Letter 4.

LETTER 4.

To Richard Hill, Esq.

HONOURED AND DEAR SIR, — Before I take my leave of the Puritan writers, you will permit me to make some observations upon the fault you find with my quoting one of them. Page 94, you introduce a judicious, worthy, reverend friend, charging me with having “most notoriously perverted the quotation” which I produced out of Flavel, (Vindication, p. 33,) and you stamp with your approbation his exclamation on the subject, “Could you have expected such disingenuity from Madeley?” Now, dear sir, full of disingenuity as you suppose me to be, I can yet act with frankness. And to convince you of it I publicly stand to my quotation, and charge your worthy friend with — what shall I call it? — a gross mistake. My quotation I had from that judicious Puritan divine, D. Williams, who, far from notoriously perverting the sense of the ministers that drew up Flavel’s preface, has weakened it by leaving out some excellent anti-Crispian sentences. Permit me to punish your friend for his hasty charge, by laying the whole passage before my readers; reminding them, that only the sentences enclosed in crotchets, [ ] are quoted in the Vindication.

A body of seven eminent divines, all friends, it seems, to Dr. Crisp, but enemies to his Antinomian dotages, charitably endeavour to apologize for him, at the same time that they recommend Flavel’s treatise on Mental Errors in general, and on Antinomianism in particular, where Dr. Crisp is opposed by name. Having mentioned two similar propositions of his, viz. “Salvation is not the end of any thing we do.” and, “We are to act from life, and not for life,” they bear this full testimony against the absurdity which they contain: —

“[It were in effect to abandon human nature,] and to sin against a very fundamental law of our creation, not to intend our own felicity; it were to make our first and most deeply fundamental duty, in one great, essential branch of it, our sin; viz. To take the Lord for our God: for to take him for our God most essentially includes our taking him for our Supreme Good, which we all know is included in the notion of the last end. It were to make it unlawful to strive against all sin, and particularly against sinful aversion from God, wherein lies the very death of the soul, or the sum of its misery; or to strive after perfect conformity to God in holiness, and the full fruition of him, wherein the soul’s final blessedness does principally consist.

“[It were to teach us to violate the great precepts of the Gospel:] “Repent, that your sins may be blotted out: strive to enter in at the strait gate: work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” To obliterate the patterns and precedents set before us in the Gospel: “We have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified — I keep under my body lest I should be a castaway — that thou mayest save thyself, and them that hear thee.” “[It were to suppose us bound to do more for the salvation of others than our own] salvation. We are required to save others with fear, plucking them out of the fire. Nay, we were not (by this rule strictly understood) so much as to pray for our own salvation, which is a doing somewhat; when, no doubt, we are to pray for the success of the Gospel, to this purpose, on behalf of other men. “[It were to make all the threatenings of eternal death, and promises of eternal life, we find in the Gospel of our blessed Lord, useless, as motives to shun the one and obtain the other:] for they can be motives no way, but as the escaping of the former, and the attainment of the other, have with us the place and consideration of an end.

“[It makes what is mentioned in the Scripture as the character and commendation of the most eminent saints, a fault,] as of Abraham., Isaac, and Jacob; that ‘they sought the better and heavenly country;’ and plainly declared that they did so, which necessarily implies their making it their end.”

Now, honoured sir, it lies upon you to prove, that because Mr. Williams and I have not produced all that makes against you, we are guilty of a “most notorious perversion”f33 of the quotation. If you affirm that the perversion I am charged with, consists in saying, that the divines who wrote Flavel’s preface were shocked at Dr. Crisp’s doctrine, when they nevertheless apologize for his person; I reply, that their apology confirms my assertion, even more than their arguments; for they say, “It is likely the doctor meant, [just what Mr. Wesley does,] that we shall not work FOR life ONLY, without aiming at working FROM life ALSO. For it is not tolerable charity to suppose that one would deliberately say, that salvation is not the end of any good work we do, or that we are not to work for life in the rigid sense of the words.” And they profess their hopes, that, “upon consideration, he would presently unsay it, [namely, the absurd proposition, We are not to work FOR life,] being calmly reasoned with.” Thus hoped those pious divines concerning Dr. Crisp: and thus I once hoped also concerning his admirers. But, alas! experience has damped my hope; for, when they have been “calmly reasoned with,” they have shown themselves much more ready to unsay what they had said right, than what the doctor had said wrong; and to this day they publicly defend those Antinomian dotages, which the authors of Flavel’s preface could not believe Dr. Crisp could possibly mean, even when he preached and wrote them.

You express, honoured sir, a most extraordinary wish, p. 94. Speaking of Flavel’s Discourse upon Mental Errors, which is also called A Blow at the Root, you say, “I should have been glad could I have transcribed the whole discourse.” But as you have not done it, I shall give a blow at the root of your system, by presenting you with an extract of the second Appendix, which is a pretty large treatise full against Antinomianism. “The design of the following sheets,” says that great Puritan divine, in the discourse you should be glad wholly to transcribe, “is to free the grace of God from the dangerous errors, which fight against it under its own colours; to prevent the seduction of some that stagger; and to vindicate my own doctrine. The Scripture, foreseeing there would arise such a sort of men in the Church as would wax wanton against Christ, and turn his grace into lasciviousness, has not only precautioned us in general to beware of such opinions as corrupt the doctrine of free grace: ‘Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid:’ but has marked those very opinions by which it would be abused, and made abundant provision against them. As namely,

(1.) All vilifying expressions of God’s holy law, Romans 7.

(2.) All opinions inclining men to the neglect of the duties of obedience, under pretence of free grace and liberty by Christ, James 2; Matthew 25.

(3.) All opinions neglecting sanctification as the evidence of justification, which is the principal scope of St. John’s first epistle. “Notwithstanding such is the wickedness of some, and weakness of others, that in all ages (especially in the last and present) men have notoriously corrupted the doctrine of free grace, to the great reproach of Christ, scandal of the world, and hardening of the enemies of the reformation. ‘Behold, (says Contzen the Jesuit,) the fruit of Protestantism, and their Gospel preaching.’

“The Gospel makes sin more odious than the law did, and discovers the punishment of it in a more dreadful manner. ‘For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? It shows us our encouragements to holiness greater than ever; and yet corrupt nature will still abuse it. The more luscious the food is, the more men are apt to surfeit upon it. “This perversion of free grace is justly chargeable both upon wicked and good men. WICKED MEN corrupt it designedly, that, by entitling God to their sins, they might sin the more quietly. So the Nicolaitans, and school of Simon; the Gnostics, in the very dawning of Gospel light; and he that reads the preface of learned Mr. Gataker’s book, will find that some Antinomians of our days are not much behind the vilest of them. One of them cries out, ‘Away with the law! It cuts off a man’s legs, and then bids him walk.’ Another says, ‘That if a man, by the Spirit, know himself to be in a state of grace, though he commit murder,f34 God sees no sin in him.’

“But others f35 there are, whose judgments are unhappily tainted with those loose doctrines; yet being, in the main GODLY PERSONS, they dare not take the liberty to sin, or live in the neglect of known duties, though their principles too much incline that way. But though they dare not, others will, who imbibe corrupt notions from them; and the renowned piety of the authors will be no antidote against the danger; but make the poison operate the more powerfully, by receiving it in such a vehicle. Now it is highly probable these men were charmed into these opinions upon such accounts as these: —

“(1.) Some of them might have felt in themselves the anguish of a perplexed conscience under sin, and not being able to live under the terrors of the law, might too hastily snatch at such doctrines which promise them relief and ease.

(2.) Others have been induced to espouse these opinions from the excess of their zeal against the errors of the Papists.

(3.) Others have been sucked into those quicksands of Antinomian errors, by lathering their own fancies upon the Holy Spirit.

(4.) And it is not unlike, but a comparative weakness of mind, meeting with a fervent zeal for Christ, may induce others to espouse such taking and plausible, though pernicious doctrines.

“Let all good men beware of such opinions and expressions as give a handle to wicked men to abuse the grace of God, which haply the author himself dares not do, and may strongly hope others may not do: but if the principle will yield it, it is in vain to think corrupt nature will not catch at it, and make a vile use, and dangerous improvement of it!

“For example: If such a principle as this be asserted before the world, ‘That men need not fear that any or all the sins they commit shall do them any hurt:’ f36 let the author warn and caution his readers, [as the Antinomian f37 author of that expression has done,] not to abuse this doctrine; it is to no purpose, the doctrine itself is full of dangerous consequences, and wicked men have the best skill to draw them forth to cherish their lusts. That which the author might design for the relief of the distressed, quickly turns into poison in the bowels of the wicked. Nor can we excuse it by saying any Gospel truth may be thus abused; for this is none of that number, but a principle that gives offence to the godly and encouragement to the ungodly. And so much as to the rise and occasion of Antinomian errors.

“II. Let us view next some of the chief errors of Antinomians.

(1.) Some make justification to be an eternal act of God, and affirm that the elect were justified before the world had a being. Others, that they were justified at the time of Christ’s death: with these Dr. Crisp harmonizes.

(2.) That justification by faith is no more than a manifestation to us, of what was done before we had a being.

(3.) That men ought not to question whether they believe or no. (Saltmarsh on Free Grace, p. 92, 95.)

(4.) That believers are not bound to mourn for sin, because it was pardoned before it was committed; and pardoned sin is no sin. (Eaton’s Honeycomb of Justification, p. 446.)

(5.) That God sees no sin in believers, whatsoever sins they commit.

(6.) That God is not angry with the elect, and that to say he smites them for their sins is an injurious reflection upon his justice. This is avouched generally in all their writings.

(7.) That by God’s laying our iniquities upon Christ, he became as completely sinful as we, and we as completely righteous as Christ. (Dr. Crisp, p. 270.)

(8.) That no sin can do believers any hurt, nor must they do any duty for their own salvation.

(9.) That the new covenant is not made properly with us, but with Christ for us; and that this covenant is all of it a promise, having no condition on our part. They do not absolutely deny that faith, repentance, and obedience are conditions in the new covenant; but say, they are no conditions on our side, but Christ’s, and that he repented, believed, and obeyed for us. (Saltmarsh on Free Grace, p. 126.)

(10.) They speak very slightingly of trying ourselves by marks and signs of grace. Saltmarsh calls it “a low, carnal way:” but the New-England Antinomians call it a fundamental error, to make sanctification an evidence of justification. They say, that the darker our sanctification is, the brighter is our justification.

“I look upon such doctrines to be of a very dangerous nature; and their malignity and contagion would certainly spread much farther than it does, had not God provided two powerful antidotes. “1. The scope and current of the Scriptures. They speak of the elect as ‘children of wrath’ during their unregenerate state. They frequently discover God’s anger, and tell us, his castigatory rods are laid upon them for their sins. They represent sin as the greatest evil; most opposite to the glory of God and good of his saints. They call the saints to mourn for their sins, &c. They put the people of God to the trial of their interest in Christ, by signs and marks from the divers branches of sanctification. They infer duties from privileges; and therefore the Antinomian dialect is a wild note, which the generality of serious Christians do easily distinguish from the Scripture language.

“2. The experience and practice of the saints greatly secure us from the spreading malignity of Antinomianism. They acknowledge that before their conversion they were equal in sin and misery with the vilest wretches in the world. They fear nothing more than sin. They are not only sensible that God sees sin in them, but they admire his patience, that they are not consumed for it. They urge his commands and threatenings, as well as promises, upon their own hearts to promote sanctification. They excite themselves to duty and watchfulness against sin. They encourage themselves by the rewards of obedience, knowing their ‘labour is not in vain in the Lord.’ And he that shall tell them, their sins can do them no hurt, or their duties no good, speaks to them not only as a barbarian, but in such a language as their souls abhor. The zeal and love of Christ being kindled in their souls, they have no patience to hear such doctrines as so greatly derogate from his glory, under a pretence of honouring and exalting him. It wounds and grieves their very hearts to see the world hardened in their prejudices against reformation, and a gap opened to all licentiousness. But notwithstanding this double antidote, we find, by daily experience, such doctrines too much obtaining in the professing world, Tantum religio suadere malorum.

“For my own part, He that searcheth my heart is witness: I would rather choose to have my right hand wither, and my tongue rot within my mouth, than to speak one word, or write one line, to cloud the free grace of God. Let it arise and shine in its meridian glory. None owes more to it, or expects more from it, than I do; and what I write in this controversy is to vindicate it from those opinions, which, under pretence of exalting it, do really militate against it.”

Then follows a prolix refutation of the above-mentioned Antinomian errors, most of which necessarily flow from your second and fourth letters. When our pious author attacks them as a disciple of St. James, he carries all before him: but when he encounters them as an admirer of Calvin, his hands hang down, Amalek prevails, and a shrewd logician could, without any magical power, force him to confess, that most of the errors which he so justly opposes are the natural consequences of unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, Calvinian imputation of righteousness to impenitent murderers, the infallible perseverance of believers who defile their fathers’ beds, and, in a word, salvation finished for all the “pleasant children,” who go on frowardly in the way of their own heart. Thus it would appear that Calvinism is “the wrwton yeudov,” to use Mr. Flavel’s words, “The radical and prolific error from which most of the rest are spawned.”

He concludes his anti-Crispian treatise by the following truly Christian paragraph’ “I call the Searcher of hearts to witness that I have not intermeddled with this controversy of Antinomianism, out of any delight I take in polemic studies, or an unpeaceable contradicting humour, but out of pure zeal for the glory and truths of God, for the vindication and defence whereof I have been necessarily engaged therein. And having discharged my duty thus far, I now resolve to return, if God permit me, to my much more agreeable studies: still maintaining my Christian charity for those whom I oppose, not doubting but I shall meet those in heaven from whom I am forced in lesser things to dissent upon earth.” While my heart is warmed by the love which breathes through the last words of Mr. Flavel’s book, permit me to tell you, that I cordially adopt them with respect to dear Mr. Shirley and yourself, hoping that if you think yourself obliged “to cut off all intercourse and friendship with me” upon earth, on account of what you are pleased to call my “disingenuity and gross perversions,” you will gladly ascribe to the Lamb of God a common salvation truly finished in heaven, together with, honoured and dear sir, your most obedient servant, in the pure Gospel of St. James, J. FLETCHER.