“Since the Conference, and, of course, since the making of this Declaration, Mr. Fletcher has published a very warm, and not ill-written ‘Vindication of the Minutes,’ which, from his intimacy with Mr. Wesley, evidently shows that the gentleman in question never meant to recant what he had declared in the ‘Minutes’ when he signed the Declaration.[247] “What can we think of this? You ask, What can we say to this? Why, gentlemen, you may say that the fox has had sagacity enough to elude his hunters. Or, in other words, that Mr. Wesley is, what I always took him to be, a very wise man. “Does this tend to clear up the affair? Yes. Taken in its connection with Fletcher’s ‘Vindication of the Minutes,’ it very plainly clears it up to every man; and shows that however these gentlemen may abhor the doctrine of justification by the _merit_ of works, as most perilous and abominable, they are determined to abide by the doctrine of justification by works as a condition, which is all that is clearly expressed in the ‘Minutes.’ If Cranmer and his brethren had drunk half as deep into the spirit of Ignatius,” [Loyala!] “they had never been brought to the stake for their doctrine; but might even have outwitted the eagle-eyed Bishops of London and Winchester.” Footnote 246: This is a calumny. The Declaration was not drawn up by Wesley, but by Shirley. “Wesley,” says Shirley, “made some, _not very material_, alterations in it.” Footnote 247: Another misrepresentation; for Fletcher’s manuscript was committed to the press before the Declaration was signed. Another communication by “Simplex” must be noticed. Like his former letter, it was printed in the _Gospel Magazine_. It was dated “From the Neighbourhood of the Foundery, October 9, 1771,” and was addressed “To the Rev. Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Olivers.” The following are extracts from it:— “Mr. Wesley is now an old man, and, according to the course of nature, must in a little time have done with a lying world. Let him, like an honest man, a Christian, that has heaven in his eye, and a sense of the Divine presence upon his heart, tell us plainly whether he really thinks that his continuance in the love of God, and the exercise of faith, is owing to his own good management, or to the sovereignty and freeness of the love of God and agency of the Holy Ghost?” The _temper_ of this production is painfully displayed in its concluding paragraph:—