Chapter XVII: Publications in the Year

1775.

ON November 12, 1774, Fletcher wrote:—

“The author of the ‘_Checks_’ has promised to his readers an answer to
the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s piece, entitled, ‘_More Work for Mr.
Wesley_.’[314] His reason for postponing the finishing of _that part_
of his ‘_Logica Genevensis_’ was the importance of the ‘_Equal
Check_,’ which closes the controversy with Mr. Hill. He saw life so
uncertain, that, of two things which he was obliged to do, he thought
it his duty to set about that which appeared to him the more useful.
He considered also that it was proper to have quite done with Mr.
Hill, before he faced so able a writer as Mr. Toplady. And he hoped,
that, to lay before the judicious a complete system of truth, which,
like the sun, recommends itself by its own lustre, was perhaps the
best method to prove that error, which shines only as a meteor, is
nothing but a mock-sun. However, he fully designs to perform his
engagement in a short time, if his life is spared.”

Footnote 314:

This was published in 1772, and will be noticed shortly.

This was prefixed to the _first_ edition of the following work, which, at that time, was in the press: “Zelotes and Honestus[315] Reconciled; or, an Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism Continued: Being the First Part of the Scripture Scales to weigh the Gold of Gospel Truth,—to balance a multitude of opposite Scriptures,—to prove the Gospel-Marriage of _Free-Grace_ and _Free-will_,—and to restore primitive harmony to the Gospel of the day. With a Preface, containing some Strictures upon the Three Letters of Richard Hill, Esq.; which have been lately published.”

Footnote 315:

“Zelotes,” says Fletcher, “represents any zealous Solifidian, who
looks upon the doctrine of free-will as heretical: Honestus, any
zealous moralist, who looks upon the doctrine of free grace as
enthusiastical.”

This was Fletcher’s largest work. It was published in two parts, but it was continuously paged, the whole making a 12 mo. vol. of 444 pages.

Mr. Hill’s “Three Letters” were published in 1773, just after the publication of his “Finishing Stroke.” The letters have been given in a previous chapter. Fletcher had answered them privately; and now, in a preface to his present work, he replied publicly. After stating that Mr. Hill’s pamphlet “had been hawked about the parish of Madeley” by the newsman, he proceeds to say:—

“Mr. Hill quits the field; but it is like a brave Parthian. He not
only shoots his own arrows as he retires, but borrows those also of
two persons, whom he calls ‘_a very eminent minister in the Church of
England_’ and ‘_a lay gentleman of great learning and abilities_.’ As
I see neither argument nor Scripture in the performances of those two
new auxiliaries, I shall take no notice of their ingrafted
productions.

“With respect to Mr. Hill’s arguments, they are the same which he
advanced in his ‘_Finishing Stroke_;’ nor need we wonder at his not
scrupling to produce them _over again_, just as if they had been
overlooked by his opponent, for in the first page of his book he says,
‘_I have not read a single page which treats on the subject since I
wrote_ my FINISHING STROKE.’

“As Mr. Hill’s arguments are the same, so are also his personal
charges. After passing some compliments upon me as an ‘_able defender_
of Mr. Wesley’s principles,’ he continues to represent me as
‘_prostituting noble endowments to the advancing of a party_.’ He
affirms, without shadow of proof, that he has ‘_detected many
misrepresentations of facts throughout_’ my ‘_publications_.’ He
accuses me of using ‘_unbecoming artifices, much declamation,
chicanery, and evasion_;’ and says, ‘_upon these accounts I really
cannot, with any degree of satisfaction, read the works of one who, I
am in continual suspicion_, is _endeavouring to mislead me by false
glosses and pious frauds_.’

“I cannot but still love and honour Mr. Hill on _many_, _very_ many,
accounts. Though his warm attachment to what _he_ calls ‘the doctrines
of grace,’ and what _we_ call ‘the doctrines of _limited_ grace and
_free wrath_,’ robs him from time to time of _part_ of the moderation,
patience, and meekness of wisdom which adorn the _complete_ Christian
character, I cannot but consider him as a very valuable person. I do
not doubt but when the paroxysm of his Calvinistic zeal shall be over,
he will be as great an ornament to the Church of England in the
capacity of a gentleman, as he is to civil society in the capacity of
a magistrate. And justice, as well as love, obliges me to say that in
the mean time he is, in several respects, a pattern for all gentlemen
of fortune; few equalling him in devoting a large fortune to the
relief of the poor, and their leisure hours to the support of what
they esteem the truth. Happy would it be for him, and for the peace of
the Church, if to all his good qualities he always added _the ornament
of a meek and quiet spirit_; and if he so far suspected his orthodoxy
as to condescend to weigh himself in the ‘_Scripture Scales_.’”

Fletcher’s preface to his “Scripture Scales” is “humbly addressed to the true Protestants in Great Britain and Ireland.”

“The Reformers,” says he, “_protested_ three things in general:—1.
That right reason has an important place in matters of faith. 2. That
all matters of faith may and must be decided by Scripture, understood
reasonably and consistently with the context. 3. That antiquity and
fathers, traditions and councils, canons and the Church, lose their
authority when they depart from sober reason and plain Scripture.
These three general _protests_ are the very ground of our religion
when it is contradistinguished from Popery. They who stand to them
deserve, in my humble opinion, the title of _true Protestants_.

“If the preceding account is just, _true_ Protestants are all
_candid_; Christian candour being nothing but a readiness to hear
right _reason_ and plain _Scripture_. Of all the tempers which true
Protestants abhor, none seems to them more detestable than that of
those _gnostics_, those pretenders to superior illumination, who,
under the common pretence of _orthodoxy_ or _infallibility_, shut
their eyes against the light, think plain Scripture beneath their
notice, enter their protest against reason, and steel their breasts
against conviction. Alas! how many professors there are who, like St.
Stephen’s opponents, judges, and executioners, are neither able to
resist nor willing to admit the truth; who make their defence by
_stopping their ears, and crying out, ‘The temple of the Lord, the
temple of the Lord are we!’_ who thrust the supposed heretic out of
their sanhedrim; who, from the press, the pulpit, or the doctor’s
chair, send volleys of hard insinuations or soft assertions, in hope
that they will pass for solid arguments; and who, when they have no
more stones or snowballs to throw at the supposed Philistine,
prudently avoid drawing ‘_the sword of the Spirit_,’ retire behind the
walls of their fancied orthodoxy, raise a rampart of slanderous
contempt against the truth that besieges them, and obstinately refuse
either candidly to give up, or manfully contend for, the unscriptural
tenets which they will impose upon others as pure Gospel.

“Whether some of my opponents, good men as they are, have not a little
inclined to the error of those sons of prejudice, I leave the candid
reader to decide. They have neither answered nor yielded to the
arguments of my ‘Checks.’ They are shut up in their own city. Strong
and high are thy walls, O mystical Jericho! Thy battlements reach into
the clouds, but _truth_, the spiritual ark of God, is stronger, and
shall prevail. The bearing of it patiently around thy ramparts, and
the blowing of rams’ horns in the name of the Lord, will yet shake the
very foundations of thy towers. Oh that I had the honour of
successfully mixing my feeble voice with the blasts of the champions
who encompass the devoted city! Oh that the irresistible shout,
_Reason and Scripture—Christ and the Truth_—were universal! If this
were the case, how soon would Jericho and Babylon—Antinomianism and
Pharisaism—fall together.

“These two anti-Christian fortresses are equally attacked in the
following pages.

“The controversy is one of the most important which was ever set on
foot. The GRAND inquiry, ‘_What shall I do to be saved?_’ is entirely
suspended on this GREATER question, ‘_Have I anything_ TO DO _to be
eternally saved?_’ A question this which admits of three answers:—1.
That of the _mere Solifidian_, who says, If we are _elect_, we have
nothing to do in order to eternal salvation, unless it be to believe
that Christ has done all for us, and then to sing _finished
salvation_; and if we are not _elect_, whether we do nothing, little,
or much, eternal ruin is our _inevitable_ portion. 2. That of the
_mere moralist_, who is as great a stranger to the doctrine of _free
grace_ as to that of free wrath; and tells you that there is no free,
initial salvation for us, and that we must work ourselves into a state
of initial salvation by dint of care, diligence, and faithfulness. And
3. That of their _reconciler_, whom I consider as a rational Bible
Christian, and who asserts (1) that Christ has done the part of a
Sacrificing Priest and teaching Prophet upon earth, and does still
that of an Interceding and Royal Priest in heaven, whence He sends His
Holy Spirit to act as an enlightener, sanctifier, comforter, and
helper in our hearts; (2) that _the free gift_ of initial salvation,
and of one or more talents of saving grace, ‘_is come upon all_’
through the God-man Christ, who ‘_is the Saviour of all men,
especially of them that believe_;’ and (3) that our free will,
assisted by that saving grace imparted to us in the free gift, is
enabled to work with God in a subordinate manner, so that we may
freely (_without necessity_) do the part of penitent, obedient, and
persevering believers, according to the Gospel dispensation we are
under.

“This is the plan of this work, in which I equally fight for faith and
works, for gratuitous mercy and impartial justice; reconciling all
along Christ our _Saviour_ with Christ our _Judge_, heated Augustin
with heated Pelagius, free grace with free will, Divine goodness with
human obedience, the faithfulness of God’s promises with the veracity
of His threatenings, _first_ with _second_ causes, the original merits
of Christ with the derived worthiness of His members, and God’s
foreknowledge with our free agency.

“The plan, I think, is generous; standing at the utmost distance from
the extremes of bigots. It is deep and extensive; taking in the most
interesting subjects, such as the origin of evil, liberty, and
necessity, the law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ, general and
particular redemption, the apostacy and perseverance of the saints,
and the election and reprobation maintained by St. Paul. I entirely
rest the cause upon _Protestant_ ground; that is, upon _Reason_ and
_Scripture_. Nevertheless, to show our antagonists that we are not
afraid to meet them upon any ground, I prove, by sufficient
testimonies from the fathers and the Reformers, that the most eminent
divines in the primitive Church and our own, have passed the straits
which I point out; especially when they weighed the heavy anchor of
prejudice, had a good gale of Divine wisdom, and steered by the
Christian mariner’s compass, ‘_the Word of God_,’ more than by the
_false lights_ hung out by party men.”

It is hoped that these quotations from the preface of Fletcher’s book will induce the reader to peruse and study the book itself. To analyse it here is impracticable; and if one extract were given, hundreds ought to follow. In this frothy age, the book to many will seem dry and tedious; but to a man sincerely and earnestly in search of sacred truth it will prove a mine full of invaluable treasures.

At the end of the _first_ edition, the following was printed:—

“Advertisement.

“The key to the controversy, which is designed to be ended by the
‘_Scripture Scales_,’ proving too long for this place, the publication
of it is postponed. It _may_ one day open the way for _An Essay on the
XVIIth Article_, under the following title: ‘The Doctrines of Grace
Reconciled to the Doctrines of Justice. Being an Essay on Election and
Reprobation, in which the defects of _Pelagianism_, _Calvinism_, and
_Arminianism_ are impartially pointed out, and primitive, scriptural
harmony is more fully restored to the Gospel of the day.’”

This was not published until the year 1777; but it is mentioned here to show that, in substance, it was already written, and, thereby, to show the activity of Fletcher’s mind, and the accumulated labours which soon broke down his health.

No sooner was the publication of his “Scripture Scales,” or “Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism,” completed, than he committed to the press the following: “The Fictitious and the Genuine Creed: Being ‘A Creed for Arminians,’ composed by Richard Hill, Esq.; to which is opposed ‘A Creed for those who believe that _Christ tasted death for every man_.’ By the author of the ‘Checks to Antinomianism.’ London, 1775.” 12mo, 52 pp.

The reader will remember that, in bad taste, Fletcher, in 1772, had published, in his “Fourth Check to Antinomianism,” a “sweet gospel proclamation: Given at Geneva, and signed by four of His Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the Predestination Department—John Calvin, Dr. Crisp, The Author of P.O.” (Richard Hill), “and Rowland Hill.” This provoked Richard Hill; and, when he published his “Three Letters written to the Rev. J. Fletcher, in the year 1773,” he, in equally bad taste, attached an “Appendix” to his Letters, entitled, “A Creed for Arminians and Perfectionists.” Now, in 1775, Fletcher felt it his duty to examine the Creed so ingeniously drawn up by Mr. Hill, and to expose its fallacies. The following is an extract from Fletcher’s preface:—

“With regard to our extensive views of Christ’s redemption by price,
Mr. Hill calls us _Arminians_: and with respect to our believing that
there is no perfect faith, no perfect repentance in the grave; that
the _Christian_ graces of repentance, faith, hope, patience, etc.,
must be perfected _here_ or never; and with respect to our
_confidence_ that Christ’s blood, fully applied by His Spirit, and
apprehended by faith, can cleanse our hearts from all unrighteousness
before we go into the purgatory of the _Calvinists_, or into that of
the _papists_, that is, before we go into the valley of the shadow of
death, or into the suburbs of hell—with respect to this _belief_ and
_confidence_, I say, Mr. Hill calls us _Perfectionists_; and,
appearing once more upon the stage of our controversy, he has lately
presented the public with what he calls, ‘_A Creed for Arminians and
Perfectionists_’, which he introduces in these words: ‘_The following
confession of faith, however shocking, not to say blasphemous, it may
appear to the humble Christian, must inevitably be adopted, if not in
express words_, yet, _in substance, by every Arminian_ and
_Perfectionist whatsoever; though the last article of it chiefly
concerns such as are ordained ministers in the Church of England_.’
And, as among such ministers, Mr. J. Wesley, Mr. W. Sellon, and myself
peculiarly oppose Mr. Hill’s Calvinian doctrines of _absolute
election_ and _reprobation_, and of a _death-purgatory_, he has put
the initial letters of our names to his Creed; hoping, no doubt, to
make us peculiarly ashamed of our principles. And, indeed, so should
we be, if any ‘_blasphemous_’ or ‘_shocking_’ consequence
‘_inevitably_’ flowed from them.”

Probably, by this time, the reader is tired of Creeds. He has had Fletcher’s Creed for an Antinomian; Mr. Richard Hill’s Creed for Arminians and Perfectionists; and now he has, in “The Fictitious and the Genuine Creed,” Fletcher’s Creed for Methodists. The last may be dry reading, but it contains truths of the utmost importance,—truths which Fletcher spent the greatest part of his literary life in endeavouring to explain and to defend; and, speaking generally, truths which Wesley himself endorsed, embraced, and taught. Fletcher concludes his pamphlet with the following scrap of autobiography:—

“I shall close this answer to the Creed, which Mr. Hill has composed
_for Arminians_, by an observation which is not foreign to our
controversy. In one of the ‘Three Letters’ which introduce the
Fictitious Creed, Mr. Hill says, ‘_Controversy, I am persuaded, has
not done me any good_;’ and he exhorts me to examine myself closely
whether I cannot make the same confession. I own that it would have
done me harm, if I had blindly contended for my opinions. Nay, if I
had shut my eyes against the light of truth;—if I had set the plainest
Scriptures aside, as if they were not worth my notice;—if I had
overlooked the strongest arguments of my opponents;—if I had advanced
groundless charges against them;—if I had refused to do justice to
their good meaning or piety;—and, above all, if I had taken my leave
of them by injuring their moral character, by publishing over and over
again arguments, which they have properly answered, without taking the
least notice of their answers;—if I had made a solemn promise not to
read one of their books, though they should publish a thousand
volumes;—if, continuing to write against them, I had fixed upon them
(as ‘_unavoidable_’ consequences) absurd tenets, which have no more
necessary connexion with their principles than the doctrine of general
redemption has with Calvinian reprobation. If I had done this, I say,
controversy would have wounded my conscience or my reason; and,
without adding anything to my light, it would have immovably fixed me
in my prejudices, and perhaps branded me before the world for an
_Arminian bigot_. But, as matters are, I hope I may make the following
acknowledgments without betraying the impertinence of proud boasting.

“Although I have often been sorry that controversy should take up so
much of the time which I might, with much more satisfaction to myself,
have employed in devotional exercises; and although I have lamented,
and do still lament, my low attainments in the _meekness of wisdom_,
which should constantly guide the pen of every controversial writer;
yet, I rejoice that I have been enabled to persist in my resolution,
either to wipe off, or to share the reproach of those who have
hazarded their reputation in defence of pure and undefiled religion.
And, if I am not mistaken, my repeated attempts have been attended
with these happy effects:—

“In vindicating the _moral_ doctrines of grace, I hope that, as a
_man_, I have learned to think more closely, and to investigate truth
more ardently, than I did before.

“As a _divine_, I see more clearly the gaps and stiles, at which
mistaken good men have turned out of the narrow way of truth, to the
right hand and to the left.

“As a _Protestant_, I hope I have much more esteem for the Scriptures
in general, and in particular for those practical parts of them, which
the Calvinists had insensibly taught me to overlook, or despise. And
this increasing esteem is, I trust, accompanied with a deeper
conviction of the truth of Christianity, and with a greater readiness
to defend the Gospel against infidels, Pharisees, and Antinomians.

“As a _Preacher_, I hope I can now do more justice to a text by
reconciling it with seemingly contrary Scriptures.

“As an _Anti-Calvinist_, I have learned to do the Calvinists justice,
in granting that there is an _election of distinguishing grace_ for
God’s peculiar people, and a _particular redemption_ for all believers
who are faithful unto death. I can more easily excuse pious
Calvinists, who, through prejudice, mistake _that_ Scriptural election
for _their_ Antinomian election; and who consider _that_ particular
redemption as the only redemption mentioned in the Scriptures. Nay, I
can, without scruple, allow Mr. Hill that his doctrines of _finished
salvation_ and _irresistible_ grace are _true_ with respect to all
those who die in their infancy.

“As one who is called an _Arminian_, I have found out some flaws in
_Arminianism_, and evidenced my impartiality in pointing them out, as
well as the flaws of Calvinism.

“As a _Witness_ for the truth of the Gospel, I hope I have learned to
bear reproach from all sorts of people with more undaunted courage.
And I humbly trust, that, were I called to seal with my blood the
truth of the _doctrines of grace_ and _of justice_, against the
_Pharisees_ and _Antinomians_, I could (Divine grace supporting me to
the last) do it more rationally, and of consequence with greater
steadiness.

“As a _Follower of Christ_, I hope I have learned to disregard my
dearest friends for my Heavenly Prophet; or, to speak the language of
our Lord, I hope I have learned to _forsake father, mother, and
brothers for Christ’s sake, and the Gospel’s_.

“As a _Disputant_, I have learned that solid arguments, and plain
Scriptures, make no more impression upon bigotry, than the charmer’s
voice does upon the deaf adder; and, by that means, I hope, I depend
less upon the powers of reason, the letter of the Scriptures, and the
candour of professors, than I formerly did.

“As a _Believer_, I have been brought to see and feel that the power
of the Spirit of truth, which teaches men to be _of one heart, and of
one mind_, and makes them _think and speak the same_, is at a very low
ebb in the religious world.

“As a _Member of the Church of England_, I have learned to be pleased
with our holy Mother, for giving us floods of pure morality to wash
away the few remaining Calvinian freckles that remain upon her face.

“As a _Christian_, I hope I have learned, in some degree, to exercise
that charity, which teaches us boldly to oppose a dangerous error
without ceasing to honour and love its abettors, so far as they
resemble our Lord.

“And, lastly, as a _Writer_, I have learned to feel the truth of
Solomon’s observation, ‘_Of making many books there is no end, and
much study is a weariness of the flesh: Let us hear the conclusion of
the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the
whole duty of man_;’ and the sum of the _Anti-Solifidian_ truth, which
I endeavour to vindicate.

“I do not say that I have learned any of these lessons as I should
have done; but I hope I have learned so much of them as to say that,
in these respects, my controversial toil has not been altogether in
vain in the Lord.”

The reader must excuse these long extracts; for there seems to be no better way of giving a correct and full idea of Fletcher’s views and character.

At the end of the first edition of his pamphlet, Fletcher inserted the following “Advertisement”:—

“Mr. Hill’s ‘_Creed for Arminians_’ is followed by his plea for the
_inbred man of sin_. This indirect and witty plea he calls, ‘_A Creed
for Perfectionists_.’ But, as that part of his performance has no
immediate connection with the doctrines vindicated in the preceding
pages, I design to make my remarks upon it in a separate Tract.”

This “Tract,” as Fletcher calls it, seems to have been already written, for it was forthwith published, and entitled, “The Last Check to Antinomianism. A Polemical Essay on the Twin Doctrines of Christian Imperfection and a Death Purgatory,” By the Author of the Checks. London: 1775. 12mo., 328 pp.

At this time, the Rev. Thomas Reader, a Dissenting Minister, at Taunton, held a position similar to that which had been held by Doddridge, at Northampton. He was the President of a College for training Independent Ministers, and was a zealous Calvinist. When Fletcher’s new book was published, Mr. Reader read it, and was so angry with its contents that he started off to Madeley, a long journey, to rebuke the author for his heresy. Arriving at his destination, he hastened to the vicarage, knocked loudly at the door, told the servant who he was, and requested an interview with the Vicar. Fletcher, knowing him by name, ran from his study to receive his visitor, and spreading out his hands, exclaimed, “Come in, come in, thou blessed of the Lord! Am I so honoured as to receive a visit from so esteemed a servant of my Master? Let us have a little prayer, while refreshments are getting ready.” Mr. Reader was puzzled. He remained three days, but was utterly unable to muster sufficient courage to even intimate the object of his visit. Afterwards he stated that he never enjoyed three days of such spiritual and profitable intercourse in all his life.[316]

Footnote 316:

“Methodism in North Devon,” p. 115.

Fletcher’s books, prayers, conversations, and tempers were a glorious manifestation of the truths he taught in his elaborate and able treatise on Christian Perfection,—a treatise never equalled, except by the treatise and the sermons of Wesley on the same subject. Wesley and Fletcher are easily understood; modern writers on this all-important doctrine are too often mystics, or, rather, mystifiers. The former expounded Scripture, the latter disastrously obscure Scripture by what they consider to be philosophy. The Methodists need no new exposition of this old Methodist truth. Never can it be more plainly stated and more indisputably proved, than it is in the “Plain Account” of Wesley, and the “Polemical Essay” of his friend Fletcher. Well would it be if the present race of Methodists would read these, in preference to the bewildering trash so injuriously read in the stead of them. Truth never changes! and changes of society can never justify the _new_ settings forth of truth, nowadays so ignorantly demanded.

A brief analysis of Fletcher’s invaluable book, and a few extracts from it, must be given.

In reference to the word “Perfection,” which occasioned so much offence, Fletcher writes:—

“_Christian Perfection!_ Why should the harmless phrase offend us?
_Perfection!_ Why should that lovely word frighten us? The word
_predestinate_ occurs but four times in all the Scriptures; and the
word _predestination_ not once; and yet Mr. Hill would justly exclaim
against us, if we showed our wit, by calling out for ‘_a little
Foundery_’ (or Tabernacle) ‘eye-salve’ to help us to see the word
_predestination once_ in _all_ the Bible. Not so the word
_perfection_. It occurs, with its derivatives, as frequently as most
words in the Scripture; and not seldom in the very same sense in which
we take it; nevertheless, we do not lay an undue stress upon the
expression; and, if we thought that our condescension would answer any
good end, we would give up that harmless and significant word.”

In reply to the unfair and untrue taunt that Wesley and Fletcher taught the doctrine of _sinless_ perfection, Fletcher makes an admirable quotation from Wesley:—

“To explain myself a little farther on this head: 1. Not only SIN,
_properly so called_, that is, a _voluntary_ transgression of a known
law, but _sin_ IMPROPERLY so called, that is, an _involuntary_
transgression of a divine law, known or unknown, needs the atoning
blood. 2. I believe there is no such perfection in this life, as
excludes these _involuntary_ transgressions, which I apprehend to be
naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from
mortality. 3. Therefore, SINLESS _perfection_ is a phrase I never use,
lest I should seem to contradict myself. 4. I believe a person filled
with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary
transgressions. 5. Such transgressions you may call _sins_ if you
please; I do not, for the reasons above-mentioned.”

Fletcher then proceeds to prove that “Pious Calvinists have had, _at times_, nearly the same views of Christian Perfection” that he and Wesley had.

“They dissent from us,” says he, “because they confound the
anti-evangelical law of innocence and the evangelical law of
liberty—peccability and sin—Adamic and Christian Perfection; and
because they do not consider that Christian Perfection, falling
infinitely short of God’s _absolute_ perfection, admits of a daily
_growth_.”

The third section of Fletcher’s work is occupied with answers to popular objections; and the fourth amply proves that the doctrine for which he is contending is a doctrine taught in the formularies of the Church of England.

Mr. Hill, in the Eleventh Article of his “Fictitious Creed,” had made Fletcher, Wesley, and Walter Sellon, not only deny “The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,” which they had “solemnly subscribed,” but also the _truthful_ teaching of four Apostolical writers in the New Testament. With excessively bad taste, he had represented them as saying, “Let Peter, Paul, James, and John say what they will, and let the Reformers and Martyrs join their syren-song, their eyes were at best but half opened, for want of a little Foundery eye-salve.” Accordingly, the fifth and five following sections of Fletcher’s book are devoted to a refutation of this scandalous and almost profane slander. A large number of texts, from the Epistles of these four inspired writers, are most ably examined and explained,—texts incontestably proving that the doctrine of Christian Perfection was a doctrine taught by “Peter, Paul, James, and John.”

In the eleventh section of his book, Fletcher triumphantly answers the objections, founded upon certain texts in the writings of Solomon, Isaiah, and Job; and in the twelfth he adduces “a variety of arguments to prove the _absurdity_ of the twin doctrines of _Christian Imperfection_ and a _Death-Purgatory_.” In this, he furnishes a definition of Christian Perfection worthy of being quoted, namely:—

“_Christian Perfection_ is nothing but the _depth_ of evangelical
repentance, the _full_ assurance of faith, and the _pure_ love of God
and man shed abroad in a _faithful_ believer’s heart, by the Holy
Ghost given unto him, to cleanse him, and to keep him clean, _from all
filthiness of the flesh and Spirit_; and to enable him to _fulfil the
law of Christ_ according to the talents he is entrusted with, and the
circumstances in which he is placed in _this_ world.”

In the next section (the thirteenth) Fletcher dwells upon “the _mischievousness_ of the doctrines of _Christian Imperfection, and a Death Purgatory_.” He concludes his scathing arguments on this subject as follows:—

“The modish doctrine of Christian imperfection and death-purgatory is
so contrived that carnal men will always prefer the purgatory of the
Calvinists to that of the Papists. For the Papists prescribe I know
not how many cups of divine wrath and dire vengeance, which are to be
drunk by the souls of believers who die _half_-purged, or _three
parts_ cleansed. These _half-damned_, or a _quarter-damned_ creatures
must go through a severe discipline, and fiery salvation in the very
suburbs of hell, before they can be perfectly purified. But our
opponents have found out a way to deliver _half-hearted_ believers out
of all fear in this respect. Such believers need not _utterly abolish
the body of sin_ in this world. The inbred man of sin not only _may_,
but he _shall_ live as long as we do. You will possibly ask: ‘What is
to become of this sinful guest? Shall he take us to hell, or shall we
take him to heaven? If he cannot die in this world, will Christ
destroy him in the next?’ No: here Christ is almost left out of the
question. Our indwelling adversary is not to be destroyed by the
brightness of the Redeemer’s spiritual appearing, but by the gloom of
the appearance of death. The king of terrors comes to the assistance
of Jesus’s sanctifying grace, and instantaneously delivers the carnal
believer from indwelling pride, unbelief, covetousness, peevishness,
uncharitableness, love of the world, and inordinate affection. The
dying sinner’s breath does the capital work of the Spirit of holiness.
By the most astonishing of all miracles, the faint, infectious, last
gasp of a sinful believer blows away, in the twinkling of an eye, the
great mountain of inward corruption, which all the means of grace, all
the faith, prayers, and sacraments of twenty, perhaps of forty years,
were never able to remove. If this doctrine is true, how greatly was
St. Paul mistaken when he said, ‘_The sting of death is sin_.’ Should
he not have said, _Death is the cure of sin_, instead of saying, ‘_Sin
is the sting_ of death’? And should not his praises flow
thus,—‘_Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through death_; our
great and only deliverer from our greatest and fiercest enemy,
_indwelling sin_’?”

The fourteenth section of Fletcher’s book is employed in answering the false and pernicious statements contained in Toplady’s “Caveat against Unsound Doctrine,” and Martin Madan’s “Essay on Galatians v. 17.” In the two following sections, Fletcher proves that his doctrine of Christian perfection “cannot be justly reproached as Popish, and Pelagian; and shows the distinction which exists” between _sins_ and _innocent infirmities_. Then he concludes his invaluable book with four Addresses: 1. “To perfect Christian Pharisees; 2. To prejudiced Imperfectionists; 3. To imperfect Perfectionists; and 4. To perfect Christians.” These addresses will always rank among the most powerful productions of Fletcher’s pen; but, for want of space, only one extract from them can be given here; and even that is, to a large extent, an extract from Wesley’s Sermon on “The Scripture Way of Salvation.” It is, however, of the highest importance, as containing an answer to the question, How are we to be “sanctified, saved from sin, and perfected in love?” Fletcher writes:—

“I have already pointed out the close connexion there is between an
act of _faith_ which _fully_ apprehends the sanctifying promise of the
Father, and the power of the Spirit of Christ which makes an end of
moral corruption by forcing the lingering man of sin _instantaneously_
to breathe out his last. Mr. Wesley, in the above quoted sermon,
touches upon this delicate subject in so clear and concise a manner,
that, while his discourse is before me, for the sake of those who have
it not in hand, I shall transcribe the whole passage, and, by this
means, put the seal of that eminent divine to what I have advanced, in
the preceding pages, about sanctifying faith, and the quick
destruction of sin.

“‘Does God work this great work in the soul _gradually_ or
_instantaneously_? Perhaps it may be gradually wrought in some, I mean
in this sense: They do not advert to the particular moment, wherein
sin ceases to be. But it is infinitely desirable, were it the will of
God, that it should be done instantaneously; that the Lord should
destroy sin by the _breath of His mouth_, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye. And so He generally does,—a plain fact, of which
there is evidence enough to satisfy any unprejudiced person. _Thou_
therefore look for it every moment. Look for it in the way above
described;[317] in all those _good works_, whereunto thou art created
anew in Christ Jesus. There is then no danger; you can be no worse, if
you are no better for that expectation. For were you to be
disappointed of your hope, still you lose nothing. But you shall not
be disappointed of your hope; it will come, and will not tarry. Look
for it then every day, every hour, every moment. Why not this hour,
this moment? Certainly you may look for it _now_, if you believe it is
by faith. And by this token you may surely know whether you seek it by
faith or works. If by works, you want something to be done _first_,
_before_ you are sanctified. You think, ‘I must first _be_ or do thus
or thus.’ Then you are seeking it by works unto this day. If you seek
it by faith, you may expect it _as you are_; and, if as you are, then
expect it _now_. It is of importance to observe that there is an
inseparable connexion between these three points, expect it by
_faith_, expect it _as you are_, and expect it _now_. To deny one of
them is to deny them all; to allow one is to allow them all. Do _you_
believe we are sanctified _by faith_? Be true then to your principle;
and look for this blessing just as you are, neither better, nor worse;
as a poor sinner, that has still nothing to pay, nothing to plead,
but—_Christ died_. And if you look for it _as you are_, then expect it
_now_. Stay for nothing, why should you? Christ is ready, and He is
all you want. He is waiting for you; He is at the door! Let your
inmost soul cry out,—

“‘Come in, come in, Thou heavenly guest!
Nor hence again remove:
But sup with me, and let the feast
Be everlasting love.’” (p. 288).

Footnote 317:

After most ably arguing the matter, Wesley, in the sermon here
referred to, concludes “that faith is the only condition which is
_immediately_ and _proximately_ necessary to sanctification;” and that
the “faith whereby we are sanctified—saved from sin, and perfected in
love, is a divine evidence and conviction, first, that God hath
promised it in the Holy Scripture; secondly, that what God hath
promised, He is able to perform; thirdly, that He is able and willing
to do it now; and, fourthly, a divine evidence and conviction that He
doeth it. In that hour,” continues Wesley, “it is done; God says to
the inmost soul, ‘According to thy faith, be it unto thee!’ Then the
soul is pure from every spot of sin; it is clean ‘from all
unrighteousness.’ The believer then experiences the deep meaning of
those solemn words, ‘If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we
have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His
Son cleanseth us from all sin.’”

Well would it be, for the Church and the world, if these views of Wesley and his friend Fletcher were held by all the Methodists of the present age, or even by a thousandth part of them. How often are they preached in Methodist pulpits? Not so often as they ought to be! “Where Christian perfection is not strongly and explicitly preached,” said Wesley, “there is seldom any remarkable blessing from God; and, consequently, little addition to the Society, and little life in the members of it.”[318]

Footnote 318:

Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 252.

The year 1775 was to Fletcher one of the busiest in his life. He was steeped in controversy; but he rose in piety. In a letter to his friend Joseph Benson, he wrote:—

“I have had two printers at my heels, besides my common business, and
this is enough to make me trespass upon the patience of my friends. I
have published the first part of my ‘_Scales_,’ which has gone through
a second edition in London, before I could get the second part printed
in Salop, where it will be published in about six weeks. I have also
published a creed for the Arminians, where you will see that, if I
have not answered your critical remarks upon my Essay on Truth, I have
improved by them, yea publicly recanted the two expressions you
mentioned as improper.

“I am so tied up here, both by my parish duty and controversial
writings, that I cannot hope to see you unless you come into these
parts.[319] In the meantime, let us meet at the throne of grace. In
Jesus, time and distance are lost. He is an universal, eternal life of
righteousness, peace, and joy. I am glad you have some encouragement
in Scotland. The Lord grant you more and more! Use yourself, however,
to go against wind and tide, as I do; and take care that our wise
dogmatical friends in the north do not rob you of your childlike
simplicity. Remember that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are
revealed to babes. You may be afraid of being a fool, without being
afraid of being a babe. You may be childlike without being childish.
Simplicity of intention and purity of affection will go through the
world, through hell itself. In the meantime, let us see that we do not
so look at our little publications, or to other people, as to forget
that Christ is our Object, our Sun, our Shield. To His inspiration,
comfort, and protection, I earnestly recommend your soul; and the
labours of your _heart_, tongue, and pen to His blessing.”[320]

Footnote 319:

Joseph Benson was appointed to the Edinburgh Circuit at the Conference
of 1774; and to the Newcastle Circuit at the Conference of 1775.

Footnote 320:

Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”

At this period, Wesley was dangerously ill in Ireland. Charles Wesley had no hope of his brother’s recovery. The Methodists throughout the kingdom were in consternation. In a letter to Joseph Bradford, Wesley’s faithful companion, Charles Wesley wrote:—

“Bristol, June 29, 1775. Your letter has cut off all hope of my
brother’s recovery. The people here, and in London, and every place,
are swallowed up in sorrow. But sorrow and death will soon be
swallowed up in life everlasting. You will be careful of my brother’s
papers, etc., till you see his executors. God shall reward your
fidelity and love. I seem scarce separated from him whom I shall so
very soon overtake. We were united in our lives, and in our death not
divided.”[321]

Footnote 321:

Tyerman’s “Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. iii. p. 204.

In his deep distress, Charles Wesley wrote to Fletcher, who replied as follows:—

“MADELEY, _July 2, 1775_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,—The same post which brought me yours, brought
me a letter from Ireland, informing me of the danger of your dear
brother, my dear father, and of his being very happy in, and resigned
to, the will of God. What can you and I do? What, but stand still, and
see the salvation of God? The nations are before Him but as the dust
that cleaves to a balance; and the greatest instruments have been
removed. Abraham is dead; the fathers are dead; and if John come first
to the sepulchre, you and I will soon descend into it. The brightest,
the most burning and shining lights, like the Baptist, Mr. Whitefield,
and your brother, were kindled to make the people rejoice in them,
‘for a season,’ says our Lord. ‘For a season.’ The expression is worth
our notice. It is just as if our Lord had said, ‘I give you inferior
lights, that ye may rejoice in them for a season. But I reserve to
myself the glory of shining for ever. The most burning lights shall
fail on earth; but I, your Sun, will shine to all eternity.’

“Come, my dear brother, let the danger of our lights make us look to
our Sun more steadily; and should God quench the light of our
Jerusalem below, let us rejoice that it is to make it burn brighter in
the Jerusalem which is above; and let us triumph in the
inextinguishable light of our Sun, in the impenetrable strength of our
Shield, and in the immovableness of our Rock.

“Amidst my concern for the Church in general, and for Mr. Wesley’s
Societies in particular, I cannot but acknowledge the goodness of God
in so wonderfully keeping him for so many years, and in preserving him
to undergo such labours as would have killed you and me ten times
over. The Lord may yet hear prayer and add a span to his useful life.
But forasmuch as the immortality of the body does not belong to this
state, and he has fulfilled the ordinary term of human life, in hoping
the best, we must prepare ourselves for the worst. The God of all
grace and power will strengthen you on the occasion.

“Should your brother fail on earth, you are called not only to bear up
under the loss of so near a relative, but, for the sake of your common
children in the Lord, you should endeavour to fill up the gap
according to your strength. The Methodists will not expect from you
your brother’s labours; but they have, I think, a right to expect that
you will preside over them while God spares you in the land of the
living. A committee of the oldest and steadiest preachers may help you
to bear the burden and to keep up a proper discipline both among the
people and the rest of the preachers; and if at any time you should
want my mite of assistance, I hope I shall throw it into the treasury
with the simplicity and readiness of the poor widow, who cheerfully
offered her next to nothing. Do not faint. The Lord God of Israel will
give you additional strength for the day; and His angels, yea, His
praying people, will bear you up in their hands, that you hurt not
your foot against a stone; yea, that if need be, you may leap over a
wall.

“I am by this time grey-headed as well as you, and some of my
parishioners tell me that the inroads of time are uncommonly visible
upon my face. Indeed, I feel as well as see it myself, and learn what
only time, trials, and experience can teach. Should your brother be
called to his reward, I would not be free to go to London till you and
the preachers had settled all matters. My going just at such a time”
[as this] “would carry the appearance of vanity, which I abhor. It
would seem as if I wanted to be somebody among the Methodists.

“We here heartily join the prayers of the brethren for your brother,
for you, and the Societies. Paper fails, not love. Be careful for
nothing. Cast your burden upon the Lord, and He will sustain you.
Farewell in Christ.”[322]

Footnote 322:

Jackson’s “Life of C. Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 302.

Two and a half years before this dangerous illness, Wesley had requested Fletcher to be his successor in presiding over the Methodists. Perhaps Charles Wesley was aware of this. At all events, he appears to have wished Fletcher to come to London in the great crisis which had now occurred. Fletcher modestly declined; and, fortunately for both, no successor of Wesley was needed until several years after both were dead.

Fletcher’s “Checks to Antinomianism” were ended. For four years, he had taxed his energies to the utmost; but the work he undertook in 1771 was now nearly concluded. The doctrines of Wesley’s “Minutes” had been carefully explained, minutely defended, and lovingly enforced.

“In his ‘Checks to Antinomianism,’” wrote Wesley, “one knows not which
to admire most—the _purity_ of the language, the _strength_ and
_clearness_ of the argument, or the _mildness_ and _sweetness_ of the
spirit that breathes throughout the whole. Insomuch that I nothing
wonder at a serious clergyman, who being resolved to live and die in
his own opinion, when he was pressed to read them replied, ‘No, I will
never read Mr. Fletcher’s “Checks,” for if I did, I should be of his
mind.’”[323]

Footnote 323:

Wesley’s “Life of Fletcher.”

Of course, contrary opinions have been expressed. The author of “The Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon” tells his readers that,—

“Fletcher dazzled with eloquence instead of reasoning, and substituted
tropes for arguments. He was too loquacious for a deep reasoner, and
too impassioned to investigate duly the most profound and awful themes
which can occupy the human understanding.”

Isaac Taylor, also, in his “Wesley and Methodism,” takes the same position. He acknowledges that,—

“In a genuine sense, Fletcher was a saint; a saint such as the Church
of every age has produced a few samples. Sanctity and purity of
manners were his distinctive characteristics. He was as unearthly a
being as could tread the earth at all; and his Methodism was
Christianity as little lowered by admixture of human infirmity as we
may hope to find it anywhere on earth.” But while “as a theologian he
possessed acquaintance enough with doctrinal literature and with the
Scriptures to give him always a point or two of advantage in relation
to his antagonists, he was no such reasoner, he was no such master of
Biblical criticism, as might have made it possible for him to overstep
the limits of his appointed task, or, as a theological writer, to
survive his day.”[324]

Footnote 324:

Robert Southey wrote, “Mr. Fletcher’s manner is diffuse, and the
florid parts and the unction betray their French origin; but the
reasoning is acute and clear, the spirit of his writings is beautiful,
and he was a master of the subject in all its bearings.”

The first of these critics was too much of a Calvinist to do justice to Fletcher, an Arminian; and it is not rash to say respecting the second, that it is extremely doubtful whether he had carefully perused the writings he condemns. At all events, his assertion that “as a theological writer” Fletcher did not “survive his day,” is utterly untrue. Fletcher’s “Checks” are as much read today as they were a hundred years ago. The demand for them increases almost every year, both in England and in America; and they are found in every land where Methodism has been founded. At the time when they were first published, they occasioned exasperation among the Calvinian Methodists, but that was not the fault of their distinguished author. What was called “bitterness” in Fletcher was not bitterness of temper, but “of unwelcome doctrine, set forth with all the advantages of language, confidence, and argument.” Soon after they were completed, a Dissenting minister at Bristol called upon Fletcher, when, to all human appearance, he was dying, and rudely said, “You had better have been confined to your bed by palsy than have written so many bitter things against the dear children of God.” “My brother,” replied the invalid, “I hope I have not been bitter. Certainly I did not mean to be so; but I wanted more love then, and I feel I want more now.”[325] Fletcher’s soft answer silenced his sour assailant, and sent him away, it is to be hoped, a wiser and better man.

Footnote 325:

_Wesleyan Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 107.

It is a pleasant fact to put on record that Fletcher and his opponents in the Calvinian controversy lived long enough to be affectionately reconciled to each other. Shirley, the first in the field, had, at least, one brotherly interview with Fletcher, in Ireland.[326] In the Methodist Museum at the Centenary Hall, London, there is an unpublished letter, which Mr. Richard Hill wrote to Fletcher in 1784, full of Christian affection. Rowland Hill, with admirable candour, said of his own writings, “A softer style and spirit would better have become me;” and he also suppressed the sale of one of his severest publications.[327] Then as it respects dear old Berridge at Everton, it will be seen, in a succeeding chapter, that he and Fletcher were more than reconciled to each other. Their meeting at Everton, in the month of December, 1776, is one of the most charming incidents recorded in Methodistic annals.

Footnote 326:

Stevens’s “History of Methodism.”

Footnote 327:

Sidney’s “Life of Rev. Rowland Hill.”

Another name must be introduced. Dr. Thomas Coke was now twenty-eight years of age. He had taken his degrees at Oxford, had received episcopal ordination, and was now curate at South Petherton. As yet, he had not been introduced to Wesley; but he had read his sermons and journals, and also the “Checks” of Fletcher,—all kindly lent to him by the Rev. Mr. Brown, a clergyman residing in the neighbourhood of Taunton. A year elapsed before Wesley met him, but in the meantime, the young curate wrote the following letter[328] to Fletcher:—

“SOUTH PETHERTON, NEAR CREWKERNE, SOMERSET,
“_August 28, 1775_.

“REV. SIR,—I take the liberty, though unknown to you, but not
unacquainted with your admirable publications, of writing you a letter
of sincerest thanks for the spiritual instruction, as well as
entertainment, they have afforded me; and for the spirit of candour
and Christian charity which breathes throughout your writings. The
charming character which my best of earthly friends (the Rev. Mr.
Brown, of Kingston, near Taunton), has given me of you, emboldens me
to hope that, though my situation in life be only that of a poor
curate of a parish, you will excuse this liberty I have taken of
addressing you in the fulness of my heart.

“You are indubitably, Sir, a sincere friend of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. I also am an humble admirer of the blessed Jesus, and it is on
that foundation only I would wish, and it is on that only I am sure I
can recommend myself to you.

“Your excellent ‘Checks to Antinomianism’ have riveted me in an
abhorrence and detestation of the peculiar tenets of Calvin, and the
monstrous errors into which those great and good men, Bishops Hopkins
and Beveridge, have run, have frequently filled me with wonder.

“Your ‘Essay on Truth’ has been more particularly blessed to me. Your
‘Scripture Scales’ I am just going to read with great attention. Many
thanks to you for your treatise on the ‘Fallen State of Man.’ It has
been of service to me, and of much more, I have reason to think, to
many of my congregation.

“O, Sir, I have frequently prayed to my God that He will make you a
great pillar of His Church. In return, I do humbly beg that you will
pray for me. I am sure you will grant me the favour when I inform you
that (as nearly as I can guess) a thousand or more immortal souls come
to me on every Lord’s Day, in the afternoon, to receive their portion
of the manna of the Word, the bread of everlasting life.

“I will so far transgress against the public and your dear flock as to
request an answer. I am almost afraid to hope for more. May the God
who loves you, and whom you love, make you a great instrument of His
glory in this life, and grant you the height of your ambition in the
next.

“I am, Rev. Sir, with great respect, your much obliged and very humble
servant,

“THOMAS COKE.”

Footnote 328:

The letter is copied, verbatim, from the _original_, in the Wesleyan
Mission House collection, Bishopsgate Street, London.

Little, at this time, did the obscure Dr. Coke imagine that, eight years afterwards, Fletcher would be one of the first twenty-six subscribers to the Methodist “Society for the Establishment of Missions among the Heathen,” which Coke and a few of his friends then instituted.

One more fact respecting the “Checks to Antinomianism” must be added. The Rev. Thomas Jackson, a good authority, remarks:—

“Mr. Charles Wesley took a lively interest in the rise and progress of
this” [the Calvinian] “controversy, though his name has rarely been
connected with it. He corresponded with his friend, the Vicar of
Madeley, and encouraged him in his arduous undertaking. Mr. Fletcher
transmitted his manuscripts to him for revision, begging of him to
expunge every expression that was calculated to give unnecessary pain,
and to pay especial attention to the grammar and theology of the
whole. He also confided to Mr. Charles Wesley the task of conducting
them through the press, the correction of which was inconvenient to
himself, because of his distance from London. The fact is, that nearly
everything that Mr. Fletcher published, not even excepting his
political tracts and his treatise on original sin, passed under the
eye and hand of Mr. Charles Wesley before it was given to the world.
Not that the compositions of his friend needed much emendation, but
his criticisms gave Mr. Fletcher confidence, and were highly valued.
In 1775, Mr. Fletcher said to him, ‘Nobody helps me but you; and you
know how little you do it. Deprive me not of that little. Your every
hint is a blessing to me.’”[329]

Footnote 329:

Jackson’s “Life of C. Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 294.

A letter to Charles Wesley will fitly close the present chapter.

“MADELEY, _December 4, 1775_.

“MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,—I see the end of my controversial race, and I
have such courage to finish it, that I think it my _bounden_ duty to
run and strike my blow, and fire my gun, before the water of
discouragement has quite wetted the powder of my activity. This makes
me seem to neglect my dearest correspondents.

“Old age comes faster upon me than upon you. I am already so
grey-headed, that I wrote to my brother to know if I am not fifty-six
instead of forty-six. The wheel of time moves so rapidly, that I seem
to be in a new element; and yet, praised be God! my strength is
preserved far better than I could expect. I came home last night at
eleven o’clock tolerably well, after reading prayers and preaching
twice and giving the sacrament in my own church, and preaching again
and meeting a few people in Society at the next market-town.

“The Lord is wonderfully gracious to me, and, what is more to me than
many favours, He helps me to see His mercies in a clearer light. In
years past, I did not dare to be thankful for mercies, which now make
me _shout for joy_. I had been taught to call them _common mercies_,
and I made as little of them as apostates do of the blood of Christ,
when they call it a _common thing_. But now the veil begins to rend,
and I invite you and all the world to praise God for His patience,
truth, and lovingkindness, which have followed me all my days. O how I
hate the delusion, which has robbed me of so many comforts!

“Farewell! I am, etc.,
“J. FLETCHER.”[330]

Footnote 330:

Letters, 1791, p. 226.