In my book <a href="http://www.latimertrust.org/index.php/publications/books-and-compilation..."><em>The True Profession of the Gospel</em></a>, I criticise Augustus Montague Toplady for his occasionally barbed and acerbic responses to John Wesley, as not being in keeping with 2 Timothy 2:22-26. I do the same with <a href="http://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/123/Cman_123_3_Gatiss.pdf">Luther elsewhere</a>, even though I think he was right theologically against Erasmus. I certainly am not trying to fall foul of that same criticism.

Toplady once said that "it is not necessary to be timid in order to be meek." And I guess that must be right, glancing at the inspired examples in Galatians 5:12 or Matthew 23. It needs to be seen in proper context though. He thought it was the most fitting response to what had been done to him (and we don't often hear about that, do we?). "To have refuted the forgeries and perversions of such an assailant tenderly, and with meekness falsely so called," he writes, "would have been like shooting at a highwayman with a pop-gun, or repelling the sword of an assassin with a straw."

But still, I apologise, and have done so to the Lord, if anything I've written or said has been contrary to the high standard we should expect.

I say this because some people have reacted to my <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?tag=Wesley&Include...">previous posts</a> about John Wesley with astonishment, and some complain vaguely of "tone". I do wonder sometimes if what they really don't like perhaps is the content. I am just trying to do good history, which as Oliver Cromwell said about portrait painting, should be done "warts and all." In <em>The True Profession of the Gospel</em> I actually look closely at a bunch of proper historical accounts of the 18th century debates, incredulous at the way they skate over (cover-up, even) the Arminian controversies which Wesley started.

OK, I try to engage all this here in a friendly and perhaps sometimes slightly jocular way, in order to lessen what might otherwise seem difficult. Just as heavy theological discussion needs sometimes to be done with a smile over a pint. I realise some people might not "get" the British sense of humour, or mine in particular, and read that differently.

Or they might get confused. Fred Sanders, for example, thought HE was Danger Mouse in the last post. How wrong can you get?! [insert smiley face] And by the way, Fred and I have had good discussions of these things over lunches the last few years, and he stayed at my house in Cambridge last summer. I'm even Facebook friends with Tom McCall. So none of this is launching an attack on anyone personally. Just so you know.

<form mt:asset-id="791" class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><img alt="Penfold and Danger Mouse.jpg" src="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/Penfold%20and%20Danger%20Mouse.jpg" width="360" height="480" class="mt-image-none" style="" /></form>

Over the years (because I'm not just making this up now), I have found several conservative evangelicals object to my discussion of Wesley's behaviour because "he was so used by God!" Don't criticise someone who is generally "on our side!" "Does it matter how he behaved in his private life?" This pragmatic argument is perhaps understandable at such a distance, but I don't find that the same people have an equally tolerant attitude towards, say, Pentecostals/charismatics, Federal Visionists, neo-Calvinists, or folks like Mark Driscoll. Or, Anglicans. They are not saying we should be patient with theirsometimes quite outrageous statements because "they are being greatly used by God."

Instead, we find them gloating over downfalls or trying heavy-handedly to put people off going to their conferences, or attacking them (and anybody they think might be tainted by some association with them) in various ways both publicly and privately.

One such friend said I should write a "10 things I love about Wesley" article, to compensate for my surgically removing his halo. I have drafted one, but not posted or printed it anywhere yet. I said I would do so if he could write a similar thing about one of those groups/individuals above that I know he has problems with  theologically and has even preached against vigorously. Don't hold your breath.

In my view, we should not excuse or ignore reprehensible behaviour in the heroes of the past, because to do so only encourages it in the heroes of the present (and their imitators). And the New Testament says a few things about how behaviour and doctrine need to match up, doesn't it? So how can we just stick with critiquing someone's theology and cover-up their life?

That is my real target in all this. I am trying to learn from the events of the past some lessons on how we can respond to things going on in our own day. I am certainly not saying some of the things people seem to have taken away from these posts. I am not saying that all Arminians are like Wesley or that Arminianism is flawed because Wesley was (any more than the opposite would be true if I had picked an outrageous hyper-Calvinist instead).

<strong>What did Toplady think of Arminians?</strong>

Allow me to illustrate some of this with another story from the 18th century. John Wesley republished one of Toplady's own books, in Toplady's name, in his own publishing series. This was the start of the Zanchi Tract War. Wesley gutted Toplady's book of all biblical references, which rather castrates its persuasive force as a piece of Christian theology, I think we can all agree. But he also added an extra paragraph, all of his own devising. It was, we can only hope, his sincere attempt to summarise what he heard the book to be about:

<blockquote>"The sum of all is this: One in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated.  The elect shall be saved, do what they will: The reprobate shall be damned, do what they can.  Reader, believe this, or be damned.  Witness my hand, A___ T___."

</blockquote>

Now, Toplady was a bit upset by this forgery, plagiarism, tomfoolery - call it what you will. I think I would be too. Wouldn't you be, if someone did that to one of your books or articles or blogposts? But it is interesting that this is what Wesley heard.

What was wrong here? For a start, says A.M.T., the numbers were wrong and utterly presumptuous. In Toplady's opinion, "The kingdom of glory will both be more largely and more variously peopled than bigots of all denominations are either able to think, or willing to allow." That's a great quote. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

Wesley's summary of what Toplady had written was also scurrilous, with entirely false implications, he says. The elect are not saved "do what they will" but "chosen as much to holiness as to heaven." Any standard Calvinist treatment of predestination says that (though it is possible, I suppose, as one of Wesley's biographers claims, that Wesley had not read any of those.)

Equally importantly, Toplady neither claimed nor thought that it was impossible for non-Calvinists to escape damnation. He never said Arminians are not Christians! (JC Ryle accuses him of this, which really is quite unfair, to put it mildly). That, of course, would have been a strange thing for him to assert, given that he was an Arminian himself for several years after his conversion. He does not subsequently re-date his conversion to the year he became a Calvinist.

Indeed, Toplady says on several occasions that he thought many Arminians were "pious, moderate, respectable men." He goes on to say, "Of these, I myself know more than a few: and have the happiness to enjoy as much of their esteem, as they deservedly possess of mine." Some of my best friends are Arminians. And I respect them -- even for their piety.

He is careful not to say that Arminians -- or even heretics such as Arius or Socinus -- are definitely excluded from heaven. God alone knows their destiny. Toplady doesn't exclude them from heaven because they are not good Calvinists like him. Though he is clear that if in heaven, they are no longer Arminians, Arians, or Socinians there, but now stand corrected.

I think the same of Baptists and Presbyterians. And I suppose they do of me. They tut and shake their heads, wondering how someone who otherwise appears to be a good Christian could possibly still be an Anglican. Perhaps the Lord will have a few things to say to all of us when the time comes.

Toplady doesn't say many positive things about Wesley. But the way that older brother treated him -- what can you expect? He is however very positive about some other prominent Arminians of his era, such as Hammond, Bull, Tillotson, Sharp, and Stillingfleet. He calls them eminent and worthy, "great ornaments to our church," and not to be mentioned without honour, even while he remains unconvinced by their Arminianism. There's even a good story about Toplady and a staunch Arminian having a bit of theological banter over a glass of wine, to mutual edification and amusement, which ends on a positive and friendly note.

So, as my good Arminian friend, and great ornament of the church, Fred Sanders, <a href="http://scriptoriumdaily.com/hit-em-with-the-rock-of-ages/">rightly says</a>: "When publicly disagreeing with other believers, try to keep some sense of perspective. If a Wesleyan is the worst thing you can imagine, you have a weak imagination. Wesley's influence is not what's driving the godless spirit of the age. The same moral applies, of course, to Arminians, too: If you think the main problem with the world today is Calvinism, you should get out more."

Or as Toplady put it, "The envy, malice, and fury of Wesley's party are inconceivable. But, violently as they hate me, I dare not, I cannot, hate them in return. I have not so learned Christ. -- They have my prayers and my best wishes for their present and eternal salvation. But their errors have my opposition also."