Then, turning to the Arminian side of the controversy, Fletcher gives the following equally correct definition:—
“The impartial election and reprobation of justice is the righteous and wise choice which God, as an equitable and unbribed Judge, makes, or refuses to make, of some persons, churches, cities, and nations, judicially to bestow upon them, for Christ’s sake, gracious rewards, according to His evangelical promises; or judicially to inflict upon them, for righteousness’ sake, condign punishments, according to His reasonable threatenings.”
This definition is also supported by a large number of Scripture examples, showing Fletcher’s perfect knowledge of the holy books. He then writes:—
“Rigid Calvinists and rigid Arminians are both in the wrong; the former in obscuring the doctrines of impartial justice, and the latter in clouding the doctrines of partial grace. But moderate Calvinists and candid Arminians are very near each other, and very near the truth; the difference there is between them being more owing to confusion, want of proper explanation, and misapprehension of each other’s sentiments, than to any real, inimical opposition to the truth, or to one another.”
Fletcher next propounds his “Plan of Reconciliation.”
First of all, he adduces the well-known plan of union, which Wesley, thirteen years before, had ineffectually proposed to the evangelical clergymen of the Church of England, including Romaine, Shirley, Newton, Venn, and Berridge; after which he proceeds to observe:—
“I do not see why such a plan might not be, in some degree, admitted by all the ministers of the Gospel, whether they belong to or dissent from the Establishment. I would extend my brotherly love to all Christians in general, but more particularly to all Protestants, and most particularly to all the Protestants of the Established Church; but God forbid that I should exclude from my brotherly affection, and occasional assistance, any true minister of Christ, because he casts the Gospel net among the Presbyterians, the Independents, the Quakers, or the Baptists! So far as they cordially aim at the conversion of sinners, I will offer them the right hand of fellowship, and communicate with them in spirit. Might not good men and sincere ministers form themselves into a Society of reconcilers, whatever be their denomination and mode of worship? There is a Society for promoting religious knowledge among the poor; some of its members are Churchmen and others Dissenters; some are Calvinists and others Arminians; and yet it flourishes, and the design of it is happily answered. Might not such a Society be formed for promoting peace and love among professors? Is not charity preferable to knowledge? There is another respectable Society for promoting the Christian faith among the heathen; and why should there not be a Society for promoting unanimity and toleration among Christians? Ought not the welfare of our fellow-Christians to lie as near our hearts as that of the heathen?
“Many gentlemen, some laymen and others clergymen, some Churchmen and others Dissenters, wanted lately to procure the repeal of our articles of religion. Notwithstanding the diversity of their employments, principles, and denominations, they united, wrote circular letters, drew up petitions, and used all their interest with men in power to bring about their design. Again, some warm men thought it proper to blow up the fire of discontent in the breasts of our American fellow-subjects. How did they go about the dangerous work? With what ardour did they speak and write, preach and print, fast and pray, publish manifestoes and make them circulate, associate and strengthen their associations, and at last venture their fortunes, reputations, and lives, in the execution of their warlike project! Go, ye men of peace, and do at least half as much to carry on your friendly design. Associate, pray, preach, and print for the furtherance of peace.
“Might not moderate Calvinists send, with success, circular letters to their rigid Calvinian brethren; and moderate Arminians to their rigid Arminian brethren, to check rashness and recommend meekness, moderation, and love? Might not the Calvinist ministers who patronise the doctrines of grace display also the doctrines of justice, and open their pulpits to those Arminian ministers who do it with caution? And might not the Arminian ministers, who patronise the doctrines of justice, make more of the doctrines of grace, preach as nearly as they can like the judicious Calvinists, admit them into their pulpits, and rejoice at every opportunity of showing them their esteem and confidence? Might not such moderate Calvinists and Arminians as live in the same towns, have from time to time a general sacrament, and invite one another to it, to cement brotherly love by publicly confessing the same Christ, by jointly taking Him for their common head, and by acknowledging one another as fellow-members of His mystical body?
“The sin of the want of union with our pious Calvinian or Arminian brethren is attended with peculiar aggravations. We are not only fellow-creatures, but fellow-subjects, fellow-Christians, fellow-Protestants, and fellow-sufferers, in reputation at least, for maintaining the capital doctrines of salvation by faith in Christ, and of regeneration by the Spirit of God. How absurd is it for persons, who thus share in the reproach, patience, and kingdom of Christ, to embitter each other’s comforts, and add to the load of contempt, which the men of the world cast upon them! Let Pagans, Mahometans, Jews, Papists, and Deists do this work. We may reasonably expect it from them. But for such Calvinists and Arminians as the world lumps together under the name of Methodists, on account of their peculiar profession of godliness,—for such companions in tribulation to ‘bite and devour’ each other is highly unreasonable and peculiarly scandalous.”