Chapter V: Part 5

It was Wesley who obtained Mr. De Courcy’s services for Lady Glenorchy. He knew the man, and thought highly of him, but also saw his danger; and hence the warning to Lady Maxwell. It would be a pleasant task to sketch the subsequent career of this devoted Irishman; but, at present, we must confine ourselves to Edinburgh. De Courcy set out for the northern metropolis, as Wesley had said he would; and, immediately on his arrival at Newcastle, addressed to Wesley the following.

“_February 9, 1771._

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--Yesterday evening, after a very tedious
journey, the Lord brought me safe to Newcastle. When I reflect on the
fatigue and dangers which attend travelling, I should be astonished
above measure that you have so indefatigably persevered in all the
labours of an itinerant life for so many years, were I not well
assured that you have been supernaturally assisted in body and mind
for that extensive work to which God has eminently chosen you.

“I write this in Mr. McNab’s chamber, with whom, and Mr. Hanby,
I find great fellowship of spirit. I have accepted your kind
invitation, and purpose taking up my abode with them till Monday,
when I set out for Edinburgh. I would stay longer with your dear
people here, but that I find Lady Glenorchy is particularly anxious
for my speedy arrival in Edinburgh. As my situation there will
expose me to diversified trials, do dear sir, pray that I may be kept

‘Humble, teachable, and mild,
Patient as a little child,’

“I remain, reverend and dear sir, your most affectionate, but
unworthy brother,
“RICHARD DE COURCY.”[119]

A few days after De Courcy’s arrival, Wesley wrote a second time to Lady Maxwell, as follows.

“_February 26, 1771._

“MY DEAR LADY,--I cannot but think the chief reason of the little
good done by our preachers in Edinburgh is the opposition which has
been made by the ministers of Edinburgh, as well as by the false
brethren from England. These steeled the hearts of the people against
all the good impressions which might otherwise have been made; so
that the same preachers, by whom God has constantly wrought, not only
in various parts of England, but likewise in the northern parts of
Scotland, were in Edinburgh only not useless. They felt a damp upon
their spirits; they had not their usual liberty of speech; and the
word they spoke seemed to rebound upon them, and not to sink into the
hearts of the hearers. At my first coming, I usually find something
of this myself; but the second or third time of preaching, it is gone.

“I think it will not be easy for any one to show us, either, that
Christ did not die for all, or, that He is not willing as well as
able to cleanse from all sin, even in the present world. If your
steady adherence to these great truths be termed bigotry, yet you
have no need to be ashamed. You are reproached for Christ’s sake, and
the spirit of glory and of Christ shall rest upon you. Perhaps our
Lord may use you to soften some of the harsh spirits, and to preserve
Lady Glenorchy, or Mr. De Courcy, from being hurt by them.

“I am, my dear lady, your very affectionate servant,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[120]

From these letters, it is painfully apparent that the Calvinistic controversy was not confined to England. Edinburgh rang with discordant notes; and, in five months after Mr. De Courcy’s coming, Lady Glenorchy dismissed Wesley’s preachers from her chapel, assigning, as her reason, that they were not Calvinists.[121]

South of the Tweed there were sounds of the coming battle; hence the following extract from a letter to Miss Bishop.

“_February 16, 1771._

“MY DEAR SISTER,--... Legality, with most that use that term, really
means tenderness of conscience. There is no propriety in the word, if
one would take it for seeking justification by works. Considering,
therefore, how hard it is to fix the meaning of that odd term, and
how dreadfully it has been abused, I think it highly advisable for
all the Methodists to lay it quite aside.

“If Mr. Shirley could find any other doctrine, which he thought was
peculiarly mine, he would be as angry at it as he is at Christian
perfection. But it is all well: we are to go forward, whoever goes
back or turns aside. Perhaps we may see a new accomplishment of
Solomon’s words, ‘He that reproveth a man shall afterward find more
favour than he who flattereth with his tongue.’ But, be that as it
may, I have done my duty: I could no otherwise have delivered my own
soul; and no offence at all would have been given thereby, had not
pride stifled both religion and generosity. But my letter[122] is
now out of date: it is mentioned no more; there is a more plausible
occasion found, namely, those eight terrible propositions which
conclude the minutes of our conference. At the instance of some who
were sadly frightened thereby, I have revised them over and over; I
have considered them in every point of view; and truly, the more I
consider them, the more I like them. The more fully I am convinced,
not only that they are true,--agreeable both to Scripture and sound
experience,--but, that they contain truths of the deepest importance,
and such as ought to be continually inculcated by those who would be
pure from the blood of all men.

“Your affectionate brother,

“JOHN WESLEY.”[123]

Benson had been dismissed from Trevecca, in the month of January, for defending Wesley’s minutes; and now Fletcher, the president of the college, informed the Countess of Huntingdon, that, if all Arminians were to be expelled, he must be expelled. This was a serious matter. Fletcher, at Trevecca, had been, according to Benson, “almost an angel in human flesh.” “Prayer, praise, love, and zeal were the element in which he lived. His one employment was to call, entreat, and urge others 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; and the students were readier to hearken to him than to attend to Sallust, Virgil, or Cicero. Soon, they were all in tears; and then he would say, ‘As many of you as are athirst for the fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.’” Away they trooped after him, and would continue praying, one after another, for hours together, till they could bear to kneel no longer; Fletcher, in the midst, so filled with the love of God, that, more than once, he cried, “O my God, withhold Thy hand, or the vessel will burst!”[124] Such a man in such a place was invaluable; but he was not the man to truckle in the presence of arbitrary power. Hence the following to Wesley.

“MADELEY, _February 20, 1771_.

“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,--I fear we are going, or are already gone,
from our plan of catholicism at the college. Mr. Benson’s affair
has made me tell my mind to our Deborah, about bigotry, partiality,
prejudice, and everything that seemed to me contrary to the Christian
spirit in some late transactions. The answer was, that if one half
of the things objected to by me was true, there would be room for
the cruelty of my charges; but facts and words have been grossly
misrepresented. Therefore, my mouth is shut so far.

“This, however, I have insisted, and do insist, upon, if every
Arminian must quit the college, I am discharged for one; for I cannot
give up the possibility of the salvation of all any more than I can
give up the truth and love of God.

“Secondly, I will be no party man, nor give up my connections with
any that fear God, much less with Mr. Wesley, who shall be always
welcome to my pulpit, and I make no doubt will welcome me to his.

“Thirdly, nobody shall prevent my following after an entire
devotedness of heart to God, by baiting my Christian hopes and
privileges under the name of perfection.

“To this, I have received no particular answer; but, as I set out for
the college to-day, I may get one _viva voce_.

“Though no letter writer, I am and shall always remain, reverend and
dear sir, your ready though unprofitable servant,

“JOHN FLETCHER.”[125]

The result of Fletcher’s visit to the college is given in the subjoined extracts from letters sent to Benson.

“_March 22, 1771._

“On my arrival at the college, I found all very quiet, I fear,
through the enemy’s keeping his goods in peace. While I preached, 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 I
resigned my office to my lady, and on Wednesday to the students and
the Lord. Last Friday I left them all in peace, the servant, but no
more the president, of the college.”[126]

“Mr. Shirley has sent my lady a copy of part of the minutes of
the last conference, namely, of the year 1770. They were called
_horrible_ and _abominable_. My lady told me, _she must turn against
them; and that whoever did not fully disavow them must quit the
college_. She accordingly ordered the master and all the students to
write their sentiments upon them without reserve. I did so; explained
them according to Mr. Wesley’s sentiments; and approved the doctrine,
though not cautiously worded. I concluded by observing, that, as
after such a step on my part, and such a declaration on my lady’s,
I could no longer, as an honest man, stay in the college, I took my
leave of it; wishing my lady might find a minister to preside over it
less insufficient than

“JOHN FLETCHER.”[127]

So much respecting Trevecca. Returning to Wesley, we find him defending himself in the following long letter, published in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ for March 1, 1771.

“_February 26, 1771._

“SIR,--The editor of a monthly publication, pompously called _The
Gospel Magazine_, has violently fallen upon one and another, who
did not knowingly give him any provocation. And whereas, in other
magazines, the accused has liberty to answer for himself, it is not
so here. This gentleman will publish only the charge; but not the
defence. What can a person, thus injuriously treated, do? To publish
pamphlets, on every head, would not answer the end, for the answer
would not come into near so many hands as the objection. Is there
then a better way than to appeal to candid men, in one of the public
papers, by which means the antidote will operate both as widely and
as speedily as the poison? This method, therefore, I take at last,
after delaying as long as I could with innocence.

“In that magazine for last month, there is a warm attack upon my
sermon on the death of Mr. Whitefield. The first charge is against
the text, ‘Let me die the death of the righteous.’ ‘How improper,’
says Mr. R.,[128] ‘to apply the words of a mad prophet to so holy a
man as Mr. Whitefield.’

“Improper! See how doctors differ! I conceive nothing can possibly be
more proper. If Mr. R. did indeed tell his congregation, some of whom
disliked his attacking my poor text before, ‘Let who will be vexed,
I do not care; I will not justify Balaam while I live’; yet, others
imagine nothing would be more suitable than for Balaam junior to use
the words of his forefather; especially, as he did not apply them to
Mr. Whitefield, but to himself. Surely a poor reprobate may, without
offence, _wish_ to die like one of the elect! And I dare say, every
one understood me to mean this, the moment he heard the text. If not,
the very hymn I sung showed to whom I applied the words--

‘Oh that, without a lingering groan,
I might the welcome word receive!
My body with my charge lay down,
And cease at once to work and live!’

“But the main attack is on the sermon itself; in which I am charged
with asserting a gross falsehood, in the face of God and the
congregation, and that knowing it to be such, namely, that ‘the grand
fundamental doctrines which Mr. Whitefield everywhere preached, were
those of the new birth and justification by faith.’ No, says Mr. R.,
not at all: the grand fundamental doctrines, which he everywhere
preached, were the everlasting covenant between the Father and the
Son, and absolute predestination flowing therefrom.

“I join issue on this head. Whether the doctrines of the eternal
covenant, and of absolute predestination, are the grand fundamental
doctrines of Christianity, or not, I affirm again--(1) that Mr.
Whitefield did not everywhere preach these; (2) that he did
everywhere preach the new birth, and justification by faith.

“1. He did not everywhere preach the eternal covenant, and absolute
predestination. In all the times I myself heard him preach, I never
heard him utter a sentence either on one or the other. Yea, all the
times he preached in West Street chapel, and in our other chapels
throughout England, he did not preach these doctrines at all, no, not
in a single paragraph; which, by the bye, is a demonstration that he
did not think them the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

“2. Both in West Street chapel, and all our other chapels throughout
England, he did preach the necessity of the new birth, and
justification by faith, as clearly as he has done in his two volumes
of printed sermons. Therefore, all that I have asserted is true, and
provable by ten thousand witnesses.

“Nay, says Mr. R., ‘Mr. Whitefield everywhere insisted on other
fundamental doctrines, from the foundation of which the new birth
and justification by faith take their rise, and with which they
are inseparably connected. These are the everlasting covenant,
which was entered into by the Holy Trinity, and God the Father’s
everlasting, unchangeable election of sinners’ (in virtue of which
a fiftieth part of mankind shall be saved, do what they will; and
the other forty-nine parts shall be damned, do what they can).
‘These doctrines are not of a less essential nature than either
regeneration or justification. No, by no means; they are to the full
equally essential to the glory of God. Yea, there is an inseparable
connection between them. This is _a most essential, a most
fundamental point_.’ (_Magazine_, p. 41.)

“If so, then every one who does not hold it must perish
everlastingly. If, as you here assert, he cannot be justified, then
he cannot be saved. If, as you say, he cannot be born again, _he
cannot see the kingdom of God_.

“After asserting this, can Mr. R. ever take the name of _catholic
love_ into his mouth? Is not this the very opposite to it? the height
and depth of _bigotry_? Does this spirit do honour to his opinion?
Can we conceive anything more horrid? Is it not enough to make a
person of humanity shudder? Yea, to make his blood run cold?

“I do not here enter into the merits of the cause. I need not. It is
done to my hands. The whole doctrine of predestination is thoroughly
discussed in those three tracts lately printed: ‘An Answer to the
Eleven Letters commonly ascribed to Mr. Hervey’; ‘Arguments against
General Redemption Considered’; and ‘An Answer to Elisha Coles.’ Till
these are seriously and solidly refuted, I have no more to say on
that head. But I must aver, that the excluding all from salvation who
do not believe the horrible decree is a most shocking insult on all
mankind, on common sense, and common humanity.

“I am, etc.,

“JOHN WESLEY.”

Of course, this was too pungent to pass without notice. Accordingly, in the _Gospel Magazine_ for the month following, there appeared an incisive review of Sellon’s Answer to Elisha Coles, which is described as “a mite of reprobate silver, cast into the _Foundery_, and coming out thence, with the impress of that pride, self righteousness, and self sufficiency, natural to men in their fallen, unrenewed state.” Sellon is accused of “trifling effrontery,” and is said “to have sunk far below the gentleman, and to have lost all appearance of the Christian”; and is further designated “the Cardinal Bellarmine of the day; the obsequious servant and faithful labourer to his holiness.”

In a subsequent number of the same periodical, published in the month of May, Wesley’s minutes are attacked; the writer, “A Real Protestant,” indignantly asking, “Are not these the very doctrines of popery, yea, of popery unmasked? Is it not awful that 29,406 souls, who are in Mr. Wesley’s societies, should be so dreadfully seduced from the protestant doctrines, and deluded into a belief of the doctrines of the mother of harlots, the whore of Babylon, the Church of Rome?”

Thus the bitter controversy proceeded. Comment would be easy; but we prefer to let the chief actors speak; and, not to interrupt this painful scene, proceed to give other letters bearing upon the subject, so that the reader may have before him as full a view of the spirit and behaviour of both parties as it is possible to furnish.

While on his way to Ireland, Wesley wrote the following to Fletcher.

“I always did, for between these thirty and forty years, clearly
assert 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 our hearts; the
Lord’s rewarding no work, and accepting of none, but so far as they
proceed from His preventing, convincing, and converting grace through
the Beloved; the blood and righteousness of Christ being the sole
meritorious cause of our salvation. Who is there in England, that
has asserted these things more strongly and steadily than I have
done?”[129]

The next letter, addressed to Lady Huntingdon, was occasioned by one which her ladyship had sent to Wesley’s brother on the subject of his minutes,[130] and was dated “Bath, June 8, 1771.” The countess brands the minutes as “popery unmasked”; and declares that “all ought to be deemed papists who do not disown them.” She thus concludes: “as you have no part in this matter, I find it difficult to blame your brother to you; while as an honest man I must pity you, as you must suffer equal disgrace, and universal distrust, from the supposed union with him.” Charles Wesley endorsed this unworthy letter with the words: “Lady Huntingdon’s last; unanswered by John Wesley’s brother.”[131]

Charles Wesley doubtless communicated the contents to his brother, who was now in Ireland; in fact, her ladyship requested him to do this: and hence the following.

“_June 19, 1771._

“MY DEAR LADY,--Many years since, I saw that ‘without holiness no
man shall see the Lord.’ I began following after it, and inciting
all with whom I had any intercourse to do the same. Ten years after,
God gave me a clearer view than I had before of the way how to
attain this, namely, by faith in the Son of God; and, immediately,
I declared to all, ‘We are saved from sin, we are made holy, by
faith.’ This I testified in private, in public, in print; and God
confirmed it by a thousand witnesses. I have continued to declare
this, for above thirty years; and God has continued to confirm the
word of His grace. But, during this time, well-nigh all the religious
world have set themselves in array against me, and, among the rest,
many of my own children, following the example of one of my eldest
sons, Mr. Whitefield. Their general cry has been, ‘He is unsound in
the faith; he preaches another gospel!’ I answer, Whether it be the
same which they preach or not, it is the same which I have preached
for above thirty years. This may easily appear from what I have
published during that whole term. I instance only in three sermons;
that on ‘Salvation by Faith,’ printed in the year 1738; that on ‘The
Lord our Righteousness,’ printed a few years since; and that on Mr.
Whitefield’s funeral, printed only some months ago.

“But it is said, ‘Oh but you printed ten lines in August last, which
contradict all your other writings.’ Be not so sure of this. It is
probable, at least, that I understand my own meaning as well as
you do; and that meaning I have yet again declared in the sermon
last referred to. By that, interpret those ten lines, and you will
understand them better; although I should think that any one might
see, even without this help, that the lines in question do not refer
to the condition of obtaining, but of continuing in the favour of
God. But whether the sentiment contained in these lines be right or
wrong, and whether it be well or ill expressed, the gospel which I
now preach God does still confirm by new witnesses in every place;
perhaps never so much in this kingdom as within these last three
months. Now, I argue from glaring, undeniable fact: God cannot bear
witness to a lie; the gospel, therefore, which He confirms must be
true in substance. There may be opinions maintained at the same
time which are not exactly true; and who can be secure from these?
Perhaps, I thought myself so once. When I was much younger than I am
now, I thought myself almost infallible; but, I bless God, I know
myself better now.

“To be short. Such as I am, I love you well. You have one of the
first places in my esteem and affection; and you once had some regard
for me. But it cannot continue if it depends upon my seeing with
your eyes, or on my being in no mistake. What if I was in as many as
Mr. Law himself? If you were, I should love you still, provided your
heart was still right with God. My dear friend, you seem not to have
well learned yet the meaning of those words, which I desire to have
continually written upon my heart, ‘Whosoever doth the will of My
Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and
mother.’

“I am, my dear lady, your affectionate

“JOHN WESLEY.”[132]

Contemporaneously with the above letter, the Rev. Walter Shirley and Lady Huntingdon sent the following circular to Wesley, as well as to a large number of their Calvinian friends.

“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[133];
and as the same are thought injurious to the very _fundamental_[134]
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 person 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_,[134] 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.”

A fine confederacy of elected saints, armed with self invested papal power to _insist_ upon the recantation of poor Wesley and his heretical preachers!

The modest and self diffident countess and her executive chaplain apologise for this high handed interference on the ground that they “were warmly interested in the revival of _spiritual_ religion and the doctrines of the _Reformation_;” that they “apprehended that the doctrines contained in the minutes had the most fatal tendency; and, in the strongest and most explicit terms, maintained _salvation by works_”; and that Wesley was not an ordinary personage, but stood “at the head of near thirty thousand people,--a veteran in the cause of the gospel,--one of the chiefs in the late reformation.”[135]

One would have thought that, at least, the last mentioned reason would have led them to adopt a less offensive and more respectful method of correcting his “dreadful heresy,” than that of marching upon him and his conference _en masse_; and imperiously _insisting_ upon his recantation. Surely, it would not have been too great a condescension for them and their friends, first of all, to have respectfully solicited of such “a veteran and chief” an explanation of what he meant; and, if they still found him to be in error, to ask for an opportunity to reason the matter with him and to set him right. But, no; this was far too troublesome for the elect of God, who, of course, were right, and all others wrong; and, hence, the only action, which would not impinge upon their sacred dignity, was to march, in solemn phalanx, to the assembly of Wesley and his poor itinerants, and there “_insist upon a formal recantation_”; and then, in case the heretics should refuse to yield, and because the valiant defenders of the truth were without power to imprison, to banish, or to burn, it was piously proposed that, for want of something more effectual, they should content themselves with a _public protest_ against the pestilential minutes.

One of Shirley’s circulars was handed to Fletcher, the ex-president of Trevecca, who wrote to Wesley the following letter, hitherto unpublished.

“MADELEY, _June 24, 1771_.

“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 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 wrote 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. Hutton
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.

[Here follows Shirley’s circular as above.]

“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.”

There was chivalry in this,--the real, genuine chivalry of a noble mind and generous heart. The Swiss mountaineer was not the man to see a friend _bullied_ without rushing to his rescue.

Wesley was not without sympathy. A few days later, his faithful friend, Vincent Perronet, the vicar of Shoreham, who was also of Swiss extraction, wrote to him as follows.

“SHOREHAM, _July 9, 1771_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,--I am truly concerned, that so laborious a
servant of Christ should be attacked in so violent a manner. Insulted
by some, without the least decency, or regard to common decorum; and
threatened by others with a synodical sentence.

“Had I been honoured with an invitation from a great personage, for
whom I have a very high esteem, I should have told her ladyship,
that I have no greater veneration for synods than the most excellent
Bishop Nazianzen had formerly, whose great learning and Christian
virtues could not screen him from the usual violence of those
assemblies, and who therefore desired to see no more of them.

“However, with regard to the _merit_ of good works, I should frankly
have declared my abhorrence of the very sound of the word; since I
could not conceive how an unprofitable servant could merit anything
from a holy God. But then, on the other hand, I should have added,
that whoever should speak contemptuously of the diligent exercise
of good works, as if they derogated from the honour of Christ, I
should tell such a divine, that, whether he found his divinity either
in Luther, or Calvin, or the Synod of Dort, it was no divinity of
the gospel of Christ; since Christ came to purify unto Himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works. And as the Holy Spirit has
assured us, over and over, that ‘we shall be judged according to our
works,’ it is, therefore, no wonder that St. Paul should pray that
his converts might be ‘established in every good word and work.’
Besides, I might have observed that the zealot who decries good works
was acting a most ridiculous part with regard to faith; for if his
faith did not bring forth good works, his faith was good for nothing.

“However, though such good works were the fruits of faith, and
consequently the fruit of the Spirit of Christ, and, for that reason,
must be acceptable to God, yet, I must have added, so far as they
were our works, so far they wanted the blood of Christ to wash
away their defilements, and to atone for their deficiencies; and,
therefore, even our best works can have no merit in them.

“I should, then, have remonstrated to that worthy lady to the
following purpose,--that if one, who had laboured in the vineyard, I
believed, full as much as any person since the days of the apostles,
was not thought worthy of the mantle of love, for any mistake he
might have made, yet surely he had a right to expect, that notice
would have been given him to explain his meaning, before his judge
pronounced sentence. This is a privilege granted to every supposed
criminal in our courts of law, and where this is denied that court is
no better than a court of inquisition.

“But now, my dear brother, what effect such a letter might have had,
I pretend not to say. It would, at the least, have testified to that
friendship, which I have constantly had for you these twenty-five
years. May God direct us both, and may our worst enemies be all
brought to Him! You have my leave to make what use you please of this
long letter.

“I am, my very dear brother, yours most affectionately,

“VINCENT PERRONET.”[136]

Just at this juncture, Wesley drew up and printed, at Dublin, under date “July 10, 1771,” a clear and logical exposition of the doctrines set forth in the minutes, which he doubtless circulated among his preachers and friends. At the top of the first page of one of the copies, he requested Miss Bishop, of Bath, not to “show it before conference,” adding, “if the Calvinists do not, or will not understand me, I understand myself; and I do not contradict anything I have written these thirty years. Poor Mr. Shirley’s triumph will be short.”[137]

Wesley’s views were the same as Perronet’s. What were Charles Wesley’s, and what part was taken by him in this momentous controversy? The biographer of the Countess of Huntingdon would have his readers to believe, that Charles disapproved of his brother’s letter to her ladyship; that he would reprove him for it; and, that he preferred peace above all things.[138] It might be so; we have no means of gainsaying it. It is doubtful whether he attended the conference in Bristol; in fact, almost certain that he did not. Hence the following, addressed to him only three days before the commencement of its sittings.

“KINGSWOOD, _August 3, 1771_.

“DEAR BROTHER,--I will not throw away Thomas Rankin on the people
of London. He shall go where they know the value of him.

“We cannot put out what we never put in. I do not use the word
‘merit.’ I never did, neither do I now, contend for the use
of it. But I ask you, or any other, a plain question: and do
not cry, Murder; but give me an answer. What is the difference
between ‘_mereri_,’ and ‘to deserve’? or between ‘deserving,’ and
‘_meritum_’? I say still, I cannot tell. Can you? Can Mr. Shirley,
or any man living? In asking this question, I neither plead for
merit, nor against it. I have nothing to do with it. I have declared
a thousand times, there is no goodness in man till he is justified;
no merit, either before or after; that is, taking the word in its
proper sense: for in a loose sense ‘meritorious’ means no more than
‘rewardable.’

“As to reprobation, seeing they have drawn the sword, I throw away
the scabbard. I send you a specimen. Let fifteen hundred of them be
printed as soon as you please.[139]

“Nothing was ever yet expended out of the yearly collection, without
being immediately set down by the secretary. I never took a shilling
from that fund yet.

“What you advise with regard to our behaviour toward our opposers
exactly agrees with my sentiments. I am full of business, as you may
suppose. So adieu!

“JOHN WESLEY.”[140]

On the evening before Wesley’s conference assembled, two letters were put into his hand, one written by Lady Huntingdon, the other by the Rev. Walter Shirley. The purport of her ladyship’s letter was, that, having learned that the proposed method of visiting his conference appeared to him and to his friends “as an arbitrary way of proceeding, she and her allies wished to inform him, that they intended no personal disrespect, but a degree of zeal against the principles established in the minutes, which were repugnant to the whole plan of man’s salvation under the new covenant of grace, and also to the clear meaning of the Established Church, as well as to all other protestant churches, to whose foundations the highest honour and respect are due.”[141]

Shirley’s letter apologises for that part of his circular which seemed to assume, that he and his friends had a “civil right to go in a body to Wesley’s conference, and insist on a formal recantation of the minutes.” All he meant was, to send Wesley a “respectful message importing their design, and requesting him to appoint a day and hour for the conference to receive them.” The reason why he had inserted “the offensive expression, ‘insist upon a formal recantation,’” (for which he now apologised,) was, because “it was supposed by some, that, instead of giving satisfaction on the points in question, such a forced construction would be put on the meaning of the minutes, as might elude the intended opposition, and yet leave the doctrines therein contained entire and unrepealed.” Shirley concludes by stating, that the doctrines of the minutes appear to him “evidently subversive of the _fundamentals_ of Christianity.”[142]

Remembering that Wesley was not under the slightest obligation to either the Countess of Huntingdon, Mr. Shirley, or any of their Calvinistic friends, he might, without any want of courtesy, have treated with contempt a letter casting upon him the slur of trickishness, and have declined to see its author; but, instead of that, he appointed Thursday, August 8, for the momentous interview. Accordingly, on that day, Shirley, and two other ministers of the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapels, together with Messrs. Lloyd, Ireland, and Winter, and two students (!) from Trevecca college, went to Wesley’s conference. Shirley’s circular, summoning a synod, had been sent to all his sympathisers, clerical and laical, throughout the three kingdoms; and the result was a grand convocation of less than half a score, and even these included two laics belonging to Bath and Bristol, and at least two young men, still merely preparing for the ministry. The thing was a ridiculous failure; but not even on that account did Wesley refuse to see the self elected deputies. First of all, Wesley engaged in prayer. Then Shirley desired to know if the letters of himself and Lady Huntingdon had been read to the conference. Being answered in the negative, he asked leave to read them, which was granted. A lengthened conversation followed; and then Shirley produced a written declaration which he wished the conference to sign. Wesley read it, and made some alterations, which Shirley says were “not very material,” and then he and fifty-three of his preachers appended to it their signatures.[143] The declaration thus signed 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[144] from first to last, either in whole or in part.”

After the declaration had been agreed to, Shirley was requested “to make some public acknowledgment, that he had mistaken the meaning of the minutes.” Shirley hesitated, but at last consented, and wrote a certificate to that effect.

In the meantime, Wesley had received from Fletcher the manuscript copy of his “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: in Five Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author of the circular letter.”

Wesley at once gave the manuscript to William Pine to print and publish. Shirley, hearing of this, waited upon Wesley the day after he and his friends had been to conference, and requested that the manuscript should not be printed, urging as their reason, that Fletcher himself wished for this, “if matters should end peaceably.” Wesley, however, persisted, and the work was published without delay, in a 12mo pamphlet of 98 pages. Whilst the manuscript was being printed, Wesley took the opportunity to reply to the letter of Lady Huntingdon, which had been put into his hands the night before his conference commenced. Nine days had elapsed since then, and now Wesley, on August 14, addresses her ladyship in the following unflinching terms, his letter also showing that the publication of Fletcher’s “Vindication” was no after thought, but was proceeding even while the conference was sitting.

“MY DEAR LADY,--The principles established in the minutes I apprehend
to be no way contrary to that great truth, justification by faith,
or that consistent plan of doctrine, which was once delivered to the
saints. I believe whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher’s Letters
will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, that ‘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 Letters are answered, I must think everything spoken
against these _minutes_ is totally destructive of _His honour_, and
a palpable affront to Him; both as our Prophet and Priest, but more
especially as the King of His people. 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.”[145]

Wesley had told his brother, that as “they had drawn the sword,” he himself should “throw away the scabbard,” and now this was done. Shirley found the tables turned, and, instead of attacking others, had to defend himself; and hence, in September, he issued his “Narrative of the Principal Circumstances relative to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late Conference, held in Bristol, August 6, 1771.” 8vo, 24 pages.

Space prohibits any lengthened outline of Fletcher’s “Vindication.” He gives (1) a general view of Wesley’s doctrine; (2) an account of the commendable design of his minutes; (3) a vindication of their propositions. It is in this production, that he furnishes his fearful description of the antinomianism which was then so prevalent, and which really rendered some utterance on the subject of good works a solemn necessity. He also makes extracts from Shirley’s published sermons, teaching the very doctrines which Wesley’s minutes teach; to which quotations Shirley’s reply was, that “they were wrote many years ago when he had more zeal than light,” and that he had “frequently wished that they were burnt.”[146]

Fletcher concludes thus:--

“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? 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 of the
land, through all England and Scotland, and signed by a person of
your rank and piety? While he is gone to a neighbouring kingdom,
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? Of the two greatest and most useful ministers I ever
knew, one is no more. The other, after amazing labours, flies still,
with unwearied diligence, through the three kingdoms, calling sinners
to repentance. Though oppressed with the weight of near seventy
years, and the cares of near thirty thousand souls, he shames still,
by his unabated zeal and immense labours, all the young ministers in
England, perhaps in Christendom. He has generally blown the gospel
trumpet, and rode twenty miles, before most of the professors, who
despise his labours, have left their downy pillows. As he begins the
day, the week, the year, so he concludes them, still intent upon
extensive services for the glory of the Redeemer, and the good of
souls. And shall we lightly lift up our pens, our tongues, our hands
against him? No; let them rather forget their cunning. If we _will_
quarrel, can we find nobody to fall out with, but the minister upon
whom God puts the greatest honour?”

Shirley’s “Narrative” was published in September, in which he gives great prominence to one of Fletcher’s letters requesting his “Vindication” to be suppressed. He furnishes an extract from one addressed to Mr. Ireland, dated August 15, to the following effect: “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.”

This was characteristic of Fletcher’s large heartedness; but the extract from his letter was a garbled one, and rendered it necessary that he should again enter the field of battle, and defend himself as well as others. This was done at once, and, before the year was ended, another production of his facile pen was published, namely, “A Second Check to Antinomianism: occasioned by a late narrative, in three letters, to the Hon. and Rev. Author. By the Vindicator of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Minutes.” 12mo, 109 pages.

He tells Shirley, that, though it was perfectly true that he had written to Mr. Ireland, requesting his letters to be suppressed, he had also stated to the same gentleman, that “the minutes _must_ be vindicated,--that Mr. Wesley owed this to the Church, to the ‘real protestants,’ to all his societies, and to his own aspersed character.” He states: “I was going to preach when I had the news of your happy accommodation, and was no sooner out of church, than I wrote to beg my Vindication might not appear in the dress in which I had put it. I did not then, nor do I yet, repent having written upon the minutes; but, as matters are now, I am very sorry I did not write in a general manner, without taking notice of the circular letter, and mentioning your dear name.”[147] He adds, that when he gave the manuscript to Wesley, he begged him to correct it, and to expunge whatever might be “unkind or too sharp.” Wesley had assured him, that “he _had_ expunged every tart expression”; and, if so, (for Fletcher had not yet seen it in a printed form,) he was “_reconciled_ to its publication.” Fletcher further adds, that he had just received a letter (September 11, 1771) from Bristol, stating that when Thomas Olivers, who was now acting as Wesley’s editor, heard of Fletcher’s wish to suppress his “Vindication,” he had already announced to the Bristol congregation, that the work was in the press, and would soon be ready. “Besides,” continues Fletcher, in reference to Thomas Olivers being the only preacher who refused to sign the declaration at the conference,--“Besides, Mr. Olivers 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,--had a personal right to produce _my_ arguments, since both parties refused to hear _his_ at the conference.”

These facts are of great consequence, inasmuch as Shirley magnifies Wesley’s publication of Fletcher’s Vindication into a heinous fault; and others after him have endeavoured to brand Wesley’s character, not only for perpetuating the war, but for publishing Fletcher’s manuscript contrary to Fletcher’s wish. This is utterly unjust. The war was begun, not by Wesley, but by the Calvinists; and surely the attacked was not presumptuous, or wanton, in endeavouring to defend himself. It is true, that, in doing that, he uses the sword of his friend Fletcher; but what of that? The sword was given him to use, on July 27, when on his return from Ireland; and, though Fletcher subsequently hesitated as to the propriety of the step he had taken, it was not until the sword was brandished, by Fletcher’s manuscript being committed to the press and actually announced for sale. Besides, Fletcher’s hesitancy had reference, not to the thing done, but to the manner of its being done. A vindication he considered to be imperatively required: but he was afraid that his own was too personal. Shirley was aggrieved, because he pretends to have thought that the signing of the declaration would have ended the matter; but Shirley conveniently forgets: (1) that he himself had blackened Wesley’s character throughout the three kingdoms; (2) that Wesley and his preachers had conceded nothing to their adversaries, except that the minutes of 1770 were “not sufficiently guarded in the way in which they are expressed”; (3) that, as Fletcher abundantly demonstrates, there was a terrible necessity for an enforcement of the doctrine of the minutes at this momentous period, both the pulpits and pews of churches being infected with the deadly antinomianism of the late Dr. Crisp; and (4) that, after all, the doctrine of the minutes was only one part of the controversy which the Calvinists had raised, and that there were other attacks on Wesley, made by men like Augustus Toplady, and the editor of the _Gospel Magazine_, which it was impossible, and, in fact, would have been criminally disastrous, to have passed without rebuke.

That Fletcher did not regret the publishing of his Vindication is evident from the alacrity he showed in the preparation and publishing of his “Second Check;” the chief object of which was to establish “the doctrine of justification by works in the day of judgment”; and to reprove Walter Shirley for insinuating, in his “Narrative,” that this was a doctrine which Wesley and his fifty-three itinerant preachers had given up.

Shirley retired from the field of battle; but others took up the gauntlet. The _Gospel Magazine_, faithful to its character, was as furious as ever. In its August number, it published a review of the “Church of England vindicated from the Charge of Absolute Predestination,” declaring that Wesley was its author’s “dictator and employer.” The work is pronounced “a composition of low scurrility and illiberal abuse.” The writer is charged with having “horribly blasphemed, and daringly given the lie to the God of truth, by asserting that any justified soul may at last perish in hell.” “Arminianism is a hodgepodge of human systems, made up of grace and works, so blended together as to destroy the true meaning of both.”

In the same number was published Cleon’s poem on “Wesley’s apostasy from the genuine faith of the gospel, an awful proof that evil men and seducers wax worse and worse.” One verse must serve as a specimen. After describing the doctrine of Wesley’s minutes, Cleon writes:

“In vain for worse may Wesley search the globe,
A viper hatched beneath the harlot’s robe;
Rome, in her glory, has no greater boast,
Than Wesley aims--to all conviction lost.”

In the September number, “Simplex, from the neighbourhood of the Foundery,” expresses his astonishment, that Shirley and his friends should have been satisfied with the declaration, signed at conference, inasmuch as “it denies not one tittle clearly asserted in the minutes.” Wesley is credited with possessing “the unfathomable policy of a dubious divine.” He is a “fox,” who “has had sagacity enough to elude his hunters;” and “evidently shows that he never meant to recant what he had declared in the minutes, when he signed the declaration.”