"These seasons generally terminated in this. Being convinced that to be filled with the Holy Ghost was a better qualification for the ministry of the gospel than any classical learning (although that too be useful in its place), after speaking awhile in the schoolroom, he used frequently to say, 'As many of you as are athirst for this fulness of the Spirit, follow me into my room.' On this many of us have instantly followed him, and there continued for two or three hours, wrestling like Jacob for the blessing, praying one after another, till we could bear to kneel no longer.
"Such was the ordinary employment of this man of God while he remained at Trevecca. He preached the word of life to the students and family, and as many of the neighbours as desired to be present. He was 'instant in season, and out of season'; he 'reproved, rebuked, exhorted, with all longsuffering.' He was always employed, either in illustrating some important truth, or exhorting to some neglected duty, or administering some needful comfort, or relating some useful anecdote, or making some profitable remark or observation upon some occurrence. And his devout soul, always burning with love and zeal, led him to intermingle prayer with all he uttered. Meanwhile his manner was so solemn, and at the same time so mild and insinuating, that it was hardly possible for any one who had the happiness of being in his company not to be struck with awe and charmed with love, as if in the presence of an angel or departed spirit. Indeed, I frequently thought, while attending to his heavenly discourse and Divine spirit, that he was so different from, and superior to, the generality of mankind, as to look more like Moses or Elijah, or some prophet or apostle, come again from the dead, than a mortal man, dwelling in a house of clay. It is true, his weak and long-afflicted body proclaimed him to be human; but the graces which so eminently filled and adorned his soul manifested him to be Divine: and long before his happy spirit returned to God who gave it, that which was human seemed in a great measure to be 'swallowed up of life.'"
Benson was not alone in the impressions he received of Fletcher's character, and of the influence he exercised at Trevecca. The references of others are in the same strain; and although his connexion with the college came to an abrupt end, and was followed by a period of painful controversy, we hear no disparagement of his piety, or suggestion of anything unworthy of his reputation for Christian meekness and purity.
But why did Fletcher so soon withdraw from the presidency of the college? To use the words of Mr. Benson: "Why did he give up an office for which he was perfectly well qualified, which he executed so entirely to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, and in which it pleased God to give so manifest a blessing to his labours?" The answer is, that it was one of the first results of a controversy which, for intensity, for duration, and for the strifes and divisions to which it gave rise, is unhappily memorable in the history of the Revival. Its very name—the Calvinistic controversy—will suggest to the experienced reader the range of questions involved, and the improbability of agreement being arrived at, however prolonged might be the discussion.
It should be borne in mind that, from its very beginning, the Revival had advanced along two different lines, in connexion with certain well-marked doctrinal distinctions. Whilst the work and the workers in the two spheres were, in the best and deepest sense, one, they were divided upon those questions concerning predestination and free will, which, since the time of Augustine, have given rise to two distinct types of doctrine, each susceptible of modifications and developments of its own. This difference was represented, first in the little band of Oxford Methodists, and then in the more evangelical and expansive Methodism that succeeded it. Wesley was an Arminian, and Whitefield a Calvinist. Harmonious co-operation between them was at times difficult; but mutual love and largeness of heart prevailed upon the whole.
Under Wesley's leadership, Arminian Methodism developed in organic form, and is still found in all parts of the world in visible, organized Churches. Calvinistic Methodism spread with similar, if not equal, rapidity, but without unity of administration, and failed to develop any principles of Church life. It revived the Calvinistic nonconformity of England, and may almost be said to have taken possession of Wales; but the main current of its strength flowed into the Church of England, and is to be traced in the rise and progress of the Evangelical or Low Church party. There may be difference of opinion as to which development has been on the whole of greater service to the Christian Church, but few persons will deny to either a high place in the order of Providence.
At the period we have now reached in Fletcher's history, a certain uneasiness may be discovered in the relations of Arminian and Calvinistic Methodism, not incompatible however with such union and brotherliness as were seen at the great gathering at Trevecca. But Wesley was observing with concern the spread of a practical antinomianism, which on every possible ground he hated and feared. The openly wicked were hopeful and comparatively harmless compared with persons who talked fluently of being justified and sanctified, while they were guilty of drunkenness, uncleanness, and dishonesty. This state of things he could not and would not endure, if it was to be prevented by plainness of doctrine or rigour of discipline. He knew that while such abuses were not the necessary accompaniment of the Scriptural doctrine of faith, they arose from a perversion to which that doctrine will always be exposed, and against which it will be needful to guard, as long as human nature is what it is. Any language therefore that tended to weaken the sense of moral responsibility, or lower the standard of Christian duty, was doubly dangerous in presence of a tendency to dwell upon the Divine sovereignty in redemption, to the neglect of the Divine requirements, as they are revealed to man in the gospel. In Wesley's judgment, his preachers were in danger of encouraging, or at least giving opportunity to, antinomian error by using expressions that had received a kind of general sanction, and refraining from certain others which were thought too legal and unevangelic. But what had this to do with Calvinism? Some writers, more jealous for the character of Wesley's societies than he was, will have it that the abuses referred to were mainly or entirely to be found amongst the Calvinists. But that is not the case. As Mr. Watson has well said: "To show however that antinomianism can graft itself upon other stocks besides that of the Calvinistic decrees, it was found also among the Moravians, and the Methodists did not escape.... In fact, there is no such exclusive connexion between the more sober Calvinistic theories of predestination and this great error, as some have supposed." With this statement Wesley would, we think, have agreed; but he undoubtedly held that antinomianism was a much more natural and likely result of Calvinistic than of Arminian principles.
In the one case the principles must be violated, in the other they had only to be developed and applied to produce the evils referred to. Moreover Calvinism, as popularly understood, had lost what safeguards it possessed, and had little in common with that of Owen, and Leighton, and Matthew Henry. Spiritual pride and carnal indulgence flourished along with a crude and coarse belief in unconditional election and imputed righteousness. With Calvinism in its purely theological and philosophical aspects Wesley felt no call to deal. It was wholly a practical question with him. He saw, or thought he saw, that its principles were doing actual mischief, and that, amongst other things, the every-day language of religion was being corrupted by phrases and catchwords that encouraged serious error. A quarter of a century ago, at the first Methodist Conference, the question was asked, "Have we not unawares leaned too much to Calvinism? Answer: We are afraid we have." Might it not be time to ask this question again, and answer it in a less uncertain manner? Wesley judged it was. Accordingly, the "Minutes of Conference" for 1770 contain the following statement: