a plain proof of the charge that she herself headed the opposition. Thus she very wisely determined to abstain from presenting herself before the Conference unless "summoned !" Mr. Shirley and his friends had a lengthened conversation with Mr. Wesley and his preachers, and mutual and satisfactory explanations were given. "We had," says Mr. Wesley in his Journal, "more preachers than usual at the Conference, in consequence of Mr. Shirley's Circular Letter. At ten on Thursday morning he came, with nine or ten of his friends. We con

versed freely for about two hours; and I believe they were satisfied that we were not so "dreadful heretics" as they imagined, but were tolerably sound in the faith."

66

For the sake of peace, Mr. Wesley and fiftythree of his preachers signed a Declaration, wherein they candidly acknowledged that the Minutes" were "not sufficiently guarded in the way they are expressed;" and they solemnly declared in the sight of God that, so far from trusting in their own works for salvation, they had "no trust or confidence but in the alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for justification or salvation, either in life, death or the day of judgment." One preacher, and only one, refused to sign this Declaration. This was Thomas Olivers, a man of considerable penetration and judgment, remarkable for his unwavering opposition to Calvinism, and of whose abilities Mr. Wesley had so high an opinion, that he pronounced him "a full match" for the Rev. Augus

tus Toplady, who was a most determined defender of the Decrees.

The "Minutes," though they had given such great offence to many persons who considered themselves "real protestants," and were somewhat unguardedly worded, were certainly scriptural; and this Declaration was also scriptural, though it was as unguarded as the "Minutes." The unfair advantage which was afterwards taken of it, caused Mr. Wesley to regret that he and his preachers had signed it at all.

The Rev. Walter Shirley, whose two chief characteristics appear to have been mildness of disposition and weakness of understanding, published "A Narrative" in explanation of the various proceedings which had taken place, and in defence of himself. The galling use which Mr. Fletcher had made of Mr. Shirley's published sermons in his First Check, caused that gentleman in his "Narrative" to "recant them in the face of the whole world." Mr. Fletcher wrote a reply to this "Narrative" in three letters to the reverend author, and these form the Second Check to Antinomianism.

1772. Mr. Richard Hill now entered the lists against Mr. Wesley, against the Minutes, and against their vindicator. He wrote "five letters" to Mr. Fletcher, which he ably and completely answered in one, dated Madeley, February 3rd, 1772; and this forms the Third Check to Antinomianism.

Mr. Richard Hill enraged beyond measure at the fine irony and conclusive reasoning of the

Vicar of Madeley, wrote six other letters, being a "Review" of the doctrines taught by Mr. Wesley, which the vindicator justly compares to " a storm of hail, pouring down from the lowering sky, ushered by some harmless flashes of lightning, and accompanied by the rumbling of distant thunder." On August 4th, the twenty-ninth Conference was begun at Leeds.

On September 9th, Mr. Wesley finished his answer to Mr. Richard Hill's attack upon his consistency, in his "Review." The conclusion of this decisive reply is written with extraordinary power.

Mr. Rowland Hill, with more spirit than judgment, now pushed himself into the controversy, and bestowed upon Mr. Fletcher some "Friendly Remarks."

A "Fourth Check," finished on "November 15th, 1772," soon appeared, wherein Mr. Fletcher replied both to Mr. Richard's Review," and Mr. Rowland's "Remarks."

66

1773. On March 14th, Mr. Wesley finished writing some powerful and just "Remarks" on Mr. Richard Hill's "Farrago Double Distilled;"a most unfair and scandalous production.

On August 3rd, the thirtieth Conference began in London. In order to lay a foundation for the. future union of the preachers, certain articles of agreement were signed by all who attended this Conference. These articles are as follows:They agreed, 1st. To devote themselves entirely to God. 2nd. To preach the old Methodist doctrines. And 3rd. To observe and enforce

CHAPTER X.-From the year 1770 till 1780.

1770. On August 7th, the twenty-seventh Methodist Conference, was begun in London. Notwithstanding the rule which was made two years before, forbidding the preachers following any trade, it appears that a few of them still continued the practice. This Conference having become acquainted with the fact, determined to put an end to such a disregard to its authority. Hence the following minute :-“ Two years ago, it was agreed, that itinerant preachers ought not to follow trades. How can we secure the observance of this? Answer. It is agreed by all the brethren now met in Conference this 9th day of August, 1770, That no preacher who will not relinquish his trade of buying and selling, or making and vending pills, drops, balsams, or medicines of any kind, shall be considered as a travelling preacher any longer. And that it shall be demanded of all those preachers who have traded in cloth, hardware, pills, drops, balsams, or medicines of any kind, at the next Conference, whether they have entirely left it off, or not. But observe we do not object to a preacher having a share in a ship," This "Minute of Conference" was evidently drawn up by Mr. Wesley. It is characteristic of him. When he mentioned the "demand" which was to be made at the next Conference of the trading preachers, whether they had or had not " entirely left off "

selling their "cloth, hardware, pills, drops, and balsams," he little thought how inquisitorial, and un-English it was to make such "brotherly inquiries." He must have forgotton that such a question, or rather such a 'demand," would lead the disobedient preachers to criminate themselves. This dreadful consequence of his personal examinations and questionings, could not have once entered the mind of the founder of Methodism, or he would not, we should think, have persisted in such an intensely "un-English" and "inquisitorial" course of proceeding. He should have produced evidence, instead of asking questions. He should have given proof, instead of making

66 demands."

It was at this Conference that the Minutes were agreed to which occasioned the great Calvinistic controversy. A licentious Antinomianism had spread its destructive influences far and wide, and Mr. Wesley was determined, if possible, to give it a check. Thus originated the celebrated anti-Calvinistic Minutes. 'Take heed to your doctrine"; says Mr. Wesley, "We said in 1744, We have leaned too much towards Calvinism.' Wherein ?" Several points are stated; but the paragraph which gave the most offence was that containing the remarks upon merit :

Is not this Salvation by works? Not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition. As to merit itself, of which we have been so dreadfully afraid, we are rewarded according to our works, yea, because of our works. How differs this from for the sake of our works? And how