Chapter VIII (2)

“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.