’It is a doubt if God makes any exception at all.  But how are we sure that the person in question never did fear God and work righteousness?  His own saying so is not proof; for we know how all that are convinced of sin undervalue themselves in every respect.

’8.  Does not talking of a justified or a sanctified state tend to mislead men, almost naturally leading them to trust in what was done in one moment?  Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our works, according to the whole of our inward tempers and our outward behaviour.’[780]

So great was the alarm and indignation caused by these Minutes that a ‘circular printed letter’ was, at the instigation of Lady Huntingdon, sent round among the friends of the Evangelical movement, the purport of which was as follows:—­’Sir, whereas Mr. Wesley’s Conference is to be held at Bristol on Tuesday, August 6, next, it is proposed by Lady Huntingdon and many other Christian friends (real Protestants) to have a meeting at Bristol at the same time, of such principal persons, both clergy and laity, who disapprove of the under-written Minutes; and, as the same are thought injurious to the very fundamental principles of Christianity, it is further proposed that they go in a body to the said Conference, and insist upon a formal recantation of the said Minutes, and, in case of a refusal, that they sign and publish their protest against them.  Your presence, sir, on this occasion is particularly requested; but, if it should not suit your convenience to be there, it is desired that you will transmit your sentiments on the subject to such persons as you think proper to produce them.  It is submitted to you whether it would not be right, in the opposition to be made to such a dreadful heresy, to recommend it to as many of your Christian friends, as well of the Dissenters as of the Established Church, as you can prevail on to be there, the cause being of so public a nature.  I am, &c., Walter Shirley.’

The first thing that naturally strikes one is, What business had Lady Huntingdon and her friends to interfere with Mr. Wesley and his Conference at all?  But this obvious objection does not appear to have been raised.  It would seem that there was a sort of vague understanding that the friends of the Evangelical movement, whether Calvinist or Arminian, were in some sense answerable to one another for their proceedings.  The Calvinists evidently thought it not only permissible but their bounden duty not merely to disavow but to condemn, and, if possible, bring about the suppression of the obnoxious Minutes.  Mr. Shirley said publicly ’he termed peace in such a case a shameful indolence, and silence no less than treachery.’[781] John Wesley did not refuse to justify to the Calvinists what he had asserted.  He wrote to Lady Huntingdon in June 1771 (the Conference did not meet till August), referring her to his ‘Sermons on Salvation by Faith,’ published in 1738, and requesting that the ’Minutes of Conference might be interpreted by the sermons referred to.’  Lady Huntingdon felt her duty to be clear.  She wrote to Charles Wesley, declaring that the proper explanation of the Minutes was ‘Popery unmasked.’  ‘Thinking,’ she added, ’that those ought to be deemed Papists who did not disavow them, I readily complied with a proposal of an open disavowal of them.’[782]