“JOHN FLETCHER.”[125] The result of Fletcher’s visit to the college is given in the subjoined extracts from letters sent to Benson. “_March 22, 1771._ “On my arrival at the college, I found all very quiet, I fear, through the enemy’s keeping his goods in peace. While I preached, I found myself as much shackled as ever I was in my life; and, after private prayer, I concluded I was not in my place. The same day I resigned my office to my lady, and on Wednesday to the students and the Lord. Last Friday I left them all in peace, the servant, but no more the president, of the college.”[126] “Mr. Shirley has sent my lady a copy of part of the minutes of the last conference, namely, of the year 1770. They were called _horrible_ and _abominable_. My lady told me, _she must turn against them; and that whoever did not fully disavow them must quit the college_. She accordingly ordered the master and all the students to write their sentiments upon them without reserve. I did so; explained them according to Mr. Wesley’s sentiments; and approved the doctrine, though not cautiously worded. I concluded by observing, that, as after such a step on my part, and such a declaration on my lady’s, I could no longer, as an honest man, stay in the college, I took my leave of it; wishing my lady might find a minister to preside over it less insufficient than “JOHN FLETCHER.”[127] So much respecting Trevecca. Returning to Wesley, we find him defending himself in the following long letter, published in _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ for March 1, 1771. “_February 26, 1771._ “SIR,--The editor of a monthly publication, pompously called _The Gospel Magazine_, has violently fallen upon one and another, who did not knowingly give him any provocation. And whereas, in other magazines, the accused has liberty to answer for himself, it is not so here. This gentleman will publish only the charge; but not the defence. What can a person, thus injuriously treated, do? To publish pamphlets, on every head, would not answer the end, for the answer would not come into near so many hands as the objection. Is there then a better way than to appeal to candid men, in one of the public papers, by which means the antidote will operate both as widely and as speedily as the poison? This method, therefore, I take at last, after delaying as long as I could with innocence. “In that magazine for last month, there is a warm attack upon my sermon on the death of Mr. Whitefield. The first charge is against the text, ‘Let me die the death of the righteous.’ ‘How improper,’ says Mr. R.,[128] ‘to apply the words of a mad prophet to so holy a man as Mr. Whitefield.’