Rowland Hill proceeds to say, that “hitherto he had declined having the least share in the late contentions.” He was at Bristol in 1771, when Mr. Shirley and his friends invaded Wesley’s Conference, but he refused to join them, and left the city, for, he remarks, “Peace I love, but controversy I hate.” He continues:— “Upon my return to Bristol, I saw your first publication.[268] As I dearly loved your character, I read it with great prejudice in your favour; but still, the _tartness_ of the style, as well as the bad doctrine it contained, concerned me; but, as I plainly perceived your intention was to make the ‘_Minutes_’ speak as much Gospel as possible, though I was sorry for the performance, I felt a loving pity for the author. About the same time, I called upon Mr. Wesley, then in Bristol, and, in strong terms, expressed to him my concern about his ‘_Minutes_.’ He told me that he looked upon the whole of them as truth, and that he should vindicate them as such. “Still my determination was to appear in no open separation from Mr. Wesley; hoping that time would soften the edge of the dispute, and restore calmness and composure among contending parties; but your _second_ publication[269] compels me to believe that to be neutral any longer will be criminal. You have now done sufficient to darken every gleam of hope of future tranquillity, by publishing _such_ doctrine, and in _such_ a spirit, as has kindled no small flame in the religious world.” Footnote 266: Sidney’s “Life of Rowland Hill,” p. 56. Footnote 267: _Ibid_, p. 70. Footnote 268: The “Vindication” of Wesley’s Minutes. Footnote 269: “Second Check to Antinomianism, in Three Letters,” to Mr. Shirley. No doubt Rowland Hill was perfectly sincere when he said he hated controversy, and loved peace; and yet, such is the tendency of polemical writing, Rowland Hill and his brother Richard became the principal fomentors of this controversial warfare. Having given what he calls “a simple narration of facts,” Mr. Rowland Hill proceeds to say:— “I will now make some strictures principally upon your last performance. This I pray God I may be enabled to do with meekness and judgment. I know there is no _argument_ in _banter_, nor _conclusion_ in _sarcasm_, nor _divinity_ in a _sneer_: such weapons I wish totally to discard; they are _pitiful_ even for the world, but they are _scandalous_ when used by a Christian. I hate such feeble aids, and will scorn to use them; they would defile my soul, and stab the cause I mean to maintain. The meek and dove-like disposition of Christ, I humbly hope will teach me, while I write, to _pity_, not to _abuse_, the mistaken; and meekly to deliver my sentiments, without having recourse to the _low arts_ of _slander_ and _reflection_.” Rowland Hill had good intentions; but whether he fulfilled them will be seen in the succeeding extracts.