Letter 3.
LETTER 3.
To Richard Hill, Esq.
HONOURED AND DEAR SIR, — In my last I endeavoured to show you, that our Church, far from warping to CRISPIANITY, strongly enforces St. James’ undefiled religion: let us now see what modern divines, especially the Puritan, thought about the important subject of our controversy. Page 13, you oppose the doctrine which you have, (p. 11,) so heartily wished to be firmly established in the mouth of two witnesses: “If Mr. Whitefield had been now living,” say you, “I doubt not but he would have told you, that if need should be, he was ready to offer himself among the foremost of those true Protestants, who, you tell us, could have burned against the doctrine of a second justification by works. And as to the Puritan divines, there is not one of the many hundreds of them but what abhorred the doctrine of a second justification by works, as full of rottenness and deadly poison. Surely then it is not without justice that I accuse you of the grossest perversions and misrepresentations, that perhaps ever proceeded from any author’s pen. The ashes of that laborious man of God, Mr. Whitefield, you have raked up, in order to bring him as a coadjutor to support your tottering doctrine of a second justification by works.” And again, (91, 92,) “I am not afraid to challenge Mr. Fletcher to fix upon one Protestant minister, either Puritan or of the Church of England, from the beginning of the reformation to the reign of Charles the Second, who held the doctrines he has been contending for.” “Sure I am, that you have grieved many a pious heart among our dissenting brethren, by lathering upon their venerable ancestors such a spurious offspring, as can only trace its descent from the loins of ‘the man of sin,’ by which it was begotten out of the mother of abominations, the ‘scarlet Babylonish whore, which sitteth upon many waters.’”
Your charges and challenge, honoured sir, deserve an answer, not because they fix the blot of the grossest perversions upon my insignificant character, but because they represent the holy Apostle James, whose doctrine I vindicate, as “the man of sin,” begetting his undefiled religion “out of the Babylonish whore.” I begin with what you say about Mr. Whitefield: —
I never thought he was clear in the doctrine of our Lord, “In the day of judgment by thy words shalt thou be justified;” for if he had seen it in its proper light, he would instantly have renounced Calvinism. All I have asserted is, that the most eminent ministers, Mr. Whitefield himself not excepted, perpetually allude to that doctrine, when their enlarged hearts, (under a full gale of God’s free Spirit,) get clear of the shallows of bigotry, or the narrow channels of their favourite systems: for then, sailing in deep water, and regardless of the rocks of offence, they cut their easy way through the raging billows of opposition, and speak ALL the truth as it is in Jesus; or at least “allude” (this was my expression, see Second Check, p. 73,) to what, at another time, they would perhaps oppose with all their might.
And do you not, honoured sir, allow that Mr. Whitefield did this in the application of his sermons with regard to my doctrine, when you say, (p. 15,) “All that can be gathered from his expressions is, that he believed there would be a great and awful day, in which all who sit under the sound of the Gospel shall be called to give a solemn account of what they hear, and every minister as solemn an account of the doctrine delivered by him?” To convince you that you grant me all I contended for, permit me to ask, whether this solemn account will be in order to a mock trial, or to the solemn justification or condemnation mentioned by our Lord, Matthew 12:37? If you affirm the former, you traduce heavenly Wisdom, you blaspheme Jesus Christ: if the latter, you give up the point; our hearing and speaking, that is, our works, will turn evidence for or against us in the day of judgment; and, according to their deposition, the scale of absolution and condemnation will turn for heaven or hell.
Let, therefore, the public judge who wrongs Mr. Whitefield; — I, who represent him as speaking agreeably to the plain words of his heavenly Master, Matthew 12:37; — or you, dear sir, who make him advance as a zealot, at the head of a body of prejudiced men, to burn against as explicit and important a declaration as ever dropped from the Redeemer’s lips. I say important; because the moment you strike at our justification by works in the last day, you strike at the doctrine of a day of judgment; and the moment that fundamental doctrine is overthrown, natural and revealed religion sink in a heap of common ruins.
Pass we on now to the other reason for which you “accuse me of the grossest misrepresentations and perversions that perhaps ever proceeded from any author’s pen.” I have affirmed, (Second Check, p. 73.) that “all the sober Puritan divines have directly or indirectly f29 asserted a second justification by works;” and you tell us, (p. 13,) “There is not one of them but what abhorred it, as full of rottenness and deadly poison.” One of us is undoubtedly mistaken; for our propositions are diametrically opposite. Let us see who is the man.
To dispute about words is unbecoming men of reason and religion; and that we may not be guilty of this common absurdity, and oppose one another, when perhaps we mean the same thing, permit me to state the question as clearly as I possibly can. Not considering the meritorious, but the instrumental cause of our justification, I ask, In the day of judgment, shall we be justified or condemned by the works which Christ did in the days of his flesh? Or, in other terms, Shall we be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, as Calvin supposes it was imputed to David in Uriah’s bed? or by the righteousness of Christ implanted in us, as it was implanted in David when “his eyes ran down with water because men kept not God’s law?” Or, if you please, Shall we be justified by Christ’s loving God and man for us? or by our loving God and man ourselves? The former of these sentiments is that of Dr. Crisp and all his admirers. That the latter was the sentiment of Dr. Owen, and all the sober Puritan divines, when they regarded Christ more than Calvin, I prove thus: —
Dr. Owen, (the pious and learned champion of the Calvinists in the last century, whom you quote, p. 93,) speaking, in his Treatise on Justification, p. 222, of one justified at his conversion, says, “That God does indispensably require of him personal obedience, which may be called his evangelical righteousness. That this righteousness is pleadable f30 unto an acquitment against any charge from Satan, the world, or our own consciences. That upon it we shall be declared righteous in the last day; and, without it, none shall. And if any shall think meet from hence to conclude unto an evangelical justification, or call God’s acceptance of our righteousness by that name, I shall by no means contend with them.f31 Whenever this inquiry is made, How a man that professeth evangelical faith in Christ shall be tried and judged; and whereon, as such, he shall be justified? we grant that it is, and must be, by his own personal obedience.” This important quotation is produced by D. Williams, in his Gospel Truth vindicated against Dr. Crisp’s Opinions, p. 149. It is introduced to confirm the following Gospel truth: “The Lord Jesus has of grace, for his own merits, promised to bring to heaven such as are partakers of true holiness, and do good works perseveringly. And he appoints these, as the way and means of a believer’s obtaining salvation, requiring them as indispensable duties and qualifications, of all such whom he will save and bless; and excluding all that want and neglect them, or live under the power of what is contrary thereto.” Here is evidently the pure doctrine of the Minutes, and the “undefiled religion” of St. James.
The same judicious author, in his preface, speaks thus upon the subject of our controversy:
“The revival of these [Dr. Crisp’s] errors must not only exclude that ministry as legal which is most apt to secure the practical power of religion, but also render unity among Christians impossible. Mutual censures are unavoidable; while one side [the sober Puritans] press the terms of the Gospel, under its promises and threats, for which they are accused as enemies to Christ and grace; and the other side [the followers of Dr. Crisp] ignorantly set up the name of Christ and free grace against the government of Christ and the rule of judgment.
“I believe many abettors of these mistakes are honestly zealous for the honour of free grace, but have not light to see how God has provided for this. By this pretence Antinomianism corrupted Germany: it bid fair to overthrow Church and state in New- England; and by its stroke at the vitals of religion it alarmed most of the pulpits in England. Many of our ablest pens were engaged against these errors: — as Mr. Gataker, Mr. Rutherford, Anthony Burgess, the provincial Synod at London — with very many others, whose labours God was pleased to bless to the stopping the attempts of Dr. Crisp, by name opposed by the aforesaid divines, Saltmarsh, Eaton, &c.
“To the grief of such as perceive the tendency of these principles, we are engaged in a new opposition, or must betray the truth as it is in Jesus. I believe many abettors of these notions have grace to preserve their minds and practices from their influence: but they ought to consider that the generality of mankind have no such antidote; and themselves need not fortify their own temptations, nor lose the defence which the wisdom of God has provided against remissness in duty, and sinful backslidings.
“In the present testimony of the truth of the Gospel I have studied plainness. To the best of my knowledge I have in nothing misrepresented Dr. Crisp’s opinions, nor mistaken his sense: for most of them he oft studiously pleads: of each I could multiply proofs, and all of them are necessary for his scheme, although not consistent with all his other occasional expressions.” I have carefully avoided any reflection on Dr. Crisp, whom I believe to be a holy man.
The whole work of D. Williams, and consequently the preceding quotations, have the remarkable sanction of the following certificate: “We, whose names are subscribed, do judge that our Rev. brother has, in all that is material, fully and rightly stated the truths and errors, mentioned as such, in the following treatise: and do account he has, in this work, done considerable service to the Church of Christ; adding our prayers, that these labours of his may be a mean for reclaiming those who have been misled into such dangerous opinions; and for establishing those that waver in any of these truths.” Signed by near fifty Puritan ministers, the first of whom is William Bates; and the last Edmund Calamy, two of the greatest preachers in the last century.
The following Appendix closes the certificate. “I have by me near as many worthy names, such as Mr. Woodhouse, Mr. Hallet, Mr. Boys, &c, who have approved of this work. But I think this number sufficient to convince the world that the Presbyterian ministers, at least, espouse not the Antinomian dotages. Yea, I am credibly informed, that the most learned country ministers, of the Congregational persuasion, disallow the errors here opposed, and are amazed at such of their brethren in London as are displeased with this book.”
Now, dear sir, you must either prove that what Dr. Owen, D. Williams, and such a cloud of Puritan divines consent to call an evangelical justification in the last day, by our own personal obedience, is not a justification; or, you must confess that you have given the world a true specimen of Geneva logic, when you have declared that “there is not one Puritan divine but what abhorred the doctrine of such a justification as full of rottenness and deadly poison.” And you must do me the justice to acknowledge you did not give yourself time to weigh your words in the balance of brotherly kindness, when you accused me of “calumny and the grossest perversions, that perhaps ever proceeded from any author’s pen,” for asserting what I thought my quotations from Mr. Henry sufficiently proved, and what your groundless charge has obliged me fully to demonstrate. And now, permit me to apologize for the severity of your conduct toward me, by reminding my reader that your great Diana was in danger, and that on such a trying occasion, even a good man may be put into a hurry, and act, before he is aware, inconsistently with the Christian virtues which blazon his character.
D. Williams’ Gospel Truth Vindicated might be confirmed by numberless quotations from Puritan authors, who directly or indirectly assert a second justification by works. Take one instance out of a thousand: — Anthony Burgess, fellow of Emmanuel college in Cambridge, (I think one of the ejected ministers,) speaking in his twelfth sermon of obedience as a sign of grace, concludes his discourse by this truly anti-Crispian paragraph: — “Art thou universal in thy obedience? Then thou mayest take comfort. Otherwise, know if thou hast not respect to all the ways and duties required by God, thou wilt be confounded. Though with Ahab and Herod thou do many things, yet if not all things, confusion will be upon thee. O then how few are there who may claim a right to grace!f32 Many men have an external obedience only, and no internal; but most have a partial, and not entire, complete obedience; therefore it is that ‘many are called, but few chosen.’ Consider that terrible expression of St. James 2:10, 11, where the apostle informs believers that if they are guilty but of that one sin, ‘accepting of persons,’ they are the transgressors of the law in general, which he farther urgeth by this assertion, ‘He that keepeth all, and offendeth in one, is guilty of all;’ not with the guilt of every particular sin, but in respect of the authority of the Lawgiver, according to that, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in everything commanded by the law.’ Seeing, therefore, God in regeneration does write his law in our hearts, which does seminally contain the exercise of all holy actions, so that there cannot be an instance of any godly duty of which God does not infuse a principle in us: and seeing glorification will be universal of soul and body, in all parts and faculties, how necessary is it that sanctification should be universal! Take heed therefore that the works of grace in thee be not abortive or monstrous, wanting essential and necessary parts. Let not thy ship be drowned by any one leak.”
From this alarming quotation it appears holy Calvinist ministers saw, a hundred years ago, that if believers did not secure St. James’ justification by universal obedience, the works of grace in them would prove abortive, their hopes would perish, their ship would sink, though by one leak only; and consequently they would be condemned as Hymeneus and Philetus in the day of judgment. And let nope complain of the legality of this doctrine; for our Lord himself fully preached it, when he said, “Except a man forsake all, he cannot be my disciple.”
Take another instance of a later date. The Rev. Mr. Haweis, that has distinguished himself among the zealous ministers of our Church who have espoused Calvin’s sentiments, speaks thus to the point, in his comment on Matthew 12:37: “Not an idle word passes without the Divine notice, but we must answer for it at the day of judgment. With what circumspection then should we keep the door of our lips, when our eternal state is to be determined thereby, and our words must all be produced at the bar of God as evidences of our justification or condemnation, and sentence proceed accordingly!” If this is not maintaining, at least indirectly, justification by works in the day of judgment, my reason fails, and I can no more understand how two and two make four.
The Rev. Mr. Madan himself, if I am not mistaken, grants what I contend for, in the very title of the sermon quoted in my motto, Justification by WORKS reconciled with Justification by FAITH, &c, but much more in the following passages, which I extract from it: —
“In every person that is justified, three particulars concur,
(1.) The meritorious cause of our justification, which is Christ.
(2.) The instrumental cause, which is faith.
And then the justification in the text. [ Ye see how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,] which is to be understood in a declarative sense — no person being justified in Paul’s sense, that is not also in the sense of our text,” that is, in the sense of St. James.
The truth contained in this last sentence is the rampart of practical Christianity, and the ground of the Minutes. If Mr. Madan considers what his proposition necessarily implies, I am persuaded he will not only side with Mr. Wesley against the Benedictine monk, but also, give up Calvinism, with which his assertion is no more reconcilable, than it is with what you, sir, call “a winter (and I beg leave to name an Antinomian) state,” in which we are supposed to be justified in Paul’s sense, while we fly in the face of St. James by the commission of adultery and murder. The same eminent minister asks, in the same discourse, “What does it profit though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? [Can faith save David in Uriah’s bed? Can it save Solomon worshipping Ashtaroth, perhaps with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines?] that is, such a faith as has not works, as is not productive of the fruit of the Spirit in the heart and life? Is this saving faith? Certainly not; for such a faith wants the evidence of its being true and real, and nothing but true faith can save. If my faith does not produce the proper fruits, it is no better than the devil’s faith. We have no Scripture testimony of our being any other than the devil’s children, unless we evidence the truth of our faith by showing forth the genuine fruits and works of faith. All this the apostle confirms, 5:20, 26; ‘Faith without works is dead. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.’”
This excellent passage is the demolition of Calvinism, and the very doctrine of the Minutes, if you except the article about the word merit, which I do not read in our pious author’s sermon. However, p. 12, I find the word deserve in the following important question: — “How can we, not only escape the penalty threatened, but deserve the rewards promised under the law?” And as I do not understand “splitting a hair,” I think that the two expressions, MERITING and DESERVING, when duly considered, are NOT as wide as east is from west: and I fear, that if Mr. Wesley is a heretic for using the former at a conference among friends, the Rev. Mr. Madan is not quite orthodox, for using the latter in St. Vedast’s church before friends and enemies. But as this question may turn upon some nicety of the English language, which, as a foreigner, I have not yet observed, I drop it, to obviate an objection.
You will perhaps say, honoured sir, that all the above-mentioned authors, being sound Calvinists, hold your election, and that you could produce passages out of their writings absolutely irreconcilable with the preceding quotations. To this I reply, that a volume of such passages, instead of invalidating the doctrine which I maintain, would only prove, that the peculiarities of Calvin are absolutely irreconcilable with St. James’ undefiled religion; and that even the most judicious Calvinists cannot make their scheme hang tolerably together.
I hope, honoured sir, the preceding pages will convince my readers that you have spoken unwarily, when you have asserted, “that there is not one of the many hundred Puritan divines, but what abhorred my doctrine as full of rottenness;” and that the author of Goliah slain has been rather too forward in challenging me “to fix upon one Protestant minister, either Puritan, or of the Church of England, who, to the reign of Charles the Second, held the doctrine I have been contending for.”
Your challenge, dear sir, provokes me to imitation; and I conclude this letter by challenging you, in my turn, to fix upon a man who will expose your mistakes more bluntly, and yet esteem and love you more cordially, than, honoured and dear sir, your most obedient servant, in St. James’ pure religion.
J. FLETCHER.