VII. TREVECCA COLLEGE: VISIT TO SWITZERLAND, ETC.
FROM JANUARY 3, 1768, TO JULY 1770.
IN Fletcher’s letter to Lady Huntingdon, dated November 24, 1767, it is intimated that the Countess had suggested to Fletcher that a certain “Mr. Eastwood” could serve him as his village schoolmaster, and was anxious to do so, in order to have the benefit of Fletcher’s ministry. There can be no doubt that the name “Eastwood” is a mistake, and that “Easterbrook” was meant.
Joseph Easterbrook was a son of the bell-man of Bristol, and had been educated at Wesley’s Kingswood School.[149] He was now about seventeen years of age, and came to reside at Madeley.[150] Afterwards he obtained episcopal ordination, and became Vicar of the Temple Church, Bristol, and Ordinary of Newgate Prison in that city. He continued faithful to Wesley and to Methodism; and, it is said, he preached a sermon in every house in his large parish. He died in 1791, in the fortieth year of his age. This is not the place to give further details of his history; but it is hoped that those now related will add to the interest of what Fletcher writes concerning him in the following letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, in reply to one she had addressed to him respecting suitable books for the students of her intended college:—
“MADELEY, January 3, 1768.
“MY LADY,—I thank your ladyship for having recommended to me Easterbrook. I hope he will be the captain of the school, and a great help to the master, as well as a spur to the students. He has good parts, a most happy memory, and a zeal that would gladden your ladyship’s heart. He has preached no less than four times to-day; and seems, indeed, in his own element when he is seeking after the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He is employed every evening in the work of the Lord; and I give him the more opportunity to exercise his talent, as it appears he does it far better than I. I beg two things for him: first, that it may hold; secondly, that he may be kept humble. He would at first live upon potatoes and water; but, finding it may impair his health, I have got him to table with me, and shall gladly pay his board. He works for me, and the workman is worthy of his hire.
“Our young collier” (Glazebrook) “seems a little discouraged with regard to the hope of his being admitted one of your students. He thinks he stands no chance, if all must be qualified as he” (Easterbrook) “is.
“With regard to books, I am in doubt what to write your ladyship. Having studied abroad, and used rather foreign than English books with my pupils” (Mr. Hill’s sons), “I am not well enough acquainted with the books Great Britain affords to select the best and most concise. Besides, a plan of studies must be fixed upon first, before proper books can be chosen. Grammar, logic, rhetoric, ecclesiastical history, and a little natural philosophy and geography, with a great deal of practical divinity, will be sufficient for those who do not care to dive into languages. Mr. Townsend and Charles Wesley might, by spending an hour or two together, make a proper choice; and I would recommend them not to forget Watt’s ‘Logic,’ and his ‘History of the Bible, by Questions and Answers,’ which seem to me excellent books of the kind for clearness and order. Mr. Wesley’s ‘Natural Philosophy’ contains as much as is wanted, or more. Mason’s ‘Essay on Pronunciation’ will be worth their attention. ‘Henry and Gill on the Bible,’ with the four volumes of Baxter’s ‘Practical Works,’ Keach’s ‘Metaphors,’ ‘Taylor on the Types,’ Gurnal’s ‘Christian Armour,’ ‘Edwards on Preaching,’ Johnson’s English Dictionary, and Mr. Wesley’s ‘Christian Library,’ may make part of the little library. The book of Baxter, I mention, I shall take care to send to Trevecca, as a mite towards the collection, together with Usher’s ‘Body of Divinity,’ Scapula’s Greek Lexicon, and Littleton’s Latin Dictionary.
“With regard to those who propose to learn Latin and Greek, the master your ladyship will appoint may choose to follow his particular method. Mr. Wesley’s books, printed for the use of Christian youths, seem to me short and proper, and their expense less, which, I suppose, should be consulted. Two or three dictionaries of Bailey or Dyke for those who learn English, with two or three Coles’s Dictionaries, Shrevelins’s, and Pasor’s, for those who will learn Latin and Greek, may be a sufficient stock at first.
“Mr. Edward Stillingfleet[151] is presented, by Mr. Hill, to the living of Shawbury, eight miles from Shrewsbury, and twenty from here. I thank the Lord for this fellow-helper.
“I am, your ladyship’s unworthy servant, “J. FLETCHER.”[152]
Footnote 149:
“Unpublished Letter by John Pawson.”
Footnote 150:
Misled by the author of the “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” I have stated in my “Life and Times of Wesley,” that, at the opening of Trevecca College, Easterbrook was appointed to the office of master. This is a mistake. The master, as will be seen in succeeding pages, was a wonderful child, twelve years old! Perhaps, however, Easterbrook rendered some assistance.—L. T.
Footnote 151:
A great-grandson of the celebrated bishop of that name. He proved himself to be a faithful friend to Venn, and the other evangelical clergymen of the age.
Footnote 152:
Methodist Magazine, 1821, p. 437.
The reader may learn two facts from Fletcher’s letter. First, what were the books in divinity he most loved and prized. It is to be feared that such books are no longer popular. In the case of many theological students, they have given place to the flimsy and even sceptical productions of a later period. The more the pity. No wonder that so many pulpits are spiritless, and that so many pews are starved.
Secondly: It is also evident that Fletcher had already formed a sort of circuit of preaching places, otherwise a youth like Easterbrook could hardly have found the opportunity to preach every evening in the week, and four times on Sunday. It is now impossible to ascertain what the places were; but Wesley’s testimony may here be appropriately introduced.
“From the beginning, Mr. Fletcher did not confine his labours to his own parish. For many years, he regularly preached at places, eight, ten, or sixteen miles off, returning the same night, though he seldom got home before one or two in the morning. At a little Society which he had gathered about six miles from Madeley, he preached two or three times a week, beginning at five in the morning.”[153]
Footnote 153:
Wesley’s “Life of Fletcher.”
Of course, all this was ecclesiastically irregular, and a repetition of it would not be permitted now; but, fortunately for the people who “sat in darkness,” it was, except in a few instances, only a peccadillo a hundred years ago, at which bishops, priests, and deacons found it a convenience to themselves to wink.
It was at this time that Wesley wrote to Fletcher his unusually long and well-known letter on conversation. The following are brief extracts from it:—
“BIRMINGHAM, March 20, 1768.
“DEAR SIR,—Mr. Easterbrook told me yesterday that you are sick of the conversation even of them who profess religion,—that you find it quite unprofitable, if not hurtful, to converse with them three or four hours together, and are sometimes almost determined to shut yourself up, as the less evil of the two.
“I do not wonder at it at all, especially considering with whom you have chiefly conversed for some time past, namely, the hearers of Mr. Madan, or Mr. Bourian, perhaps I might add, of Mr. Whitefield. The conversing with these I have rarely found to be profitable to my soul. Rather it has damped my designs; it has cooled my resolutions; and I have consciously left them with a dry, dissipated spirit.
“Again; you have, for some time, conversed a good deal with the genteel Methodists. Now it matters not a straw what doctrine they hear,—whether they frequent the Lock or West Street,—they are, almost all, salt which has lost its savour, if ever they had any. They are thoroughly conformed to the maxims, the spirit, the fashions, and customs of the world.
“But were these or those of ever so excellent a spirit, you conversed with them too long. One had need to be an angel, not a man, to converse three or four hours at once, to any purpose.
“But have you not a remedy for all this in your hands? In order to truly profitable conversation, may you not select persons clear of both Calvinism and Antinomianism? not fond of that luscious way of talking, but standing in awe of Him they love; who are vigorously working out their salvation, and are athirst for full redemption, and every moment expecting it, if not already enjoying it?”[154]
Footnote 154:
Tyerman’s “Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. iii., p. 4.
Apart from the subject of this letter, it is of importance, as showing that the maelstrom of the Calvinian controversy was already stirring, and that Wesley was afraid of Fletcher being drawn into it. This would be much more apparent could the letter be quoted here in extenso. Suffice it to add, that Fletcher was preserved from the spreading evils, and that it is difficult to tell how much he was indebted to Wesley’s long warning letter for his escape from danger.
So far as Fletcher was concerned, the great event of the year 1768 was the opening of Lady Huntingdon’s College at Trevecca. Wesley seemed to disapprove of her ladyship’s design. In a letter to his brother Charles, he wrote:—
“Edinburgh, May 14, 1768.—I am glad Mr. Fletcher has been with you. But, if the tutor fails, what will become of our College at Trevecca? Did you ever see anything more queer than their plan of institution? Pray, who penned it, man or woman? I am afraid the Visitor” (Fletcher) “too will fail.”[155]
Footnote 155:
Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 126.
Meanwhile, however, an occurrence had taken place, which appeared to make the opening of Trevecca College increasingly desirable and important. On the 12th of March, six students belonging to Edmund Hall, Oxford, were expelled the University, really and truly on the ground that they were charged with being Methodists. The event, as may easily be imagined, created a national sensation. Numbers of tracts and pamphlets, pro et con, were published; and, among others, one by Whitefield, entitled, “A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Durell, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford; occasioned by a late Expulsion of Six Students from Edmund Hall.” Whitefield’s letter was dated April 12, 1768, exactly a month after the expulsions took place. Fletcher read it with approbation, and wrote to Whitefield, thanking him for the service he had rendered to the cause of truth; and also referring to a recent visit to Bristol, to the Rev. Cradock Glascott, who had supplied for him at Madeley; and to the prospect there was of obtaining a suitable master, from Suffolk, for the College at Trevecca. Fletcher’s letter was as follows:—
“MADELEY, May 28, 1768.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—I thank you, though late, for the kind leave you gave me of trying to pipe where you trumpet the name of our dear Redeemer, in Bristol. I ask you, and my hearers there, and, above all, our gracious Lord, to pardon me for the wretched manner in which I performed, or rather spoiled, the glorious work.
“I thank you, also, for your letter to the Vice-Chancellor. Mr. Talbot[156] treated us with the reading of it at our meeting of the clergy at Birmingham; and I saw applause and satisfaction sitting upon every brow.
“Lady Huntingdon, in a few lines I had lately, mentions that Providence raises a master for her school from Suffolk, who promises well. She desires he may be secured, if approved of. Perhaps you know him; and you are the best judge whether he is likely to answer. For my part, I am willing to put my smoking flax to the tapers of my brethren and fathers, when they endeavour to throw some light and order upon her ladyship’s design; but I feel my place should be among the scholars, rather than among the Directors.
“Mr. Glascott quitted himself as a faithful and able minister, during his stay here. Thousands attended him in the next parish, where he nobly took the field. Nevertheless, I see a curse of barrenness upon this neighbourhood, which makes me groan for a day of Pentecost. God hasten it in His time! You will please to remember that you are a debtor to our barbarians, as well as to the Greeks in London. When you come, my pulpit will be honoured, greatly honoured, to hold you, if my church cannot hold your congregation.”[157]
Footnote 156:
No doubt, the Rev. William Talbot, LL.D., Vicar of Kineton, in Warwickshire.
Footnote 157:
Fletcher’s Works, vol. viii., p. 255.
Who “the master from Suffolk” was, has never yet been stated. The matter is of little consequence. In the month of July, Wesley visited Fletcher, and, no doubt, they conversed concerning the College at Trevecca; but Wesley’s account of his visit is so brief as to be almost significant that there was something in their interview that he would rather suppress than publish. He simply writes: “1768, Sunday, July 31. I preached for Mr. Fletcher in the morning; and in the evening at Shrewsbury.”[158] Within a month after this, the college was opened; but, instead of being at Trevecca, Wesley was in Cornwall.
Footnote 158:
Wesley’s Journal.
The opening took place on Wednesday, August 24, the anniversary of the birthday of Lady Huntingdon. In all likelihood, Fletcher, the president, was present; but no positive evidence of this has been published. Indeed, considering the importance of the event, the account of it is remarkably brief. The best, in fact, so far as I know, the only one ever given to the public, is an extract from Whitefield’s Memorandum Book, as follows:—
“August 24, 1768. Opened good Lady Huntingdon’s Chapel and College, in the parish of Talgarth, Brecknockshire, South Wales. Preached from Exodus xx. 24: ‘In all places where I record My name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.’ August 25.—Gave an exhortation to the Students, in the College-chapel, from Luke i. 15: ‘He shall be great in the sight of the Lord.’ Sunday, August 28.—Preached in the court before the College (the congregation consisting of some thousands), from 1 Cor. iii. 11: ‘Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’”[159]
Footnote 159:
Gillies’ “Life of Whitefield.”
To this must be added a single sentence, from a letter which Whitefield wrote to Mr. Keene, on August 30: “What we have seen and felt at the College is unspeakable.”[160]
Footnote 160:
Trevecca College was supported at the sole expense of the Countess of Huntingdon till her death, on June 17, 1791. “Had her ability been equal to her desire for its continuance, she would have endowed it, and thereby have provided for its perpetuity.” About four years before her decease, and with her full approval, provision was made for the future. Seven trustees were appointed to take care of the College after her ladyship’s death; and a subscription was begun for its maintenance. This accumulated fund, in 1791, amounted to £585, 3 per cent. Consols. The lease of the Trevecca property had expired, and it was now determined to remove the college to Cheshunt, near London. Accordingly, the Trevecca house was given up at Lady-day, 1792; the furniture, the library, and the communion plate were taken to Cheshunt, where the new establishment was formally opened on August 24, the anniversary of the commencement of the abandoned one at Trevecca. A religious service, of nearly three hours and a-half’s duration, was held; Lady Anne Agnes Erskine, executrix of the Countess of Huntingdon, presided; and seven or eight hundred persons were present. (“The Order observed at the opening of the Countess of Huntingdon’s College at Cheshunt, London, 1792,” 8vo., 86 pp.)
That is all. Is there an instance of any other Methodist Institution so important as this, the published details of whose opening services are so pitiably meagre?
It has been said, there is no positive proof that Fletcher was at the opening of Trevecca College; but there is incidental evidence that he was, and that his friend James Ireland, Esq., was with him. This will be found in the second of the following letters addressed to Mr. Ireland and his dying daughter.
“MADELEY, July 30, 1768.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—Uncertain as I am whether your daughter is yet alive, I know not what to say, but this,—our Heavenly Father appoints all things for the best. If her days of suffering are prolonged, it is to honour her with a conformity to the crucified Jesus. If they are shortened, she will have drunk all her cup of affliction, and found, at the bottom of it, not the bitterness of her sins, but the consolations of our Saviour’s Spirit.
“I had lately some views of death, and it appeared to me in the most brilliant colours. What is it to die, but to open our eyes after the disagreeable dream of life? It is to break the prison of corruptible flesh and blood, into which sin has cast us. It is to draw aside the curtain which prevents us seeing the Supreme Beauty and Goodness face to face. O my dear friend, how lovely is death, when we look at it in Jesus Christ! To die is one of the greatest privileges of the Christian.
“If Miss Ireland is still living, tell her, a thousand times, that Jesus is the resurrection and the life; that He has vanquished and disarmed death; that He has brought life and immortality to light; and that all things are ours, whether life or death, eternity or time. These are great truths upon which she ought to repose her soul with full assurance. Everything is shadow, in comparison of the reality of the Gospel. If your daughter be dead, believe in Jesus, and you shall find her again in Him, who fills all in all, who encircles the material and spiritual world in His arms—in the immense bosom of His Divinity.
“Adieu, my dear friend. Yours, “J. FLETCHER.”[161]
Footnote 161:
Letters, 1791, p. 198.
“MADELEY, October 14, 1768.
“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,—I think I told you at Trevecca,[162] that we had no farmers at Madeley who feared God and loved Jesus. This generation among us are buried in the furrows of their ploughs, or under the heaps of corn which fill their granaries. Now that I am on the spot, I do not see one who makes it necessary for me to change my opinion. Your bailiff cannot come from this Nazareth.
“If the last efforts of the physicians fail with respect to Miss Ireland, it will be a consolation to you to know that they have been tried. Every thing dies. Things visible are all transitory; but invisible ones abide for ever. If Christ is our life and our resurrection, it is of little importance whether we die now, or thirty years hence.
“Present my respects to your son, and tell him, that last week I buried three young persons who had died of a malignant fever; and who, on the second day of their illness, were deprived of their speech and senses, and, on the fifth, of their lives. Of what avail are youth and vigour when the Lord lifts His finger? And shall we sin against the eternal power, the infinite love, the inexorable justice, and the immense goodness of this God, who gives us, from moment to moment, the breath which is in our nostrils? No—we will employ the precious gift in praising and blessing this good God, who is our Father in Jesus Christ.
“I hope you learn, as well as I, and better than I, to know Jesus in the Spirit. I have known Him after the flesh, and after the letter; I strive to know Him in the power of His Spirit. Under the Divine character of a quickening Spirit, He is everywhere. All that live, live in Him, and they who are spiritually alive have a double life. The Lord give us this second life more abundantly. Yours,
“J. FLETCHER.”[163]
Footnote 162:
In all probability at the opening of the College on August 24.
Footnote 163:
Letters, 1791, p. 199.
The next is an extract from a long letter, addressed to dying Miss Ireland.
“MADELEY, December 5, 1768.
“MY DEAR AFFLICTED FRIEND,—I hear you are returned from the last journey you took in search of health. Your Heavenly Father sees fit to deny it you, not because He hateth you (for whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth), but because life and health might be fatal snares to your soul, out of which you could not escape, but by tedious illness, and an early death.
“Your father has crossed the sea for you; Jesus has done more. He has crossed the abyss that lies between heaven and earth—between the Creator and the creature. He has waded through the sea of His tears, blood, and agonies, not to take you to the physician at Montpelier, but to become your physician and Saviour Himself. Oh, my friend, delay not cheerfully to surrender yourself to Him. Look not at your sins without beholding His blood and righteousness. Eye not death but to behold your gracious Saviour, saying, ‘Fear not, O thou of little faith: wherefore dost thou doubt?’ Consider not eternity but as the palace where you are going to enter with the Bridegroom of souls, and rest from all your sins and miseries. View not the condemning law of God but as made honourable by Him, who was made a curse for you. If you have no comfort, distrust not Jesus on that account; on the contrary, take advantage from it to give greater glory to God, by believing, as Abraham did, ‘in hope against hope.’ In this simple, Gospel way, wait the Lord’s leisure, and He will comfort your heart.
“I hope you take care to have little or nothing else mentioned to you but His praises and promises. Your tongue and ears are going to be silent in the grave. Now, or never, you must use them to hear and speak good of His name. Comfort your weeping friends. Reprove the backsliders. Encourage seekers. Remember the praying, believing, preaching, though dying thief. Be not afraid to drop a word for Him who opens a fountain of blood for you. Suffer, live, die at His feet; and you will soon revive, sing, and reign in His bosom for evermore. Farewell, in the Conqueror of Death and Prince of Life.
“J. FLETCHER.”[164]
Footnote 164:
Ibid, 1791, p. 204.
Within three months after the date of this letter, Miss Ireland had left a world of sin and suffering, and had entered into that rest which remains for the people of God.[165] Hence the following, addressed to her father:—
“MADELEY, March 26, 1769.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—The Lord is desirous of making you a true disciple of His dear Son, the ‘Man of Sorrows,’ by sending you affliction upon affliction. A sister and a wife who appear to hasten to the grave in which you have so lately laid your only daughter, places you in circumstances of uncommon sorrow. But in this see the finger of Him who works all in all, and who commands us to forsake all to follow Him. Believe in Him. Believe that He does all for the best; and that all shall work for good to those who love Him. His goodness to your daughter ought to encourage your faith and confidence for Mrs. Ireland. Offer her upon the altar, and you shall see that, if it be best for her and you, His grace will suspend the blow which threatens you.
“Your rich present of meal came last week, and shall be distributed to the pious poor agreeably to your orders. We are happy to receive your bounty, but you are more happy in bestowing it upon us. Witness the words of Jesus, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ Nevertheless, receive, by faith, the presents of the Lord, the gifts of His Spirit, and reject not the bread which cometh down from heaven, because the Lord gives it you with so much love.
“I shall be obliged to go to Switzerland this year or the next, if I live and the Lord permits. I have there a brother, a worthy man, who threatens to leave his wife and children to come and pay me a visit if I do not go and see him myself. It is some time since our gracious God convinced him of sin, and I have some of his letters which give me great pleasure. This circumstance has more weight with me than the settlement of my affairs.”[166]
Footnote 165:
Letters, 1791, p. 205.
Footnote 166:
Ibid, p. 206.
Mr. Ireland was a frequent benefactor to Fletcher and the poor of Madeley. Hence, in another letter to the same friend in need, Fletcher wrote:—
“I think I wrote my last letter two days before I received your bounty—a large hogshead of rice and two cheeses. Accept the thanks of your poor and mine. I distributed your gifts on Shrove Tuesday; and preached to a numerous congregation on ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all other things shall be added unto you.’ We prayed for our benefactor, that God would give him a hundredfold in this life, and eternal life, where life eternal will be no burden.”[167]
Footnote 167:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
Help, like Mr. Ireland’s, was always welcome. Many of Fletcher’s parishioners were extremely poor, and to the utmost of his ability he contributed to their necessities. One who knew him writes:—
“The profusion of his charity toward the poor and needy is scarcely credible. It constantly exhausted his purse; it frequently unfurnished his home; and sometimes left him destitute of the common necessaries of life. That he might feed the hungry, he led a life of abstinence and self-denial; and that he might cover the naked, he clothed himself in the most homely attire.”[168]
Footnote 168:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
Fletcher was President, or, as Wesley chose to call him more correctly, Visitor of Trevecca College. The office brought upon him considerable anxiety and labour. In the summer of 1769, John Jones made application to be appointed head master. Mr. Jones, from 1746 to 1767, had been one of Wesley’s itinerant preachers. He was one of the first classical masters of Kingswood School, and wrote the Latin Grammar which was used in that academy.[169] He was highly esteemed by Wesley, and after he left Kingswood was generally stationed in Wesley’s two most important circuits, London and Bristol. In 1754, when there was great excitement respecting a possible separation of the Methodists from the Church of England, Charles Wesley wished what he called “the sound preachers” to be “qualified for orders,” and wrote to his brother, saying, “I know none fitter for training up the young men in learning than yourself or J. Jones.” Nine years after this, when Erasmus, a bishop of the Greek Church, visited London, he, at Wesley’s request, ordained Jones to assist the Arch-Methodist in administering the sacraments to his Societies. Charles Wesley would not admit the validity of this ordination, and consequently would not allow Mr. Jones to officiate as a clergyman. This was a severe trial to the newly-ordained preacher, and led him to leave the Methodists. He afterwards procured ordination from the Bishop of London, and was presented to the living of Harwich, where he continued to preach for many years, and where he ended his days in peace.[170] He never lost his love for Wesley. In 1775, when Wesley was dangerously ill in Ireland, he wrote to him from Harwich:—
“I cannot express what I felt when I was informed you were both senseless and speechless; and it was like life from the dead when I heard you were out of danger and able to sit up. Time was when you would have taken my advice, at least in some things. Let me entreat, let me beseech you, to preach less frequently, and that only at the principal places,” etc.[171]
Footnote 169:
Myles’s “Chronological History of the Methodists.”
Footnote 170:
Atmore’s “Methodist Memorial.”
Footnote 171:
Arminian Magazine, 1787, p. 444.
Such was John Jones, Wesley’s friend, and at one time held in high esteem by Wesley’s brother Charles. His ambition to be employed in Lady Huntingdon’s college at Trevecca was not inordinate. Fifteen years before, Charles Wesley had thought him qualified to train young men for the ministry, and from one of his letters, written in 1777, and published in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine for 1837, it is evident that Charles Wesley’s opinion was well founded. The letter was addressed to a gentleman of Magdalene College, Cambridge, who was about to be ordained, and wished Mr. Jones’s advice respecting the composition of sermons and preaching them.
“Prayer,” said he, “should always precede the composing of a discourse. In general, the explication of the text or context, if they need it, should not be too short. The propositions or doctrines should not be too long nor too many, and the clearer they are the better. The illustrations should be proper and lively; the proofs close and home; the motives strong and cogent; the inferences and application natural, and not laboured. For if we cannot persuade the passions, we shall go but a little way with most of our hearers. This was George Whitefield’s peculiar talent; but I do not mean to persuade you to bawl as loud as he did, and yet I would advise you to raise your voice in the application of your discourse. Eight-and-thirty years ago I thought it an easy matter to prove most points in divinity. I have been learning the contrary ever since, and I find it now very difficult, by Scriptures properly understood and applied, to prove many things which I once thought quite clear. I find it necessary to understand the Scripture I bring in as a proof before I use it as such. I will add one thing more. You will find it very difficult to use such plain language as will be understood in most congregations. Avoid long periods as much as possible. Imitate Cæsar rather than Cicero; leave the latter to Dr. Middleton and Samuel Furley. It is far better to be understood by our hearers than to be admired by getting out of their depth. To do all the good we can is our one business in life.”
Mr. Jones was a man of sense, and piety, and experience; and yet Fletcher hesitated in recommending him to be appointed a tutor in Trevecca College. Did Fletcher sympathize with his friend Charles Wesley in the repugnance which the latter felt to Mr. Jones’s ordination by Erasmus, the bishop of the Greek Church? Perhaps so; at all events, the following letter to the Countess of Huntingdon was cautious, if not cold:—
“MADELEY, July 1, 1769.
“MY LADY,—Mr. Jones’s letter puzzled me a little. I did not know what answer to make to it. I have, however, sat down, and, after an introduction, I say to him—
“‘The first and grand point to be kept in view at Lady Huntingdon’s College is to maintain and grow in the spirit of faith and power that breathes through the Acts of the Apostles, and was exemplified in the lives of the primitive Christians. The first and grand qualification required in a person called to be at the head of such a college is, then, a degree of faith and power from above, with an entire devotedness to God and His cause.
“‘The master, who is there at present, seems, on account of his youth, to be deficient in point of experience. Nor is he a proper master of the Greek, nor even of the harder classics; so that he can hardly maintain his superiority over those who read Cicero and Horace. Whether this inconveniency, Sir, would be avoided, supposing you were appointed to succeed him, I cannot judge by your letter. He is also unacquainted with divinity and the sciences, of which it is proper he should give the students some idea; and how far you may excel him in these points, Sir, is not in my power to determine. He has twenty-five guineas a year, with his board, room, and washing. I dare say the generous foundress would not hesitate to raise the salary of a master of superior merit, though she hopes none would undertake that office for the sake of money.’
“After giving Mr. Jones a little account of the business of the College, I add—
“‘The variety of classes in it demands great assiduity and diligence in the master. I would not, therefore, advise anyone to engage without a proper trial. I have begged of Lady Huntingdon not to fix upon a master till she had allowed him to look about him, and see how he liked the place, people, and business; and, as you very properly observe, Sir, it would be improper to engage, and then to repent of the undertaking. I think that, if, upon consulting with the Lord in prayer, and with Mr. Maxfield in conversation, you find your heart free to embrace so peculiar an opportunity of being useful to your generation, it might be best to come and see how you like the business, and how it agrees with you; and should not matters prove agreeable on either side, I dare say Lady Huntingdon will pay your travelling expenses to Talgarth,[172] and back again.’
“In a letter to Mr. Maxfield,[173] I desired him to inform your ladyship how Mr. Jones’s mind stands after reflecting on the contents of my letter to him, and whether he would go to make a trial. I add, that so much depends upon the aptness to teach, Christian experience, solidity, liveliness, and devotedness of a master, that no one can presume to judge of these things by a letter, or even by a day’s conversation.
“If your ladyship does not approve of this step, a line to Mr. Maxfield will rectify what you think amiss, and will oblige, my lady, your unworthy servant,
“J. FLETCHER.
“P.S.—If your ladyship is so good as to spare a minister for three weeks, I shall be glad to wait upon the dear young men and their patroness at the College.”[174]
Footnote 172:
Trevecca College was in the parish of Talgarth, South Wales. It was supposed to be part of an old castle erected in the reign of Henry the Second. The date over the entrance was 1176.
Footnote 173:
Thomas Maxfield, who had seceded from Wesley’s Connexion in 1763, and had received episcopal ordination from the Bishop of Derry.
Footnote 174:
“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., p. 98.
This is an important letter, not only as exhibiting the views of Fletcher, but as containing a curious chapter in the earliest history of Trevecca College. The College, as it was ostentatiously called, had been opened ten months. It had one master; and the author of the “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon” says Joseph Easterbrook was the person who occupied this position; but adduces no proof in support of his assertion. Another, and a far greater authority, attests that the master of the College was a child. Who was he?
In 1788, there was printed “A Sermon, occasioned by the Death of the celebrated Mr. J. Henderson, B.A., of Pembroke College, Oxford: Preached at St. George’s, Kingswood, November 23; and at Temple Church, Bristol, November 30, 1788. By the Rev. William Agutter, M.A., of St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxford. Published at the request of the Congregations. Bristol. 1788.” 8vo, pp. 32. The text of the sermon is, “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” Mr. Agutter’s eulogy of Henderson cannot here be quoted at full length: the following are brief extracts from it:—
“Mr. Henderson was born, as it were, a thinking being; and was never known to cry, or to express any infantine peevishness. The questions he asked, as soon as he was able to speak, astonished all who heard him.”
“His memory was so strong that he retained all he read; and his judgment so solid that he arranged, examined, and digested all that he remembered, and thus made it his own.”
“At a time that other children were employed in the drudgery of learning words, he was occupied in obtaining the knowledge of things. While but a boy, he was engaged to teach the learned languages. At twelve years of age, he taught Greek and Latin in the College of Trevecca. The Governor of the College at that time was the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, late Vicar of Madeley.”[175]
Footnote 175:
The Arminian Magazine, for 1793, confirms this statement.
Mr. Agutter proceeds to say, that, when Fletcher was dismissed from Trevecca, Henderson was dismissed with him.
This, then, was the master—the only master of Trevecca College during the first year of its existence—a child, a wonderful child, twelve years old! A further account of this prodigy, or, as the Monthly Review, of 1789, called him, “a second Baratier,”[176] may interest the reader.
Footnote 176:
Baratier was a German, born in 1721, and is said to have understood the German, French, Greek, and Latin languages when he was five years old. At the age of nine, he could not only translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin or French, but also re-translate these versions into Hebrew. Before he had completed his tenth year, he composed a Hebrew Lexicon of rare and difficult words, with curious critical remarks. In his thirteenth year he translated from the Hebrew “Rabbi Benjamin’s Travels in Europe, Asia, and Africa,” and published them in two volumes, “with historical and critical notes and dissertations.” He also, with remarkable success, applied himself to the study of philosophy, mathematics, ecclesiastical history, law, etc. He died in his twentieth year.
His father was a native of Ireland, and, from 1759 to 1771, was one of Wesley’s best itinerant preachers,—a man of deep piety, great talent, and amiable disposition; but naturally of a timid and melancholy mind. On relinquishing the itinerancy, he commenced a boarding-school at Hannam, near Bristol; but two of his pupils having been drowned while bathing, his mind was so affected, that he abandoned his school, and opened, at the same place, an asylum for the insane, which Wesley pronounced the best of the kind in the three kingdoms.
John Henderson, his only child, was born at Bellgaran, near Limerick, in 1757, and, as early as possible, was sent to Wesley’s School, at Kingswood. At the age of eight, he had made such proficiency in the Latin language, as to be able to teach it in the school. In his twelfth year, as already stated, he became the Master in Trevecca College. When about fourteen years of age, he left Trevecca, and, probably, spent the next ten years with his father at Hannam. At twenty-four, he entered Pembroke College, Oxford; and, in due time, took the degree of Bachelor of Arts. His thirst after knowledge was unbounded; and his amiable temper and remarkable talents secured him the respect of all who knew him. His learning was deep and multifarious. He was skilled in grammar, rhetoric, history, logic, ethics, metaphysics, and scholastic theology. He studied medicine with great attention, and practised it among the poor, wherever he had a chance, gratuitously. He was well versed in geometry, astronomy, and every branch of natural and experimental philosophy, and also in civil and canon laws. Besides several of the modern languages, he was master of the Greek and Latin tongues; and was intimately acquainted with Persic and Arabic. Scarcely a book could be mentioned, but he could give some account of it; nor any subject started, but he could engage in the discussion of it. His talents for conversation were so attractive, various, and multiform, that he was a companion equally acceptable to the philosopher and the man of the world, to the gay, the learned, and illiterate, the young and the old of both sexes. He attracted the notice of Dr. Johnson, was intimate with Sir William Jones, Miss Hannah More, and other celebrities; and Mr. Wilberforce offered him his patronage and a living, if he would reside in London.
Like most geniuses, John Henderson was eccentric. When he first went to Oxford, his clothes were made in a fashion peculiar to himself; he had no stock or neckcloth; and he wore his hair like that of a boy at school. His mode of life was singular. He generally went to bed at daybreak, and rose in the afternoon, except when he was obliged to attend the morning service of the college chapel. Before he retired to rest, he frequently stripped himself naked to the waist, took his station at a pump near his rooms, sluiced his head and the upper part of his body, pumped water over his shirt, and then, putting it on, went to bed. This he jocularly called “an excellent cold bath.” He became an ardent admirer of the nonsense of Jacob Behmen’s wild philosophical divinity; studied Lavater’s “Physiognomy;” and attained to a considerable knowledge of magic and astrology; and declared the possibility of holding correspondence with the spirits of the dead, upon the strength of his own experience.
He died at Oxford, on November 2, 1788, and was buried at St. George’s, Kingswood. His father was so painfully affected by the loss of his affectionate and only child, that he caused the corpse to be taken up again, several days after the interment, to satisfy himself that his son was really dead.[177]
Footnote 177:
Arminian Magazine, 1793, pp. 140–144.
Wesley had great love and respect for poor Henderson’s father, and, a few months after the young man’s untimely death, he wrote:—
“1789, March 13.—I spent some time with poor Richard Henderson, deeply affected with the loss of his only son; who, with as great talents as most men in England, had lived two-and-thirty years, and done just nothing.”[178]
Footnote 178:
Wesley’s Journal.
This, however, was scarcely true. Henry Moore, in his “Life of Wesley,”[179] relates an anecdote which is worth preserving, and which must conclude this lengthened notice of the child professor at the Countess of Huntingdon’s College at Trevecca. In reference to Wesley’s entry in his Journal, Mr. Moore remarks:—
“Not a vestige of Mr. Henderson’s writings remains. This is owing to what some would call a cross providence. He used to visit his father at Hannam, near Bristol, in the summer vacation. He there studied intensely, and wrote largely. His MSS. he stored in a large trunk without a lock. Returning home, some time before his last illness, he flew to his treasure, but found the trunk empty. He enquired of Mrs. Henderson, who called up the servant, and asked for the papers in the trunk. The girl, who had been hired that year, replied with great simplicity, ‘La! ma’am, I thought they were good for nothing, and so I lighted the fire with them during the winter.’ Mr. Henderson looked at his excellent mother-in-law for some time, but spoke not a word. He then went into his study, and was never known to mention the subject more.”
Footnote 179:
Vol. ii., p. 360.
“Oh! Diamond, Diamond! thou little knowest the mischief thou hast done!” said Sir Isaac Newton to his favourite little dog, who, by upsetting a taper on his desk, had set fire to the papers which contained the whole of his unpublished experiments, and thus reduced to ashes the labours of many years. Poor Henderson, in his misfortune, “spoke not a word.” Newton lived thirty years after his great loss, but made no important addition to his scientific discoveries; Henderson died soon after his sad calamity; and hence Wesley’s disparaging remark concerning him: “With as great talents as most men in England, he lived two-and-thirty years, and did just nothing.” Wesley must have been ignorant of the fact related by Mr. Moore; for, on no other ground can an apology be framed for his unfair remark.
It is time to return to Fletcher. Wesley was not present at the opening of Trevecca College, in 1768, but he took part in the religious services held at the first anniversary in 1769. Whitefield was unavoidably absent, for he was preaching farewell sermons, and administering farewell sacraments, to his London congregations, and, a week afterwards, set out on his final visit to America. But, even without him, the Methodist gathering at Trevecca was one of the most remarkable recorded in old Methodist history. Besides Wesley and Fletcher, there were present Howell Harris, the founder of the Welsh Methodists; the Rev. Daniel Rowlands, rector of Llangeitho, with a salary of £10 a year, a preacher whose eloquence was overwhelming, and whose meetings among the Welsh mountains can never be forgotten; the Rev. William Williams, curate of Lanwithid, a brave-hearted man who had met violent persecution without flinching, and a member of the first Conference of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales, in 1743; Howell Davies, rector of Prendergast, an intimate friend of Whitefield, a preacher whom thousands upon thousands flocked to hear, in fields, and on commons and mountains, and the attendance at whose monthly sacraments was so great that his church had to be emptied several times over to make room for the remaining communicants waiting out of doors; the Rev. Peter Williams, another itinerant clergyman of the Established Church, who joined the Methodists as early as the year 1741; and the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, brother of the notorious Earl Ferrers, first cousin of the Countess of Huntingdon, converted under the ministry of Venn, and now an earnest minister of Christ; to whom must be added Lady Huntingdon, the Countess of Buchan, Lady Anne Erskine, and Miss Orton, and also the first students of Trevecca, headed by their juvenile master, John Henderson.
The services were held daily for a whole week, from the 19th to the 25th of August inclusive. Fletcher, Rowlands, and William Williams arrived at the College on Friday, the 18th, and next morning Rowlands preached in the chapel to a crowded congregation, from the words, “Lord, are there few that be saved?” In the afternoon, the Lord’s Supper was administered, Fletcher addressing the communicants and spectators, and Williams giving out a hymn, which was sung with great enthusiasm. At night, Howell Harris preached to a large congregation assembled in the court from the text, “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.” During the day, Walter Shirley and several lay preachers arrived at Trevecca.
On Sunday, August 20, at ten in the morning, Fletcher read the Liturgy in the court, and Shirley preached on, “Acquaint thyself now with Him, and be at peace.” At one, the Lord’s Supper was administered in the chapel, and Rowlands, Fletcher, and Williams gave addresses. During the afternoon, Fletcher preached in the court to an immense congregation, from, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.” When his sermon was ended, Rowlands, in the Welsh language, addressed the crowd from, “It is appointed unto men once to die.”
On Monday and Tuesday the clergymen preached, and Howell Harris and several of the lay preachers joined in the services.
On Wednesday, August 23rd, Wesley came, accompanied by Howell Davies and Peter Williams.[180] Wesley writes:—
“Wednesday, August 23rd. I went on to Trevecca. Here we found a concourse of people from all parts, come to celebrate the Countess of Huntingdon’s birthday, and the anniversary of her school, which was opened on the twenty-fourth of August, last year. I preached in the evening to as many as her chapel could well contain; which is extremely neat, or rather, elegant; as is the dining-room, the school, and all the house. About nine, Howell Harris desired me to give a short exhortation to his family. I did so; and then went back to my lady’s, and laid me down in peace.
“Thursday, August 24th. I administered the Lord’s Supper to the family.[181] At ten, the public service began. Mr. Fletcher preached an exceeding lively sermon in the court, the chapel being far too small. After him, Mr. William Williams preached in Welsh till between one and two o’clock. At two we dined. Meantime, a large number of people had baskets of bread and meat carried to them in the court. At three, I took my turn there; then Mr. Fletcher; and about five, the congregation was dismissed. Between seven and eight, the lovefeast began, at which, I believe, many were comforted. In the evening, several of us retired into the neighbouring wood, which is exceeding pleasantly laid out in walks, one of which leads to a little mount raised in the midst of a meadow that commands a delightful prospect. This is Howell Harris’s work, who has likewise greatly enlarged and beautified his house; so that, with the gardens, orchards, walks, and pieces of water that surround it, it is a kind of little paradise.”[182]
Footnote 180:
“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., pp. 98, 99.
Footnote 181:
The author of the “Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon” says, “Shirley assisted Wesley,” and adds, “The sacrament was first administered to the clergyman, then to the students, and then to Lady Huntingdon, the Countess of Buchan, Lady Anne Erskine, Miss Orton, and the other members of the family.”
Footnote 182:
Wesley’s Journal.
This is not the place to enlarge upon Howell Harris’s establishment, which adjoined Trevecca College. Suffice it to say, that here he had gathered together a family of more than a hundred persons, “all diligent, all constantly employed, all fearing God and working righteousness.”[183]
Footnote 183:
Ibid.
The lovefeast mentioned by Wesley was the concluding service on the first anniversary day, strictly speaking, of Trevecca College. At that lovefeast, Walter Shirley, Howell Davies, and Daniel Rowlands gave short exhortations, and Peter Williams and Howell Harris offered prayers. Lady Huntingdon observes:—
“Truly our God was in the midst of us, and many felt Him eminently nigh. The gracious influence of His Spirit seemed to rest on every one. Words fail to describe the holy triumph with which the great congregation sang—
‘Captain of Thine enlisted host, Display thy glorious banner high,’ etc.
It was a season of refreshing from the presence of the Lord—a time never to be forgotten.”
Next morning, Wesley set off for Bristol; but the services were continued. In the afternoon, Shirley took his stand on the scaffold in the court, and addressed the multitude from the words, “Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.”
“From that time,” wrote Lady Huntingdon, “we had public preaching every day at four o’clock, whilst Mr. Shirley and Mr. Fletcher remained. Copious showers of Divine blessing have been felt on every side. Truly God is good to Israel. Continue Thy goodness, and in much greater abundance! O that I may be more and more useful to the souls of my fellow-creatures! I want to be, every moment, all life, all zeal, all activity for God, and ever on the stretch for closer communion with Him. My soul pants to live more to Him; and to be more holy in heart and life, that all my nature may show the glories of the Lamb.”[184]
Footnote 184:
“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., pp. 98–101.
Alas! that these glorious scenes among the Welsh mountains should so soon be followed by scenes of discord and of disputes. The great storm of the Calvinian controversy was already brewing.
Walter Sellon occupies a rather unique position in Methodistic annals. He died in 1792, at the age of seventy-seven; and yet of the first thirty, and the last twenty-two years of his life, hardly anything is known. Dr. Abel Stevens, in his “History of Methodism,” says Sellon was originally a baker; but I know of no authority for this, except Toplady’s, whose hatred and abuse of Sellon were such as to justify a hesitancy in believing a statement concerning his stout antagonist, which he intended to be injurious to his fame. Sellon was born in the year 1715; but up to the year 1745 he had not been introduced to Wesley. In a letter to Wesley, dated December 31, 1744, he states, that, until recently, he had condemned him as “an innovator,” and had “pitied those who followed” him. But, having heard Wesley preach, and having read his sermon on “Scriptural Christianity,” delivered before the Oxford University on August 24, 1744, his opinions concerning him and his followers were entirely changed; and he now requested Wesley, when he had an opportunity, to preach at Maidenhead, “where drunkenness, adultery, profaneness, gaming, and almost every abominable vice, were not only committed with greediness, but gloried in, and boasted of.”[185] Whether Wesley went to Maidenhead, which seems to have been Sellon’s place of residence, is not known; but, three years and a half afterwards, when he opened his famous Kingswood School, Walter Sellon was appointed the Headmaster “for the Classics.”[186] About the year 1754, Sellon received episcopal ordination, and became curate of the churches of Smisby, near Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and of Breedon, where vast multitudes flocked to hear him, “not only from adjacent towns and villages, but frequently from places ten, fifteen, and twenty miles distant.” “He was a real Methodist,” wrote Jonathan Edmondson, “and hundreds were turned to God through his instrumentality.”[187] Sellon enjoyed the confidential friendship of Wesley, and especially of Wesley’s brother Charles; and, about the time of his appointment to his curacies, stood faithfully by them in their contentions with the most able and prominent of their itinerant preachers, concerning the separation of the Methodists from the Established Church. All his publications were controversial; and all, except his first, were written specially in defence of the anti-Calvinian doctrines Wesley taught. This is not the place to review Walter Sellon as an author. Suffice it to say, that he was always powerful, rather than polite; and that, after his first publication, in 1765, which was levelled at Socinianism, he prepared a second in 1768, which was entitled, “Arguments against the Doctrine of General Redemption considered.” Without noticing, at present, the subsequent writings of Sellon, it is enough to add, that, about the year 1770, he was presented by the Earl of Huntingdon to the Vicarage of Ledsham, in Yorkshire, where he lived and laboured until his death, on June 13, 1792.[188] In an unpublished manuscript, John Pawson says:—
“I do not believe Mr. Sellon was made the instrument of awakening a single soul after he came to Ledsham. He was tutor to young Mr. Medhurst, of Kippax, who lately murdered his wife, and would have murdered his mother some years ago, if my brother Tarboton had not rescued her at the hazard of his own life. While in that family, Mr. Sellon seemed to lose all spirit and life, and, as far as I could learn, had very little savour of godliness about him. He took not the least notice of the Methodists, no more than if he had never known them.”
Footnote 185:
Arminian Magazine, 1778, p. 327.
Footnote 186:
Myles’ “Chronological History of the Methodists.”
Footnote 187:
Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1856, p. 38.
Footnote 188:
Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, 1856, p. 41.
John Pawson was one of Wesley’s most honest and hardworking itinerants; but he sometimes was more severe in his strictures than was desirable. His remark, however, concerning Sellon’s abandonment of the Methodists was probably correct; for Wesley, in a letter dated June 10, 1784, wrote to him: “You used to meet me when I came near you; but you seem, of late, to have forgotten your old friend and brother.”[189]
Footnote 189:
Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 43.
To return to Fletcher. He and Sellon were well known to each other. Four years ago, they had exchanged pulpits for a season, Sellon preaching at Madeley, and Fletcher at Smisby and Breedon-on-the-Hill. Now Sellon was entering the arena of controversy. The expulsion of the Methodist students from Oxford University, in 1768, had been the means, incidentally, of bringing some of the chief doctrines of Calvinism into public notice. Sir Richard Hill, in defending the students, had warmly advocated Calvinistic predestination. Dr. Nowell, in answering Sir Richard, had clearly shown that this predestination was not the doctrine of the Church of England. Toplady had rushed to the rescue of his favourite dogma, and had published his translation of “Zauchius,” and also his “Letter to Dr. Nowell.” Sellon was the first of Wesley’s friends who entered the lists, by preparing and publishing his “Arguments against the Doctrine of General Redemption considered. London, 1769.” 12mo. 178 pp. Wesley encouraged him, and so did Fletcher. The former wrote as follows:—
“WAKEFIELD, July 9, 1768.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,—I am glad you have undertaken the ‘Redemption Redeemed;’ but you must in no wise forget Dr. Owen’s answer to it: otherwise you will leave a loop-hole for all the Calvinists to creep out. The Doctor’s evasions you must needs cut in pieces, either interweaving your answers with the body of the work, under each head, or adding them in marginal notes.
“Your ever affectionate brother, “J. WESLEY.”[190]
Footnote 190:
Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii. p. 41.
After the book was published, Fletcher wrote to Sellon the following letter, plainly showing that the great Calvinian controversy, though as yet in its incipient state, was causing considerable commotion:—
“MADELEY, October 7, 1769.
“MY DEAR BROTHER,—I thank you for your letter and books. They came safe to hand, and I shall give you the amount at the first opportunity. I have inquired what the Calvinists think; but they choose to be silent,—a sign that they have not any great thing to object. Mr. R——[191] looked at your book here in my house, and objected to Ελεησω ον αν ελεω, Rom. ix. 15. He says, ελεω is, ‘I have mercy,’ not ‘I should have mercy.’ I observed to Mr. Glascott, ‘It is the subjunctive mood, and may take the sign should, would, or could, according to the analogy of faith.’
“I long to see Coles[192] answered. My request to you is, that you would answer him in the cool manner you have the Synod;[193] and my prayer to God is, that you may be assisted for that important work.
“I know two strong Calvinist believers, who lately took their leave of this world with, ‘I shall be damned.’ O, what did all their professions of perseverance do for them? They left them in the lurch. May we have the power of God in our souls, and we shall readily leave unknown decrees to others.
“The Lord give you patience with your brethren! The best way to confound them is, to preach that kingdom of God which they cast away, with real righteousness, and present peace and joy in believing; that is poison to the synodical kingdom.
“I despair of seeing you before I have seen Switzerland, which I design to visit next winter. Mr. Ireland takes me as far as Lyons in my way.
“There are some disputes in Lady Huntingdon’s College; but when the power of God comes, they drop them. The Calvinists are three to one. Your book I have sent them as a hard nut for them to crack.
“May the Lord spare you, and make you a free, joyful soldier of the Lord Jesus; as tough against sin and unbelief as you are against Calvin and the Synod! The Lord has overruled your leaving Smisby for good. Let us trust in Him, and all will be well. Farewell.
“JOHN FLETCHER.”[194]
Footnote 191:
Probably Romaine, who was at Berwick, near Shrewsbury, on September 9, 1769, and wrote a letter full of his strongest Calvinism. (See Romaine’s Works, vol. vi., p. 330. Edition 1813.)
Footnote 192:
Elisha Coles, a clerk to the East India Company, who died in 1688. His “Practical Discourse of God’s Sovereignty,” here referred to, was answered by Sellon a year or two afterwards.
Footnote 193:
The Synod of Dort, held at Dort in 1618 and 1619, and consisting of thirty-eight Dutch and Walloon divines, five professors of the Dutch Universities, and twenty-one Lay-elders; besides twenty-eight foreign divines, from England and other countries. At this celebrated Synod, the five points of difference between the Calvinists and Arminians were decided in favour of the former. Sellon, in his able book, controverts this decision, at all events so far as the doctrine of predestination is concerned.
Footnote 194:
Fletcher’s Works, vol. viii., p. 205.
This episode respecting Walter Sellon is not irrelevant, and is of considerable importance, inasmuch as it relates, in part, to the rise of the great Calvinian controversy of the last century, in which Fletcher became one of the chief actors. Sellon’s book, in favour of the doctrine of “General Redemption,” was the first published by Wesley’s adherents, and is exceedingly able; but this is not the place to analyse and give an account of it.
Seventeen years had elapsed since Fletcher left his father’s house in Switzerland. He had now decided to pay a visit to the place of his nativity, and to travel as far as the south of France with his generous friend, Mr. Ireland, of Brislington, Bristol. The following letter to Mr. Ireland refers to this contemplated visit, and to another matter, which must be noticed:—
“MADELEY, December 30, 1769.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—Last night, I received your obliging letter, and am ready to accompany you to Montpelier, provided you will go with me to Nyon. I shall raise about twenty guineas, and, with that sum, a gracious Providence, and your purse, I hope we shall want for nothing. If the Lord sends me, I should want nothing, though I had nothing, and though my fellow-traveller were no richer than myself.
“I hope to be at Bristol soon, to offer you my services to pack up. You desired to have a Swiss servant, and I offer myself to you in that capacity; for I shall be no more ashamed of serving you, as far as I am capable of doing, than I am of wearing your livery.
“Two reasons (to say nothing of the pleasure of your company) engage me to go with you to Montpelier,—a desire to visit some poor Huguenots in the south of France, and the need I have to recover a little French before I go to converse with my compatriots.
“The priest at Madeley is going to open his mass-house, and I declared war on that account last Sunday, and propose to strip the whore of Babylon and expose her nakedness to-morrow. All the papists are in a great ferment, and have held meetings to consult on the occasion. One of their bloody bullies came ‘to pick up a quarrel’ with me, as he said, and what would have been the consequence had I not had company with me I know not. How far more rage may be kindled to-morrow I don’t know; but I question whether it will be right for me to leave the field in these circumstances. I forgot to mention that two of our poor ignorant Churchmen are about to join the mass-house, which also is the cause of my having taken up arms.”[195]
Footnote 195:
Letters, 1791, p. 208.
Fletcher preached his anti-popery sermon as he intended, taking as his text 1 Tim. iv. 1–3: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” An outline of the sermon may be found in Fletcher’s Collected Works, vol. vii., p. 490. As the people were leaving the church, a man, who acted as the spokesman of the papists present, cried, “There was not a word of truth in the whole sermon;” and then, turning to Fletcher, assured him that he would shortly produce a gentleman who would refute all that he had said. The threat was not fulfilled;[196] and Benson, in his “Life of Fletcher,” first published in 1804, remarks:—
“By Mr. Fletcher’s bold and prudent stand the designs of the papists were in a great measure frustrated, and they were prevented making any progress worth mentioning in Madeley. It is true there is even now a mass-house and a priest at Madeley, but I find, upon inquiry, there are not a dozen Popish families in the parish.”
Footnote 196:
Fletcher’s Works, vol. vii., p. 494.
Fletcher’s intended visit to Switzerland was, for a little while, deferred; because he deemed it his duty to await the threatened refutation of his anti-popish sermon. Hence, early in January 1770, he went to Trevecca; probably for the purpose of meeting Joseph Benson, who was about to become head master of the college.
Joseph Benson was now nearly twenty-two years of age, and for the last four years had been the classical master of Wesley’s school at Kingswood, and was at present keeping terms at Oxford. His acquaintance with Fletcher was slight, but his admiration of him great. He writes:—
“I had only had two or three interviews with Mr. Fletcher, which were, I think, in the year 1768, when I was classical master at Kingswood school. As he occasionally made an excursion from Madeley to Bristol and Bath, in one of these excursions we invited him to preach at Kingswood. He came, and took as his text, ‘Him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out.’ The people were exceedingly affected; indeed quite melted down. The tears streamed so fast from the eyes of the poor colliers that their black faces were washed by them. As to himself, he was carried out so far beyond his strength that, when he concluded, he put off his shirt, which was as wet as if it had been dipped in water. But this was nothing strange; whenever he preached it was generally the case. From this time, I conceived a particular esteem for him, chiefly on account of his piety; and wished much for a further acquaintance with him, a blessing which I soon after obtained; for through his means, and in consequence of Mr. Wesley’s recommendation to the Countess of Huntingdon, I was made head master of the academy, or, as it was commonly called, the college, at Trevecca, though I could ill be spared from Kingswood, where I had acted in that capacity about four years. Being greatly wanted at Kingswood, and having likewise a term to keep at Oxford, I could only pay them a short visit for the present, which was in January 1770; but in the spring following, I went to reside there, and for some time was well satisfied with my situation.”[197]
Footnote 197:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
No record exists of what transpired between Fletcher and Benson at Trevecca; but the following letter, written there, and addressed to Mr. Ireland, deserves insertion:—
“TREVECCA, January 13, 1770.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—I know not what to think of our journey. My heart frequently recoils. I have lost all hope of being able to preach in French, and I think if I could they would not permit me. I become more stupid every day; my memory fails me in a surprising manner. I am good for nothing, but to go and bury myself in my parish. I have those touches of misanthropy which make solitude my element. Judge, then, whether I am fit to go into the world. On the other hand, I fear that your journey is undertaken partly from complaisance to me, and in consequence of the engagement we made to go together. I acquit you of your promise; and, if your business does not really demand your presence in France, I beg you will not think of going there on my account. The bare idea of giving you trouble would make the journey ten times more disagreeable to me than the season of the year.
“The day after I wrote to you I preached the sermons against popery, which I had promised to my people; and Mr. S—t—r called out several times in the churchyard, as the people went out of church, that ‘there was not one word of truth in the whole of my discourse, and that he would prove it.’ He also told me that he would produce a gentleman who should answer my sermon and the pamphlet I had distributed. I was, therefore, obliged to declare in the church that I should not quit England, and was only going into Wales, from whence I would return soon to reply to the answer of Mr. S—t—r and the priest, if they should offer any. I am thus obliged to return to Madeley by my word so publicly pledged, as well as to raise a little money for my journey. Were it not for these circumstances, I believe I should pay you a visit at Bristol, notwithstanding my misanthropy.
“The hamper which you mention, and for which I thank you, provided it be the last, arrived three days before my departure, but not knowing what it was, nor for whom it was intended, I put it into my cellar without opening it. I want the living water rather than cider, and righteousness more than clothes. I fear, however, lest my unbelief should make me set aside the fountain whence it flows, as I did your hamper. Be that as it may, it is high time to open the treasures of Divine mercy, and to seek in the heart of Jesus for the springs of love, righteousness, and life. The Lord give us grace so to seek that we may find, and be enabled to say with the woman in the Gospel, ‘I have found the piece of silver which I had lost.’
“If your affairs do not really call you to France I will wait until Providence and grace shall open a way to me to the mountains of Switzerland, if I am ever to see them again. Adieu! Give yourself wholly to God. A divided heart, like a divided kingdom, falls naturally by its own gravity either into darkness or into sin. My heart’s desire is that the love of Jesus may fill your soul, and that of your unworthy and greatly obliged servant,
“JOHN FLETCHER.”[198]
Footnote 198:
Letters, 1791, p. 210.
The journey to Switzerland was deferred, but took place; though no one seems to know the exact date when it was begun or when it ended. In the month of July, however, Fletcher was again in England. Strangely enough, there is no letter of his that refers to the extensive tour made by him and his friend Ireland; but the latter sent the following account to Mr. Benson:—
“I was with Mr. Fletcher, day and night, nearly five months, travelling all over Italy and France. At that time, a popish priest resided in his parish, who attempted to mislead the poor people. Mr. Fletcher, therefore, throughout this journey, attended the sermons of the Roman Catholic clergy, visited their convents and monasteries, and conversed with all the most serious among them whom he met with, in order that he might know their sentiments concerning spiritual religion. He was so very particular in making observations respecting the gross and absurd practices of the priests and other clergy, especially while we were in Italy, that we were frequently in no small danger of our lives. He wished to attend the Pope’s chapel at Rome, but I would not consent to accompany him till I had obtained a promise from him that he would forbear to speak by way of censure or reproof of what he saw or heard. He met with many men of science and learning, with whom he conversed freely on Gospel truths, which most of them opposed with violence. A few listened and were edified. His whole life, as you well know, was a sermon; all his conversations were sermons. Even his disputations with infidels were full of instruction. We met with a gentleman of fortune, an excellent classical scholar, with whom we continued near a fortnight at an hotel. He said he had travelled all over Europe, and had passed through all the Societies in England to find a person whose life corresponded with the Gospels and with Paul’s Epistles. He asked me (for it was with me he first began to converse) if I knew any clergyman or dissenting minister in England, possessed of a stipend of £100 a year for the cure of souls, who would not leave them all if he were offered double that amount. I replied in the affirmative, and pointed to my friend Fletcher; when disputations commenced, which continued for many days.”[199]
Footnote 199:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
Mr. Gilpin, in Fletcher’s “Portrait of St. Paul,” adds to this account. He says:—
“This debate was continued, by adjournment, for the space of a week. Whatever had been said upon the subject by the most celebrated writers was brought forward, and thoroughly discussed. Mr. Fletcher repeatedly overcame his antagonist, who regularly lost his temper and his cause together. Mr. Fletcher took a view of the Christian’s enviable life, his consolation in trouble, and his tranquillity in danger; together with his superiority to all the evils of life and the horrors of death; interspersing his remarks with affectionate admonitions and powerful persuasives to a rational dependence upon the truths of the Gospel. At the conclusion of this memorable debate, the unsuccessful disputant conceived so exalted an idea of his opponent’s character, that he never afterwards mentioned his name but with peculiar veneration and regard; and when they met again, eight years later, in Provence, where the gentleman lived in affluence, he showed Mr. Fletcher every possible civility, entertained him at his house in the most hospitable manner, and listened to his conversation on spiritual subjects with all imaginable attention and respect.”
Mr. Gilpin mentions another incident of the same kind. Fletcher, in his travels, met a young gentleman from Genoa, who had imbibed the infidel notions of the day. They had a debate, which lasted several days, from morning till night. The sceptic was vanquished, and was so struck with the masterly skill of Fletcher, and his more than parental concern, that, before they parted, he looked up to his instructor with reverence, listened to him with admiration, and desired to be present at morning and evening prayer.[200]
Footnote 200:
“Portrait of St. Paul.”
While at Marseilles, Mr. Ireland procured for Fletcher the use of a Protestant church in that neighbourhood; but the engagement to preach in it caused Fletcher great anxiety, probably because he had lost his facility in speaking the French language. He prayed about it earnestly all the week; and when Sunday morning came, he entreated Mr. Ireland to inform the minister of the church that he was unable to fulfil his engagement. Mr. Ireland refused; and Fletcher was compelled to ascend the pulpit, where he preached with such effect, that the whole congregation, among whom were many ministers, were in tears.[201]
He determined, while in the south of France, to visit the Protestants in the Cevennes mountains, whose fathers had suffered so severely in the cause of Christ; “the heretics of the Cevennes, those accursed remainders of the old Albigenses,” as the Bull of Clement XI., dated 1703, designated them. The journey was long and difficult, but no argument could prevail with him to abandon his resolution of attempting it on foot. “Shall I,” said he to his friend Ireland, “make a visit on horseback and at ease, to those poor cottagers, whose fathers were hunted along the rocks, like partridges upon the mountains? No: I will visit them under the plainest appearance, with my staff in my hand.” Accordingly, he set out alone, and, after travelling till it was nearly dark, he entered a small house, and begged the favour of being allowed to sit in a chair till morning. The master of the cottage, after some hesitation, consented. Conversation followed; the host and hostess were charmed; the best provisions in their humble dwelling were given to the traveller; and, before they retired to rest, prayer was proposed and offered. Early on the morrow, the strange visitant renewed his conversation and his prayers; father, mother, and children were melted into tears; and the poor man himself told his neighbours that he had nearly refused to admit a stranger into his house, who was more an angel than a man. The family were papists.
Continuing his journey, Fletcher reached a small town, where he was entertained by a pious minister, to whom he had been recommended. The Protestants received him with open arms. He conversed with their elders; admonished their youth; visited their sick; and preached with freedom and success. Many among them were comforted, and many built up in their most holy faith.
Footnote 201:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
As he travelled over the mountains, he, one day, put up in a small dwelling, whose master could hardly speak without uttering an oath. Of course, Fletcher, in his own peculiar way, reproved the swearer; and, with such effect, that the man confessed his sin; and ever afterwards, when in danger of falling into his old habit, nothing more was necessary to restrain him than to remember the saintly stranger who had once obtained a lodging beneath his humble roof.[202]
Footnote 202:
Gilpin’s “Notes to Portrait of St. Paul.”
Fletcher and Mr. Ireland proceeded from France to Italy, and traversed the celebrated Appian Way. As they approached it, Fletcher directed the driver to stop; for, said he to Mr. Ireland, “I cannot ride over ground where the Apostle Paul once walked, chained to a soldier.” As soon as he set his foot upon the old Roman road, he took off his hat; and, walking on with his eyes lifted up to heaven, he gave God thanks for the glorious truths which Paul preached. He rejoiced that, in England, these truths were still published; and prayed that they might be revived in Italy. He reviewed the life, the travels, the labours, and the sufferings of the great Apostle, his remarks being intermixed with prayer and praise, and the man himself resembling an incarnation of devotion.[203]
Footnote 203:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
On arriving in Switzerland, he was at once solicited by the clergy at Nyon to occupy their pulpits. He complied with their requests; and, wherever he was announced to preach, multitudes from all quarters flocked to hear him. Even deists listened to him with admiration, and the crowds seemed to think him more than human. Despisers of revelation were overawed and confounded; formalists were roused; and careless sinners startled. One of his converts betook himself to sacred studies, and became a Protestant minister at Lyons. When the time for Fletcher’s departure came, a good old minister, of more than threescore years and ten, besought him, with indescribable earnestness, to stay a little longer, even were it only for a single week; and, when he found that this was impracticable, the old gentleman burst into tears, and, addressing Mr. Ireland, cried, “Oh, Sir, how unfortunate for my country! During my lifetime, it has produced but one angel of a man, and now it is our lot to lose him!” At length the carriage, that was to bear away the travellers, appeared; multitudes crowded round about it, anxious to receive a last word or look; and not a few followed it for above two miles, before they could summon sufficient resolution to bid farewell to their saintly compatriot whom they had learned to love so much.[204]
Footnote 204:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
Fletcher reached England about the time of midsummer 1770. His tour had done him good, and had prepared him for the more than ordinary trials that awaited him.
VIII. COMMENCEMENT OF THE CALVINIAN CONTROVERSY.
1770 AND 1771.
DURING his absence from England, Fletcher wrote several letters to the masters and students of the Countess of Huntingdon’s College at Trevecca;[205] but none of these have been published, and, probably, none of them now exist. Immediately after his return, and before he had an opportunity of visiting the College, he indited the following remarkable epistle:—
“MADELEY, July 23, 1770.
“To the masters and students of Lady Huntingdon’s College.
“Grace, mercy, and peace attend you, my dear brethren, from God our Father, and from our Lord and Brother Jesus Christ!
“Brother, do I say? Should I not rather have written All? Is not He all and in all? All to believers, for He is their God, as the λογος (the Word), and their Friend, Brother, Father, Spouse, etc., etc., etc., as He is λογος γενομενος σαρξ (the Word made flesh). From Him, through Him, and in Him, I salute you in the Spirit. I believe He is here with me, and in me. I believe He is yonder with you, and in you; for ‘in Him we live, move, and have,’ not only our animal, but rational and spiritual, ‘being.’ May the powerful grain of faith remove the mountain of remaining unbelief, that you and I may see things as God sees them! When this is the case, we shall discover that the Creator is All indeed, and that creatures, which we are wont to put in His place, are mere nothings, passing clouds that our Sun of Righteousness has thought fit to clothe Himself with, and paint some of His glories upon. In an instant, He could scatter them into their original nothing, or resorb them for ever, and stand without competitor, יחוה, the Being.
“But suppose that all creatures should stand for ever, little signatures of God, what are they even in their most glorious estate, but as tapers kindled by His light, as well as formed by His power? Now conceive a Sun, a spiritual Sun, whose centre is everywhere, whose circumference can be found nowhere; a Sun whose lustre as much surpasses the brightness of the luminary that rules the day, as the Creator surpasses the creature; and say, What are the twinkling tapers of good men on earth,—what is the smoking flax of wicked creatures,—what the glittering stars of saints in heaven? Why, they are all lost in His transcendent glory, and if any one of these would set himself up as an object of esteem, regard, or admiration, he must indeed be mad with self and pride. He must be, as dear Mr. Howell Harris has often told us, a foolish apostate, a devil.
“Understand this, believe this, and you will sink to unknown depths of self-horror, for having aspired at being somebody, self-humiliation at seeing yourself nobody, or what is worse an evil-body.
“But I would not have you dwell even upon this evil, so as to lose sight of your Sun, unless it be to see Him covered, on this account, with our flesh and blood, and wrapt in the cloud of our nature. Then you will cry out with St. Paul, ‘O the depth!’ Then, finding the manhood is again resorbed into the Godhead, you will gladly renounce all selfish, separate existence in Adam and from Adam. You will take Christ to be your life; you will become His members by eating His flesh and drinking His blood; you will consider His flesh as your flesh, His bone as your bone, His Spirit as your spirit, His righteousness as your righteousness, His cross as your cross, and His crown (whether of thorns or glory) as your crown. You will reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through this dear Redeemer. You will renounce propriety; you will heartily and gladly say, ‘Not I, not I, but Christ liveth; and only because He lives, I do, and shall live also.’
“When it is so with us, then we are creatures in our Creator, and redeemed creatures in our Redeemer. Then we understand and feel what He says, ‘Without Me the Creator, ye are nothing; without Me the Saviour, ye can do nothing.’ ‘The moment I consider Christ and myself as two, I am gone,’ says Luther; and I say so too. I am gone into self, and into Antichrist; for that which will be something, will not let Christ be all; and that which will not let Christ be all, must certainly be Antichrist. What a poor, jejune, dry thing is doctrinal Christianity, compared with the clear and heartfelt assent that the believer gives to these fundamental truths! What life, what strength, what comfort flow out from them! O my friends, let us believe, and we shall see, taste, and handle the Word of Life. When I stand in unbelief, I am like a drop of muddy water drying up in the sun of temptation. I can neither comfort, nor help, nor preserve myself. When I do believe and close in with Christ, I am like that same drop losing itself in a boundless, bottomless sea of purity, light, life, power, and love. There my good and my evil are equally nothing; equally swallowed up; and grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life.
“There I wish you all to be. There I beg you and I may meet with all God’s children. I long to see you that I may impart unto you (should God make use of such a worm) some spiritual gift, and that I may be comforted by the mutual faith of you and me, and by your growth in grace, and in divine as well as human wisdom, during my long absence. I hope matters will be so contrived that I may be with you, to behold your order, before the anniversary. Meanwhile, I remain your affectionate fellow-labourer and servant in the Gospel of Christ,
“JOHN FLETCHER.”[206]
Footnote 205:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.“
Footnote 206:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.“
No wonder that the visits of a man breathing such a spirit were welcomed. Mr. Benson, the head master of the College, writes:—
“He was received as an angel of God. It is not possible for me to describe the veneration in which we all held him. Like Elijah, in the schools of the prophets, he was revered; he was loved; he was almost adored; not only by every student, but by every member of the family.
“And indeed he was worthy. The reader will pardon me, if he thinks I exceed. My heart kindles while I write. Here it was that I saw, shall I say, an angel in human flesh? I should not far exceed the truth if I said so. But here I saw a descendant of fallen Adam, so fully raised above the ruins of the fall, that, though by the body he was tied down to earth, his whole conversation was in heaven. His life, from day to day, was hid with Christ in God. Prayer, praise, love, and zeal, all ardent, elevated above what one would think attainable in this state of frailty, were the element in which he continually lived. As to others, his one employment was, to call, entreat, and urge them, to ascend with him to the glorious source of being and blessedness. He had leisure, comparatively, for nothing else. Languages, arts, sciences, grammar, rhetoric, logic, even divinity itself, were all laid aside, when he appeared in the schoolroom among the students. His full heart would not suffer him to be silent. He must speak, and they were readier to hearken to this servant and minister of Jesus Christ, than to attend to Sallust, Virgil, Cicero, or any Latin or Greek historian, poet, or philosopher they had been engaged in reading. And they seldom hearkened long, before they were all in tears, and every heart catched fire from the flame that burned in his soul.
“These seasons generally terminated in this. Being convinced that to be ‘filled with the Holy Ghost’ was a better qualification for the ministry of the Gospel than any classical learning (though that too may be useful in its place), after speaking awhile in the schoolroom, he used frequently to say, ‘As many of you as are athirst for the fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.’ On this, many of us instantly followed him, and there continued till noon, for two or three hours, praying for one another, till we could bear to kneel no longer. This was done, not once or twice, but many times; and I have sometimes seen him, on these occasions—once in particular—so filled with the love of God, that he cried out, ‘O my God, withhold Thy hand, or the vessel will burst!’ But he afterwards told me, he was afraid he had grieved the Spirit of God, and that he ought to have prayed that the Lord would have enlarged the vessel, or have suffered it to break, that the soul might have had no further bar to its enjoyment of the Supreme Good.
“Such was the ordinary employment of this man of God, while he remained at Trevecca. He preached the word of life to the students and family, and to as many of the neighbours as desired to be present. He was always employed, either in illustrating some important truth, or exhorting to some neglected duty, or administering some needful comfort, or relating some useful anecdote, or making some profitable remark. His devout soul, always burning with love and zeal, led him to intermingle prayer with all he uttered. His manner was so solemn and, at the same time, so mild and insinuating, that it was hardly possible for any one to be in his company without being struck with awe and charmed with love, as if in the presence of an angel or departed spirit. Indeed, I frequently thought, while attending to his heavenly discourse, that he was so different from the generality of mankind as to look more like Moses or Elijah, or some prophet or apostle come again from the dead, than a mortal man dwelling in a house of clay.”[207]
Footnote 207:
Wesley’s “Life of Fletcher.“
This, to some, may appear excessive eulogy; and, therefore, the reader is reminded that Joseph Benson, who wrote it, was not a weak-minded fanatic, but a man of robust understanding, a classical scholar of no mean attainments, an able commentator on the Old and New Testaments, one of the most powerful and successful preachers of his times, and twice President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference. Such a man was not likely to write random words. He knew Fletcher, and, to the best of his power, described him accurately. And, further, it must be remembered that Benson’s testimony was endorsed by Wesley, who inserted it verbatim in his “Life of Fletcher.“
Such was Fletcher; and yet this half-angelic man had soon to leave Trevecca! The reasons for this must now be given. The subject will be far from pleasant; but, in a Life of Fletcher, it cannot be evaded. For some time past, the storm of the Calvinian controversy had been brewing; now the crisis came, and the storm burst with terrific violence.
Before proceeding, however, with the history of the controversy, there is a letter belonging to this period too interesting to be omitted. David Simpson, who had belonged to Rowland Hill’s Methodist Society, at Cambridge, had recently received episcopal ordination, and begun his famous ministry. Like Wesley, Whitefield, Berridge, Rowland Hill, and others, he was inclined to become, to some extent, an itinerant preacher, and, therefore, irregular. He was only twenty-four years of age, without experience, and in need of counsel. Accordingly, he wrote to Fletcher, who returned the following answer:—
“MADELEY, August 4, 1770.
“REVEREND AND DEAR SIR,—I have sometimes preached in licensed places, but have never been censured for it. Perhaps it is because my superiors in the Church think me not worth their notice, and despair of shackling me with their unevangelical regularity. If the Bishop were to take me to task about this piece of irregularity, I would observe,—
“1. That the canons of men cannot overthrow the canons of God. ‘Preach the word. Be instant in season and out of season.’ ‘The time cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship,’ particularly and exclusively of all other places, neither upon mount Gerizim, nor upon mount Zion; but they shall worship everywhere in spirit and in truth. The contrary canons are Jewish, and subversive of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free; yea, contrary to the right of Churchmen, which must, at least, include the privilege of dissenters.
“2. Before the Bishop shackled me with canons, he charged me to ‘look for Christ’s lost sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for His children who are in the midst of this wicked world;’ and these sheep, etc., I will try to gather whenever I meet them. We have a general canon:—‘While we have time, let us do good to all men, and especially to them who are of the household of faith.’ ‘Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature’ willing to hear it.
“A Justice of the Peace would once prosecute me upon the Conventicle Act; but, when it came to the point, he durst not do it. Some of my parishioners went and complained to the Bishop about my conventicles. I wrote to the Registrar that I hoped his Lordship, who had given me the above-mentioned charge at my ordination, would not be against my following it; that I thought it hard the tipplers should have twenty or thirty tippling-houses, the papists one meeting-house, and the dissenters three or four, in my parish, undisturbed, and that I should be disturbed, because I would not have God’s Word confined to one house; and that, with respect to the canons, it would be absurd to put them in force against preaching clergymen, when they were set aside with respect to catechising, tippling, gaming, and carding clergymen; that I did not desire his Lordship to patronize me, in an especial manner, in the use of my Christian liberty; but that I hoped he would connive at it.
“Whether they received my letter or not, I do not know; but they never attempted to molest me.
“Be modestly and steadily bold for God, and your enemies will be more afraid of you than you of them; or if God will honour you with the badge of persecution, He will comfort and bless you the more for it. May the God of all grace and power be with you more and more! Ask it, dear Sir, for your brother and servant in Christ,
“J. FLETCHER.”[208]
Footnote 208:
Fletcher’s Works, vol. viii., p. 257.
Fletcher had been only a few weeks at home, when Wesley opened the Annual Conference of his Itinerant Preachers. This took place in London, on August 7, 1770. The twenty-eighth question of that Conference was, “What can be done to revive the work of God where it is decayed?” In answering this, it was resolved, 1. That there must be more visitation from house to house; 2. That the books Wesley had printed should be more widely dispersed; 3. That there should be more field-preaching; 4. That there should be preaching at five o’clock in the morning wherever twenty hearers could be obtained; 5. That evils in congregational singing should be corrected; 6. That four fast-days should be observed every year; 7. That the Methodists must be taught to seek and expect, not only gradual, but “instantaneous sanctification”; 8. That every Itinerant Preacher, “in every large town, should spend an hour with the children” of the Methodists every week; 9. That no itinerant preacher should be so appointed to preach on Sundays, as to keep him “from church above two Sundays in four.”
The last answer to the question is the only one that concerns the Life of Fletcher, and must be given verbatim. Continuing to instruct and direct his preachers, Wesley observed, lastly,—
“Take heed to your doctrine.
“We said, in 1744, ‘We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.’ Wherein?
“1. With regard to man’s faithfulness. Our Lord Himself taught us to use the expression, and we ought never to be ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert, on His authority, that if a man is not ‘faithful in the unrighteous mammon,’ God will not give him ‘the true riches.’
“2. With regard to working for life. This also our Lord has expressly commanded us. ‘Labour,’ εργαζεσθε, literally, ‘work for the meat that endureth to everlasting life.’ And, in fact, every believer, till he comes to glory, works for as well as from life.
“3. We have received it as a maxim, that ‘a man is to do nothing in order to justification.’ Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires to find favour with God should ‘cease from evil, and learn to do well.’ Whoever repents should do ‘works meet for repentance.’ And if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?
“Review the whole affair.
“1. Who of us is now accepted of God?
“He that now believes in Christ with a loving and obedient heart.
“2. But who among those who never heard of Christ?
“He that feareth God, and worketh righteousness according to the light he has.
“3. Is this the same with ‘he that is sincere’?
“Nearly, if not quite.
“4. Is not this ‘salvation by works’?
“Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition.
“5. What have we then been disputing about for these thirty years?
“I am afraid, about words.
“6. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid: we are rewarded ‘according to our works,’ yea, ‘because of our works.’ How does this differ from for the sake of our works? And how differs this from secundum merita operum? As our works deserve. Can you split this hair? I doubt I cannot.
“7. The grand objection to one of the preceding propositions is drawn from a matter of fact. God does in fact justify those who, by their own confession, neither feared God nor wrought righteousness. Is this an exception to the general rule?
“It is a doubt, God makes any exception at all. But how are we sure that the person in question never did fear God and work righteousness? His own saying so is not proof; for we know how all that are convinced of sin undervalue themselves in every respect.
“8. Does not talking of a justified or a sanctified state tend to mislead men, almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, ‘according to our works.’ According to the whole of our inward tempers, and our outward behaviour.”[209]
Footnote 209:
“Minutes of the Methodist Conferences,” vol. i., p. 97.
For the next five years (1770–1775), Fletcher made it his duty to explain and defend these theological theses; and a review of this quinquennial controversy—as concise as possible—must now be attempted.
Eight days after the close of Wesley’s Conference, Lady Huntingdon, with the Rev. Walter Shirley and the Rev. Henry Venn, arrived at Mr. Ireland’s residence at Brislington, on their way to Trevecca to attend the services in connection with the anniversary of the College. Wesley had been at the anniversary a year ago, and had been invited to be at the present one. Accordingly, he remained in Bristol with the expectation of accompanying her ladyship to Wales, but, horrified by the doctrinal minutes of his late Conference, she wrote to him saying that, until he renounced such doctrines, she must exclude him from all her pulpits. Wesley returned no reply to this communication, but, next day, calmly and quietly set out for Cornwall.[210]
Footnote 210:
It is said that when Shirley sent her ladyship a copy of Wesley’s Doctrinal Minutes, she burnt it. (Bogue and Bennett’s “History of Dissenters.“)
The day after this, the Countess, accompanied by Shirley and Venn, Lady Anne Erskine, Miss Orton, Mr. Ireland, and Mr. Lloyd, started for Trevecca, where Fletcher, the President of the College, was ready to receive them. Here, also, were assembled three of the Methodist clergymen in Wales, William Williams, Peter Williams, and Daniel Rowlands; likewise Howell Harris, and several other lay preachers and exhorters. On Wednesday, August 23, at nine in the morning, Shirley administered the Lord’s Supper; at ten, Fletcher preached; at two in the afternoon, Venn addressed the students; and at four, Howell Harris addressed a large congregation in the court of the College. On Thursday morning, August 24, Venn administered the sacrament; at ten, Daniel Rowlands and William Williams preached in the court; at two, Shirley examined the students, and gave an exhortation; at four, Peter Williams discoursed in the chapel, and some of the lay preachers in the court. In the evening Berridge arrived at the College.
On Friday, August 24, the anniversary day of the opening, a public prayer-meeting was held in the chapel, at six o’clock in the morning, when Rowlands, Williams, Harris, and Berridge offered prayer; after which Fletcher, as President of the College, administered the Lord’s Supper, first to ten clergymen, then to the students, then to Lady Huntingdon and her household, and then to the congregation in general. Public service began at ten. A scaffold was erected in the court, on which sat all the clergy, dissenting ministers, lay preachers, and students. Fletcher read the liturgy of the Church of England, Peter Williams offered extemporary prayer, the vast congregation sang most lustily the glorious hymn of heretical Wesley, beginning with the line,
“Arm of the Lord, awake, awake!“
Shirley preached from the words, “For after that, in the wisdom of God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.” Then William Williams followed with a sermon in Welsh. At two, her ladyship’s guests all dined, the people in the chapel and in the court continuing to sing and pray. At three, Berridge discoursed from, “They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.” After him, Daniel Rowlands, in his own eloquent and powerful manner, addressed the multitude in Welsh, taking as his text, “We preach Christ crucified.” In the evening, Venn delivered a sort of charge to the ministers, students, and lay preachers, from the text, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;” and Fletcher concluded the services of the anniversary by offering prayer.
The next morning, however, at seven o’clock, these godly and earnest people held another prayer-meeting in the chapel, in which Shirley, Venn, Berridge, and Fletcher took part. On the day following, Sunday, August 26, Venn and Berridge preached, and then this memorable assemblage dispersed, Lady Huntingdon proceeding, by way of Berwick and Worcester, to Bristol, where she met Charles Wesley, and, despite the heresy of his brother and the itinerants at the late Conference, took him to Bath to preach several times in her chapel in that city.[211]
Footnote 211:
“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. ii., pp. 106–109.
Truly, these were glorious days; but, mournful to relate, they were soon followed by days of strife and bitterness. Wesley was accused of having renounced the doctrines of the Reformation. He was traduced as a Pelagian, a Pharisee, a Papist, an Antichrist.[212] All this was unjust and untrue. In less than four months after the memorable Conference of 1770, Wesley preached his “Sermon on the Death of Whitefield,” in which he said:—
“The fundamental point of Mr. Whitefield was, give God all the glory of whatever is good in man; and, in the business of salvation, set Christ as high, and man as low as possible. With this point, he and his friends at Oxford, the original Methodists (so-called) set out. Their grand principle was, there is no power (by nature) and no merit in man. They insisted, all power to think, speak, or act right, is in and from the Spirit of Christ; and all merit is (not in man, how high soever in grace, but merely) in the blood of Christ. So he and they taught: There is no power in man, till it is given him from above, to do one good work, to speak one good word, or to form one good desire. For it is not enough to say, all are sick of sin: no, we are all dead in trespasses and sins. It follows that all the children of men are by nature children of wrath. We are all guilty before God, liable to death temporal and eternal.
“And we are all helpless, both with regard to the power and to the guilt of sin. For who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? None less than the Almighty. Who can raise those that are dead, spiritually dead in sin? None but He who raised us from the dust of the earth. But on what consideration will He do this? Not for works of righteousness that we have done. The dead cannot praise Thee, O Lord! nor do anything for the sake of which they should be raised to life. Whatever therefore God does, He does it merely for the sake of His well-beloved Son: He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities. He Himself bore all our sin in His own body upon the tree. He was delivered for our offences, and rose again for our justification. Here then is the sole meritorious cause of every blessing we do or can enjoy: in particular of our pardon and acceptance with God, of our free and full justification. But by what means do we become interested in what Christ has done and suffered? Not by works, lest any man should boast; but by faith alone. We conclude, says the Apostle, that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. And to as many as thus receive Him, giveth He power to become the sons of God: even to those that believe in His name, who are born, not of the will of man, but of God.
“And except a man be thus born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But all who are thus born of the Spirit, have the kingdom of God within them. Christ sets up His kingdom in their hearts—righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. That mind is in them, which was in Christ Jesus, enabling them to walk as Christ also walked. His indwelling Spirit makes them both holy in heart, and holy in all manner of conversation. But still, seeing all this is a free gift, through the righteousness and blood of Christ, there is eternally the same reason to remember, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
“You are not ignorant, that these are the fundamental doctrines which he (Mr. Whitefield) everywhere insisted on. And may they not be summed up, as it were, in two words, The new birth, and justification by faith. These let us insist upon, with all boldness, at all times, and in all places. In public (those of us who are called thereto), and, at all opportunities, in private. Keep close to these good old unfashionable doctrines, how many soever contradict and blaspheme. Go on, my brethren, in the name of the Lord, and in the power of His might. With all care and diligence, keep that safe which is committed to your trust: knowing that heaven and earth shall pass away; but this truth shall not pass away.”[213]
Footnote 212:
Fletcher’s Works, vol. i., p. 209.
Footnote 213:
Wesley’s “Sermon on the Death of Whitefield,” p. 26.
Thus did Wesley address the crowds of Calvinists, in Whitefield’s two London chapels, on Sunday, November 18, 1770. There can be no doubt that he meant this to be an answer to the misrepresentations and calumnies launched against him, on account of the doctrinal minutes of his recent Conference. It ought to have been sufficient to silence his adversaries, but it was not. Passion is more easily excited than appeased. In a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, Lady Glenorchy[214] wrote:—
“EDINBURGH, January 10, 1771.
“Your ladyship’s account of what occurred at Mr. Wesley’s last Conference does not surprise me. I have since seen the Minutes, and must bear my feeble testimony against the sentiments contained in them. May the Lord God of Israel be with you, and enable you to make a firm stand in defence of a free-grace Gospel! Lady Anne’s letter has told me all you have been doing in this momentous affair. When you next write to dear Mr. Shirley, give my kindest regards to him, and also to Mr. Venn, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Romaine. From what Lady Anne says, I fear very much for Mr. Fletcher that he will be carried off by Mr. Wesley’s influence. What will be the end of this business I know not. I know Mr. Wesley is greatly displeased with me, though I have always countenanced his preachers; but now I find this cannot be done by me any longer. Nevertheless, I respect him highly, and pray that he may be led in the way of truth.”[215]
Footnote 214:
Lady Glenorchy opened a number of chapels, both in Scotland and England, and did her utmost to supply them with evangelical ministers. She was, in fact, the Lady Huntingdon of Scotland.
Footnote 215:
“Life and Times of the Countess of Huntingdon,” vol. i., p. 111.
Lady Glenorchy executed her conscientious threat. Lady Huntingdon had already done the same. Further action was taken. Joseph Benson was dismissed from Trevecca College, because he adhered to the doctrines of Wesley. The good Countess, however, gave him the following certificate:—
“This is to certify that Mr. Joseph Benson was master for the languages in my College at Talgarth for nine months, and that, during that time, from his capacity, sobriety, and diligence, he acquitted himself properly in that character; and I am ready at any time to testify this on his behalf whenever required.
“College, January 17, 1771. S. HUNTINGDON.”[216]
Footnote 216:
Macdonald’s “Life of Benson.”
Benson was unexceptionable as a classical master; but, in her ladyship’s opinion, he was a heretic in theological dogmas, because he did not believe the doctrine of absolute predestination.[217] Fletcher, the president of the college, was dissatisfied with her ladyship’s dismissal of the master, and wrote to her as follows:—
“January 7, 1771.
“Mr. Benson made a very just defence when he said, he held with me the possibility of salvation for all men; that mercy is offered to all; and yet may be received or rejected. If this be what your ladyship calls Mr. Wesley’s opinion, free-will, and Arminianism, and if ‘every Arminian must quit the College,’ I am actually discharged also; for, in my present view of things, I must hold that sentiment, if I believe that the Bible is true, and that God is love.
“For my part, I am no party-man. In the Lord, I am your servant, and that of your every student; but I cannot give up the honour of being connected with my old friends, who, notwithstanding their failings, are entitled to my respect, gratitude, and assistance, could I occasionally give them any. Mr. Wesley shall always be welcome to my pulpit, and I shall gladly bear my testimony in his, as well as in Mr. Whitefield’s. But if your ladyship forbid your students to preach for the one, and offer them to preach for the other at every turn; and if a master is discarded for believing that Christ died for all; then prejudice reigns, charity is cruelly wounded, and party spirit shouts, prevails, and triumphs.”
Footnote 217:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
On the same day, Fletcher wrote to the dismissed Benson the following:—
“January 7, 1771.
“DEAR SIR,—The same post brought me yours, and two from my lady, and one from Mr. Williams.[218] Their letters contained no charges, but general ones, which with me go for nothing. If the procedure you mention be fact, and your letter be a fair account of the transactions and words relative to your discharge, a false step has been taken. I write by this post to her ladyship on the affair, with all possible plainness. If the plan of the college be overthrown, I have nothing more to say to it. I will keep to my tent for one; the confined tool of any one party I never was, and never will be. If the blow that should have been struck at the dead spirit, is struck at dead Arminius, or absent Mr. Wesley,—if a master is turned away without any fault, it is time for me to stand up with firmness, or to withdraw.
“Take care, my dear Sir, not to make matters worse than they are; and cast a mantle of forgiving love over the circumstances that might injure the cause of God, so far as it is put into the hands of that eminent lady, who has so well deserved of the Church of Christ. Rather suffer in silence, than make a noise to cause the Philistines to triumph. Do not let go your expectation of a baptism from above. May you be supported in this and every other trial! Farewell!
“J. FLETCHER.”
Footnote 218:
A clergyman, who, professing to be under serious impressions, had been permitted by her ladyship to stay a few weeks at the college; but was neither master nor student. Fletcher termed him “a bird of passage.”
Two days later, Fletcher wrote again to Benson as follows:—
“January 9, 1771.
“I am determined to stand or fall with the liberty of the College. As I entered it a free place, I must quit it the moment it is a harbour for party spirit.
“As I am resolved to clear up this matter or quit my province, I beg you will help me to as many facts and words, truly done, and really spoken, as you can; whereby I may show that false reports, groundless suspicions, party spirit against Mr. Wesley, arbitrary proceedings, and unscriptural impulses, hold the reins and manage affairs in the College; as also that the balance of opinions is not maintained, and Mr. Wesley’s opinions are dreaded, and struck at, more than deadness of heart, and a wrong conduct.
“So far as we can, let us keep this matter to ourselves. When you speak of it to others, rather endeavour to palliate than aggravate what has been wrong in your opposers. Remember that great lady has been an instrument of great good, and that there are great inconsistencies attending the greatest and best of men. Possess your soul in patience. See the salvation of God; and believe, though against hope, that light will spring out of darkness.
“I am, with concern for you and that poor College, “Yours, in Jesus, “J. FLETCHER.”
On February 20, Fletcher set out for the College;[219] and, on his return to Madeley, he wrote to Wesley the following hitherto unpublished letter:—
“MADELEY, March 18, 1771.
“REV. AND DEAR SIR,—I was sorry not to have had it in my power to meet you in Shropshire,[220] and give you, by word of mouth, an account of what passed at Lady Huntingdon’s College respecting you, at my last visit there.
“The hasty admitting of subjects that did not appear to me proper; the sanguine hopes they would turn out against probability, the divisions at Brecknock and the Hay, and some things that I did not approve in Mr. Benson’s dismission, gave me a disgust to the College. Nevertheless, I went to try to make the best of the matter; but I found at my arrival that the students had been armed by Mr. Shirley against the point I had, with some success, maintained when I was there before, namely, internal conversion by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in the heart by faith. He called it perfection, and as such baited it out of the place.
“I saw the College was no longer my place, as I was not likely to do or receive any good there, especially as Calvinism strongly prevailed. Under these circumstances, and humbling views of my insufficiency, I told my lady and all around me, I resigned the place of superintendent; nevertheless, I would stay awhile to supply the want of a master.
“In the meantime, an extract of your last Minutes was sent to my lady, who wept much over it, through an honest fear that you had fairly and fully given up the grand point of the Methodists, free justification, articulum stantis vel cadentis ecclesiæ. The heresy appeared horrible, worth being publicly opposed, and such as a true believer ought to be ready to burn against. I tried to soften matters, but in vain. The students were commanded to write their sentiments upon your doctrine of salvation by works, working for life, the merit of works, etc.; and whoever did not fully disavow it, was to quit the College. I wrote among the rest, and showed the absurdity of inferring from these Minutes that you had renounced the Protestant doctrine and the atonement. I defended your sentiments, by explaining them as I have heard you do, and only blamed the unguarded and not sufficiently explicit manner in which they were worded. I concluded by saying, that, as, after Lady Huntingdon’s declaration, I could no longer stay in the College, but as an intruder, I absolutely resigned my place, as I must appear to all around as great a heretic as yourself.
“This step had a better effect than I expected. My lady weighed with candour what I had advanced, though she thought it too bad to be laid before the students. In short, I retired in peace and as peacemaker, the servant and no more the principal of the College. I advised Lady Huntingdon to choose a moderate Calvinist in my place, and recommended Mr. Rowland Hill. The College will take quite a Calvinist turn, and an itinerant ministry will go out of it to feed the Church of God of that sentimental denomination. I strongly recommended them to set fire to the harvest of the Philistines, and not to that of their fellow Israelites who cannot pronounce Shibboleth in their way. My lady seemed quite disposed for peace last Friday;[221] and she will write to you to beg you will explain yourself upon the Minutes, that she and the College may see you are not an enemy to grace, and may be friends at a distance, instead of open adversaries.
“And now, my dear Sir, I beseech you to put on all the bowels of mercy and condescension that are in Christ, to hope the College and its foundress mean well; and give them all the satisfaction you can. I need not bring to your remembrance the words of the Apostle, ‘As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.’ I trust they are graven on your heart, and that, should war ensue, your moderation will still appear to all men. The points that will most stop the mouth of our friend are the total fall of man, and his utter inability to do any good of himself; the absolute necessity of the grace and Spirit of God to raise even a good thought or desire in the heart; the Lord rewarding no work, or accepting of none, but so far as they proceed from His preventing, convincing, and converting grace; the blood and righteousness of Christ being the sole meritorious cause of our salvation, and the only spring of all acceptable works, whether we do them spontaneously from life or for more abundant life.
“I look upon Lady Huntingdon as an eminent servant of God, an honest, gracious person, but not above the reach of prejudice; and where prejudice misleads her, her warm heart makes her go rather too fast. It is in your power greatly to break, if not altogether to remove, the prejudice she has conceived against you, and to become all things to her, that you may not cause her to stumble in the greatness of her zeal for the Lord. The best way to get the Calvinists to allow us something, is to grant them all we possibly can.
“As your enemies will particularly watch your writings and sermons, and Satan your heart to find an occasion against you by self-righteousness and dependence upon your great works, my prayer is that you may fully disappoint them, by guarding the Gospel truth in your own heart and life and doctrine, as much from the legal as the antinomian extreme, between which it invariably lies.
“With respect to me, I am not yet a Christian in the full sense of the word; but I follow after, if so be I may apprehend that for which I am apprehended of Christ. Take no notice of my scrawl. Pray for, and direct, Rev. and dear Sir, your affectionate friend and unworthy servant in Christ,
“J. FLETCHER.
“To “The Rev. Mr. John Wesley, “At the Octagone, “Chester.” (Salop postmark.)
Footnote 219:
“Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. iii., p. 88.
Footnote 220:
Wesley was at Wem only three days before this letter was written.
Footnote 221:
The day Wesley was at Wem, namely, March 15.
Four days after the date of this letter, Fletcher wrote to Benson, giving him some of the particulars just recited; but also mentioning other facts, too interesting and important to be omitted here.
“March 22, 1771.
“MY DEAR FRIEND.—On my arrival at the College, I found all very quiet, I fear through the enemy keeping his goods in peace. While I preached the next day, I found myself as much shackled as ever I was in my life; and, after private prayer, I concluded I was not in my place. The same day[222] I resigned my office to my lady; and, on Wednesday, to the students and the Lord. Nevertheless, I went on as usual, only I had no heart to give little charges to the students, as before. I should possibly have got over it as a temptation, if several circumstances had not confirmed me in my design. Two I shall mention. When Mr. Shirley was at the College, what you had written upon the ‘baptism of the Holy Ghost’ was taken to pieces. Mr. Shirley maintained that the prophecy of Joel (Acts ii.) had its complete fulfilment on the day of Pentecost; and thus he turned the stream of living waters into imperceptible dews, nemine contradicente, except two, who made one or two feeble objections; so that the point was, in my judgment, turned out of the College after you, and was abused under the name of ‘Perfection.’ This showed I was not likely to receive or do any good there.
“Some days after my arrival, however, I preached the good old doctrine before my Lady and Mr. H——. The latter also talked of imperceptible influences, and the former thanked me; but, in my apprehension, spoiled all by going to the College the next day, to give a charge partly against Perfection, in my absence.
“Last Friday, I left them all in peace, the servant, but no more the president of the College. My lady behaved with great candour and condescension towards me in the affair. As for you, you are still out of her books, and are likely so to continue. Your last letters have only thrown oil on the fire. All was seen in the same light in which Mr. Wesley’s letter appeared. You were accused of having alienated my heart from the College, but I have cleared you.
“I rejoice that your desires after a larger measure of the Holy Spirit increase. Part rather with your heart’s blood than with them. Let me meet you at the throne of grace; and send me word how you dispose of yourself. If you are at a loss for a prophet’s room, remember I have one here.
“J. FLETCHER.”[223]
Footnote 222:
Wesley says he “spent the day in fasting and prayer.” (Wesley’s Works, vol. vii., p. 416.)
Footnote 223:
Benson’s Life, by Macdonald.
To these letters must be added a verbatim copy of an important document, altogether in Fletcher’s own handwriting, and never published until now.
“An account of John Fletcher’s case, with the reasons that have induced him to resign the superintendency of the Countess of Huntingdon’s College in Wales.
“I was first connected with Mr. Wesley, under whom, for love and gratitude’s sake, I occasionally laboured some years.
“By Mr. C. Wesley I had the honour of being presented to Lady Huntingdon, who kindly admitted me to the office of a private chaplain, and granted me full leave to assist my old friends as often as I would.
“By means of her ladyship I was afterwards introduced to Mr. Whitefield, and had the honour of assisting him also both in London and Bristol, and found myself peculiarly happy in showing, by my equal readiness to throw my mite of assistance where it was accepted, that though I was the Lord’s free man I delighted to be the common servant of all. I was glad also to have from time to time an opportunity of bearing a kind of practical testimony against the spirit of party and division, which, to my great grief, crumbled the Church of Christ around me.
“After taking a dangerous turn into the doctrines of election and reprobation, my sentiments settled at last into the anti-Calvinist way, in which Mr. Wesley was rooted. Notwithstanding this, it became a steady, invariable point with me never to be so attached to his, or any one party, as to be shy of, much less break with another.
“I had soon an opportunity of being closely tried in my spirit of catholic love. Mr. Maxfield separated from his and my old friend Mr. Wesley. I thought him rather in the wrong, and Mr. Wesley was my oldest acquaintance. Notwithstanding, I ventured upon the loss of his friendship, and of my connection with him, by publicly assisting Mr. Maxfield when the breach between them was widest, and the press groaned under the unkind productions of their unhappy division.[224] Though I touched Mr. Wesley’s friendship in the tenderest part, he bore with me, and his patience increased my regard for him; nor is it at all abated now, though I have had little opportunity to show it him, having hardly exchanged one or two letters with him these many years.
“Soon after Lady Huntingdon founded her College, and partly by her unmerited esteem, partly by Providence, and partly by my desire to be a Gibeonite to God’s people and hew wood if I could not draw water, I was brought to have a principal share in the management of it. The free spirit that breathed in the noble foundress’s proposals, and the general terms of admittance, suited my catholic taste, and the liberty of sentiment granted to all that firmly maintained our total fall in Adam, attached me no less to the institution than its excellence and the prospect of its usefulness.
“Scruples nevertheless rose in my mind. The first was a fear lest improper subjects, persons destitute either of grace or gifts, perhaps of both, were admitted with the greatest readiness, and kept upon the foundation with the most sanguine hopes that a day of Pentecost would make them what they did not appear to me to be as yet—Christians and preachers. Flattering myself that it would be so, after some modest expostulations I submitted my judgment to that of the noble foundress, whose light I think in general as superior to mine as is her rank and grace.
“The Brecknock division[225] broke out. I suddenly tried to prevent it, but it took place, and secretly wounded my catholic spirit. Nevertheless, hopes that the Lord might overrule it for good soon healed the wound. This brought on a rupture between my two dear and honoured friends, the foundress of the college and Mr. Wesley. An unkind, though I hope well-meant letter, was wrote on the occasion by one, and was unkindly received, yea, looked upon as highly insulting, by the other. I saw the advantage of the enemy. I blamed, and yet I loved them both. Where I could not soften matters I remained neuter. Hence, however, arose a difficulty how I should be faithful to my lady without being unfaithful to Mr. Wesley. Meantime, the prejudice seemed to me to rise, and somewhat sowed the seeds of the Hay division. Mr. Benson’s dismission followed, and though I hope it was from the Lord, yet I could not help blaming the manner in which it was conducted.
“Lady Huntingdon said on the occasion, nobody that held Mr. Wesley’s opinions should stay in the College; every Arminian should quit the place. This wounded again my catholic spirit, and appeared to me a breach of the privilege most solemnly granted to the members of the College at the opening of it. I thought that my lady had no right to impose such a law—a law so contrary to her first proposals—till it had received a proper sanction by a majority of the votes both of masters and students, and till leave had been granted to those who could not in conscience come into it to withdraw quietly, without the odium of an expulsion. I observed that if this was the case, I looked upon myself as discharged, because I for one could no more believe that Christ did not taste death for every man, than I could believe God was not truth and love; and because all the sentiments of Mr. Wesley obnoxious to the Calvinist, except perfection, are inseparably connected with general redemption.
“With regard to perfection itself, I believe that when Mr. Wesley is altogether consistent upon that subject, he means absolutely nothing by it but the full cluster of Gospel blessings, which Lady Huntingdon so warmly presses the students to pursue; namely, Gospel faith, the immediate revelation of Christ, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of adoption, the kingdom that cannot be moved, the element of forgiving love, deep and uninterrupted poverty of spirit, and, in a word, a standing upon Mount Sion and enjoying its great and glorious privileges. And I am fully persuaded that, in this respect, there is more misunderstanding between my lady and Mr. Wesley about words and modes of expression than about things and essential principles. All the difference between them seems to me to consist in this: my lady is more for looking to the misery and depth of the fall; Mr. Wesley more for considering the power and effects of the recovery. My lady speaks glorious things of free grace; and Mr. Wesley inculcates the glorious use we ought to make of it. Both appear to me to maintain one and the same truth, and to guard it; my lady against the Legalists, Mr. Wesley against the Antinomians. If, therefore, they do not understand one another, and fall out by the way, I shall think it is a great pity, and shall continue to be, at least in my heart, the loving servant of both; though both will possibly think me prejudiced for not seeing just as they do.
“I was also grieved that my lady should have received for truth so absurd an imagination as that of Mr. Wesley being willing to give £100 a-year to a rigid Calvinist in bondage, who just read prayers with a Welsh accent, and that wise Benson made the foolish proposal to him, when Benson, to my certain knowledge, feared his head was at times a little affected. And I began to fear lest my lady should, upon the most improbable assertions, receive unfavourable impressions against me, as she had done against her old friend Mr. Wesley, especially as my particular regard for him was still the same.
“Be that as it will, my regard for Lady Huntingdon and the students made me send her ladyship my sentimental creed, that, if she did not disapprove of it, I might come to the College; and I came, to my thinking and feeling, as free and as happy as ever, and was quite free on the Saturday evening and the next morning till noon, when the little commission and authority I had to exhort the students was quite taken away from me. As I preached in the chapel, an uncommon weight came upon me on a sudden, and it was not without much difficulty that I struggled under it through the rest of my sermon. As soon as the service was over, I retired to my room in very great heaviness and distress. I saw in the clearest light that I was not in my place, and must no longer preside in the College. From that time, I had no heart to speak to the students on the things of God. So clear and strong was my conviction that I mentioned it directly to Mr. Howell Harris, and that very evening to my lady, and to all the students on the next Wednesday; and as I concluded our morning meeting with prayer, I was led solemnly upon my knees to resign my charge to God, and to pray for a proper person to preside in my place.
“Nevertheless my high regard for my lady, and my love for the students, prevented me from being faithful to my conviction, and I would have quenched it, if I had been able. But several things happened which gave me courage to be faithful.
“Lady Huntingdon showed me a letter to Hook, which she had read to the students; and, though I admired the honesty and impartiality that appeared in it, I afterwards thought hard of that expression, that every one who held eternal justification must quit the College. This appeared to me as severe upon consistent Calvinists, as the like expression before upon consistent Arminians, as, I believe, every Predestinarian, who will not contradict himself, must hold himself eternally justified in God’s sight.
“I had reason to fear Mr. Shirley, that great minister whom I honour much in the Lord, had said he would oppose through the world the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which I am bound in conscience to maintain among all professors, especially in the College. From these different views of things, I saw difficulties would perpetually arise to her ladyship, the College, and myself.
“I was also grieved that when he tried his well-meant zeal (though it was not, in my judgment, zeal according to knowledge) to explode the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and laugh it out of the College, after having dressed it in a fool’s coat and called it Perfection, most of the students had tamely allowed him that Joel’s prophecy was entirely fulfilled upon the hundred and twenty disciples on the day of Pentecost, that believers are to grow in grace by imperceptible dews, and that we can do very well without a remarkable shower of grace and Divine effusion of power, opening in us the well of living water that is to flow to everlasting life.
“As it appeared to me they had, in a good degree, given up their little expectation of this Gospel blessing, and renounced the grand point which I apprehended was to be firmly maintained and vigorously pursued in the College, I did not feel the same liberty with them in prayer, and found that, as matters were and appeared likely to continue, my convictions and desires would rather be damped than cherished among them.
“Nor, indeed, did I see, upon this new plan, any advantage this College was to have more than the academy at Abergavenny, itinerancy excepted; so that I feared many would get into the habit of preaching by rote, and of talking of the power without heartily waiting for it, which made me give up my hopes that those who have not gifts should ever be useful preachers, as a day of Pentecost and power from on high can alone supply the want of them.
“My lady, likewise, appeared to me so excessively afraid of Perfection, that she seemed to take umbrage at a harmless expression I had used in a letter hastily written to a friend, ‘The fiery baptism will burn up self,’—an expression which I had caught from Mr. Harris, who frequently uses it, though no one will accuse him of befriending Mr. Wesley’s doctrine of Perfection. Whatsoever he means by it, I mean nothing but to convey the idea of a power that enables us to say, with a tolerable degree of propriety, as St. Paul, ‘I live not, but Christ lives in me;’ and I saw that, if I was faithful to my light, misapprehensions of the like kind, and well or ill grounded fears, would perpetually arise.
“But what weighed most with me, next to what passed in my heart, the third Sunday in Lent, was the strong light in which I saw the great difficulty arising from the difference of sentiments between the students and myself. I had frequently observed that, if I tried to stir up those who appeared to be carnally secure, or spiritually asleep on their soft doctrinal pillows, they directly fancied I aimed at robbing them of one of their jewels, the doctrine of perseverance, though the Searcher of hearts knows I had not the least thought about it. By the same stratagem of the enemy, when I exhorted loiterers to leave the things that are behind, and press toward the mark for the prize of our high calling in Christ, they imagined I wanted to drive them to the brink of some horrible precipice, or into the jaws of some monster called Perfection, in which notion they were possibly confirmed not only by Mr. Shirley’s positive assertions, but by frequent hints thrown out by her ladyship herself upon the danger of that imaginary bugbear. Alas! how needless it is to give charges against sinless Perfection to young men who believe no such thing is to be attained, and who live mostly under the power of the carnal mind. What must be the consequence if grace does not interpose? What, but a settling upon the lees of nature and formality, and a singing of a soft requiem to the drowsy hearts of those who are not really alive to God? What makes me think so, is the frequent opportunities I have had to observe that a word which may too indirectly countenance sin, by the craft and power of Satan and the prevalence of natural corruption, goes farther than twenty directly and powerfully thundered against it.
“Again. The light of most Calvinists is such that they cannot believe a man knows anything of free grace who does not enter into all their sentiments. Of this, a moderate one gave me lately a particular instance, by telling me point blank, I was in a damnable heresy, and never knew anything of myself or of true grace, because I had said, sinners perish for resisting and quenching the Spirit of grace. Hence, I conclude, and not without a premise, that it would be as ridiculous in me to expect the majority of students to follow my directions, as it would be to hope that young men who have good eyes should follow a person whom they believe almost if not altogether blind.
“Things appeared to me in this light, when the uneasiness of my lady occasioned by Mr. Wesley’s Minutes showed itself. I admired her zeal for the grand truths of the Gospel. Appearances were for her, and I could not excuse Mr. Wesley’s unguarded expressions, any more than my lady’s great warmth against them; her ladyship having mentioned again and again that they were horrible and abominable, and that she must burn against them, and at last added, that, whosoever in the College did not fully and without any evasion disavow them should not stay in her College, etc. Accordingly, an order came for the students and masters to write their sentiments upon them. I thought I would not lay that burden upon others without touching it myself, and, following the light in which I could see and trace Mr. Wesley’s doctrines from a long acquaintance with his sentiments, I blamed the unguarded and not sufficiently explicit manner in which they were worded, but approving the doctrines themselves as agreeable to what appears to me the analogy of faith. All the College, I suppose, rose with one voice against them, which must make me appear strangely heterodox, if not altogether a heretic worse than Mr. Wesley. This consideration, together with my lady’s repeated declaration that every student who did not disavow them should quit the College, gave me at last courage to do absolutely what I had done in a partial manner near a fortnight before, namely, to resign the office of Principal of the College, which I saw I could no longer discharge with honour, with a good conscience, or any probability of success.
“If I know anything of my own heart, I can truly say, I have not taken this step from pique or chagrin, nor from any supposed unkindness in her ladyship or the students, whose undeserved regard and peculiar respect for me have made me feel the greatest reluctance to comply with what I esteem the order of the Lord and the explicit dictate of my own conscience, confirmed by the train of circumstances which I have mentioned.
“My high esteem for her ladyship is not at all abated. My love to the students, and regard for the College are the same. Nay, I can truly say, my regard for them goads me away, as I see nothing but a scene of confusion, distraction, and jealousy if I stay. The whole of this affair appears to me to be from the Lord, and it is my sentiment, that, as the College has naturally been filled with Calvinists, is providentially founded near a Calvinist academy in Wales, a Calvinist country, an itinerant ministry is to go forth from it to feed chiefly the Church of God of that sentimental denomination. In order to this, a moderate, lively Calvinist must superintend, under the noble foundress, and, as a token that her ladyship is not dissatisfied with my conduct, I humbly beg she would give me leave to recommend my successor to her.
“Mr. Whitefield is dead; some of his forlorn congregation have already been blessed under the ministry of the students; who is more proper to head them than he whom the religious world begins to call the young Whitefield, Mr. Rowland Hill? His remarkable sufferings for Christ’s sake, entitle him to the honour of presiding over this work; and I hope the Lord will make him willing to accept an office for which he seems to be so well fitted by his popularity and success.
“If it be objected that he is young, I reply, he is older than Mr. Whitefield was when he set out upon his great errand, and that the warmth of his heart, the ripeness of his zeal, and the amazing steadiness of his conduct for years, under the greatest difficulty both at home and abroad, together with the many seals God has already given to His ministry in various parts of the kingdom, ought greatly to turn the scale in his favour. And, indeed, what is an old Saul to a young David? And who deserves most the name and honour of a father? He, or myself? Without hesitating, I answer Mr. Rowland Hill, who has perhaps begotten more children to God in one discourse than I have in all my poor labour these fourteen years.”
Footnote 224:
After many unhappy contentions, and much forbearance on Wesley’s part, Thomas Maxfield seceded from Wesley in 1763. Maxfield has been far more highly honoured in Methodist histories and biographies than his merits warranted.
Footnote 225:
I have failed in my endeavour to ascertain what is meant by the “Brecknock division.” There can be no doubt, however, that Wesley met with great annoyance in that part of Wales. Previous to the opening of Trevecca College, he wrote:—
“1767. September 2.—I found the work of God in Pembrokeshire had been exceedingly hindered, chiefly by Mr. Davies’s preachers, who had continually inveighed against ours, and thereby frightened abundance of people from hearing or coming near them. This had sometimes provoked them to retort, which always made a bad matter worse. The advice, therefore, which I gave them was:—1. Let all the people sacredly abstain from backbiting, tale-bearing, evil-speaking. 2. Let all our preachers abstain from returning railing for railing, either in public or in private, as well as from disputing. 3. Let them never preach controversy, but plain, practical, and experimental religion.”
A year and a half after Fletcher left Trevecca, Wesley wrote again in his journal:—
“1772. August 14.—About noon, at the request of my old friend Howell Harris, I preached at Trevecca, on the strait gate, and we found our hearts knit together as at the beginning. He said, ‘I have borne with these pert, ignorant young men, vulgarly called students, till I cannot in conscience bear any longer. They preach barefaced reprobation, and so broad antinomianism, that I have been constrained to oppose them to the face, even in the public congregation.’ It is no wonder they should preach thus. What better can be expected from raw lads of little understanding, little learning, and no experience?”
This long document is endorsed “Letter to Lady Huntingdon.” It would be easy to make it the text for a long sermon; but want of space forbids the attempt to do this. Besides, intelligent readers are quite competent to form just opinions respecting it. Suffice it to say, that it is of high importance, as containing, by far, the fullest account ever published of the reasons why Fletcher took a step which led to great events he never contemplated. Had he continued to be the Superintendent of the Trevecca College, it is probable that the Calvinian controversy would not have grown to such wide dimensions. That, however, is not a proof of imprudence on Fletcher’s part; for, as every one who knows the history of that controversy is well aware, it was impossible for the great religious movement of the last century to proceed without the doctrines in Wesley’s Minutes being thoroughly examined, discussed, and settled.
Wesley preached his sermon on the death of Whitefield on November 18, 1770. Six weeks afterwards, it was respectfully attacked in the January number of the Calvinists’ periodical, the Gospel Magazine. Two months later, the same magazine made a furious assault on Walter Sellon’s “Defence of God’s Sovereignty,” stigmatizing it as “A mite of reprobate silver, cast into the Foundery, and coming out thence, bearing the impress of that pride, self-righteousness, and self-sufficiency, natural to men in their fallen unrenewed state.” “This performance,” continues the reviewer, “is extolled to the very skies by the Arminians. It is calculated for their meridian, and well establishes the haughty system of their own works and faithfulness, in opposition to the grace of the Gospel, and the faithfulness of a covenant God, in the finished salvation of sinners by Jesus Christ.”
In May, the same periodical printed Wesley’s “Minutes,” and branded them as “the very doctrines of Popery, yea, of Popery unmasked.” The number for the month of June contained an article of twelve pages, entitled, “A Comment or Paraphrase on the Extract from the Minutes of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, etc.” The temper and the unfairness of the article may be judged by the paraphrase on the first Minute, “Take heed to your doctrine.” That is, remarks the commentator,—
“Beware, in your preaching, of ascribing the whole and sole glory of salvation, from first to last, to the free unmerited grace of God in Christ Jesus. Be cautious how you sink man below his dignity, rob him of his excellency, strip him of the power of His free-will and abilities to perform his part in the work of salvation, and so deprive him of all trust in himself, hope from himself, and boasting of himself; for hence will be an end of self-seeking, self-righteousness, and self-soothing. Then would he sink into self-despair. Take heed to this.”
Meanwhile, Fletcher wrote to Wesley as follows:—
“MADELEY, June 24, 1771.[226]
“DEAR SIR,—When I left Wales, where I had stood in the gap for peace, I thought my poor endeavours were not altogether vain. Lady Huntingdon said she would write civilly to you, and desire you to explain yourself about your ‘Minutes.’ I suppose you have not heard from her, for she wrote me word, since then, that she believed she must not meddle in the affair. At least, that is what I made of her letter. Upon receiving yours from Chester, I cut off that part of it where you expressed your belief of what is eminently called by us the doctrine of free grace, and sent it to the College, with a desire it might be sent to Lady Huntingdon. She has returned it to me, with a letter, in which she expresses the greatest disapprobation of it. The purport of her letter is, to charge you with tergiversation, and me with being the dupe of your impositions. She has also written in stronger terms to her College.
“Things I hoped would have remained there; but how am I surprised and grieved to see zeal borrowing the horn of discord, and sounding an alarm throughout the religious world against you. Mr. Hatton called upon me last night, and showed me a printed circular, which, I suppose, is, or will be, sent to the serious clergy and laity throughout the land. I have received none, as I have lost, I suppose, my reputation of being a ‘real Protestant,’ by what I wrote upon your ‘Minutes’ in Wales.
“This is an exact copy of the printed letter—
“‘SIR,—Whereas Mr. Wesley’s Conference is to be held at Bristol, on Tuesday, the 6th of August next, it is proposed by Lady Huntingdon and many other Christian friends (real Protestants), to have a meeting at Bristol at the same time, of such principal persons, both clergy and laity, who disapprove of the underwritten ‘Minutes;’ and, as the same are thought injurious to the very fundamental principles of Christianity, it is further proposed that they go in a body to the said Conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said Minutes; and, in case of a refusal, that they sign and publish their protest against them. Your presence, Sir, on this occasion, is particularly requested; but, if it should not suit your convenience to be there, it is desired that you will transmit your sentiments on the subject to such persons as you think proper to produce them. It is submitted to you, whether it would not be right, in the opposition to be made to such a dreadful heresy, to recommend it to as many of your Christian friends, as well of the dissenters as of the Established Church, as you can prevail on to be there, the cause being of so public a nature.
“‘I am, Sir, your obedient servant,—WALTER SHIRLEY.
“‘P.S.—Your answer is desired, directed to the Countess of Huntingdon; or the Rev. Mr. Shirley; or John Lloyd, Esq., in Bath; or Mr. James Ireland, merchant, Bristol; or to Thomas Powis, Esq., at Berwick, near Shrewsbury; or to Richard Hill, Esq., at Hawkstone, near Whitchurch, Shropshire. Lodgings will be provided. Inquire at Mr. Ireland’s, Bristol.’
“I think it my duty, dear Sir, to give you the earliest intelligence of this bold onset, and to assure you that, upon the evangelical principles mentioned in your last letter to me, I, for one, shall be glad to stand by you and your doctrine to the last, hoping that you will gladly remove stumbling-blocks out of the way of the weak, and alter such expressions as may create prejudice in the hearts of those who are inclined to admit it.
“I write to Mr. Shirley to expostulate with him, and to request him to call in his circular letter. He is the last man that should attack you. His sermons contain propositions much more heretical and anti-Calvinistical than your ‘Minutes.’ If my letters have not the desired effect, I shall probably, if you approve of them and correct them, make them public for your justification.
“I find Mr. Ireland is to write to make you tamely recant without measuring swords, or breaking a pike with our real Protestants. I wrote to him also.
“I am, dear Sir, your unworthy servant in the Gospel, “JOHN FLETCHER.
“To the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, “At his Preaching House in Dublin, “Ireland.”
Footnote 226:
This letter is inserted in the “Life and Times of Wesley,” where it was published for the first time. It is reproduced here, because Fletcher’s life would not be complete without it.—L. T.
Lady Huntingdon did not write to Wesley, but he wrote a long and faithful letter to her, dated June 19, 1771, in which he insisted that the doctrines he preached now were the same as he had preached for above thirty years.[227]
Shirley did not “call in his circular letter.” It would have been more to the honour of himself and his friends had he done so; for, when Wesley’s Conference assembled on August 6, the response to it was ridiculous. Of all “the serious clergy and laity throughout the land,” only Shirley himself, and the Rev. Cradock Glascott, and the Rev. Mr. Owen, ministers officiating in the Countess of Huntingdon’s chapels, together with Messrs. Lloyd, Ireland, and Winter, and two students (!) from Trevecca College attended. After what had taken place, Wesley, without arrogance, might have disdained these insignificant self-elected deputies; but he graciously allowed them to enter his Conference. First of all, Wesley prayed; then Shirley asked if the letters[228] of himself and the Countess of Huntingdon had been read to the Conference; and, being answered in the negative, he asked leave to read them himself, which was granted. A long conversation followed, and then Shirley produced a written declaration which he wished the Conference to sign. Wesley examined it, and made some alterations, which Shirley says were “not very material;” and then Wesley and fifty-three of his itinerant preachers appended to it their signatures. The declaration was as follows:—
“Whereas the doctrinal points in the Minutes of a Conference, held in London, August 7, 1770, have been understood to favour justification by works; now the Rev. John Wesley and others assembled in Conference, do declare that we had no such meaning, and that we abhor the doctrine of Justification by Works as a most perilous and abominable doctrine: and, as the said Minutes are not sufficiently guarded in the way they are expressed, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that we have no trust or confidence but in the alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for Justification or Salvation, either in life, death, or the day of judgment: and, though no one is a real Christian believer, (and consequently cannot be saved) who doth not good works, where there is time and opportunity, yet our works have no part in meriting or purchasing our salvation from first to last, either in whole or in part.”
Footnote 227:
“Life and Times of Wesley,” vol. iii., p. 93.
Footnote 228:
The letter of the Countess, dated “August 2, 1771,” in substance was an apology for the apparently presumptuous way in which she and her friends had proposed to invade Wesley’s Conference; accompanied with an excuse founded on the fact that they regarded Wesley’s “Minutes,” of 1770, as “repugnant to Scripture, the whole plan of man’s salvation under the new covenant of grace, and also to the clear meaning of our Established Church, as well as to that of all other Protestant Churches.” Shirley’s letter was to the same effect. (See Shirley’s “Narrative of the Principal Circumstances relative to the Rev Mr. Wesley’s late Conference, held in Bristol, August 6, 1771.”)
This declaration being signed by Wesley and all the Itinerant Preachers present (except Thomas Olivers), Shirley was required “to make some public acknowledgment that he had mistaken the meaning of the ‘Minutes,’” At first he hesitated, but, “a few days afterwards, sent Wesley the following message, with which,” says Shirley, “he was very well pleased”:—
“Mr. Shirley’s Christian respects wait on Mr. Wesley. The declaration agreed to in Conference August 8, 1771, has convinced Mr. Shirley he had mistaken the meaning of the doctrinal points in the Minutes of the Conference, held in London August 7, 1770; and he hereby wishes to testify the full satisfaction he has in the said declaration, and his hearty concurrence and agreement with the same.”
It might have been thought that here the fracas would have ended; and so, perhaps, it would, had it not been for an incident which must now be mentioned.
Fletcher had already written his “First Check to Antinomianism.” It was finished on July 29,[229] and Wesley immediately put it into the hands of his printer, William Pine, of Bristol, to be printed and published; and the manuscript was being set up in type at the very time that Shirley and his friends were at Wesley’s Conference. The Conference began on Tuesday, August 6. Wesley writes:—
“We had more preachers than usual at the Conference, in consequence of Mr. Shirley’s circular letter. At ten on Thursday morning, he came with nine or ten of his friends. We conversed freely for about two hours, and I believe they were satisfied that we were not so ‘dreadful heretics’ as they imagined, but were tolerably sound in the faith.”[230]
Footnote 229:
It is a notable fact that Wesley had spent the three previous days with Fletcher. Hence the following from Wesley’s Journal:—
“1771. Friday, July 26. I went on to Shrewsbury, where Mr. Fletcher met me.—Sunday, 28. I preached at Madeley, morning and afternoon. The church would not near contain the congregation; but the window near the pulpit being open, those without could hear as well as those within.—Monday, 29. I went on to Worcester.”
Probably Wesley took Fletcher’s manuscript away with him.
Footnote 230:
Wesley’s Journal.
The next day, Friday, August 9, Shirley was informed that Fletcher’s manuscript was being printed. He and his friends appealed to Wesley to stop the press. Mr. Ireland, in particular, who had already written to Fletcher an account of the preceding day’s amicable proceedings, entreated Wesley to wait till he (Ireland) could receive an answer to his letter. He ventured to assure Wesley that if Fletcher were upon the spot he would suppress the publication; and he himself offered to defray all the expense that had been incurred. Wesley answered, “I will consider it;” and, at the same time, he told his visitors that “he had corrected all the tart expressions in” the manuscript.[231]
Footnote 231:
Shirley’s “Narrative.”
Wesley spent Saturday and Sunday in Bristol; and then, on Monday, August 12, he “set out for Wales.” Three days afterwards, Mr. Ireland received a letter from Fletcher, who wrote:—
“I feel for poor dear Mr. Shirley, whom I have (considering the present circumstances) treated too severely in my ‘Vindication of the Minutes.’ My dear Sir, what must be done? I am ready to defray, by selling to my last shirt, the expense of the printing of my Vindication, and suppress it. Direct me, dear Sir. Consult with Mr. Shirley and Mr. Wesley about the matter. Be persuaded I am ready to do everything that will be brotherly in this unhappy affair.”[232]
Footnote 232:
Shirley’s “Narrative.”
Wesley having departed from Bristol, Mr. Ireland at once went to Mr. Pine, the printer, and showed him Fletcher’s letter; and the same evening Mr. Pine communicated its contents to the Bristol preachers. The next morning, Friday, August 16, Mr. Ireland sent to the preachers a copy of Fletcher’s letter; and, in a letter from himself, told them that Fletcher “supposed the book was out; but, even in that case, he wished it to be suppressed.” Mr. Ireland entreated them to defer the publication till they had further authority from Fletcher and Wesley, “and engaged to be accountable for every consequence.”[233]
Footnote 233:
Ibid.
While Mr. Ireland was making these strenuous efforts to suppress the publication, Wesley wrote to the Countess of Huntingdon as follows:—
“1771. August 14.—When I received your ladyship’s letter of the 2nd inst., I immediately saw that it required an answer, only I waited till the hurry of Conference was over, that I might do nothing rashly. I know your ladyship would not servilely ‘deny the truth;’ neither would I; especially that great truth, justification by faith, for which I have given up all my worldly hopes, my friends, my reputation; yea, for which I have so often hazarded my life, and by the grace of God will do again. The principles established in the ‘Minutes’ I apprehend to be no way contrary to this; or to that faith which was once delivered to the saints. I believe whoever calmly considers Mr. Fletcher’s letters will be convinced of this. I fear, therefore, ‘zeal against those principles’ is no less than zeal against the truth, and against the honour of our Lord. The preservation of His honour appears so sacred to me, and has done for above these forty years, that I have counted, and do count, all things loss in comparison of it. But till Mr. Fletcher’s printed letters are answered, I must think everything spoken against those ‘Minutes’ is totally destructive of His honour, and a palpable affront to Him both as our Prophet and Priest, but more especially as our King. Those letters, therefore, which could not be suppressed without betraying the honour of our Lord, largely prove that the ‘Minutes’ lay no other foundation than that which is laid in Scripture, and which I have been laying, and teaching others to lay, for between thirty and forty years. Indeed, it would be amazing that God should at this day prosper my labours, as much if not more than ever, by convincing as well as converting sinners, if I was ‘establishing another foundation, repugnant to the whole plan of man’s salvation under the covenant of grace, as well as the clear meaning of our Established Church and all other Protestant Churches.’ This is a charge indeed! But I plead, not guilty; and till it is proved upon me, I must subscribe myself, my dear lady, your ladyship’s affectionate but much injured servant,
“JOHN WESLEY.”[234]
Footnote 234:
Whitehead’s “Life of Wesley,” vol. ii., p. 350.
Thus, by Wesley’s firmness, Fletcher’s manuscript, without any delay, was printed and published. Its title was, “A Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Last Minutes: Occasioned by a circular printed Letter, inviting principal Persons, both Clergy and Laity, as well of the Dissenters as of the Established Church, who disapprove of those Minutes, to oppose them in a Body, as a dreadful Heresy: And designed to remove Prejudice, check Rashness, promote Forbearance, defend the Character of an eminent Minister of Christ, and prevent some important Scriptural Truths from being hastily branded as heretical. In Five Letters, to the Hon. and Rev. Author of the Circular Letter. By a Lover of Quietness and Liberty of Conscience. Bristol: Printed by W. Pine, in Wine Street, 1771.” 12 mo., 98 pp.
The publication roused again the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, who immediately prepared and published “A Narrative of the principal Circumstances relative to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late Conference, held in Bristol, August the 6th, 1771, at which the Rev. Mr. Shirley, and others, his Friends, were present. With a Declaration then agreed to by Mr. Wesley, and Fifty-three of the Preachers in Connection with him. In a Letter to a Friend. By the Rev. Mr. Shirley. Bath: 1771.” 12mo., 24 pp.
Upon the whole, Mr. Shirley’s “Narrative” was truthful, fair, and respectful.[235] It is dated “Bath, September 12, 1771.” He apprised Fletcher of its contents, and of his intention to publish it; and Fletcher, in reply, wrote the following letter, which completes the history of the commencement of the great Calvinistical controversy:—
“MADELEY, September 11, 1771.
“REV. AND DEAR SIR,—It is extremely proper, nay, it is highly necessary, that the public should be informed how much like a minister of the Prince of Peace, and a meek, humble, loving brother in the Gospel of Christ, you behaved at the Conference. Had I been there, I would gladly have taken upon me to proclaim these tidings of joy to the lovers of Zion’s peace. Your conduct at that time of love is certainly the best excuse for the hasty step you had taken; as my desire of stopping my ‘Vindication,’ upon hearing of it, is the best apology I can make for my severity to you.
“I am not averse at all, Sir, to your publishing the passages you mention out of my letters to Mr. Ireland. They show my peculiar love and respect for you, which I shall at all times think an honour; and, at this juncture, shall feel a peculiar pleasure to see proclaimed to the world. They apologize for my calling myself ‘a lover of quietness,’ when I unfortunately prove a son of contention; and they demonstrate that I am not altogether void of the fear that becomes an awkward, inexperienced surgeon, when he ventures to open a vein in the arm of a person for whom he has the highest regard. How natural is it for him to tremble, lest by missing the intended vein, and pricking an unseen artery, he should have done irreparable mischief instead of an useful operation!
“But while you do me the kindness of publishing those passages, permit me, Sir, to do Mr. Wesley the justice of informing him, I had also written to Mr. Ireland, that, ‘whether my Letters were suppressed or not, the ‘Minutes’ must be vindicated,—that Mr. Wesley owed it to the Church, to the real Protestants, to all his Societies, and to his own aspersed character,—and that, after all, the controversy did not seem to me to be so much whether the ‘Minutes’ should stand, as whether the Antinomian Gospel of Dr. Crisp[236] should prevail over the practical Gospel of Jesus Christ.
“I must also, Sir, beg leave to let my vindicated friend know, that, in the very letter where I so earnestly entreated Mr. Ireland to stop the publication of my Letters to you, and offered to take the whole expense of the impression upon myself, though I should be obliged to sell my last shirt to defray it, I added that, ‘If they were published, I must look upon it as a necessary evil, or misfortune.’ Which of the two words I used I do not justly recollect: a misfortune for you and me, who must appear inconsistent to the world;—you, Sir, with your Sermons,[237] and I with my Title-page; and nevertheless necessary to vindicate misrepresented truth, defend an eminent minister of Christ, and stem the torrent of Antinomianism.
“It may not be improper, also, to observe to you, Sir, that when I presented Mr. Wesley with my ‘Vindication,’ I begged he would correct it, and take away whatever might be unkind or too sharp: urging that though I meant no unkindness, I was not a proper judge of what I had written under peculiarly delicate and trying circumstances, as well as in a great hurry; and did not, therefore, dare to trust either my pen, my head, or my heart. He was no sooner gone” (from Bristol) “than I sent a letter after him to repeat and urge the same request; and he wrote me word, that he had ‘expunged every tart expression.’ If he has (for I have not yet seen what alterations his friendly pen has made) I am reconciled to the publication; and that he has, I have reason to hope from the letters of two judicious London friends, who calmed my fears, lest I should have treated you with unkindness.
“One of them says, ’I reverence Mr. Shirley for his candid acknowledgment of his hastiness in judging. I commend the Calvinists at the Conference for their justice to Mr. Wesley, and their acquiescence in the Declaration of the Preachers in connexion with him. But is that Declaration, however dispersed, a remedy adequate to the evil done, not only to Mr. Wesley, but to the cause and work of God? Several Calvinists, in eagerness of malice, had dispersed their calumnies through the three kingdoms. A truly excellent person herself,[238] in her mistaken zeal, had represented him as a papist unmasked, a heretic, an apostate. A clergyman of the first reputation informs me a Poem on his Apostacy is just coming out.[239] Letters have been sent to every serious Churchman and Dissenter through the land, together with the Gospel Magazine. Great are the shoutings, “And now that he lieth let him rise up no more.” This is all the cry. His dearest friends and children are staggered, and scarce know what to think. You, in your corner, cannot conceive the mischief that has been done, and is still doing. But your letters, in the hand of Providence, may answer the good ends you proposed by writing them. You have not been too severe to dear Mr. Shirley, moderate Calvinists themselves being judges, but very kind and friendly to set a good mistaken man right, and probably to preserve him from the like rashness as long as he lives. Be not troubled, therefore, but cast your care upon the Lord.’
“My other friend says, ‘Considering what harm the Circular Letter has done, and what a useless satisfaction Mr. Shirley has given by his vague acknowledgment, it is no more than just and equitable that your Letters should be published.’
“Now, Sir, as I never saw that acknowledgment, nor the softening corrections made by Mr. Wesley in my ‘Vindication;’ as I was not informed of some of the above-mentioned particulars when I was so eager to prevent the publication of my Letters; and as I have reason to think that, through the desire of an immediate peace, the festering wound was rather skinned over than probed to the bottom,—all I can say about this publication is, what I wrote to our common friend, namely, that ‘I must look upon it as a necessary evil.’
“I am glad, Sir, you do not direct your letter to Mr. Olivers,[240] who was so busy in publishing my ‘Vindication;’ for, by a letter I have just received from Bristol, I am informed he did not hear how desirous I was to call it in, till he had actually given out, before a whole congregation, it would be sold. Besides, he would have pleaded with smartness that he never approved of a patched-up peace,—that he bore his testimony against it at the time it was made,—and that he had a personal right to produce my arguments, since both parties refused to hear his at the Conference.
“If your Letter is friendly, Sir, and you print it in the same size as my ‘Vindication,’ I shall gladly buy £10 worth of the copies, and order them to be stitched with my ‘Vindication,’ and given gratis to the purchasers of it; as well to do you justice, as to convince the world that we make a loving war; and also to demonstrate how much I regard your respectable character, and honour your dear person. Mr. Wesley’s heart is, I am persuaded, too full of brotherly love to deny me the pleasure of thus showing you how sincerely I am, Rev. and dear Sir, your obedient servant,
“JOHN FLETCHER.”
Footnote 235:
That there might be no misunderstanding between them, Fletcher, on the same day, sent Wesley “the substance, and almost the very words,” of this letter to Shirley.
Footnote 236:
The Rev. Tobias Crisp, D.D., a divine of the Church of England, born in London in 1600, and who died in 1643. He was educated at Eton, thence he removed to Cambridge, and afterwards to Oriel College, Oxford. At the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed Rector of Brinkworth, in Wiltshire. Early in life, he was a favourer of the doctrines of Arminianism; afterwards, he became the champion of Antinomianism. His sermons, in three volumes, were printed after his death. It is said that, though the tenets he embraced seem to be a plea for licentiousness, he himself was remarkable for the purity and modesty of his manners.
Footnote 237:
A few years ago, Shirley had published “Twelve Sermons, preached on several occasions,” 12mo., 189 pp.
Footnote 238:
Lady Huntingdon.
Footnote 239:
This was published in the Gospel Magazine, in the same month as Wesley’s Conference was held. It was signed “Cleon,” and dated “London, June 17, 1771.” Speaking of Wesley, “Cleon” says,—
“Pride prompts him on, and Satan now has gained A conquest o’er perverted truth retained; At best perverted, glaring now appears, The pride of Rome, the lie of num’rous years.”
Footnote 240:
Thomas Olivers, who for several years, corrected proof sheets for Wesley.
The reader has now as full an account as can be given of the way in which the long and angry war between Wesleyan Methodism and Calvinian Methodism was begun. It is difficult to say, decidedly, who was to blame for it. Wesley had a perfect right—in fact, under existing circumstances, he was almost bound by duty—to publish his theological theses; but it was unfortunate that, to use the words of himself and his fifty-three preachers, “they were not sufficiently guarded in the way they were expressed.”
The Countess of Huntingdon and her nephew, the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, had a perfect right to take counsel with their Calvinian friends respecting Wesley’s “Minutes;” but it was offensive arrogance to propose to “go in a body to Wesley’s Conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said Minutes.” Wesley was under no obligation to either Lady Huntingdon or Walter Shirley; and their issuing of the “Circular Letter” was pure impertinence, though, no doubt, they thought it a Christian duty.
Fletcher had a perfect right to explain and vindicate Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ and to send Wesley his manuscript to be printed and published; and Wesley had a perfect right to avail himself of this permission.
Mr. Ireland had a perfect right to entreat Wesley’s printer to delay the publication till he (Ireland) received an answer to the letter he had sent to Fletcher; and Fletcher, though, perhaps, showing too much flexibility of purpose, displayed Christian kindness of the highest order in his reply; but that reply arrived in Bristol too late, for Wesley had already left for Wales, and Wesley’s editor had publicly announced that the “Vindication” would be published. Besides, Fletcher himself, within five weeks after the time when Wesley’s Conference was held, changed his opinion, told Mr. Ireland that “the ‘Minutes’ must be vindicated,” and informed Shirley himself that he was “reconciled to the publication” of his manuscript.
Nothing more need be said. Indeed, all, in substance, is said that can be said; and it only remains to notice the 12mo pamphlet of 98 pages, that gave such huge offence, and led to such serious consequences. Fletcher presents:—
“I. A general view of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s doctrines.
“II. An account of the commendable design of his ‘Minutes.’
“III. A vindication of the propositions which they contain, by arguments taken from Scripture, reason, and experience; and by quotations from eminent Calvinist divines, who have said the same things in different words.”
On the first of these points, he writes:—
“Mr. Wesley is accused of dreadful heresy; and may not I, an old friend and acquaintance of his, be permitted to speak a word in his favour? This step, I fear, will cost me my reputation (if I have any), and involve me in the same condemnation with him, whose cause, together with that of truth, I design to plead: but when humanity prompts, gratitude calls, and friendship excites; when reason invites, justice demands, truth requires, and conscience summons; he does not deserve the name of a Christian friend, who, for any consideration, hesitates to vindicate what he esteems truth, and to stand by an aggrieved friend, brother, and father.
“1. For above these sixteen years, I have heard him frequently in his chapels, and sometimes in my church; and I have familiarly conversed and corresponded with him, and have often perused his numerous works in verse and prose; and I can truly say, that, during all that time, I have heard him, upon every proper occasion, steadily maintain the total fall of man in Adam, and his utter inability to recover himself, or take one step towards his recovery, ‘without the grace of God preventing him, that he may have a good will, and working with him when he has that good will.’
“2. I must likewise testify that he faithfully points out Christ as the only way of salvation; and strongly recommends faith as the only means of receiving Him, and all the benefits of His righteous life and meritorious death; and truth obliges me to declare, that he frequently expresses his detestation of the errors of modern Pharisees, who laugh at original sin, set up the power of fallen man, cry down the operations of God’s Spirit, deny the absolute necessity of the blood and righteousness of Christ, and refuse Him the glory of all the good that may be found in Jew or Gentile. You will not without difficulty find in England, and perhaps in all the world, a minister who has borne more frequent testimonies, either from the pulpit or the press, against those dangerous errors.
“3. The next fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that of holiness of heart and life; and no one can here accuse Mr. Wesley of leaning to the Antinomian delusion, which ‘makes void the law through’ a speculative and barren ‘faith’: on the contrary, he appears to be peculiarly set for the defence of practical religion; for, instead of representing Christ as the minister of sin, he sets Him forth as a complete ‘Saviour from sin.’ Not satisfied to preach holiness begun, he preaches finished holiness, and calls believers to such a degree of heart-purifying faith, as may enable them continually to ‘triumph in Christ,’ as being ‘made to them sanctification,’ as well as ‘righteousness.’ This he sometimes calls ‘full sanctification,’ the state of fathers in Christ, or ‘the glorious liberty of the children of God:’ sometimes, a being ‘strengthened, stablished, and settled;’ or ‘being rooted and grounded in love:’ but most commonly he calls it, ‘Christian Perfection;’ a word which, though used by the Apostles in the same sense, cannot be used by him without raising the pity or indignation of one half of the religious world: some make it the subject of their pious sneers and godly lampoons; while others tell you roundly they ‘abhor it above everything in the creation.’
“4. But this is not all: he holds also general redemption, and its necessary consequences, which some account ‘dreadful heresies.’ He asserts, with St. Paul, that ‘Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man;’ and this grace he calls ‘free,’ as extending itself freely to all. Nor can he help expressing his surprise at those pious ministers, who maintain that the Saviour keeps His grace, as they suppose He kept His blood, from the greatest part of mankind, and yet engross to themselves the title of ‘preachers of free grace.’
“5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ‘All our salvation is of God in Christ,’ and therefore of grace: all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace,—grace most absolutely free. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts, with equal confidence, that, according to the Gospel dispensation, ‘All our damnation is of ourselves,’ by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness. He is persuaded the most complete system of divinity is that in which neither of those two axioms is superseded: it is bold and unscriptural to set up the one at the expense of the other.”
These extracts from Fletcher’s first letter are important, as showing what Fletcher conceived to be Wesley’s fundamental doctrines; and it must be borne in mind, that, Wesley having read and revised Fletcher’s manuscript, Fletcher’s conception is stamped with Wesley’s own authority.
Fletcher proceeds to explain and to defend Wesley’s “Minutes,” and to show they were greatly needed. He says:—
“Mr. Wesley’s design was to guard his preachers and their hearers against Antinomian principles and practices, which spread like wild-fire in some of his Societies; where persons, who spoke in the most glorious manner of Christ, and their interest in His complete salvation, have been found living in the greatest immoralities, or indulging in the most unchristian tempers. Nor need I go far for a proof of this sad assertion. In one of his Societies, not many miles from my parish, a married man, who professed being in a state of justification and sanctification, growing wise above what is written, despised his brethren as legalists, and his teachers as persons not clear in the Gospel. He instilled his principles into a serious young woman; and what was the consequence? Why, they talked about ‘finished salvation in Christ,’ and ‘the absurdity of perfection in the flesh,’ till a perfect child was conceived and born; and, to save appearances, the woman swore it to a travelling man that cannot be heard of. Thus, to avoid legality, they plunged into hypocrisy, fornication, adultery, perjury, and the depth of ranterism. Is it not hard that a minister should be traduced as guilty of dreadful heresy for trying to put a stop to such dreadful practices? And is it not high time that he should cry to all that regard his warnings, ‘Take heed to your doctrine’?”
Fletcher then proceeds to give a deplorable picture of many of the professing Christians of the age, which, it is to be hoped, was too darkly drawn, though it is difficult to prove it was. The following extract shows that many of the Methodists were not better than their neighbours, and that it was of paramount importance that Wesley’s preachers should take heed to their doctrine:—
“Mr. Wesley has many persons in his Societies, (and would to God there were none in ours!) who profess they were justified or sanctified in a moment; but, instead of trusting in the living God, so trust in what was done in that moment, as to give over taking up their cross daily, and watching unto prayer with all perseverance. The consequences are deplorable: they slide back into the spirit of the world; and their tempers are no more regulated by the meek, gentle, humble love of Jesus. Some inquire with the heathens, What shall we eat, and what shall we drink to please ourselves? Others evidently love the world; lay up treasures on earth; or ask, Wherewith shall we be fashionably clothed? Therefore, the love of the Father is not in them. And not a few are led captive by the devil at his will: influenced by his unhappy suggestions, they harbour bitterness, malice, and revenge: none is in the right but themselves, and ‘wisdom shall die with them.’
“Now, Sir, Mr. Wesley cannot but fear it is not well with persons who are in any of these cases: though everybody should join to extol them as ‘dear children of God,’ he is persuaded that Satan has beguiled them, as he did Eve; and he addresses them, as our Lord did the angel of the church of Sardis,—‘I know thy works, that thou hast a name, that thou livest; and art dead,’ or dying: ‘Repent, therefore, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die; for I have not found thy works perfect before God.’”
When it is remembered that Fletcher’s manuscript was read and revised by Wesley, before it was printed, the foregoing description of “many persons” in Wesley’s Societies is possessed of more than ordinary interest. Only ten years had elapsed since the great revival of Christian perfection in those Societies, and yet such was the judgment pronounced by Fletcher, and which Wesley sanctioned!
After explaining and defending all the doctrines contained in Wesley’s “Minutes,” Fletcher concludes his fourth letter as follows:—
“Thus, Sir, have I looked out for the heresy, the dreadful heresy of Mr. Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ by bringing all the propositions they contain to the touchstone of Scripture and common sense; but, instead of finding it, I have found the very marrow of the Gospel of Christ. I have showed that the ‘Minutes’ contain nothing but what is truly scriptural; and nothing but what the best Calvinist divines have themselves, directly or indirectly, asserted; except, perhaps, the sixth proposition concerning the merit of works; and, with respect to this, I hope I have demonstrated, upon rational and evangelical principles, that Mr. Wesley, far from bringing in a damnable heresy, has done the Gospel justice, and Protestantism service, by candidly giving up an old prejudice, equally contrary to Scripture and good sense,—a piece of bigotry which has long hardened the papists against the doctrine of salvation by the merit of Christ, and has added inconceivable strength to the Antinomian delusion among us.
“One difficulty remains, and that is, to account for your attacking Mr. Wesley, though you could not wound him without stabbing yourself. Reserving my reflections upon this amazing step for another letter,
“I remain your astonished servant in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel,
“J. FLETCHER.”
As here indicated, the fifth and last letter contained that which most offended Shirley. In his “Narrative,” Shirley remarks:—
“Mr. Wesley assured us he had corrected all the tart expressions in them” (that is, in Fletcher’s Letters). “Alas! Qualia verba, quæ facta! Whether there are no tart expressions in the Letters, let every one that hath seen them judge. But, perhaps, this learned gentleman distinguishes between the tart and the bitter. If all the tart expressions are corrected, I am sure there are enough of the bitter left.
“As to the Letters themselves, I shall have ‘the author’s’ pardon for noticing two particular charges against me.
“1. I am supposed to want candour; as if I had put a forced construction on the ‘Minutes,’ in order to bring Mr. Wesley in guilty. Mr. Fletcher has attempted a ‘vindication’ of them; and, by breaking them into sentences and half-sentences, and refining upon each of these detached particles, he has done more than I could have expected, even from his great abilities, in giving a new turn to the whole. But, after reading his learned and elaborate ‘Vindication,’ when I cast my eye over the ‘Minutes,’ and consider the whole as it stands in context, I must own, I am just where I was: nothing but the ‘Declaration’ could ever convince me that justification by works was not maintained and supported by the ‘Minutes.’
“2. The charge of inconsistency is supported by quotations from my sermons. To this, I beg leave to observe, that the passages quoted are not altogether in point; neither do they maintain justification by works in such direct and express terms as the ‘Minutes’ appear to do. I must, however, own that they savour too strongly of mysticism and free-will; and all I can say, on my behalf in this respect, is, that they were written many years ago, at a time when I had more zeal than light; that my present ministry, as well as my present way of thinking, is very different; and that I have frequently expressed my disapprobation of those sermons, nay wished they had been burnt.”
Shirley was nettled; and, after the imperious arrogance displayed in his “Circular Letter,” he deserved to be. Fletcher’s fifth and last letter is caustical; but not more so than the occasion justified. The following is extracted from it:—
“HON. AND REV. SIR,—Having vindicated both some important doctrines of the Gospel, and an eminent servant of Christ from the charge of dreadful heresy, I will now take the liberty of a friend to expostulate a little with you.
“When Brutus, among other senators, rushed upon Cæsar, the venerable general said, ‘Art thou also among them? Even thou, my son?’ May not Mr. Wesley address you, Sir, in the same words, and add, ‘If a body of men must be raised to attack me, let some zealous follower of Dr. Crisp, some hot-headed vindicator of reprobation and eternal justification blow the trumpet, and put himself at their head; but let it not be you, who believe with me that we are moral agents; that God is love; that Jesus tasted death for every man; and that the Holy Spirit shall not always strive with sinners. If you do not regard my reputation, consider at least your own, and expose me not as a heretic for advancing propositions, the substance of which you have avowed before the sun.’
“But had those propositions, at length, appeared to you unsound, yea, and had you never maintained them yourself, should you not, as a Christian and a brother, have wrote to Mr. Wesley, acquainted him with your objections, and desired him to solve them and explain himself, or you should be obliged publicly to expose him?
“Was this condescension more than was due from you, Sir, and our other friends, to a grey-headed minister of Christ, an old general in the armies of Emmanuel, a father who has children capable of instructing even masters in Israel, and one whom God made the first and principal instrument of the late revival of internal religion in our Church?
“Instead of this friendly method, as if you were a Barak, commanded by the Lord God of Israel, you call together the children of Naphthali and Zebulun: you convene, from England and Wales, clergy and laity, Churchmen and Dissenters, to meet you at Bristol, where they are, it seems, to be entertained in good and free quarters. And for what grand expedition? Why, on a day appointed, you are to march up in a body, not to attack Sisera and his iron chariots, but an old Caleb, who, without meddling with you, quietly goes on to the conquest of Canaan; not to desire, in a friendly manner, after a fair debate of every proposition that appears dangerous, and, upon previous conviction, that what is exceptionable may be given up; but to do what I think was never done by nominal, much less by real Protestants. O let it not be told in Rome, lest the sons of the Inquisition rejoice! This mixed, this formidable body is to insist upon Mr. Wesley and the preachers in his connexion, formally recanting their ‘Minutes,’ as appearing injurious to the very fundamental principles of Christianity, and being dreadfully heretical. And this, astonishing! without the least inquiry made into their meaning and design, without a shadow of authority from our superiors in Church or State, without an appeal to the law and to the testimony, without form of process, without judge or jury, without so much as allowing the poor heretics (who are condemned six weeks before they can possibly be heard) to answer for themselves!
“How could you suppose, Sir, that Mr. Wesley and the preachers who assemble with him are such weak men, as tamely to acknowledge themselves heretics upon your ipse dixit? Suppose Mr. Wesley took it in his head to convene all the divines that disapprove the extract of Zanchius,[241] to go with him in a body to Mr. Toplady’s chapel, and demand a formal recantation of that performance as heretical; yea, to insist upon it, before they had ‘measured swords or broken a pike together,’ would not the translator of Zanchius laugh at him, and ask whether he thought to frighten him by his protests, or bully him into orthodoxy?
“O, Sir, have we not fightings enough without, to employ all our time and strength? Must we also declare war and promote fightings within? Must we catch at every opportunity to stab one another, because the livery of truth which we wear is not turned up in the same manner? What can be more cruel than this? What can be more cutting to an old minister of Christ, than to be traduced as a dreadful heretic, in printed letters sent to the best men in the land, yea, through all England and Scotland, and signed by a person of your rank and piety? To have things that he knows not, that he never meant, laid to his charge, and dispersed far and near? While he is gone to a neighbouring kingdom,[242] to preach Jesus Christ, to have his friends prejudiced, his foes elevated, and the fruit of his extensive ministry at the point of being blasted? Put yourself in his place, Sir, and you will see that the wound is deep and reaches the very heart.
“Our Elijah[243] has lately been translated to heaven. Grey-headed Elisha is yet awhile continued upon earth. And shall we make a hurry and noise, to bring in railing accusations against him with more success? Shall the sons of prophets, shall even children in grace and knowledge, openly traduce the venerable seer and his abundant labours? When they see him run upon his Lord’s errands, shall they cry, not, ‘Go up, thou bald head,’ but, ‘Go up, thou heretic’? O Jesus of Nazareth, Thou rejected of men, Thou Who wast once called a deceiver of the people, suffer it not; lest the raging bear of persecution come suddenly out of the wood upon those sons of discord, and tear them in pieces.”
Footnote 241:
In 1769, Toplady published “The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted. Translated, in great measure, from the Latin of Jerome Zanchius; with some Account of his Life prefixed.” 8vo. 134 pp. An impious production, in the garb of piety.
Footnote 242:
Wesley was in Ireland from March 24 to July 22, 1771. It was during this period that Shirley sent forth his offensive “Circular Letter.”
Footnote 243:
Whitefield, who died September 30, 1770.
Remembering the confidential and warm friendship that had existed between Fletcher and the Countess of Huntingdon and her nephew, Walter Shirley, it must be admitted that these “expostulations” were pungent; but they were provoked by the arrogance of the offenders. It is true, as already stated, that, on the evening before Wesley’s Conference assembled, her ladyship and Shirley wrote letters to Wesley containing half-hearted apologies for their “arbitrary way of proceeding” in the “Circular Letter.” “It must be acknowledged,” said Shirley, “that, upon the whole, the Circular Letter was too hastily drawn up and improperly expressed; and, therefore, for the offensive expressions in it, we desire we may be hereby understood to make every suitable submission to you, Sir, and to the gentlemen of the Conference.”[244] The apology was proper; but it was not sufficient. The “Circular Letter,” branding Wesley as a dreadful heretic, had been sent to a large number of “principal persons, both clergy and laity,” throughout the three kingdoms; whereas the letters of the Countess and her nephew were private ones, addressed only to Wesley and his preachers. Moreover, the apology was accompanied with a threat.
Footnote 244:
Shirley’s “Narrative.”
“I cannot but wish,” wrote Shirley, “that the recantation of the Circular Letter may prevail as an example for the recantation of the ‘Minutes.’ If I should be unhappily disappointed in this respect, I shall feel myself bound in conscience to yield my public testimony against such doctrines as these, which appear to me subversive of the fundamentals of Christianity.”[245]
Footnote 245:
Shirley’s “Narrative.”
And, once more, the apology, such as it was, was sent too late, for Fletcher had already written his “Vindication” of Wesley’s “Minutes;” the manuscript had been sent to Wesley, and Wesley had revised it, and committed it to the press.
The war was begun, and we must follow it to its termination, so far as Fletcher is concerned; for it is impossible, in a work like this, to notice all the pamphlets that were published. Those who wish for further information may turn to the “Life and Times of Wesley.”
IX. SECOND CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM
1771.
WESLEY’S “Minutes” and Shirley’s “Circular Letter” created a commotion. The Rev. Walter Sellon had recently published his “Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Absolute Predestination; as it is stated and asserted by the Translator of Jerome Zanchius” [Toplady] “in his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nowell. Together with some Animadversions on his Translation of Zanchius, his Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, and his Sermon on 1 Tim. i. 10.” This not over-courteous publication was reviewed in the August number of the Gospel Magazine for 1771; and, no doubt, the review had been read by the gentlemen who proposed to invade Wesley’s Conference. It began as follows:—
“A composition of low scurrility and illiberal abuse, for which this author and his coadjutors are remarkable. Not one Calvinist who comes in his way escapes. He is so much given up to slander and defamation, that he can no more refrain from defaming even the dead than from slandering the living.”
Its last paragraph was the following; and these two citations will enable the reader to form an opinion of the whole:—
“When we meet with erroneous systems set up in opposition to the Word of God, we speak our mind freely of them, and aim to show the dangerous tendency of them. But no sooner do we touch the cobweb system of self-righteous Pharisees, but they cry out, with their brethren of old to our Lord, ‘Thou reproachest us also.’ We cannot aim to dissect and expose their opinions, but they cry out of slandering their persons, and ‘Oh, you have no love to Mr. John!’ God bless Mr. John! But who is Mr. John? Is he the standard of truth, the pinnacle of orthodoxy, the touchstone by which truth is to be tried and known? What is Mr. John? What is Mr. Walter? Men, frail men, and miserable sinners like ourselves. All that we say of them is, As men, we love them; as miserable sinners, we wish their salvation; as fellow-creatures, we would not hurt a hair of their heads; whatever is in our power to do them good, we would cheerfully minister unto them.”
In the September number of the same periodical, there was a letter, signed “Simplex,” and dated “August 3, 1771, From the Neighbourhood of the Foundery,” as follows:—
“SIR,—I have just read your last number, and am amazed at the Declaration in it, as made by Mr. Wesley and his friends, at the late Conference at Bristol. I am amazed at the wisdom of that great man that he should devise a Declaration[246] couched in terms so ambiguous as to satisfy his opponents, whilst, in reality, it denies not one tittle clearly asserted in the ‘Minutes;’ and I am amazed at gentlemen, who might have been acquainted with the unfathomable policy of that dubious divine, not being more upon their guard than to have been put off by such an unmeaning confession.
“Since the Conference, and, of course, since the making of this Declaration, Mr. Fletcher has published a very warm, and not ill-written ‘Vindication of the Minutes,’ which, from his intimacy with Mr. Wesley, evidently shows that the gentleman in question never meant to recant what he had declared in the ‘Minutes’ when he signed the Declaration.[247]
“What can we think of this? You ask, What can we say to this? Why, gentlemen, you may say that the fox has had sagacity enough to elude his hunters. Or, in other words, that Mr. Wesley is, what I always took him to be, a very wise man.
“Does this tend to clear up the affair? Yes. Taken in its connection with Fletcher’s ‘Vindication of the Minutes,’ it very plainly clears it up to every man; and shows that however these gentlemen may abhor the doctrine of justification by the merit of works, as most perilous and abominable, they are determined to abide by the doctrine of justification by works as a condition, which is all that is clearly expressed in the ‘Minutes.’ If Cranmer and his brethren had drunk half as deep into the spirit of Ignatius,” [Loyala!] “they had never been brought to the stake for their doctrine; but might even have outwitted the eagle-eyed Bishops of London and Winchester.”
Footnote 246:
This is a calumny. The Declaration was not drawn up by Wesley, but by Shirley. “Wesley,” says Shirley, “made some, not very material, alterations in it.”
Footnote 247:
Another misrepresentation; for Fletcher’s manuscript was committed to the press before the Declaration was signed.
Another communication by “Simplex” must be noticed. Like his former letter, it was printed in the Gospel Magazine. It was dated “From the Neighbourhood of the Foundery, October 9, 1771,” and was addressed “To the Rev. Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Olivers.” The following are extracts from it:—
“Mr. Wesley is now an old man, and, according to the course of nature, must in a little time have done with a lying world. Let him, like an honest man, a Christian, that has heaven in his eye, and a sense of the Divine presence upon his heart, tell us plainly whether he really thinks that his continuance in the love of God, and the exercise of faith, is owing to his own good management, or to the sovereignty and freeness of the love of God and agency of the Holy Ghost?”
The temper of this production is painfully displayed in its concluding paragraph:—
“Should any reply be made to this letter, and might I be indulged with liberty to choose my correspondent, I would most earnestly deprecate having anything to do with the Reverend Mr. Walter Sellon, as I am no adept in scolding, and am sorry to see the name of a Christian minister prefaced to such foul and futile productions as those, of Mr. Sellon’s pen. Mr. Fletcher’s pen is indeed more cleanly, but every whit as unfair; and him I object to because he is apt to exclaim against his opponents as enemies to Christian peace, even when he himself does what he can to stab their reputation to the heart. He is very apt grievously to complain of ill-usage from others, when, at the same time, like a madman, he himself keeps flinging abroad firebrands, arrows, and death amongst those who differ from him. Mr. Olivers should be my man, if in future he will guard against shocking common decency, as he has done in his letter to Mr. Toplady, where he is pleased to call Mr. Hervey’s admirable letters to Mr. Wesley scurrilous: which indecency, although borrowed indeed from Mr. Walter Sellon, must needs have an influence fatal to Master Thomas Olivers’ credit as a writer. As to the Rev. Mr. Wesley himself, I do not expect that he can spare so much time as to give a satisfactory answer to my querulous epistle, as it will require his being more explicit than he has hitherto accustomed himself to be.”
Enough has been said to show the bitterness of feeling which had already sprung up against Fletcher (to say nothing of Wesley, Sellon, and Olivers), and that it was not surprising he was induced to defend himself against such infamous attacks as those of “Simplex” and his Calvinian friends.
Meanwhile, Shirley was passing through the press his “Narrative of the Principal Circumstances relating to the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s late Conference, held in Bristol August the 6th, 1771” (8 vo., 24 pp.) Fletcher refers to this in the following extract from an unpublished letter addressed to Joseph Benson, and kindly lent by Mr. G. J. Stevenson:—
“MADELEY, August 24, 1771.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—How much water may rush out of a little opening! What are our dear lady’s jealousies come to? Ah, poor College! They are without a master, but not without a mistress. Their conduct and charges of heresy stirred me up to write in defence of the ‘Minutes.’ The pamphlet is gone abroad unseasonably in its present dress. The toga would now suit it, but it wears the chlamys. By this means, the voice of the arguments will be lost in the cry of treachery.
“I received this morning a most kind letter from Mr. Shirley, whom I now pity much. He will pass by me; but I fear Mr. Olivers will have some cutting lashes. Mr. Shirley is gone to Wales, probably to consult what to do in the present case. What a world! Methinks I dream when I reflect that I have written on controversy; the last subject I thought I should have meddled with. I expect to be smartly taken in hand and soundly drubbed for it. Lord, prepare me for it, and for everything that may make me cease from man, and above all from your unworthy friend,
“J. FLETCHER.
“P.S. My kindest love to Mr. Mather.[248] I hope you are happy in each other’s company. May you be both blessed, as being one heart, and one soul, and colleagues in Jesus!”
Footnote 248:
Mr. Mather and Mr. Benson were now stationed in Wesley’s London Circuit.
Instead of inflicting on Thomas Olivers what Fletcher calls “some cutting lashes,” Shirley treated the sturdy Welshman with forbearance; and if he used severity at all, not Wesley’s itinerant, but the Vicar of Madeley was his victim.
Fletcher immediately prepared a reply to Shirley’s “Narrative;” and, before the year was ended, published it, with the title, “A Second Check to Antinomianism; occasioned by a Late Narrative, in Three Letters to the Hon. and Rev. Author. By the Vindicator of the Reverend Mr. Wesley’s Minutes.” 12mo, 120 pp. This “Second Check,” like the former one, was revised by Wesley,[249] and, therefore, was issued with his approval.
Footnote 249:
See “The Second Part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism,” p. 11, First Edition.
Fletcher’s first letter to Shirley begins as follows:—
“In my last private communication, I observed, Rev. Sir, that, if your ‘Narrative’ was kind, I would buy a number of copies, and give them gratis to the purchasers of my book, that they might see all you can possibly produce in your own defence, and do you all the justice your proper behaviour at the Conference deserves. But, as it appears to me there are some important mistakes in that performance, I neither dare recommend it absolutely to my friends, nor wish it, in the religious world, the full success you desire.
“I do not complain of its severity; on the contrary, considering the sharpness of my fifth letter, I gratefully acknowledge it is kinder than I had reason to expect. But permit me to tell you, Sir, I look for justice to the scriptural arguments I advance in defence of truth, before I look for kindness to my insignificant person, and could be much sooner satisfied with the former, than with the latter alone. As I do not admire the fashionable method of advancing general charges without supporting them by particular proofs, I shall take the liberty of pointing out some mistakes in your ‘Narrative,’ and, by that means, endeavour to do justice to Mr. Wesley’s ‘Declaration,’ your own ‘Sermons,’ my ‘Vindication,’ and, above all, to the cause of practical religion.”
Fletcher then proceeds to quote numerous texts of Scripture in support of the doctrine of a second justification by works, and argues that it “will rouse Antinomians out of their carnal security, stir up believers to follow hard after holiness, and reconcile fatal differences among Christians, and seeming contradictions in the Scripture.”
In sundry passages he treats the Antinomians with deserved severity; but, in a long foot-note, observes:—
“I beg I may not be understood to level the following paragraphs, or any part of these letters, at my pious Calvinist brethren. God knows how deeply I reverence many, who are immovably fixed in, what some call, the doctrines of grace; how gladly (as conscious of their genuine conversion and eminent usefulness) I would lie in the dust at their feet to honour our Lord in His dear members; and how often I have thought it a peculiar infelicity to dissent from such excellent men, with whom I wanted both to live and die, and with whom I hope soon to reign for ever.
“As these real children of God lament the bad use Antinomians make of their principles, I hope they will not be offended if I bear my testimony against a growing evil, which they have frequently opposed themselves. While the Calvinists guard the foundation against Pharisees, they will, I hope, allow the Remonstrants to guard the superstructure against Antinomians. If in doing these good offices to the Church, we find ourselves obliged to bear a little hard upon the peculiar sentiments of our opposite friends, let us do it in such a manner as not to break the bonds of peace and brotherly kindness; so shall our honest reproof become matter of useful exercise to that love which thinketh no evil, hopeth all things, rejoiceth even in the galling truth, and is neither quenched by many waters, nor damped by any opposition.”
In his second letter, Fletcher protests against Shirley recanting the doctrines contained in his published sermons, and concludes as follows:—
“I assure you, Sir, I do not love the warlike dress of the Vindicator, any more than David did the heavy armour of Saul. With gladness, therefore, I cast it aside to throw myself at your feet, and protest to you, that, though I thought it my duty to write to you with the utmost plainness, frankness, and honesty, the design of doing it with bitterness never entered my heart. However, for every ‘bitter expression’ that may have dropped from my sharp, vindicating pen, I ask you pardon; but it must be in general, for neither friends nor foes have yet particularly pointed out to me one such expression.
“You condescend, Rev. Sir, to call me your ‘learned friend.’ Learning is an accomplishment I never pretended to; but your friendship is an honour I shall always highly esteem, and do at this time value above my own brother’s love. Appearances are a little against me: I feel I am a thorn in your flesh; but I am persuaded it is a necessary one, and this persuasion reconciles me to the thankless and disagreeable part I act. I can assure you, my dear Sir, I love and honour you, as truly as I dislike the rashness of your well-meant zeal. The motto I thought myself obliged to follow was, ‘E bello pax;’ but that which I delight in is, ‘In bello pax.’ May we make them harmonize till we learn war and polemic divinity no more!
“If in the meantime we offend our weak brethren, let us do something to lessen the offence till it is removed. Let us show them we make war without so much as shyness. Should you ever come to the next county, as you did last summer, honour me with a line, and I shall gladly wait upon you, and show you (if you permit me) the way to my pulpit, where I shall think myself highly favoured to see you ‘secure the foundation,’ and hear you enforce the doctrine of justification by faith, which you fear we attack. And should I ever be within thirty miles of the city where you reside, I shall go to submit myself to you, and beg leave to assist you in reading prayers for you, or giving the cup with you. Thus shall we convince the world how controversy may be conscientiously carried on without interruption of brotherly love; and I shall have the peculiar pleasure of testifying to you in person how sincerely I am,
“Honoured and dear Sir, “Your submissive and obedient servant, in the bond of a practical Gospel, “J. FLETCHER.”
The third letter, to a large extent, is historical, and shows, with terrific faithfulness, that not a few of the so-called evangelical ministers and churches of a hundred years ago were far from what they should have been, and that Wesley’s “Minutes” and Fletcher’s “Checks” were greatly needed. Fletcher writes:—
“For some years, I have suspected there is more imaginary than unfeigned faith in most of those who pass for believers. With a mixture of indignation and grief, have I seen them carelessly follow the stream of corrupt nature, against which they should have manfully wrestled. When they should have exclaimed against their Antinomianism, I have heard them cry out against the legality of their wicked hearts; which, they said, still suggested they were to do something in order to salvation. Glad was I, therefore, when I had attentively considered Mr. Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ to find they were levelled at the very errors, which gave rise to an evil I had long lamented in secret, but had wanted courage to resist and attack.”
“Do not imagine, Rev. Sir, I cry up God’s law, to drown the late cries of heresy and apostacy. I appeal to matter of fact and to your own observations. Consider the religious world, and say if ‘Antinomianism’ is not, in general, a motto better adapted to the state of professing congregations, societies, families, and individuals, than ‘Holiness unto the Lord.’
“Begin with congregations, and cast your eyes upon the hearers. In general, they have curious ‘itching ears,’ and ‘will not endure sound doctrine.’ They say they ‘will have nothing but Christ;’ and who could blame them if they would have Christ in all His offices? Christ, with all His parables and sermons, cautions and precepts, reproofs and expostulations, exhortations and threatenings? Who would find fault with them, if they would have Christ with His poverty and self-denial, His reproach and cross, His spirit and graces, His prophets and apostles, His plain apparel and mean followers? But, alas! it is not so. They will have what they please of Christ, and that too as they please. They admire Him in one chapter, and know not what to make of Him in another. If He asserts His authority as a Lawgiver, they are ready to treat Him with as little ceremony as they do Moses. If He says, ‘Keep my commandments, I am a King;’ like the Jews of old, they rise against the awful declaration; or they crown Him as a surety, the better to ‘set Him at nought’ as a monarch. If He adds to His ministers, ‘Go, and teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;’ they complain, ‘This is the law; give us the gospel, we can relish nothing but the gospel.’”
“Hence it is that some preachers must choose comfortable subjects to please their hearers; just as those, who make an entertainment for nice persons, are obliged to study what will suit their difficult taste. A multitude of important Scriptures can be produced, on which no minister, who is unwilling to lose his reputation as an evangelical preacher, must dare to speak in some pulpits, unless it is to explain away or enervate their meaning.”
“Whence springs this almost general Antinomianism of our congregations? Shall I conceal the sore because it festers in my own breast? Shall I be partial? No! In the name of Him who is no respecter of persons, I will confess my sin, and that of many of my brethren. Though I am the least and the most unworthy of them all, I will follow the dictates of my conscience, and use the authority of a minister of Christ.
“Is not the Antinomianism of hearers fomented by that of preachers? Does it not become us to take the greatest part of the blame upon ourselves, according to the old adage, ‘Like priest, like people’? Is it surprising that some of us should have an Antinomian audience? Do we not make or keep it so? When did we preach such a practical sermon as that of our Lord on the mount, or write such close letters as the epistles of St. John? Alas! I doubt it is but seldom. Not living so near to God ourselves as we should, we are afraid to come near the consciences of our people. Some prefer popularity to plain-dealing. We love to see a crowd of worldly-minded hearers, rather than a ‘little flock,’ ‘a peculiar people, zealous of good works.’ Luther’s advice to Melancthon, ‘So preach that those who do not fall out of love with their sins, may fall out with thee,’ is more and more unfashionable. Under pretence of drawing our hearers by love, some of us softly rock the cradle of carnal security in which they sleep. The old Puritans strongly insisted upon personal holiness, and the first Methodists upon the new birth; but these doctrines seem to grow out of date. The Gospel is cast into another mould. People, it seems, may now be ‘in Christ’ without being ‘new creatures,’ or new creatures without casting ‘old things’ away. They may be God’s children without God’s image; and be ‘born of the Spirit’ without ‘the fruits of the Spirit.’ If our unregenerate hearers get orthodox ideas about the way of salvation in their heads, evangelical phrases concerning Jesus’ love in their mouths, and a warm zeal for our party and favourite forms in their hearts, without any more ado, we help them to rank themselves among the children of God. But, alas! this self-adoption into the family of Christ will no more pass in heaven, than self-imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”
“How few of our celebrated pulpits are there where more has not been said, at times, for sin than against it! With what an air of positiveness and assurance has that Barabbas, that murderer of Christ and souls, been pleaded for! ‘It will humble us, make us watchful, stir up our diligence, quicken our graces, endear Christ.’ That is, in plain English, pride will beget humility, sloth will spur us on to diligence, rust will brighten our armour, and unbelief, the very soul of every sinful temper, is to do the work of faith! Jesus, who cleansed the lepers with a word or a touch, cannot, with all the force of His Spirit, and virtue of His blood, expel the leprosy of sin; it is too inveterate. Death, that foul monster, the offspring of sin, shall have the important honour of killing his father. This is confidently asserted by those who cry, ‘Nothing but Christ!’ They allow Him to lop off the branches; but Death, the great Saviour Death, is to destroy the root of sin. In the meantime, the temple of God shall have agreement with idols, and Christ concord with Belial: the Lamb of God shall lie down with the roaring Lion in our heart.”
“To speak the melancholy truth, how few individuals are free from practical Antinomianism! Setting aside their attendance on the ministry of the Word, where is the material difference between several of our genteel believers and other people? Do not we see the sumptuous furniture in their apartments, and fashionable elegance in their dress? What sums of money do they frequently lay out in costly superfluities to adorn their persons, houses, and gardens! In our fashionable churches and chapels, you may find people professing to believe the Bible, who so conform to this present world as to wear gold, pearls, and precious stones, when no distinction of office or state obliges them to it, in direct opposition to the words of two Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. Multitudes of professors, far from being convinced of their sin in this respect, ridicule Mr. Wesley for bearing his testimony against it. The opposition he dares to make to that growing branch of vanity affords matter of pious mirth to a thousand Antinomians. Isaiah could openly reprove the haughty daughters of Zion, who walked with stretched forth necks, wanton eyes, and tinkling feet: he could expose the bravery of their fashionable ornaments, their round tires like the moon, their chains, bracelets, head-bands, rings and ear-rings; but some of our humble Christian ladies will not bear a reproof from Mr. Wesley on the head of dress. They even laugh at him as a pitiful legalist, and yet, oh, the inconsistency of the Antinomian spirit! they call Isaiah the evangelical prophet!
“Finery is often attended with an expensive table, at least with such delicacies as our purse can reach. St. Paul kept his body under, and was in fastings often; and our Lord gives us directions about the proper manner of fasting. But the apostle did not know the easy way to heaven taught by Dr. Crisp; and our Lord did not approve of it, or He would have saved Himself the trouble of His directions. In general, we look upon fasting much as we do upon penitential flagellation. Both equally raise our pity; we leave them both to popish devotees. Some of our good old Church people will yet fast on Good Friday: but our fashionable believers begin to cast away that last scrap of self-denial. Their faith, which should produce, animate, and regulate works of mortification, goes a shorter way to work; it explodes them all.”
Fletcher continues to write in the same strain, through many succeeding pages; but one more extract must suffice.
“If these shall go into eternal punishment; if such will be the end of all the impenitent Nicolaitans; if our churches and chapels swarm with them; if they crowd our communion tables; if they are found in most of our houses, and too many of our pulpits; if the seeds of their fatal disorder are in all our breasts; if they produce Antinomianism around us in all its forms; if we see bold Antinomians in principle, bare-faced Antinomians in practice, and sly pharisaical Antinomians,[250] who speak well of the law, to break it with greater advantage,—should not every one examine himself whether he is in the faith, and whether he has a holy Christ in his heart, as well as a sweet Jesus upon his tongue; lest he should one day swell the tribe of Antinomian reprobates? Does it not become every minister of Christ to drop his prejudices, and consider whether he ought not to imitate the old watchman, who, fifteen months ago, gave a legal alarm to all the watchmen that are in connexion with him? And should we not do the Church excellent service, if, agreeing to lift up our voices against the common enemy, we gave God no rest in prayer, and our hearers in preaching, till we all did our first works, and our latter end, like Job’s, exceeded our beginning?
“Near forty years ago, some of the ministers of Christ, in our Church, were called out of the extreme of self-righteousness. Flying from it, we have run into the opposite, with equal violence. Now that we have learned wisdom by what we have suffered in going beyond the limits of truth both ways, let us return to a just scriptural medium. Let us equally maintain the two evangelical axioms on which the Gospel is founded: 1. ‘All our salvation is of God, by free grace, through the alone merits of Christ.’ And, 2. ‘All our damnation is of ourselves, through our avoidable unfaithfulness.’”
Footnote 250:
It may be well to say, once for all, that all these quotations, with their differences of type, are taken from the first editions of Fletcher’s publications. The differences are not preserved in recent editions.
Fletcher’s pictures are dark: I incline to think a little too dark, though I cannot prove they are. At all events, were existing facts such as he states them to have been, it was high time to sound an alarm in Zion.
In a postscript to his “Three Letters,” Fletcher refers to a pamphlet published by Richard Hill, Esq., respecting a conversation which he and others had held with a monk in Paris.[251] Having quoted Mr. Hill’s remark, that, according to the monk, “Popery is about the mid-way between Protestantism and Mr. J. Wesley,” Fletcher proceeds to say:—
“We desire to be confronted with all the pious Protestant divines. But, who would believe it? the suffrage of a papist is brought against us! Astonishing! that our opposers should think it worth their while to raise one recruit against us in the immense city of Paris, where fifty thousand might be raised against the Bible itself!
“So long as Christ, the prophets, and apostles are for us, together with the multitude of the Puritan divines of the last century, we shall smile at an army of Popish friars. The knotted whips, that hang by their side, will no more frighten us from our Bibles, than the ipse dixit of a Benedictine monk will make us explode, as heretical, propositions which are demonstrated to be scriptural.
“I hope the gentlemen concerned in the ‘Conversation,’ lately published, will excuse the liberty of this postscript. I reverence their piety, rejoice in their labours, and honour their warm zeal for the Protestant cause; but that very zeal, if not accompanied with a close attention to every part of the Gospel truth, may betray them into mistakes, which may spread as far as their respectable names. I think it therefore my duty to publish these strictures, lest any of my readers should pay more regard to the good-natured friar, who has been pressed into the service of Dr. Crisp, than to St. John, St. Paul, St. James, and Jesus Christ, on whose plain declarations I have shown that the ‘Minutes’” (of Mr. Wesley) “are founded.”
Footnote 251:
Its title was “A Conversation between Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr. Madan, and Father Walsh, Superior of a Convent of Benedictine Monks at Paris, held at the same Convent, July 13, 1771, in the presence of Thomas Powis, Esq., and others, relative to some Doctrinal Minutes advanced by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and others, at a Conference held in London, August 7, 1770. To which are added some Remarks by the Editor.” Fletcher’s name is not mentioned in the pamphlet; but because he chose to refer to it in his “Second Check to Antinomianism,” it is here introduced to the reader’s notice. Hereafter, in order to avoid, as far as possible, a repetition of the history of the Calvinian controversy, as published in the “Life and Times of Wesley,” no publications on the subject will be discussed, except those in which Fletcher was attacked, or which he answered.—L. T.
So ends all that need be said here concerning Fletcher’s “Second Check to Antinomianism.” To appreciate its style, its temper, and its arguments, the reader must peruse it for himself; and, by doing so, his mind will be enriched, and his soul profited.
An extract from one of Fletcher’s letters may fitly close this section of his biography. The letter was addressed to the Rev. Joseph Benson, and was dated “December 5, 1771.”
“There is undoubtedly such a thing as the full assurance of faith. Be not discouraged on account of thousands, who stop short of it. It is our own fault if we do not attain it. God would give us ample satisfaction if we did but deeply feel our wants. Both you and I want a deeper awakening, which will produce a death to outward things and speculative knowledge. Let us shut our eyes to the gilded clouds without us: let us draw inward, and search after God, if haply we may find Him. Let us hold fast our confidence, though we are often constrained against hope, to believe in hope. But let us not rest in our confidence, as thousands do; let it help us to struggle and wait, till He come. Let us habituate ourselves to live inwardly. This will solemnize us, and prevent our trifling with the things of God. We may be thankful for what we have without resting in it. We may strive, and yet not trust in our striving; but expect all from Divine grace.”[252]
Footnote 252:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
In such a frame of mind and heart Fletcher carried on his polemic warfare.