Postscript.
the world to which I am under greater obligation than yours, so there are few gentlemen for whom I have so peculiar an esteem, as for the respectable author of Pietas Oxoniensis. And till we come where no mistake will raise prejudice, and no prejudice will foment opposition to any part of the truth; till we meet where all that “fear God and work righteousness,” however jarring together now, will join in an eternal chorus, and with perfect harmony ascribe a common “salvation to the Lamb that was slain,” I declare, in the fear of God and in the name of Jesus, that no opposite views of the same truths, no clashing diversity of contrary sentiments, no plausible insinuations of narrow-hearted bigotry, shall hinder me from remaining, with the greatest sincerity, honoured and dear sir, your most obedient and obliged servant, in the bonds of a peaceful Gospel,
J. FLETCHER.
MADELEY, February 3, 1772
POSTSCRIPT.
As I have cleared my conscience with respect to Antinomianism, a subject which at this time appears to me of the last importance, I should be glad to employ my leisure hours in writing on subjects more suitable to my taste and private edification. It is by no means my design to obtrude my sentiments upon my Calvinian, any more than upon my Arminian brethren. I sincerely wish peace to both, upon the terms of mutual forbearance, Veniam petimusque, damusque vicissim. Should, therefore, a fourth publication call for a Fourth Check; if I can help it, it shall be short. I shall just thank my antagonist for his deserved reproofs, or point out his capital mistakes, and quote the pages in the Three Checks where his objections are already answered. But if his performance is merely Calvinistical, I shall take the liberty of referring him to the Rev. Mr. Sellon’s “imbecile performance,” which, I apprehend, every unprejudiced person, who has courage to see and read for himself, will find strong enough to refute the strongest arguments of Elisha Coles and the Synod of Dort. Before I lay by my pen, I beg leave to address, a moment, the true believers who espouse Calvin’s sentiments. Think not, honoured brethren, that I have no eyes to see the eminent services which many of you render to the Church of Christ; no heart to bless God for the Christian graces which shine in your exemplary conduct; no pen to testify, that by “letting your light shine before men, you adorn the Gospel of God our Saviour,” as many of your predecessors have done before you. I am not only persuaded that your opinions are consistent with a genuine conversion, but I take Heaven to witness, how much I prefer a Calvinist who loves God, to a remonstrant who does not. Yes, although I value Christ infinitely above Calvin, and St. James above that good, well-meaning man, Dr. Crisp, I had a thousand times rather be doctrinally mistaken with the latter, than practically deluded with those who speak well of St. James’ “perfect law of liberty,” and yet remain lukewarm Laodiceans in heart, and perhaps gross Antinomians in conduct.
This I observe, to do your piety justice, and prevent the men of this world, into whose hands these sheets may fall, from “falsely accusing your good conversation in Christ,” and confounding you with practical Antinomians, some of whose dangerous notions you inadvertently countenance. If I have, therefore, taken the liberty of exposing your favourite mistakes, do me the justice to believe, that it was not to pour contempt upon your respectable persons; but to set your peculiarities in such a light, as might either engage you to renounce them, or check the forwardness with which some have lately recommended them as the only doctrine of grace, and the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ; unkindly representing their remonstrant brethren as enemies to free grace, and abettors of a dreadful heresy. If you think I have exceeded, in my Checks, the bounds which brotherly love prescribes to a controversial writer, permit me to remind you and myself, that we are parties, and therefore peculiarly liable to think the worst of each other’s intentions and performances. By our respective publications we have appealed to the serious world; let us not then take the matter out of their hands. And while we leave to our merciful God the judging of our spirits, let us leave our serious readers to judge of our arguments, and pass sentence upon the manner in which they are proposed. And you, my remonstrant brethren, who attentively look at our controversial engagement; while a Geneva anti-Calvinist solicits an interest in your prayers for “meekness of wisdom,” permit him to offer you some reasonable advices, which he wants to inculcate upon his own mind also.
1. More than ever let us confirm our love toward our Calvinist brethren. If our arguments gall them, let us not envenom the sore by maliciously triumphing over them. Nothing is more likely to provoke their displeasure, and drive them from what we believe to be the truth. If we, that immediately “bear the burden and heat of this controversial day,” are obliged to cut; help us to act the part of friendly opponents by directly pouring into the wound the healing balsam of brotherly love: and if you see us carried beyond the bounds of moderation, instantly admonish us, and check our Checks. Your whispers will go farther than the clamours of our opponents. The former, we know, must proceed from truth: but we are apt to suspect that the latter spring from partiality or a mere stratagem not uncommon in controversial wars. Witness the clamours of the Jews, and those of the Ephesians, when the one saw that their idol temple, the other, that great Diana was in danger.
2. Do not rejoice in the mistakes of our opponents, but in the detection of error. Desire not that we, but that truth, may prevail. Let us not only be willing that our brethren should win the day, if they have truth on their side; but let us make it matter of solemn, earnest, and constant prayer. While we decry confined, shackled grace, obtruded upon us as free grace, let not bigotry confine our affections and shackle our hearts. Nothing would be more absurd than to fall into Calvinian narrowness of spirit, while we oppose Calvin’s narrow system. If we admit the temper, we might as well be quite consistent, and at once embrace the doctrine. The best method of recommending God’s universal love to mankind, is to love all men universally. If absolute reprobation has no place in our principles, let it have none in our affections. If we believe that all share in the Divine mercy, let all be interested in our brotherly kindness. Should such practical demonstrations of universal love second our Scriptural arguments for it, by God’s blessing bigotry would soon return to Rome, and narrow grace fly back to Geneva.
3. Let us strictly observe the rules of decency and kindness, taking care not to treat, upon any provocation, any of our opponents in the same manner that they have treated Mr. Wesley. The men of the world hint sometimes that he is a Papist and a Jesuit: but good mistaken men have gone much farther in the present controversy. They have published to the world that they “do verily believe his principles are too rotten for even a Papist to rest upon; that it may be supposed Popery is about the midway between Protestantism and him; that he wades through the quagmires of Pelagianism, deals in inconsistencies, manifest contradictions, and strange prevarications; that if a contrast was drawn from his various assertions, upon the doctrine of sinless perfection, a little piece might extend into a folio volume; and that they are more than ever convinced of his prevaricating disposition.” Not satisfied with going to a Benedictine monk, in Paris, for help against his dreadful heresy, they have wittily extracted an argument ad hominem, from the comfortable dish of tea which he drinks with Mrs. Wesley: and, to complete the demonstration of their respect for that grey-headed laborious minister of Christ, they have brought him upon the stage of the controversy in a dress of their own contriving, and made him declare to the world, that “whenever he and fifty-three of his fellow labourers say one thing, they mean quite another.” And what has he done to deserve this usage at their hands? Which of them has he treated unjustly or unkindly? Even in the course of this controversy, has he injured any man? May he not say to this hour, Tu pugnas: Ego vapulo tantum? Let us avoid this warmth, my brethren, remembering that personal reflections will never pass for convincing arguments with the judicious and humane. I have endeavoured to follow this advice with regard to Dr. Crisp; nevertheless, lest you should rank him with practical Antinomians, I once more gladly profess my belief that he was a good man; and desire that none of you would condemn all his sermons, much less his character, on account of his unguarded Antinomian propositions, refuted by Williams and Baxter, some of which I have taken the liberty to produce in the preceding Checks. As there are a few things exceptionable in good Bishop Hopkins, so there are many things admirable in Dr. Crisp’s works. And as the glorious truths advanced by the former should not make you receive his Calvinian mistakes as Gospel, so the illegal tenets of the latter should by no means make you reject his evangelical sayings as Antinomianism. “Prove, therefore, all things, and hold fast that which is good,” though it should be advanced by the warmest of our opponents; but whatever unadvised step their zeal, for what they believe to be the truth, makes them take, “put ye on (as the elect of God, holy and beloved) bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, long suffering, forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.”
4. If you would help us to remove the prejudices of our brethren, not only grant with a good grace, but strongly insist upon the great truths for which they make so noble a stand. Steadily assert with them, that the scraps of morality and formality, by which Pharisees and Deists pretend to merit the Divine favour, are only “filthy rags” in the sight of a holy God; and that no righteousness is current in heaven but “the righteousness which is of God by faith.” If they have set their heart upon calling it “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” though the expression is not strictly Scriptural, let it pass; but give them to understand, that as Divine imputation of righteousness is a most glorious reality, so human imputation is a most delusive dream; and that of this sort is undoubtedly the Calvinian imputation of righteousness to a man, who actually defiles his neighbour’s bed, and betrays innocent blood.f23 A dangerous contrivance this! not less subversive of common heathenish morality, than of St. James’ “pure and undefiled religion.”
Again: our Calvinist brethren excel in setting forth a part of Christ’s priestly office; I mean the immaculate purity of his most holy life, and the all-atoning, all-meritorious sacrifice of his bloody death. Here imitate, and if possible surpass them. Shout a finished atonement louder than they. Behold with raptures of joy, and bid all around you behold, with transports of gratitude, “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” If they call this complete atonement finished salvation, or the finished work of Christ, indulge them still; for peace’ sake, let those expressions pass. Nevertheless, at proper times give them to understand, that it is absolutely contrary to reason, Scripture, and Christian experience, to think that all Christ’s mediatorial work is finished. Insinuate you should be very miserable if he had nothing more to do for you and in you. Tell them, as they can bear it, that he works daily as a Prophet to enlighten you, as a Priest to make intercession for you, as a King to subdue your enemies, as a Redeemer to deliver you out of all your troubles, and as a Saviour to help you to work out your own salvation; and hint, that, in all these respects, Christ’s work is no more finished, than the working of our own salvation is completed.
The judicious will understand you: as for bigots on all sides, you know, they are proof against Scripture and good sense, Nevertheless, mild irony, sharply pointing a Scriptural argument, may yet pass between the joints of their impenetrable armour, and make them feel — either some shame, or some weariness of contention. But this is a dangerous method, which I would recommend to very few. None should dip his pen in the wine of irony till he has dipped it in the oil of love; and even then he should not use it without constant prayer, and as much caution as a surgeon lances an imposthume. If he goes too deep, he does mischief; if not deep enough, he loses his time; the virulent humour is not discharged, but irritated by the skin-deep operation. And “who is sufficient for these things?” Gracious God of wisdom and love! if thou callest us to this difficult and thankless office, let all “our sufficiency be of thee;” and should the operation succeed, thine and thine alone shall be all the glory.
5. And yet, brethren, “I show you a more excellent way” than that of mild irony sharpening a strong argument. If love is the fulfilling of the law, love, after all, must be the destruction of Antinomianism. We shall do but little good by exposing the doctrinal Antinomianism of Dr. Crisp’s admirers, if our own tempers and conduct are inconsistent with our profession of evangelical legality. When our antagonists cannot shake our arguments, they will upbraid us with our practice. Let us then take care not to “hold the truth in unrighteousness:” let our moderation and evangelical legality appear even to our candid opponents: so shall “the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us” that believe the anti-Crispian truth: so shall our faith “establish the law” of ardent love to God and man; and wherever that law is established, Antinomianism is no more. And if, when we truly love our antagonists, they still look upon our opposition to their errors as an abuse of their persons, and call our exposing their mistakes “sneering at the truth,” let us wrap our souls in the mantle of that “love which is not provoked;” remembering, “the disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.”
6. Above all, while we expostulate with our brethren for going to one extreme, let us not go to another. Many in the last century so preached what Christ did for us in the days of his flesh, as to overlook what he does in us in the days of his Spirit. The Quakers saw their error; but while they exposed it they ran into the opposite. They so extolled Christ living in us, as to say but little of Christ dying for us. At this time, many hearing our salvation is so finished by Christ, that we need not “work it out with fear and trembling,” are justly shocked; and thinking they cannot fly too far from so wild a notion, they run headlong into Pelagianism, Socinianism, or gross infidelity. Let us, my brethren, learn wisdom by their contrary mistakes. While some run full east, and others full west, keep we under the bright meridian line of evangelical truth, at an equal distance from their dangerous extremes. By cordial faith let us daily “receive the atonement;” and making our perpetual boast of Christ crucified, let us recommend his inestimable merits to all convinced sinners, cheerfully commending our souls to him “in well doing,” and growing in his knowledge, till we experience that he “is all and in all.” So shall we “adorn the Gospel of God our Saviour in all things;” nor will our opponents have any occasion to reprove us for Pharisaic unbelief, when we reprove them for Antinomian faith.