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.”
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.”
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:—
“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,”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]
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 worksworks, 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,—
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]
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]
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]
In his deep distress, Charles Wesley wrote to Fletcher, who replied as follows:—
“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]
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.