CONFERENCE OF 1744. 175 many of our brethren, come from several parts, who desire nothing but to save their own souls, and those that hear them." In the "Minutes of Conversations" on that occasion, are these questions and answers: "Q. 17. Have we not, then, unawares, leaned too much towards Calvinism? "A. We are afraid we have. "Q. 18. Have we not leaned also towards Antinomianism? "A. We are afraid we have. "Q. 19. What is Antinomianism? A. The doctrine that makes void the law through faith." But for the allusion made to these Minutes sixteen years afterwards, it would have been impossible to have conceived the meaning of such queries and replies as these; for certainly there is no sign of any leaning towards the doctrines of Calvin, or towards Antinomianism, in the account of the previous proceedings of the Wesleys or their followers. The charge of Antinomianism' was repelled by 1 In Question 20, it is asked of Antinomianism, "What are the main pillars hereof?" A. 1. That Christ abolished the moral law. 2. That therefore Christians are not obliged to observe it. 3. That one branch of Christian liberty, is liberty from obeying the commandments of God. 4. That it is bondage to do a thing because it is commanded, or forbear it because it is forbidden. 5. That a believer is not obliged to use the ordinances of God, or to do good works. 6. That a preacher ought not to exhort to good works; not unbelievers, because it is hurtful; nor believers, because it is needless. Such tenets as these were never held by Whitfield, the Hills, or any person connected with them. the Calvinists' with just indignation. In truth, they who called themselves Calvinists, and they who professed to be Arminians, were strictly speaking, neither one nor the other; and the terms seemed to be chosen as mere noms de guerre, in this melancholy combat of opinions. No persons, for example, more freely invited sinners to Christ than the followers of Whitfield, or appeared to have a greater dread of entering on the question of reprobation as stated in the Institutes of Calvin. A real Arminian also must deny total depravity; but Wesley held "We are all born with a sinful devilish nature. What could a Calvinist say more? There were certainly many points on which these parties did entirely differ; but their calling themselves Calvinists on one side and Arminians on the other, led to mutual misrepresentations, which were most injurious to the nascent revival of their days, and have continued to be detrimental down to the present times. This was the commencement of that celebrated controversy, in which Mr. Richard Hill and his brother Rowland took so conspicuous a share, when it broke out again in 1770, and which it is the province of a faithful biographer to narrate; and the more so, because the conduct of the principal subject of the present memoir has been often misstated. Both sides were unquestionably carried into unbecoming bitterness and personalities, which, to their honour, they each acknowledged when the sunshine of their common piety had ripened in them a savour of sweeter, gentler godliness. Wesley's ardour developed itself in various ways; in extravagance 1 Mr. Rowland Hill said of Antinomianism, "It is a nasty religion." One of the last expressions, too, on his death-bed was an indignant testimony against it. ? Minutes of Conversation, 1744. Answer to Q. 15. FAULTS OF BOTH PARTIES. 177 of imagination, in the foolish doctrine of perfection, and in a pugnacious spirit, the first and last of which mistakes were much moderated, if not extinguished, in his maturer days. Whitfield's was a hasty temperament, but when his first ebullition subsided, he quickly changed into the mood of melting tenderness, and no man more readily acknowledged and entreated pardon for his errors. There is reason to believe that Wesley attacked the doctrines of his great cotemporary, because he was piqued at the rejection of his favourite tenet of perfection. What therefore thus commenced, was not likely to proceed satisfactorily or creditably, and though repressed for a time, was sure, while the cause remained, to break out again. Southey well observes, "The reconciliation with Whitfield was perhaps produced more by a regard to appearances on both sides, than by any feeling on either. Such a wound as had been made in their friendship always leaves a scar, however well it may have healed." The peace between the Methodists and Calvinists was not, however, disturbed till the year in which Whitfield died, and shortly after that event the conflict became more vehement. The circumstances of that extraordinary controversy, and the part taken in it by Mr. Richard Hill, will be narrated impartially in the next chapter. N CHAPTER VIII. CONFERENCE OF 1770. OBJECTIONABLE MINUTES. THEIR CONSE QUENCES. WHITFIELD'S DEATH. WESLEY'S SERMON. A CONVER- ARD HILL. BLAMEABLE CONDUCT OF WESLEY AND TOPLADY. IN- CONFERENCE OF 1770. WHILE Whitfield was absent in America, Wesley held the celebrated conference of 1770. It commenced on August 7, and ended the following Friday. Upon the publication of its minutes, the controversy between the followers of Whitfield and the Wesleyans broke out again with more violence than ever. The cause was the revival of the declaration of 1744, that the Methodist preachers had leaned too much towards Calvinism. agreement had been made some years before, that the differing parties should, as far as they could conscientiously, use the same phrases in the pulpit, when treating on points as to the tenor of which they were substantially of the same mind. Articles of peace, as they were called, An were entered into; but Charles Wesley, with his accustomed foresight, endorsed the paper containing them, "Vain Agreement." Howell Harris, the Welch Calvinist, was the principal coadjutor of Whitfield who promoted these articles; but there were some among the Wesleyans to whom this peace between the parties was far from agreeable. More than ten years before, the Irishman, Thomas Walsh,' had persuaded John Wesley that he was leaning towards Calvinism, in admitting that some persons might be elected unconditionally to eternal life, though not to the necessary exclusion of any others; and that there might be a state attainable here below, from which a man could not finally fall. These and other considerations were deemed sufficient reasons for a review of the case; and accordingly the following declarations were sent out by the Conference of 1770: "Take heed to your doctrine. "We said in 1744, ' We have leaned too much toward Calvinism.' "Wherein ? "1. With regard to man's faithfulness. Our Lord himself taught to use the expression. And we ought never to be ashamed of it. We ought steadily to assert, on his authority, that if a man is not faithful in the unrighteous mammon, God will not give him the true riches. "2. With regard to working for life. This also our Lord has expressly commanded us. Labour, ἐργαζεσθε, literally work, for the meat that endureth to everlasting life. And in fact every believer, till he comes to glory, works for as well as from life. 1 See an account of this remarkable man in my Life of Mr. Walker, of Truro-Second Edition. |