pamphlets which relate to the ‘Minutes;’ and for whatever may have
  savoured too much of my own spirit, either in my answers to you, or to
  Mr. Wesley, I sincerely crave the forgiveness of you both, and should
  be most heartily glad if no person whatever were to add another word
  to what has been already said on either side.

  ”And permit me to hint, that if some restraint could be laid upon
  several of Mr. Wesley’s preachers, particularly upon one Perronet (of
  whose superlatively abusive and insolent little piece,[293] I believe,
  Mr. Charles Wesley testified his abhorrence from the pulpit), I think,
  under God, it might be a salutary means of preventing the poison of
  vain janglings from spreading any further. But, though it is the
  desire of my soul to live in harmony, love, and friendship with you,
  dear Sir, yet, if God has ever shown me anything of my own heart, or
  of the truths of His Word, I must, and still do think that your
  principles are exceedingly erroneous; and of this, I ever cherish a
  secret hope that God will convince you, in the course of His dealings
  with your soul.

  “Wishing you abundance of grace, mercy, and peace, I beg leave to
  subscribe myself, Rev. and dear Sir, your sincere friend in the Gospel
  of Immanuel,

                                                           “R. HILL.

  “P.S.—I wish, dear Sir, you would make Mr. Wesley acquainted with the
  contents of this letter; and, if I stop the sale of my books, I hope
  that of the four ‘Checks’ will be stopped also.”

Footnote 293:

  Probably Edward Perronet’s “Small Collection in Verse: containing a
  Hymn to the Holy Ghost; an Epigram from the Italian,” etc. Printed in
  1772. 12mo, 16 pp.

This letter of Mr. Richard Hill, at the first reading, seems to be
peaceable and friendly; but there is reason to fear that the principle
that prompted it was cowardice rather than courtesy. Mr. Hill had been
vanquished more than once; and, naturally enough, he now wished to
retire from the arena. This, however, his opponents could not permit,
without sending a shaft after him. In his publications just issued, the
“Finishing Stroke,” and the “Farrago Double-Distilled,” to say nothing
of his previous ones, he had most uncharitably accused Fletcher and
Wesley not only of ignorances and mistakes, but of sins. He had called
Fletcher a “calumniator;” he had charged him with practising “forgery
and defamation,” and “gross misrepresentations,” and “slander.” In the
“Farrago Double Distilled,” he had accused Wesley of using “quirks,
quibbles, evasions, and false quotations;” and had designated him “a
chameleon.” His “Heroic Poem in Praise of Mr. John Wesley” was a
disgraceful production, too coarse and vulgar to be quoted. Was it
reasonable to wish or expect that no answer should be made to such
imputations? Reputation was as dear in the case of John Fletcher and
John Wesley as in that of Richard Hill; and, so far as the work of God
and the interests of the Church of Christ were concerned, vastly more
important. Besides, when Mr. Hill says he was “credibly informed” that
Fletcher was “resolved to publish nothing more on the subject of the
late disputes,” he was the victim of a delusion, for Fletcher was
already preparing his “Fifth Check to Antinomianism.”

Fletcher’s reply to Mr. Hill’s first letter has never been published,
but its import may be gathered from Mr. Hill’s second letter to
Fletcher, which was as follows:—

                                                    “_August, 1773._

  “REV. AND DEAR SIR,—Attendance at the assizes, and multiplicity of
  business in my office as a Justice of the Peace, have prevented my
  returning a more speedy answer to your letter, in which I find you
  complain of my having treated you with severity.

  ”This obliges me to request you to call to mind the four ‘Checks,’ and
  then to say what right the author of them has to complain of severity.
  Read the sneering mock proclamation given by the four secretaries of
  state of the predestinarian department; read the charges brought
  against our celebrated pulpits; and, if you can still justify what you
  have advanced, you may then with better reason accuse me of severity.
  It pains me to bring these things to your remembrance, as I was
  determined, when I wrote last, to avoid every shadow of any accusation
  against you for what had passed; and I think you must acknowledge that
  my letter was friendly; but your introduction of the subject obliges
  me to say what I have. I wish I had any grounds to recall what I have
  said concerning your having laid very great misrepresentations before
  the public, in your quotations from Mr. Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ and in the
  harmony you would make your readers believe there is between the
  Reformers and Puritans, and Mr. Wesley and yourself; for it is most
  sure that your principles and theirs are as wide as east from west.

  ”How far it may be fair to alter the title of your sermon[294] from
  what it stands in the manuscript, must be left to yourself; I have no
  objection to it as you propose to print it. As to your explanatory
  notes and additions in brackets, you know, Sir, that by these you may
  easily make the sermon itself speak what language you see proper.
  Clarke and Priestly, by explanatory notes and additions in brackets,
  can explain away the divinity of Christ; Socinus, His atonement; and
  Taylor, the corruption of human nature.

  ”As you intend to introduce my worthless name into your next
  publication, I must beg to decline the obliging offer you make of my
  perusing your MSS. I am, Rev. and dear Sir,

                         “Your sincere friend for Christ’s sake,
                                                     “RICHARD HILL.”

Footnote 294:

  The sermon preached in Madeley Church, on May 23, 1773, and afterwards
  published in the “Fifth Check to Antinomianism.”

Mr. Hill’s last letter is the best of the three. It was written soon
after his mother’s death, and a short time before Fletcher’s “First Part
of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism” was published. Fletcher offered to
allow Mr. Hill to read the work in manuscript, but, as Mr. Hill himself
states, the offer was declined.

                                    “HAWKSTONE, _December 23, 1773_.

  “REV. AND DEAR SIR,—I take the liberty of requesting you to distribute
  among the poor of Madeley the enclosed two guineas, in such way and
  manner as you shall judge fit and proper.

  “I sent your last letter to my brother Rowland, who is now at
  Tottenham Court chapel, and suppose he received it. However, I waive
  saying anything of the subject of it, as it is my design to have
  totally done with the controversy, which I am firmly persuaded has not
  done me any good. Excuse me if I say, I wish you to examine closely
  whether it has done you any. For my own part, I desire to be humbled
  before God, as well as to ask your forgiveness and Mr. Wesley’s (to
  whom I purpose making a visit of peace and love when I go to London),
  for everything that has savoured of wrong or of my own spirit, in what
  I have written relative to his ‘Minutes;’ and, though I believe your
  sentiments to be erroneous, yet I esteem and honour you for all you
  have said against sin; and for the stand you have made for practical
  religion in this Laodicean, Antinomian age; and truly concerned should
  I be, if any expressions have dropped from my pen, which might make
  the readers think lightly of sin, under the notion of honouring the
  Saviour from sin. But as God can bear me witness that I had no
  intentions of this sort, so I am certain that whosoever makes Christ
  all his salvation, can never at the same time make Him a minister of
  sin; and I trust the hour will come when, under a deep sense of your
  own sinfulness and nothingness, you will be glad to lay hold of some
  of those comfortable Gospel truths, which now you look upon as
  dangerous poison.

  “In consequence of my former letter to you, I wrote to my bookseller
  in London, and told Mr. Eddowes in Shrewsbury, to stop the sale of all
  my publications concerning the controversy between us; and, unless God
  shows me that it is a matter of duty so to do, I shall not revoke this
  order; it being my earnest desire for the time to come, if it be
  possible, to live peaceably with all men; and, though I cannot approve
  some of Mr. Wesley’s doctrines, because I believe them to be contrary
  to Scripture, and am sure they are contrary to my own experience, yet,
  as I am persuaded that many who are the excellent of the earth are in
  his connexion, I wish to confirm my love towards them on account of
  the grace that is in them; and, whilst I reject their errors, still to
  esteem their persons; and never to say or do anything that may hurt
  that common cause for which we all ought to be contending, or which
  may grieve the weakest or meanest of Christ’s people.

  “These, dear Sir, are my present sentiments and intentions, and you
  have my free permission to declare them upon the house-top.

  “An afflictive breach, which God has lately been pleased to make in
  our family, by depriving me of a most tender and affectionate mother,
  calls upon me to beg your prayers, that the sudden stroke may be
  sanctified to me and to us all. It loudly bids me remember that I am
  but a stranger and pilgrim here below. May the Lord give me a
  pilgrim’s spirit! and may He give us both a right judgment in all
  things!

  “Permit me to subscribe myself, Rev. and dear Sir, your sincere friend
  and servant in Christ,

                                                     “RICHARD HILL.”

The Christian spirit of this letter cannot be excelled. What a contrast
to that of the “Finishing Stroke,” published at the beginning of the
year! Mr. Hill gave Fletcher full permission to make known the facts
that the controversy had done him no good; that he desired to be humbled
before God, and to ask forgiveness of Fletcher and Wesley for everything
that had “savoured of wrong,” or of his “own spirit,” in his writings;
that he had stopped the sale of his publications; and that he regarded
many of Wesley’s people as “the excellent of the earth.”

There can be no doubt that Fletcher availed himself of Mr. Hill’s
permission. The facts did honour to Mr. Hill; but, as is often the case,
in the course of circulation, the facts were perverted. By no fault of
Fletcher, it was reported that Mr. Hill had recanted the _doctrines_ he
had so stoutly maintained. This was utterly untrue; and led Mr. Hill to
send his three letters to the press.[295] No one could have found fault
with this; but, unfortunately, Mr. Hill prefixed a preface to his
letters, and appended an appendix.

Footnote 295:

  The title was, “Three Letters, written by Richard Hill, Esq., to the
  Rev. J. Fletcher, Vicar of Madeley, in the year 1773; setting forth
  Mr. Hill’s Reasons for declining any further controversy relative to
  Mr. Wesley’s Principles. Shrewsbury.” 8vo., 30 pp.

In his preface, he remarks, that when Wesley heard from Fletcher that he
(Mr. Hill) had suppressed the sale of his publications, he wrote Mr.
Hill “a short and civil letter,” in which he said, he himself intended
to write nothing more on the controversy between them, and expressed the
hope that all, in the future, would be love and peace. This
communication gratified Mr. Hill, and soon afterwards, when he went to
London, he had an interview with Wesley at West-street chapel, and
assured him of his intentions to retire from the warfare, and said he
wished that nothing more should be said on the subject by any one.
Wesley took him by the hand; showed a loving, pacific disposition; and,
says Mr. Hill, “we parted very good friends.”

Besides this personal narrative, however, the preface renewed the
slanderous attacks on Fletcher, accusing him of misrepresenting facts,
of using “artifices in his manner of making quotations;” and
“declamation, chicanery, evasion, false glosses, and pious frauds, to
throw dust into the eyes of his readers.” Not content with this, he made
an onslaught on Thomas Olivers, Wesley’s trenchant Itinerant, who (in
1774) had just published a 12mo book of 168 pages, entitled “A Scourge
to Calumny. In Two Parts. Inscribed to Richard Hill, Esq.” He sneeringly
calls him “one Thomas Oliver, alias Olivers, a journeyman cordwainer,
who had written a pamphlet against him (Mr. Hill), which, though in
itself _black in the grain_, was afterwards _lacquered up_, _new soled_,
and _heel-tapped_ by his master before it was exposed for sale.”

  “I shall not,” continues Mr. Hill, “take the least notice of him, or
  read a line of his composition,[296] any more than, if I was
  travelling on the road, I would stop to lash, or even order my footman
  to lash, every impertinent little quadruped in a village, that should
  come out and bark at me; but would willingly let the contemptible
  animal have the satisfaction of thinking he had driven me out of
  sight.”

Footnote 296:

  If Mr. Hill had not read Thomas Oliver’s little book, how is it that
  he can so graphically describe it?

This was despicable bombast; for the Welsh shoemaker, as a controversial
writer, was quite equal to him who, in due time, became a Shropshire
baronet. Mr. Hill proceeds to say that he cannot read any more of
Fletcher’s books, and, therefore, cannot write any more answers to them;
but, because it was now currently reported that he had recanted the
doctrines which he had defended, he had revoked his orders to stop the
sale of his publications, and that his “Five Letters to Fletcher,” his
“Review of Wesley’s Doctrines,” his “Farrago Double Distilled,” his
“Paris Conversation,” and his “Finishing Stroke,” might now be bought as
heretofore.

The Appendix to Mr. Hill’s Three Letters suggests a proposed title to
Fletcher’s works, and sets forth “A Creed for Arminians and
Perfectionists,” as follows:—

                               “ARTICLE I.

  “I believe that Jesus Christ died for the whole human race, and that
  He had no more love towards those who now are, or hereafter shall be,
  in glory, than for those who now are, or hereafter shall be, lifting
  up their eyes in torments; and that the one are no more indebted to
  His grace than the other.

                               “ARTICLE II.

  “I believe that Divine grace is indiscriminately given to all men; and
  that God, foreseeing that by far the greater part of the world would
  reject this grace, doth, nevertheless, bestow it upon them in order to
  heighten their torments and to increase their damnation in hell.

                              “ARTICLE III.

  “I believe it depends wholly on the will of the creature whether he
  shall or shall not receive any benefit from Divine grace.

                               “ARTICLE IV.

  “Though the Scripture tells me that the carnal mind is enmity against
  God, yet I believe there is something in the heart of every natural
  man that can nourish and cherish the grace of God; and that the sole
  reason why this grace is effectual in some and not in others, is
  entirely owing to themselves and to their own faithfulness, and not to
  the distinguishing love and favour of God.

                               “ARTICLE V.

  “I believe that God sincerely wishes for the salvation of many who
  never will be saved; consequently, that it is entirely owing to want
  of ability in God that what He so earnestly willeth is not
  accomplished.

                               “ARTICLE VI.

  “I believe that the Redeemer not only shed His precious blood, but
  prayed for the salvation of many souls who are now in hell;
  consequently, that His blood was shed in vain, and His prayer rejected
  of His Father; and that, therefore, He told a great untruth when He
  said, ‘I know that Thou hearest me always.’

                              “ARTICLE VII.

  “I believe that God, foreseeing some men’s nature will improve the
  grace which is given them, and that they will repent, believe, and be
  very good, elects them unto salvation.

                              “ARTICLE VIII.

  “I believe that the love and favour of Him with whom is no
  variableness and shadow of turning, and whose gifts and callings are
  without repentance, may vary, change, and turn every hour and every
  moment, according to the behaviour of the creature.

                               “ARTICLE IX.

  “I believe that the seed of the Word, by which God’s children are born
  again, is a corruptible seed; and that, so far from enduring for ever
  (as that mistaken apostle Peter rashly affirms), it is frequently
  rooted out of the hearts of those in whom it was sown.

                               “ARTICLE X.

  “I believe that Christ does not always give unto His sheep eternal
  life; but that they often perish, and are, by the power of Satan,
  frequently plucked out of His hand.

                               “ARTICLE XI.

  “Though I have solemnly subscribed to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the
  Church of England, and have affirmed that I believe them from my
  heart, yet I think our Reformers were profoundly ignorant of true
  Christianity, when they declared, in the Ninth Article, that ‘the
  infection of nature doth remain in them which are regenerate;’ and, in
  the Fifteenth, that ‘all we, the rest (Christ only excepted), although
  baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and _if
  we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
  us_.’ This I totally deny, because it cuts up, root and branch, my
  favourite doctrine of _Perfection_; and, therefore, let Peter, Paul,
  James, or John, say what they will; and let reformers and martyrs join
  their syren song, their eyes were at best but half opened, for want of
  a little _Foundery_ eye-salve; therefore, I cannot look upon them as
  adult believers, and fathers in Christ.”

The Eleven Articles were subscribed, “J. F.,” “J. W.,” and “W. S.;”
which may be taken as the initial letters of the names of John Fletcher,
John Wesley, and Walter Sellon.

  “What! more _finishing strokes_!” remarked the _Monthly Review_ of
  January, 1775, in its notice of Mr. Hill’s new pamphlet. “This
  retiring champion, however, like the Parthians of old, is not less
  formidable in his retreat than in a direct attack. He here lets fly at
  the _Arminians_ and _Perfectionists_ one of his sharpest pointed
  arrows. He styles it ‘_their creed_.’ He says he has ‘composed it from
  their sentiments;’ and he adds that he ‘can scarcely read it without
  horror.’ Yet he thinks himself justified in publishing it, as Mr.
  Fletcher still continued the controversy with so much warmth.”

All this is deeply to be regretted. Mr. Hill had declared his
determination to abandon this painful warfare, and yet here he provokes
a continuance of it. It is true that, meanwhile, Fletcher had published
his “Answer to the Finishing Stroke” of Mr. Hill; but Fletcher had done
this, not because he desired the controversy to be prolonged, but
because “The Finishing Stroke” contained so many grave attacks on
Fletcher’s moral character, that Fletcher’s honour could not be
maintained without an “Answer” being written. At this point the war
might have ended; but, by appending the “Creed for Arminians and
Perfectionists” to his Three Letters, Mr. Hill re-opened the sluice, and
“the waters of strife” flowed as fiercely as ever.

From a Calvinian point of view, the “Creed” is drawn up with great
ability; but Mr. Hill was well aware that it was a misrepresentation of
the sentiments of Fletcher and Wesley. Besides, the thing itself was in
bad taste. It must be acknowledged that Fletcher had published his
“Gospel Proclamation: Given at _Geneva_, and signed by four of his
Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State for the Predestinarian
Department!” but there was no need that Mr. Richard Hill should copy
Fletcher’s objectionable example.

It is now time, however, to turn to Fletcher’s masterly replies.

                              CHAPTER XV.
                   “_FIFTH CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM._”

                                 1774.

IN a characteristic letter addressed to Ambrose Serle, Esq., and dated
“January 11, 1774,” Augustus Toplady observed:—

  “Mr. Fletcher may fire off as soon as he pleases. The weapons of his
  warfare can never wound the truths of God, any more than a handful of
  feathers can batter down my church tower. I shall, however, be glad to
  see his performance when it appears. Mr. Shirley told me, when I was
  last at Bath, that Fletcher is to succeed Pope Wesley, as
  commander-in-chief of the Societies, if he should survive his
  holiness. No wonder, therefore, that the Cardinal of Madeley is such a
  zealous stickler for the cause. One would think that the Swiss were
  universally fated to fight for pay.”[297]

Footnote 297:

  “Complete Works of Toplady.”

Toplady’s mendacious sneer that Fletcher was fighting “for pay” may be
scornfully passed over. This letter might refer to Fletcher’s “Answer to
the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s Vindication of the Decrees,” which Fletcher
finished in the month of October, 1775; or it might refer to the
expected publication of the “Fifth Check to Antinomianism.” The “First
Part” of this was completed at Madeley, September 13, 1773; but was not
published until the beginning of 1774. The following was its title:
“_Logica Genevensis_ continued: or the First Part of the Fifth Check to
Antinomianism, containing an Answer to ‘_The Finishing Stroke_’ of
Richard Hill, Esq. In which some remarks upon _Mr. Fulsome’s_ Antinomian
Creed, published by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, are occasionally introduced.
With an Appendix upon the remaining difference between the Calvinists
and the Anti-Calvinists, with respect to our Lord’s doctrine of
_Justification by words_, and St. James’s doctrine of _Justification by
works, and not by faith only_. London: 1774.”  12mo., 48 pp.

Fletcher’s “Answer” to Richard Hill’s “Finishing Stroke,” and his
“Remarks upon _Mr. Fulsome’s_ Antinomian Creed,” are able, and
characteristic of the writer; but contain no biographical facts worth
mentioning. Two extracts, however, from the “Appendix,” upon the
remaining differences between the Calvinists and the anti-Calvinists,
may be useful; inasmuch as, in a condensed form, they exhibit the point
to which, in Fletcher’s opinion, the controversy had brought both
parties with respect to the principal of Wesley’s “Minutes” of 1770.
Fletcher writes:—

  “On both sides, we agree to maintain, in opposition to Socinians and
  Deists, that the grand, the primary, and properly meritorious cause of
  our justification, from first to last, both in the day of conversion
  and in the day of judgment, is only the precious atonement and the
  infinite merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. We all agree likewise that
  in the day of conversion faith is the _instrumental cause_ of our
  justification before God. Nay, if I mistake not, we come one step
  nearer each other, for we equally hold that, after conversion, the
  works of faith are in this world, and will be in the day of judgment,
  the _evidencing cause_ of our justification; that is, the works of
  faith (under the above-mentioned primary cause of our salvation, and
  in subordination to the faith that gives them birth), are now, and
  will be in the great day, the _evidence_ that shall instrumentally
  _cause_ our justification as believers. Thus Mr. Hill says [_Review_,
  p. 149], ‘Neither Mr. Shirley, nor I, nor any Calvinist that I ever
  heard of, denies that, though a sinner be _justified in the sight of
  God by Christ alone_, he is _declaratively justified by works, both
  here and at the day of judgment_.’ And the Rev. Mr. Madan, in his
  sermon on ‘_justification by works stated, explained, and reconciled
  with justification by faith_,’ says [p. 29], ‘By Christ only are we
  _meritoriously_ justified, and by faith only are we _instrumentally_
  justified _in the sight of God_; but by works, and not by faith only,
  are we _declaratively justified before men and angels_.’ From these
  two quotations, which could easily be multiplied to twenty, it is
  evident that pious Calvinists hold the doctrine of a _justification_
  by the works of faith; or, as Mr. Madan expresses it, after St. James,
  _by works, and not by faith only_.

  “It remains now to show wherein we disagree. At first sight, the
  difference seems trifling; but, upon close examination, it appears
  that the whole antinomian gulf still remains fixed between us. Read
  the preceding quotations, weigh the clauses which I have put in
  capitals, compare them with what the Rev. Mr. Berridge says in his
  ‘_Christian World Unmasked_’ (p. 26), of ‘_an absolute impossibility
  of being justified in any manner_ by our works,’ namely, _before God_;
  and you will see that though pious Calvinists allow we are justified
  by works _before men and angels_, yet they deny our being _ever_
  justified by works _before God_, in whose sight they suppose we are
  for ever justified by _Christ alone_,’ _i.e._, only by Christ’s good
  works and sufferings, absolutely imputed to us from the very first
  moment in which we make a single act of true faith, if not from all
  eternity. Thus works are entirely excluded from having any hand either
  in our intermediate or final justification _before God_; and thus they
  are still represented as _totally needless_ to our _eternal_
  salvation. Now, in direct opposition to the above-mentioned
  distinction, we anti-Calvinists believe that adult persons cannot be
  saved without being justified _by faith_ as _sinners_, according to
  the light of their dispensation; and _by works_ as _believers_,
  according to the time and opportunities they have of working. We
  assert that the _works_ of faith are not less necessary to our
  justification _before God_ as believers, than _faith_ itself is
  necessary to our justification _before Him_ as sinners. And we
  maintain that when faith does not produce good works (much more when
  it produces the worst works, such as adultery, hypocrisy, treachery,
  murder, etc.), it dies, and justifies no more; seeing it is a _living_
  and not a _dead_ faith that justifies us as sinners; even as they are
  _living_ and not dead works that justify us as believers.”

Thus did these good men quarrel. Berridge was a man of eminent piety and
of great wit, but he could scarcely be considered a great theologian;
and it may be fairly doubted whether he ever held the doctrines which
Fletcher, perhaps somewhat hardly, deduces from a few of his unguarded
words.

In his next pamphlet, which was published March 1, 1774,[298] Fletcher
treats poor Berridge with yet greater severity. The whole work was
devoted to an exposure of the objectionable and the weak points in
Berridge’s “Christian World Unmasked.” Its title was “_Logica
Genevensis_ continued. Or the Second Part of the Fifth Check to
Antinomianism; containing a Defence of ‘Jack o’ lanthorn,’ and ‘the
Paper-kite,’ _i.e._, Sincere Obedience;—of the ‘Cobweb,’ _i.e._, The
evangelical law of liberty; and of the ‘Valiant Sergeant I. F.,’ _i.e._,
The conditionality of Perseverance, attacked by the Rev. Mr. Berridge,
M.A., Vicar of Everton, and late Fellow of Clare-hall, Cambridge, in his
book called ‘The Christian World Unmasked.’ London: 1774.” 12 mo., 44
pp.

Footnote 298:

  _Lloyd’s Evening Post_, March 2, 1774.

Berridge was well aware of Fletcher’s intention to attack his book, for
Fletcher himself, seven months before, had told him that what he had
“said about sincere obedience was the very core of Antinomianism,” and
that he must freely expose what he had written. Berridge, in letters to
John Thornton, Esq., and the Rev. John Newton, complained of this, and
said Fletcher had misapprehended his meaning. He also wrote to Fletcher
to the same effect, and told him that, if he published his attack, he
(Berridge) would not answer it. There can be no doubt that Berridge
never _intended_ to “disparage sincere obedience” to the law of God; but
his similes, allegories, figures, and loose language, might be construed
by Antinomian readers in such a sense. Fletcher believed Berridge to be
a sincere, earnest, obedient Christian; but he also believed that
Berridge’s well-meant book might be turned to a bad account by men with
whose Antinomian sentiments Berridge had no sympathy. In the
introduction to his pamphlet, Fletcher writes:—

  “Before I mention Mr. Berridge’s mistakes, I must do justice to his
  person. It is by no means my design to represent him as a divine, who
  either leads a loose life, or _intends_ to hurt the Redeemer’s
  interest. His conduct as a Christian is exemplary; his labours as a
  minister are great; and I am persuaded that the wrong touches which he
  gives to the ark of godliness are not only undesigned, but _intended_
  to do God service.

  “There are so many things commendable in the pious vicar of Everton,
  and so much truth in his ‘Christian World Unmasked,’ that I find it a
  hardship to expose the unguarded parts of that performance. But the
  cause of this hardship is the ground of my apology. Mr. Berridge is a
  good, an excellent man; therefore the Antinomian errors which go
  abroad into the world with his letters of recommendation, speak in his
  evangelical strain, and are armed with the poignancy of his wit,
  cannot be too soon pointed out and too carefully guarded against. I
  flatter myself that this consideration will procure me his pardon for
  taking the liberty of dispatching his ‘valiant sergeant’ with some
  doses of rational and Scriptural antidote for those who have drunk
  into the pleasing mistakes of his book, and want his piety to hinder
  them from carrying speculative into practical Antinomianism.”

It would weary the reader to follow Fletcher in his minute, sometimes
pungent, and always irrefutable criticisms on Berridge’s well-known
book. There is often plain speaking, but there is no acidity. Berridge
is routed, but he is invariably treated as a Christian and a gentleman.
Fletcher’s “Conclusion” is as follows:—

  “Were I to conclude these strictures upon the dangerous tenets,
  inadvertently advanced and happily contradicted, in ‘The Christian
  World Unmasked,’ without professing my brotherly love and sincere
  respect for the ingenious and pious author, I should wrong him,
  myself, and the cause which I defend. I only do him justice when I say
  that few, very few, of our elders equal him in devotedness to Christ,
  zeal, diligence, and ministerial success. His indefatigable labours in
  the word and doctrine entitle him to a double share of honour; and I
  invite all my readers to esteem him highly in love for his Master’s
  and his work’s sake; entreating them not to undervalue his vital piety
  on account of his Antinomian opinions; and beseeching them to consider
  that his errors are so much the more excusable as they do not
  influence his moral conduct, and that he refutes them himself far more
  than his favourite scheme of doctrine allows him to do. Add to this
  that those very errors spring, in a great degree, from the idea that
  he honours Christ by receiving, and does God service by propagating
  them.

  “The desire of catching the attention of his readers has made him
  choose a witty, facetious manner of writing, for which he has a
  peculiar turn; and the necessity I am under of standing his _indirect_
  attack[299] obliges me to meet him upon his own ground, and to
  encounter him with his own weapons. I beg that what passes for
  evangelical humour in him may not be called indecent levity in me. A
  sharp pen may be guided by a kind heart; and such, I am persuaded, is
  that of my much-esteemed antagonist, whom I publicly invite to my
  pulpit; protesting that I should be edified and overjoyed to hear him
  enforce there the _guarded_ substance of his book, which,
  notwithstanding the vein of solifidianism I have taken the liberty to
  open, contains many great and glorious truths.”

Footnote 299:

  As previously stated, Fletcher’s name was not mentioned in Berridge’s
  book, but the book was intended to ridicule and denounce the doctrines
  which Fletcher, in his “_Checks_,” had defended.

In all his publications, Fletcher had not only Wesley’s approval, but
his high commendation. In three several letters, written during the
present year, 1774, Wesley thus expressed his opinion of Fletcher:—

  “March 1, 1774.—He” [James Perfect], “preaches salvation by faith in
  the same manner that my brother and I have done; and as Mr. Fletcher
  (one of the finest writers of the age) has beautifully explained it.
  None of us talk of being accepted for our works; that is the Calvinist
  slander. But we all maintain we are not saved without works; that
  works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of final
  salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ
  that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of
  these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of
  Him.”[300]

  “May 2, 1774. Until Mr.” (Richard) “Hill and his associates puzzled
  the cause, it was as plain as plain could be. The Methodists always
  held, and have declared a thousand times, that the death of Christ is
  the meritorious cause of our salvation, that is, of pardon, holiness,
  and glory; loving, obedient faith is the condition of glory. This Mr.
  Fletcher has so illustrated and confirmed, as, I think, scarcely any
  one has done before since the Apostles.”[301]

  “December 28, 1774. If we could once bring all our preachers,
  itinerant and local, uniformly and steadily to insist on those two
  points, ‘Christ dying for us,’ and ‘Christ reigning in us,’ we should
  shake the trembling gates of hell. I think most of them are now
  exceeding clear herein, and the rest come nearer and nearer;
  especially since they have read Mr. Fletcher’s ‘Checks,’ which have
  removed many difficulties out of the way.”[302]

Footnote 300:

  Wesley’s Works, vol xii., p. 372.

Footnote 301:

  _Ibid_, p. 373.

Footnote 302:

  _Ibid_, p. 430.

Such was one of the services which Fletcher, “one of the finest writers
of the age,” had rendered to Wesley’s preachers and people as early as
the year 1774. They had been in danger of departing from the truth, or,
at least, stumbling at it: by Fletcher’s help, they were confirmed in
the Christian faith, and henceforth earnestly contended for it.

As already seen, in 1773 Mr. Richard Hill had extended to Fletcher the
olive branch of peace; and now the Countess of Huntingdon seems to have
done the same. Three years before, she had virtually dismissed him from
her Calvinistic College at Trevecca, because he would not renounce what
were called the “_horrible and abominable_” doctrinal “Minutes” of
Wesley’s Conference in 1770. Since then, he had been incessantly
employed in explaining and defending these “Minutes;” and, in every
instance, had vanquished his opponents. Her ladyship, with her
strong-mindedness, seemed to perceive this, and wished to have an
interview with her disbanded president. She was staying at Bath, and
through James Ireland, Esq., of Bristol, the intimate friend of both,
her wish appears to have been conveyed to Fletcher; who, in reply, wrote
to Mr. Ireland as follows:—

                                       “MADELEY, _February 6, 1774_.

  “MY DEAR FRIEND,—In the present circumstances, it was a great piece of
  condescension in dear Lady Huntingdon to be willing to see me
  privately: but for her to permit me to wait upon her _openly_ denotes
  such generosity, such courage, and a mind so much superior to the
  narrowness that clogs the charity of most professors, that it would
  have amazed me, if everything that is noble and magnanimous were not
  to be expected from her ladyship. It is well for her that spirits are
  imprisoned in flesh and blood, or I might by this time (and it is but
  an hour since I received your letter) have troubled her ten times with
  my apparition, to wish her joy of being above the dangerous snare of
  professors—the smiles and frowns of the religious world; and to thank
  her a thousand times for not being ashamed of her old servant, and for
  cordially forgiving him all that is past, upon the score of the Lord’s
  love, and of my honest meaning.

  “But though, on reading your letter, my mind has travelled so fast to
  Bath, yet an embargo is laid upon my body—‘I must not go yet.’ I am
  the more inclined to take the hint, for two reasons. I will tell you
  all my heart about it. The more I see her ladyship’s generosity, and
  admire the faithfulness of the friendship that she has for many years
  honoured me with, the more I ought to take care not to bring burdens
  upon her. It might lessen her influence with those she is connected
  with; and might grieve some of her friends, who possibly would look
  upon her condescension as an affront to them. This is the first
  reason.

  “The second respects myself. _I must follow my light._ A necessity is
  laid upon me to clear my conscience with respect to the _Antinomian
  world_, and to point out the stumbling-block that keeps many serious
  people from embracing the real doctrines of free grace. I cannot do
  this without advancing some truths, which I know her ladyship receives
  as well as myself, but which, by my manner of unfolding them, will, at
  first sight, appear dreadful touches to the Gospel of the day. I am
  just sending to the press ‘A Scriptural Essay upon the Astonishing
  Rewardableness of the Works of Faith.’ Though it consists only of
  plain Scriptures, and plain arguments, without anything personal, I
  think it will raise more dust of prejudice against me than my
  preceding publications. With respect to myself, I do not mind it; but
  I am bound in love to mind it with respect to her ladyship. My respect
  for her ladyship, therefore, together with the preceding reason,
  determine me to defer paying my respects _personally_ to her, till
  after the publication of my ‘Essay,’ and ‘Scripture Scales;’ and, if
  she does not then revoke the kind leave she gives me, I shall most
  gladly make the best of my way to assure her in person, as I do now by
  this indirect means, that I am, and shall for ever be her dutiful
  servant in what appears to me the plain Gospel of our common Lord.

  “With love to yourself, and dutiful love to our noble friend, I am,
  etc.,

                                                 “J. FLETCHER.”[303]

Footnote 303:

  Letters, 1791, p. 221.

Nothing need be said respecting Fletcher’s considerate kindness in
declining, for the present, an interview with the Countess of
Huntingdon, lest he should become the means of bringing upon her
undeserved reproach from some of her bigoted and narrow-hearted friends.
It was like the man, and worthy of him.

In another letter to Mr. Ireland, Fletcher further refers to the
returning friendliness of the Countess, and to his controversial and
exhausting labours, of which he was becoming weary:—

                                         “MADELEY, _March 27, 1774_.

  “MY DEAR SIR,—I think I wrote my last two days before I received your
  bounty—a large hogshead of rice and two cheeses. Accept the thanks of
  myself and of my poor flock. I distributed it 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. I saw then, what I have not often seen on such occasions,
  gladness without the appearance of envying or grudging.

  “I get very slowly out of the mire of my controversy, and yet I hope
  to get over it, if God spares my life, in two or three pieces more.
  Since I wrote last, I have added to my ‘Equal Check’ a piece which I
  call ‘An Essay on Truth; or, a Rational Vindication of the Doctrine of
  Salvation by Faith,’ which I have taken the liberty to dedicate to
  Lady Huntingdon, to have an opportunity of clearing her ladyship from
  the charge of Antinomianism. I have taken this step in the simplicity
  of my heart, and as due from me, in my circumstances, to the character
  of her ladyship.

  “I have just spirit enough to enjoy my solitude, and to bless God that
  I am out of the hurry of the world—even the spiritual world. I tarry
  gladly in my Jerusalem, till the kingdom of God comes with power. Till
  then, it matters not where I am: only as my chief call is here, here I
  gladly stay, till God fits me for the pulpit or the _grave_. I still
  spend my mornings in scribbling. Though I grudge so much time in
  writing, yet a man must do something; and I may as well investigate
  truth as do anything else, except solemn praying and visiting my
  flock. I shall be glad to have done with my present avocation, that I
  may give myself up more to those two things.

  “O how life goes! I walked, now I gallop into eternity. The bowl of
  life goes rapidly down the steep hill of time. Let us be wise: embrace
  we Jesus and the resurrection. Let us trim our lamps, and give
  ourselves afresh to Him that bought us, till we can do it without
  reserve. Adieu!

                                                 “J. FLETCHER.”[304]

Footnote 304:

  Letters, 1791, p 223.

                              CHAPTER XVI.
                   _FURTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE YEAR_

                                 1774.

IN _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ for March 2, 1774, there appeared the
following advertisement:—

  “_In the Press._ An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism; and
  the Scripture Scales to weigh Gospel Truth; both by the Rev. Mr. John
  Fletcher, Vicar of Madeley, Shropshire.”

“_The Scripture Scales_,” however, were published separately, and not
until the year was ending. First of all, Fletcher issued a 12mo. volume
of 264 pages, entitled, “The First Part of an Equal Check to Pharisaism
and Antinomianism, containing, I. An Historical Essay on the Danger of
parting Faith and Works. II. Salvation by the Covenant of Grace, A
Discourse preached in the Parish Church of Madeley, April 18, and May 9,
1773. III. A Scriptural Essay on the astonishing Rewardableness of
Works, according to the Covenant of Grace. IV. An Essay on Truth, or, A
rational Vindication of the Doctrine of Salvation by Faith, with a
dedicatory Epistle to the Right Hon. the Countess of Huntingdon. By the
Author of the Checks to Antinomianism. Shrewsbury: Printed by J.
Eddowes: and sold at the Foundery; and by J. Buckland, in Paternoster
Row, London; by T. Mills in Bath; and S. Aris in Birmingham. 1774.”

Fletcher’s Preface is dated, Madeley, May 21, 1774. The following
extracts from it convey an idea of the scope of his book:—

  “I. The first piece of this Check was designed for a preface to the
  Discourse that follows it; but as it swelled far beyond my intention,
  I present it to the reader under the name of _An Historical Essay_,
  which makes way for the tracts that follow.

  “II. With respect to the Discourse, I must mention what engages me to
  publish it. In 1771, I saw the propositions called the ‘_Minutes_.’
  Their author invited me to ‘_review the whole affair_.’ I did so; and
  soon found that I had ‘leaned too much toward Calvinism,’ which, after
  mature consideration, appeared to me exactly to coincide with
  _speculative_ Antinomianism; and the same year I publicly acknowledged
  my error.[305]

  “When I had thus openly confessed that I was involved in the guilt of
  _many of my brethren_, and that I had so leaned towards _speculative_
  as not to have made a proper stand against _practical_ Antinomianism,
  who could have thought that one of my most formidable opponents[306]
  would have attempted to screen his mistakes behind some passages of a
  manuscript sermon which I preached twelve years ago, and of which, by
  some means or other, he has got a copy?

  “I am very far from recanting that old discourse. I still think the
  doctrine it contains excellent, in the main, and very proper to be
  enforced, though in a more guarded manner, in a congregation of
  hearers violently prejudiced against the first gospel axiom.[307]
  Therefore, out of regard for the grand, leading truth of Christianity,
  and in compliance with Mr. Hill’s _earnest entreaty_ (‘Finishing
  Stroke,’ p. 45), I send my sermon into the world upon the following
  reasonable conditions: 1. That I shall be allowed to publish it, as I
  preached it a year ago in my church, namely, with _additions in
  brackets_, to make it at once a _fuller_ Check to Pharisaism, and a
  _finishing_ Check to Antinomianism. 2. That the largest addition shall
  be in favour of _free grace_. 3. That nobody shall accuse me of
  _forgery_, for thus adding my present light to that which I had
  formerly; and for thus bringing out of my little treasure of
  experience _things new and old_. 4. That the press shall not groan
  with the charge of _disingenuity_, if I throw into Notes some
  unguarded expressions, which I formerly used without scruple, and
  which my more enlightened conscience does not suffer me to use at
  present. 5. That my opponent’s call to print my sermon will procure me
  the pardon of the public, for presenting them with a plain, _blunt_,
  discourse, composed for an audience chiefly made up of colliers and
  rustics. And, lastly, that, as I understand English a little better
  than I did twelve years ago, I shall be permitted to rectify a few
  French idioms, which I find in my old manuscript; and to _connect_ my
  thoughts a little more like an Englishman, where I can do it without
  the least misrepresentation of the sense.

  “III. With regard to the ‘_Scriptural Essay_’ upon the rewardableness
  or evangelical worthiness of works, I shall just observe that it
  attacks the grand mistake of Solifidians countenanced by three or four
  words of my old sermon. I pour a flood of Scriptures upon it; and,
  after receiving the fire of my objector, I return it in a variety of
  scriptural and rational answers, about the solidity of which the
  public must decide.

  “IV. The ‘_Essay on Truth_’ will, I hope, reconcile judicious
  moralists to the doctrine of salvation _by faith_, and considerate
  Solifidians to the doctrine of salvation _by_ the _works_ of faith;
  reason and Scripture concurring to show the constant dependence of
  works upon faith; and the wonderful agreement of the doctrine of
  present salvation by TRUE _faith_, with the doctrine of eternal
  salvation by GOOD _works_.

  “I hope that I do not dissent, in my observations upon _faith_, either
  from our Church, or approved Gospel ministers. In their _highest_
  definitions of that grace, they consider it _only_ according to the
  fulness of the _Christian_ dispensation; but my subject has obliged me
  to consider it also according to the dispensations of John the
  Baptist, Moses, and Noah. Believers under these _inferior_
  dispensations have not always _assurance_, nor is the assurance they
  sometimes have so bright as that of adult Christians, Matt. xi. 11.
  But, undoubtedly, assurance is inseparably connected with the faith of
  the _Christian_ dispensation, which was not _fully_ opened till Christ
  opened _His_ glorious baptism on the Day of Pentecost, and till His
  spiritual kingdom was set up with power in the hearts of His people.
  Nobody, therefore, can truly believe, according to _this_
  dispensation, without being _immediately_ conscious both of the
  forgiveness of sins, and of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is a
  most important truth, derided indeed by fallen Churchmen, and denied
  by Laodicean Dissenters; but, of late years gloriously revived by Mr.
  Wesley and the Ministers connected with him.”

Footnote 305:

  In the “Second Check to Antinomianism.”

Footnote 306:

  Mr. Richard Hill.

Footnote 307:

  Thus defined by Fletcher in his “Doctrines of Grace and Justice:” “Our
  salvation is of God; or, There is free grace in God; which, through
  Christ, freely places all men in a state of temporary redemption,
  justification, or salvation, according to the various Gospel
  dispensations, and crowns those who are faithful unto death with an
  eternal redemption, justification, or salvation.”

  His definition of the second Gospel axiom is, “Our damnation is of
  ourselves: or, There is a free-will in man; by which he may, through
  the grace freely imparted to him in the day of temporary salvation,
  work out his own eternal salvation; or he may, through the natural
  power which angels had to sin in heaven, and our first parents in
  paradise, choose to sin away the day of temporary salvation. And by
  thus working out his damnation, he may provoke just wrath, which is
  the same as despised free grace, to punish him with eternal
  destruction.”

From these extracts, the reader may gather the difficult and important
doctrines discussed by Fletcher in his book of pamphlets. In a work like
this it is impossible to follow him in his careful statements of truth,
in the arguments by which he proves them, and in his answers to
objections raised against them; but a few remarks respecting some of
these publications must be attempted.

In a prelude to his sermon first delivered in 1762, and now amended,
Fletcher gives a doleful picture of what he himself had witnessed during
the interval. He says:—

  “The substance of the following Discourse was committed to paper many
  years ago, to convince the Pharisees and papists of my parish that
  there is no salvation by the faithless works of the law, but by a
  living faith in Jesus Christ. With shame I confess that I did not
  _then_ see the need of guarding the doctrine of _faith_ against the
  despisers of _works_. I was chiefly bent upon pulling up the tares of
  Pharisaism: those of Antinomianism were not yet sprung up in the
  field, which I began to cultivate: or my want of experience hindered
  me from discerning them. But since, what a crop of them have I
  perceived and bewailed!

  “Alas! they have, in a great degree, ruined the success of my
  ministry. I have seen numbers of lazy seekers, enjoying the dull
  pleasure of sloth on the couch of wilful unbelief, under pretence that
  God was to do all in them without them. I have seen some lie flat in
  the mire of sin, absurdly boasting that they could not fall; and
  others make the means of grace means of idle gossiping or sly
  courtship. I have seen some turn their religious profession into a way
  of gratifying covetousness or indolence; and others, their skill in
  church music, their knowledge, and their zeal, into various nets to
  catch esteem, admiration, and praise. Some I have seen making
  _yesterday’s_ faith a reason to laugh at the cross _to-day_; and
  others drawing, from their misapprehensions of the atonement,
  arguments to be less importunate in secret prayer, and more
  conformable to this evil world than once they were. Nay, I have seen
  some professing believers backward to do those works of mercy, which I
  have sometimes found persons, who made no profession of godliness,
  quite ready to perform. And—oh! tell it in Sion, that watchfulness may
  not be neglected by believers, that fearfulness may seize upon
  backsliders, and that trembling may break the bones of hypocrites and
  apostates—I have seen those who had equally shined by their gifts and
  graces strike the moral world with horror by the grossest
  Antinomianism, and disgrace the doctrine of _salvation through faith_
  by the deepest plunges into scandalous sins.”

As already stated, Fletcher’s “Essay on Truth; or, Rational Vindication
of the Doctrine of Salvation by Faith,” was dedicated to his quondam
friend and patroness, the Countess of Huntingdon, who again desired his
friendship, his counsel, and his prayers. In his “Dedicatory Epistle” he
says:—

  “MY LADY,—Because I think it my duty to defend the _works of faith_
  against the triumphant errors of the Solifidians, some of your
  ladyship’s friends conclude that I am an enemy to the doctrine of
  _salvation by faith_, and their conclusion amounts to such
  exclamations as these: ‘How could a lady, so zealous for God’s glory
  and the Redeemer’s grace, commit the superintendency of a seminary of
  pious learning to a man that opposes the _fundamental_ doctrine of
  Protestantism! How could she put her sheep under the care of such a
  wolf in sheep’s clothing!’ This conclusion, my lady, has grieved me
  for your sake; and, to remove the blot that it indirectly fixes upon
  you, as well as to balance my ‘Scriptural Essay on the Rewardableness’
  of the works of faith, I publish, and humbly dedicate to your
  ladyship, this last piece of my ’_Equal Check to Pharisaism and
  Antinomianism_.’ May the kindness which enabled you to bear for years
  with the coarseness of my ministrations incline you favourably to
  receive this little token of my unfeigned attachment to Protestantism,
  and of my lasting respect for your ladyship!

  “Your aversion to all that looks like controversy can never make you
  think that an _Equal Check_ to the two grand delusions, which have
  crept into the Church, is needless in our days. I flatter myself,
  therefore, that though you may blame my _performance_, you will
  approve of my _design_. And indeed what true Christian can be
  absolutely neuter in this controversy? If _God has a controversy_ with
  all _Pharisees_ and _Antinomians_, have not all God’s children a
  controversy with _Pharisaism_ and _Antinomianism_? Have you not, for
  one, my lady? Do you not check in private what I attempt to check in
  public? Does not the religious world know that you abhor, attack, and
  pursue _Pharisaism_ in its most artful disguises? And have I not
  frequently heard you express, in the strongest terms, your detestation
  of _Antinomianism_, and lament the number of sleeping professors, whom
  that Delilah robs of their strength? Nor would you, I am persuaded, my
  lady, have countenanced the opposition which was made against the
  ‘Minutes,’ if your commendable, though (as it appears to me) at that
  time, too precipitate zeal against Pharisaism had not prevented your
  seeing that they contain the Scripture truths, which are fittest to
  stop the rapid progress of Antinomianism.

  “However, if you still think, my lady, that I mistake with respect to
  the importance of those propositions, you know I am not mistaken when
  I declare, before the world, that a _powerful, practical, actually
  saving_ faith is the only faith I ever heard your ladyship recommend,
  as worthy to be contended for. And so long as you plead only for such
  a faith, so long as you abhor the winter-faith that saves the
  Solifidians, in their own conceit, while they commit adultery, murder,
  and incest, if they choose to carry Antinomianism to such a dreadful
  length; so long as you are afraid to maintain, either directly or
  indirectly, that the _evidence_ and _comfort_ of justifying faith may
  be suspended by sin, but that the _righteousness_ of faith, and the
  _justification_ which it instrumentally procures, can never be lost,
  no, not by the most enormous and complicated crimes,—whatever
  diversity there may be between your ladyship’s sentiments and mine, it
  can never be fundamental. I preach salvation by a faith that
  _actually_ works by obedient love, and your ladyship witnesses
  salvation by an _actually_ operative faith; nor can I, to this day,
  see any material difference between those phrases in the present
  controversy. I remain, with my former respect and devotedness, my
  lady, your ladyship’s most obliged and obedient servant in the Gospel,

                                                       “J. FLETCHER.

  “Madeley, _March 12, 1774_.”

Fletcher’s “Essay on Truth” is one of his ablest and most important
works. It is full of his own peculiar genius, and—what cannot be said
concerning all his writings—it is very readable. The following brief
extracts from it may be acceptable and useful:—

  _Saving faith._ “What is _saving_ faith?[308] I dare not say that it
  is ‘believing heartily’ my sins are forgiven me for Christ’s sake;
  for, if I live in sin, that belief is a _destructive_ conceit, and
  not _saving_ faith. Neither dare I say, that ‘saving faith is _only_
  a sure trust and confidence that Christ loved me, and gave Himself
  for me;’[309] for, if I did, I should almost damn all mankind for
  four thousand years. Such definitions of saving faith are, I fear,
  too _narrow_ to be just, and too _unguarded_ to keep out
  Solifidianism.[310] To avoid such mistakes; to contradict no
  Scriptures; to put no black mark of _damnation_ upon any man, that
  in any nation fears God and works of righteousness; to leave no room
  for Solifidianism, and to present the reader with a definition of
  faith adequate to _the everlasting Gospel_, I would choose to say,
  that justifying or saving faith is _believing_ the saving truth
  _with the heart unto_ internal, and (as we have opportunity) _unto_
  external _righteousness_, according to our light and dispensation.
  To St. Paul’s words, Rom. x. 10, I add the epithets _internal_ and
  _external_, in order to exclude, according to 1 John iii. 7, 8, the
  filthy imputation, under which fallen believers may, if we credit
  the Antinomians, commit internal and external adultery, mental and
  bodily murder, without the least reasonable fear of endangering
  their faith, their interest in God’s favour, and their inamissable
  title to a throne of glory.”

  _Faith the gift of God, and the act of man._ “How is faith the gift of
  God? Some persons think that faith is as much out of our power as the
  lightning that shoots from a distant cloud; they suppose that God
  drives sinners to the fountain of Christ’s blood, as irresistibly as
  the infernal _legion_ drove the herd of swine into the sea of
  Galilee.”

Footnote 308:

  As usual, these extracts are made from the _original_ edition, and the
  _italics_ are Fletcher’s own.

Footnote 309:

  In a foot-note, Fletcher remarks, “When the Church of England and Mr.
  Wesley give us particular definitions of faith, it is plain that they
  consider it according to the _Christian_ dispensation; the privileges
  of which must be principally insisted upon among Christians.”

Footnote 310:

  Solifidianism, now a favourite word with Fletcher, is thus defined by
  him, in his “Fifth Check to Antinomianism:”—“Solifidianism is the
  doctrine of Solifidians; and the Solifidians are men who, because
  sinners are justified _sola fide_, ‘by sole faith,’ in the day of
  conversion, infer, as Mr. Berridge, that ‘believing is the total term
  of all salvation,’ and conclude, as Mr. Hill, that the doctrine of
  final justification by the works of faith in the great day is ‘full of
  rottenness and deadly poison.’ It is a softer word for Antinomianism.”

After amply refuting this “_absurd_” idea, Fletcher proceeds:—

  “Having thus exposed the erroneous sense in which some people suppose
  that _faith is the gift of God_, I beg leave to mention in what sense
  it appears to me to be so. _Believing_ is the gift of the _God of
  Grace_, as _breathing_, _moving_, and _eating_ are the gifts of _the
  God of Nature_. He gives me lungs and air, that I may breathe; He
  gives me life and muscles, that I may move; He bestows upon me food
  and a mouth, that I may eat; but He neither _breathes_, _moves_, nor
  _eats_ for me. Nay, when I think proper, I can accelerate my
  breathing, motion, and eating: and, if I please, I may _fast_, _lie
  down_, or _hang myself_, and, by that means, put an end to my
  _eating_, _moving_, and _breathing_. _Faith_ is the gift of God to
  believers, as _sight_ is to you. The parent of good freely gives you
  the light of the sun, and organs proper to receive it. Everything
  around you bids you use your eyes and see; nevertheless, you may not
  only drop your curtains, but close your eyes also. This is exactly the
  case with regard to faith. Free grace removes, in part, the total
  blindness which Adam’s fall brought upon us; free grace gently sends
  us some beams of truth, which is the light of _the sun of
  righteousness_; it disposes the eye of our understanding to see those
  beams; it excites us, in various ways, to welcome them; it blesses us
  with many, perhaps with all the means of faith, such as opportunities
  to hear, read, enquire, and power to consider, assent, consent,
  resolve, and re-resolve to believe the truth. But, after all,
  _believing_ is as much our own act as _seeing_. We may in general do,
  suspend, or omit the _act_ of faith. Nay, we may do by the eye of our
  faith, what some report Democritus did by his bodily eyes. Being tired
  of seeing the follies of mankind, to rid himself of that disagreeable
  sight, he put his eyes out. We may be so averse from _the light, which
  enlightens every man_ that _comes into the world_; we may so dread it
  because our works are evil, as to exemplify, like the Pharisees, such
  awful declarations as these: _Their eyes have they closed, lest they
  should see: wherefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind_, and,
  _they were blinded_.”

It need not be added, that Fletcher abundantly sustains these figurative
arguments by scriptural quotations.

Two extracts more. In his description of “_saving faith_,” Fletcher
refuses to put the “black mark of damnation upon any man, that in any
nation fears God and works righteousness.” In his “Appendix to Prevent
Objections,” he explains his meaning, as follows:—

  “I make no more difference between the faith of a righteous heathen,
  and the faith of a father in Christ, than I do between daybreak and
  meridian light:—That the light of a sincere Jew is as much one with
  the light of a sincere Christian, as the light of the sun in a cold,
  cloudy day in March is one with the light of the sun in a fine day in
  May:—And that the difference between the saving faith peculiar to the
  sincere disciples of Noah, Moses, John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ,
  consists in a variety of _degrees_, and not in a diversity of
  _species_; saving faith, under all the dispensations, agreeing in the
  following essentials: 1. It is begotten by the revelation of some
  saving truth presented by free grace, impressed by the Spirit, and
  received by the believer’s prevented free agency. 2. It has the same
  original cause in all, that is, the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. 3.
  It _actually_ saves all, though in various degrees. 4. It sets all
  upon _working righteousness; some bearing fruit thirty, some sixty,
  and some a hundredfold_. And 5. Through Christ, it will bring all that
  do not make shipwreck of it to one or another of the ‘_many
  mansions_,’ which our Lord is gone to prepare in heaven for His
  _believing_, _obedient_ people.

  “And here honesty obliges me to lay before the public an objection,
  which I had for some time against the _appendages_ of the Athanasian
  Creed. I admire the scriptural manner in which it sets forth the
  Divine Unity in Trinity, and the Divine Trinity in Unity; but I can no
  longer use its damnatory clauses. It abruptly takes us to the very top
  of the _Christian_ dispensation, considered in a doctrinal light. This
  dispensation it calls _the Catholic faith_; and, without mentioning
  the faith of the inferior dispensations, as our other Creeds do, it
  makes us declare, that ‘_except everyone keep that faith_’ (the faith
  of the highest dispensation) ‘_whole_ and _undefiled, he cannot be
  saved; without doubt, he shall perish everlastingly_.’ This dreadful
  denunciation is true with regard to proud, ungodly infidels, who, in
  the midst of all the means of _Christian_ faith, obstinately,
  maliciously, and finally set their hearts against the doctrine of
  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; equally despising the Son’s atonement,
  and the Spirit’s inspiration. But I will no more invade Christ’s
  tribunal, and pronounce that the fearful punishment of damnation shall
  ‘_without doubt_’ be inflicted upon ‘_every_’ Unitarian, Arian, Jew,
  Turk, and heathen, _that fears God and works righteousness_, though he
  does not _hold the faith_ of the Athanasian Creed _whole_. For, if you
  except the last Article, thousands, yea, millions, are never called to
  hold it _at all_; and therefore shall never perish for not _holding it
  whole_. At all hazards, then, I hope I shall never use again those
  damnatory clauses, without taking the liberty of guarding them
  agreeably to the doctrine of the dispensations. And if Zelotes presses
  me with my subscriptions, I reply beforehand, that the same Church,
  who required me to subscribe to St. Athanasius’s Creed, enjoins me
  also to believe this clause of St. Peter’s Creed, ‘_In every nation,
  he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him_.’
  And, if those two creeds are irreconcilable, I think it more
  reasonable that Athanasius should bow to Peter, warmed by the Spirit
  of love, than that Peter should bow to Athanasius, heated by
  controversial opposition.”

Some will object to Fletcher’s teaching. Be it so: the writer’s business
is neither to defend nor to condemn; but simply to show, as far as
possible, what Fletcher’s opinions were. John Wesley approved them. “Mr.
Fletcher,” says he, in a letter dated January 17, 1775, “has given us a
wonderful view of the different dispensations. I believe that difficult
subject was never placed in so clear a light before. It seems God has
raised him up for this very thing—

               “‘To vindicate eternal Providence,
               And justify the ways of God to man.’”[311]

Footnote 311:

  Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 52.

Fletcher himself, evidently, felt great interest in his “Essay on
Truth.” In a letter, dated March 20, 1774, and addressed to the Rev.
Joseph Benson, he observed:—

  “I do not repent having engaged in the present controversy, for,
  though I think my little publications cannot reclaim those who are
  given up to believe the lie of the day, yet, they may here and there
  stop one from swallowing it at all, or from swallowing it so deeply as
  otherwise he might have done. In preaching, I do not meddle with the
  points discussed, unless my text leads me to it, and then I think them
  important enough not to be ashamed of them before my people.

  “I am just finishing an ‘Essay on Truth,’ which I dedicate to Lady
  Huntingdon, wherein you will see my latest views of that important
  subject. My apprehensions of things have not changed since I saw you
  last; save that in one thing I have seen my error. An over-eager
  attention to the doctrine of the Spirit has made me, in some degree,
  overlook the medium by which the Spirit works—I mean the _Word of
  Truth_, which is the word by which the heavenly fire warms us. I
  rather expected lightning, than a steady fire by means of fuel. I
  mention my error to you lest you should be involved therein.

  “My controversy weighs upon my hands; but I must go through with it;
  which I hope will be done in two or three pieces more: one of which,
  ‘Scripture Scales to Weigh the Gold of Gospel Truth,’ may be more
  useful than the Checks, as being more literally scriptural.

  “I have exchanged a couple of friendly letters with Lady Huntingdon,
  who gives me leave to see her publicly; but I think it best to
  postpone that honour till I have cleared my mind.”[312]

Footnote 312:

  Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”

Charles Wesley read and criticized the “Essay on Truth,” upon which
Fletcher wrote him as follows:—

  “I am glad you did not altogether disapprove my ‘_Essay on Truth_.’
  The letter, I grant, profiteth little, until the Spirit animate it. I
  had, some weeks ago, one of those touches which realize, or rather
  spiritualize the letter; and it convinced me more than ever that what
  I say in that tract, of the _Spirit_ and of _faith_, is _truth_. I am
  also persuaded that the _faith_ and _Spirit_, which belong to
  _perfect_ Christianity, are at a very low ebb, even among believers.
  When the Son of Man cometh to set up His kingdom, shall He find
  _Christian_ faith upon the earth? Yes; but, I fear, as little as He
  found of Jewish faith, when He came in the flesh. I believe you cannot
  rest with the easy Antinomian, or the busy Pharisee. You and I have
  nothing to do but to die to all that is of a sinful nature, and to
  pray for the power of an endless life. God make us faithful to our
  convictions, and keep us from the snares of outward things. You are in
  danger from music, children, poetry; and I from speculation,
  controversy, sloth, etc. Let us _watch_ against the deceitfulness of
  self and sin in all their appearances.

  “What power of the Spirit do you find among the believers in London?
  What openings of the kingdom? Is the well springing up in many hearts?
  Are many souls dissatisfied, and looking for the kingdom of God in
  power? Watchman! what of the night? What of the day? What of the dawn?

  “I feel the force of what you say about the danger of so encouraging
  the inferior dispensations, as to make people rest short of the faith
  which belongs to perfect Christianity. I have tried to obviate it in
  some parts of the ‘_Equal Check_,’ and hope to do it more effectually
  in my reply to Mr. Hill’s _Creed for Perfectionists_. Probably, I
  shall get nothing by my polemic labours, but loss of friends, and
  charges of ‘novel chimeras’ on _both_ sides. I expect a letter from
  you on the subject. Write with openness, and do not fear to discourage
  me by speaking your disapprobation of what you dislike. My aim is to
  be found at the feet of all, bearing and forbearing until truth and
  love bring better days.

  “I am, rev. and dear Sir, your most affectionate brother and son in
  the Gospel,

                                                 “J. FLETCHER.”[313]

Footnote 313:

  Letters, 1791, p. 224.

                             CHAPTER XVII.
                       _PUBLICATIONS IN THE YEAR_

                                 1775.

ON November 12, 1774, Fletcher wrote:—

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

Footnote 314:

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

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

Footnote 315:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                             “Advertisement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 316:

  “Methodism in North Devon,” p. 115.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 317:

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

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

Footnote 318:

  Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 252.

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

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

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

Footnote 319:

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

Footnote 320:

  Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”

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

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

Footnote 321:

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

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

                                           “MADELEY, _July 2, 1775_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 322:

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

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

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

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

Footnote 323:

  Wesley’s “Life of Fletcher.”

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

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

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

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

Footnote 324:

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

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

Footnote 325:

  _Wesleyan Methodist Magazine_, 1823, p. 107.

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

Footnote 326:

  Stevens’s “History of Methodism.”

Footnote 327:

  Sidney’s “Life of Rev. Rowland Hill.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                      “THOMAS COKE.”

Footnote 328:

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

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

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

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

Footnote 329:

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

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

                                       “MADELEY, _December 4, 1775_.

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

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