
diligence, rust will brighten our armour, and unbelief, the very soul
of every sinful temper, is to do the work of faith! Jesus, who
cleansed the lepers with a word or a touch, cannot, with all the force
of His Spirit, and virtue of His blood, expel the leprosy of sin; it
is too inveterate. Death, that foul monster, the offspring of sin,
shall have the important honour of killing his father. This is
confidently asserted by those who cry, ‘Nothing but Christ!’ They
allow Him to lop off the branches; but Death, the great Saviour Death,
is to destroy the root of sin. In the meantime, _the temple of God_
shall _have agreement with idols_, and _Christ concord with Belial:
the Lamb of God shall lie down with the roaring Lion in our heart_.”
“To speak the melancholy truth, how few individuals are free from
practical Antinomianism! Setting aside their attendance on the
ministry of the Word, where is the material difference between several
of our genteel believers and other people? Do not we see the sumptuous
furniture in their apartments, and fashionable elegance in their
dress? What sums of money do they frequently lay out in costly
superfluities to adorn their persons, houses, and gardens! In our
fashionable churches and chapels, you may find people professing to
believe the Bible, who so conform to this present world as to wear
gold, pearls, and precious stones, when no distinction of office or
state obliges them to it, in direct opposition to the words of two
Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. Multitudes of professors, far from
being convinced of their sin in this respect, ridicule Mr. Wesley for
bearing his testimony against it. The opposition he dares to make to
that growing branch of vanity affords matter of pious mirth to a
thousand Antinomians. Isaiah could openly reprove the _haughty
daughters of Zion_, who _walked with stretched forth necks, wanton
eyes, and tinkling feet_: he could expose _the bravery of their
fashionable ornaments, their round tires like the moon, their chains,
bracelets, head-bands, rings and ear-rings_; but some of our humble
Christian ladies will not bear a reproof from Mr. Wesley on the head
of dress. They even laugh at him as a _pitiful legalist_, and yet, oh,
the inconsistency of the Antinomian spirit! they call Isaiah the
_evangelical prophet_!
“Finery is often attended with an expensive table, at least with such
delicacies as our purse can reach. St. Paul _kept his body under_, and
was _in fastings often_; and our Lord gives us directions about the
proper manner of _fasting_. But the apostle did not _know_ the easy
way to heaven taught by Dr. Crisp; and our Lord did not _approve_ of
it, or He would have saved Himself the trouble of His directions. In
general, we look upon fasting much as we do upon penitential
flagellation. Both equally raise our pity; we leave them both to
popish devotees. Some of our good old Church people will yet fast on
Good Friday: but our fashionable believers begin to cast away that
last scrap of self-denial. Their faith, which should produce, animate,
and regulate works of mortification, goes a shorter way to work; it
explodes them all.”
Fletcher continues to write in the same strain, through many succeeding
pages; but one more extract must suffice.
“If _these shall go into eternal punishment_; if such will be the end
of all the impenitent Nicolaitans; if our churches and chapels swarm
with them; if they crowd our communion tables; if they are found in
most of our houses, and too many of our pulpits; if the seeds of their
fatal disorder are in all our breasts; if they produce Antinomianism
around us in all its forms; if we see bold Antinomians in _principle_,
bare-faced Antinomians in _practice_, and sly _pharisaical
Antinomians_,[250] who speak well of the law, to break it with greater
advantage,—should not every one _examine himself whether he is in the
faith_, and whether he has a _holy Christ_ in his heart, as well as a
_sweet Jesus_ upon his tongue; lest he should one day swell the tribe
of Antinomian reprobates? Does it not become every minister of Christ
to drop his prejudices, and consider whether he ought not to imitate
the old watchman, who, fifteen months ago, gave a _legal alarm_ to all
the watchmen that are in connexion with him? And should we not do the
Church excellent service, if, agreeing to lift up our voices against
the common enemy, we gave God no rest in prayer, and our hearers in
preaching, till we all _did our first works_, and _our latter end_,
like Job’s, _exceeded our beginning_?
“Near forty years ago, some of the ministers of Christ, in our Church,
were called out of the extreme of self-righteousness. Flying from it,
we have run into the opposite, with equal violence. Now that we have
learned wisdom by what we have suffered in going beyond the limits of
truth both ways, let us return to a just scriptural medium. Let us
equally maintain the two evangelical axioms on which the Gospel is
founded: 1. ‘All our salvation is of God, by free grace, through the
alone merits of Christ.’ And, 2. ‘All our damnation is of ourselves,
through our avoidable unfaithfulness.’”
Footnote 250:
It may be well to say, once for all, that all these quotations, with
their _differences of type_, are taken from the _first editions_ of
Fletcher’s publications. The differences are not preserved in recent
editions.
Fletcher’s pictures are dark: I incline to _think_ a little too dark,
though I cannot _prove_ they are. At all events, were existing facts
such as he states them to have been, it was high time to sound an alarm
in Zion.
In a postscript to his “Three Letters,” Fletcher refers to a pamphlet
published by Richard Hill, Esq., respecting a conversation which he and
others had held with a monk in Paris.[251] Having quoted Mr. Hill’s
remark, that, according to the monk, “Popery is about the mid-way
between Protestantism and Mr. J. Wesley,” Fletcher proceeds to say:—
“We desire to be confronted with all the pious Protestant divines.
But, who would believe it? the suffrage of a papist is brought against
us! Astonishing! that our opposers should think it worth their while
to raise one recruit against us in the immense city of Paris, where
fifty thousand might be raised against the Bible itself!
“So long as Christ, the prophets, and apostles are for us, together
with the multitude of the Puritan divines of the last century, we
shall smile at an army of Popish friars. The knotted whips, that hang
by their side, will no more frighten us from our Bibles, than the
_ipse dixit_ of a Benedictine monk will make us explode, as heretical,
propositions which are demonstrated to be scriptural.
“I hope the gentlemen concerned in the ‘Conversation,’ lately
published, will excuse the liberty of this postscript. I reverence
their piety, rejoice in their labours, and honour their warm zeal for
the Protestant cause; but that very zeal, if not accompanied with a
close attention to every part of the Gospel truth, may betray them
into mistakes, which may spread as far as their respectable names. I
think it therefore my duty to publish these strictures, lest any of my
readers should pay more regard to the good-natured friar, who has been
pressed into the service of Dr. Crisp, than to St. John, St. Paul, St.
James, and Jesus Christ, on whose plain declarations I have shown that
the ‘Minutes’” (of Mr. Wesley) “are founded.”
Footnote 251:
Its title was “A Conversation between Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr.
Madan, and Father Walsh, Superior of a Convent of Benedictine Monks at
Paris, held at the same Convent, July 13, 1771, in the presence of
Thomas Powis, Esq., and others, relative to some Doctrinal Minutes
advanced by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and others, at a Conference held
in London, August 7, 1770. To which are added some Remarks by the
Editor.” Fletcher’s name is not mentioned in the pamphlet; but because
he chose to refer to it in his “Second Check to Antinomianism,” it is
here introduced to the reader’s notice. Hereafter, in order to avoid,
as far as possible, a repetition of the history of the Calvinian
controversy, as published in the “Life and Times of Wesley,” no
publications on the subject will be discussed, except those in which
Fletcher was attacked, or which he answered.—L. T.
So ends all that need be said here concerning Fletcher’s “Second Check
to Antinomianism.” To appreciate its style, its temper, and its
arguments, the reader must peruse it for himself; and, by doing so, his
mind will be enriched, and his soul profited.
An extract from one of Fletcher’s letters may fitly close this section
of his biography. The letter was addressed to the Rev. Joseph Benson,
and was dated “December 5, 1771.”
“There is undoubtedly such a thing as the _full assurance of faith_.
Be not discouraged on account of thousands, who stop short of it. It
is our own fault if we do not attain it. God would give us ample
satisfaction if we did but deeply feel our wants. Both you and I want
a deeper awakening, which will produce a death to outward things and
speculative knowledge. Let us shut our eyes to the gilded clouds
without us: let us draw inward, and search after God, if haply we may
find Him. Let us hold fast our confidence, though we are often
constrained against hope, to believe in hope. But let us not rest in
our confidence, as thousands do; let it help us to struggle and wait,
till He come. Let us habituate ourselves to live inwardly. This will
solemnize us, and prevent our trifling with the things of God. We may
be thankful for what we have without resting in it. We may strive, and
yet not trust in our striving; but expect all from Divine grace.”[252]
Footnote 252:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
In such a frame of mind and heart Fletcher carried on his polemic
warfare.