This was published in the _Gospel Magazine_, in the same month as Wesley’s Conference was held. It was signed “Cleon,” and dated “London, June 17, 1771.” Speaking of Wesley, “Cleon” says,— “Pride prompts him on, and Satan now has gained A conquest o’er perverted truth retained; At best perverted, glaring now appears, The pride of Rome, the lie of num’rous years.” Footnote 240: Thomas Olivers, who for several years, corrected proof sheets for Wesley. The reader has now as full an account as can be given of the way in which the long and angry war between _Wesleyan_ Methodism and _Calvinian_ Methodism was begun. It is difficult to say, decidedly, who was to blame for it. Wesley had a perfect right—in fact, under existing circumstances, he was almost bound by duty—to publish his theological theses; but it was unfortunate that, to use the words of himself and his fifty-three preachers, “_they were not sufficiently guarded_ in the way they were expressed.” The Countess of Huntingdon and her nephew, the Hon. and Rev. Walter Shirley, had a perfect right to take counsel with their Calvinian friends respecting Wesley’s “Minutes;” but it was offensive arrogance to propose to “_go in a body to_ Wesley’s _Conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said Minutes_.” Wesley was under no obligation to either Lady Huntingdon or Walter Shirley; and their issuing of the “Circular Letter” was pure impertinence, though, no doubt, they thought it a Christian duty. Fletcher had a perfect right to explain and vindicate Wesley’s ‘Minutes,’ and to send Wesley his manuscript to be printed and published; and Wesley had a perfect right to avail himself of this permission. Mr. Ireland had a perfect right to entreat Wesley’s printer to delay the publication till he (Ireland) received an answer to the letter he had sent to Fletcher; and Fletcher, though, perhaps, showing too much flexibility of purpose, displayed Christian kindness of the highest order in his reply; but that reply arrived in Bristol too late, for Wesley had already left for Wales, and Wesley’s editor had publicly announced that the “Vindication” would be published. Besides, Fletcher himself, within five weeks after the time when Wesley’s Conference was held, changed his opinion, told Mr. Ireland that “the ‘Minutes’ _must_ be vindicated,” and informed Shirley himself that he was “reconciled to the publication” of his manuscript. Nothing more need be said. Indeed, all, in substance, is said that can be said; and it only remains to notice the 12mo pamphlet of 98 pages, that gave such huge offence, and led to such serious consequences. Fletcher presents:— “I. A general view of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s doctrines. “II. An account of the commendable design of his ‘Minutes.’