Letter 5.
LETTER 5.
To Richard Hill, Esq.
HONOURED AND DEAR SIR, — I have hitherto endeavoured to show that the exploded doctrine of a second justification by works, (i.e. by the evidence or instrumentality of works,) in the day of judgment, is Scriptural, consonant to the doctrine of our Church, and directly or indirectly maintained, as by yourself, so by all anti-Crispian Puritan divines, whenever they regard St. James’ holy doctrine more than Calvin’s peculiar opinions. I shall now answer a most important question which you propose about it, p. 149. You introduce it by these words: —
“You cannot suppose that when Mr. Shirley said, Blessed be God, neither Mr. Wesley nor any of his preachers, (Mr. Olivers excepted,) holds a second justification by works, he intended to exclude good works in an evidential sense.” Indeed, sir, I did suppose it; nor can I to this moment conceive how Mr. Shirley could lean toward Calvinism, if he were settled in St. James’ doctrine of justification by the evidence of works. You proceed: — “Neither Mr. Shirley, nor I, nor any Calvinist that I ever heard of, deny that a sinner is declaratively justified by works, both here and at the day of judgment.” You astonish me, sir. Why then do you at the end of this very paragraph, find fault with me for saying, that it will be absurd in a man, set on the left hand as a rebellious subject of our heavenly King, to plead the works of Christ, when his own works are called for, as the only evidences according to which he must be justified or condemned? Why do you cry out in the fifth letter of your Review, “O shocking to tell! Horresco referens,” &c. Why do so many Calvinists shudder with horror because I have represented our Lord as condemning, by the evidence of works, (agreeably to his own express doctrine, Matthew 25,) a practical Antinomian, a canting apostate, who had no good works to be declaratively justified by in the day of judgment? Why do you maintain, that when David committed adultery and murder he was “justified from all things; his sins past, present, and to come, were for ever and for ever cancelled?” And why do you (p. 70) call me a “snake that bites the Calvinist ministers,” because I have exposed the Antinomianism of those preachers who, setting aside Christ’s doctrine of justification by the evidence of works in the last day, give thousands to understand, that they shall then be abundantly justified by righteousness imputed in Calvin’s way, and by nothing else? You go on: —
“Therefore, I say, if you utterly disclaim all human works, as the procuring, meritorious cause of justification, what need was there of addressing Mr. Shirley as you have done? Yea, what need was there of your making this point a matter of controversy at all? We are quite agreed both as to the expression and as to the meaning of it.”
Are we indeed quite agreed, both as to the expression of a second justification by works in the day of judgment and as to the meaning of it; to which I once more set my seal, viz. that we shall be justified, not by the merit, but by the evidence of works? What a pity is it then, that you did not find this out till you came to the 149th page of your book! It would probably have saved you the trouble of writing it, and me the thankless office of exposing it.
However, it is but right I should requite your candid concession by answering your important question: “What need was there of making this point, [of justification by the evidence of works in the day of judgment,] a matter of controversy at all?” I will ingenuously tell you: I wanted an immovable point to fix my engine upon, in order to throw down your great Diana, and pull up by the roots the immense trees of Antinomian knowledge. And now you have so fully and repeatedly granted me the firm point which I desired, permit me, honoured sir, to throw myself at your feet, to return you thanks, and tell you that you are the happy prisoner of the truth which I vindicate.
“What do you mean?” What you little expect, dear sir, and what I think you cannot possibly avoid. Yes, whether you will or not, I must serve a friendly warrant, and “young ignorance” arrests you in the name of English logic, to make you publicly subscribe to the anti-Crispian propositions, which your Benedictine monk has rashly traduced. “I will never do it; I am ready to offer myself among the foremost of those true Protestants who could have burned against the doctrine of a second justification by works.” Well then, sir, you shall go, not to the stake near Baliol college, but to “the ground and pillar of truth:” and that you may not make a needless resistance, I humbly presume to bind you before all the candid and judicious Calvinists in England, with the following necessary consequences of a capital doctrine, which, you tell us, “was never denied, either by Mr. Shirley, or yourself, or any Calvinist you ever heard of.” If we are “justified by works, i.e. by the evidence of works, both here and at the day of judgment,” it follows,
1. That Mr. Wesley’s doctrine, with respect to man’s faithfulness in good works, is true; and that if a man (Judas for instance) is not “faithful in the unrighteous mammon, God will not give him the true riches” of glory. Though he should once have had faith enough to “leave all and follow Christ, his shipwrecked faith,” sunk by bad works, “will profit him nothing.” He shall as surely be condemned by the evidence of his unfaithfulness, as ever a highwayman was condemned upon the fullest evidence that he had robbed upon the highway.
2. The second proposition of the Minutes also stands now upon an immovable basis. “Every believer, till he comes to glory, works for as well as from life,” since his works will appear as witnesses for or against him at the day of judgment, and life or death will be the certain consequence of their deposition.
3. The third proposition of the Minutes now shines like the meridian sun after an eclipse. Nothing is more false than the maxim, That a man is to do nothing in order to justification, either at conversion or in the last day. For the work of faith undoubtedly takes place in the day of conversion, agreeably to those words of St. Paul, “We have believed THAT we might be justified.” And, if even Calvinists grant, that a sinner is “justified by the evidence of works, both here and at the day of judgment,” it is indubitable that he must provide that evidence as there is opportunity; and that if even an apostle provides it not, he shall, notwithstanding his election, increase the number of those practical Antinomians, whose condemnation I have described in the Second Cheek. Hence appears also the error couched under the unguarded proposition which you advance, (p. 12.) “In the act of justification, we affirm good works have no place:” for the good work of faith has the important place of an instrument, when we are justified at our conversion; and the good work of love will have the place of the chief witness, by whose deposition we shall be justified in the great day. You indeed produce the words of our Church: — “The thief did believe only, and the merciful God justified him;” but they make against you, for they intimate that the work of faith was previous to his justification. And that he was not saved without works, strictly speaking, although he was saved without the merit of works, I prove by your quotation from Bishop Cowper, Justifying faith, whereby we are saved, cannot be without works; and by these words of St. James and the Rev. Mr. Madan, adapted to the present case: Could “faith save him? i.e. such a faith as hath not works; as is not productive of the fruits of the Spirit in the heart and life? Is this saving faith? Certainly not.” When our Church says, that he went to heaven without works, she means without the outward works which Pharisees trust to, such as receiving the sacraments, going to the temple, and giving alms; or she grossly contradicts St. James, Bishop Cowper, Mr. Madan, and herself. Therefore, notwithstanding all you have advanced, even the penitent thief’s experience, who, as our Church says, should have lost his salvation, and consequently his justification and election, if he had lived and not regarded the works of faith, is “a formidable rampart” for, not against, St. James’ undefiled religion. Again:
4. When, in the review of the whole affair, Mr. Wesley says, that “he who now believes in Christ with a loving, obedient heart, is now accepted of God,” what does he say more than you, and your favourite bishop, who tells us, (p. 12,) “That justifying faith, whereby we are saved, cannot be without good works; for faith worketh by love?” Does it not evidently follow, from your own, as well as Mr. Wesley’s position, that while the incestuous Corinthian defiled his father’s bed, his living, justifying faith had degenerated into a dead, devilish faith? agreeably to that evangelically-legal proposition of Mr. Madan, “If my faith does not produce the proper fruits, it is no better than the devil’s faith:” whence it necessarily follows, that the devil’s faith is justifying, or that the Corinthian backslider was condemned; and consequently, that Calvinism and Antinomianism, the grand pillars of defiled religion, are two broken reeds.
5. It is now an indubitable truth, that a sincere heathen, who never heard the name of Christ, and nevertheless “feareth God and worketh righteousness, according to his light, is accepted of him:” for, if he perseveres, he will be justified in the last day by the evidence of his works of righteousness; and he is now justified by the instrumentality of his faith in the light of his dispensation; for this light, when we receive it by faith, if we may believe those excellent mystics, f38 St. John and St. Paul, is “Christ in us, the hope of glory,” John 1:5, 9; Colossians 1:27; Ephesians 3:27, and 5:14.
6. Nor can you now justly refuse to clear Mr. Wesley of the charge of heresy, because he says, Salvation is not by the merit of works, but by works as a condition: for in the present case where is the difference between the word evidence, which you use, with Dr. Guise, Mr. Wesley, and me; and the word condition, which Mr. Wesley uses, and our Church, and most of the Puritan divines? An example will enforce my appeal to your candour: You sit upon the bench as a magistrate, and a prisoner stands at the bar: you say to him, “You are charged with calumny, forgery, and gross perversions; but you shall be acquitted, on condition that some of your reputable neighbours give you a good character.” A lawyer checks you for using the treasonable word condition, insisting you must say, that the prisoner shall be acquitted or condemned, according to the evidence which his creditable neighbours will give of his good behaviour. You turn to the bar, and say, “Prisoner, did you understand me?” “Yes, sir,” replies he, “as well as the gentleman who stops your honour.” “That is enough,” say you, “let us not dispute about words; I am persuaded the court .understands we all mean that the acquittal or condemnation of the prisoner will entirely turn upon the deposition of proper witnesses.”
7. With regard to the word merit I hope our controversy is at an end for Mr. Wesley and I, or to speak your own language, old Mordecai and young Ignorance, freely grant what Bishop Hopkins and you assert, (Review, p. 42,) namely, that “in all proper merit there must be an equivalence, or at least a proportion of worth between the work and the reward; and that the obedience we perform cannot be said, without a grand impropriety, to merit any reward from God.” But you must also grant us, that if our Lord, speaking after the manner of men, by a grand catechresis, f39 a very condescending impropriety, frequently uses the word meriting, or deserving, we may without heresy use it after him. Should you ask me how I can prove that our Lord ever used it, I reply, that if he used again and again words answering to it, as face answers to face in a glass, it is just as if he had used the English word merit, or Mr. Wesley’s Latin word meritum: and to prove that he did so I appeal to the first Greek lexicon you will meet with. I suppose it is that of Schrevelius, because it is the most common all Europe over. Look for mereor, (to merit or deserve,) and you will find that the correspondent Greek is misqon ferein, literally to carry a reward, and axiov einai, to be worthy; Axia answers to meritum, merit; and axiwv to merito, deservedly, or according to one’s merit.
To prove, therefore, that our Lord did not scruple to use the word merit in an improper sense, I need only prove that he did not scruple applying the words Greek misqov and axiov to man. Take some instances of both: —
1. Matthew 20:8, “Give them ton misqon, their hire, or reward.” And again Matthew ver. 12, “Your reward (misqov) is great in heaven,” &c. Hence the apostle calls God (misqapodothv) the Rewarder; and Moses is said “to look to (misqapodosian) the recompense of reward,” Hebrews 11:6, 26. And the word misqapodosia, the bestowing of a reward, as much answers to the word misqoforia, the carrying of a reward, or merit, as the relative words which necessarily suppose one another. He, therefore, that uses the former without scruple, makes himself quite ridiculous before unprejudiced people if he scruples using the latter; much more if he thinks the doing it is a dreadful heresy.
2. As for the other word (axiov) meriting, deserving, or worthy, it is as Scriptural as any word in the Bible. You find it used both in a proper and in an improper sense in the following scriptures: —
(1.) In a PROPER sense: “The labourer is worthy of, or merits, his hire, Luke 10:7. Worthy, or deserving, stripes, Luke 12:48. Worthy of, or meriting death, Acts 21:11. They have shed the blood of thy saints, and thou hast given them blood to drink, for they are worthy:” that is, they merit, they deserve it, Revelation 16:6.
(2.) In an IMPROPER sense, which you represent as heretical: “They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy, Revelation 3:4. Inquire who is worthy, Matthew 10:11. Worthy of me, Matthew 10:37. They that were bidden were not worthy, Matthew 22:8. Worthy to escape these things, Luke 21:36. Worthy to obtain that world,” Luke 20:35, &c, &c.
In all these passages the original word is axiov, worthy, meriting, or deserving. Bishop Cowper, therefore, whom you quote in your Five Letters, p. 26, spoke with uncommon rashness when he said, “No man led by the Spirit of Jesus, did ever use this word of merit, [i. e. axiov einai] as applying to man. It is the proud speech of antichrist. Search the Scriptures, and ye shall see that none of all those who speak by Divine inspiration did ever use it: yea, the godly fathers always abhorred it.” What! the sacred writers “never used the word axiov ernai!” “The godly fathers always abhorred” an expression which the Holy Ghost so frequently makes use of! Christ himself” spoke by the proud spirit of antichrist!” When I see such camels obtruded upon the Church, and swallowed down by thousands as glib truth, I am cut to the heart, and, in a pang of sorrow and shame, groan, “From such divinity, good Lord, deliver me, my worthy opponent, and all real Protestants!”
To this Mr. Rowland Hill answers beforehand, in his Friendly Remarks, p.
28. This is “a bad criticism upon the word axiov, which more properly means meet or fit.” Now, sir, to your bare assertion I oppose,
(1.) All the Greek lexicons.
(2.) The testimony of Beza, Calvin’s successor, who speaking of the word axiov, says, It is properly used of that which is of equal weight and importance.
(3.) The testimony of Leigh, another learned Calvinist, who, in his Critica Sacra, says, “axiov has its name from agein, a trahendo: Quæ preponderant lancem attrahunt; and is a metaphor taken from balances, when one scale doth counterpoise another.” And speaking of axiow, a word derived from axiov, he adds, “It signifieth when either reward or punishment is given according to the proportion of merit.” And this he proves, by 1 Timothy 5:17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour: for the Scripture says, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”
When I see the learned Calvinists forced to grant all we contend for, I wish that no Protestant may any longer expose his prejudice, in denying what is absolutely undeniable, viz. That Christ and his apostles assert, some men merit, or are worthy of rewards. Taking care, therefore, never to fix to those Scriptural words the idea of proper worthiness, or merit of condignity, let us no longer fight against Christ, by saying, they are in no sense worthy, whom Christ himself makes, accounts, and calls WORTHY; yea, whom he gloriously rewards as such.
8. As for this modest proposition of the Minutes, “It is a doubt if God justifies any one that never did fear him, and work righteousness,” it stands now established by your concessions, not as matter of doubt, but as a matter of fact, if we speak of justification in the hour of conversion, or in the day of judgment. For, with respect to the former, you justly observe, (p. 12,) that “the faith whereby we are saved,” and consequently justified, “cannot be without good works.” And with regard to the latter, you say, (p. 149,) “What need is there of making our justification, by the evidence of works in the day of judgment, a matter of controversy at all? We are quite agreed that a sinner is declaratively justified by works.” Now, honoured sir, if he is justified by works, it is undoubtedly by works of righteousness; unless it could be proved that he may be justified by works of unrighteousness, by adultery and murder.
9. It is likewise evident from your own concessions, that “talking of a justified, or a sanctified state,” without paying a due regard to good works, tends to mislead men, and actually misleads thousands. If Judas, for instance, when he neglected good works, which are the mark of our first, and the instrument of our second justification, trusted to what was done in the moment, in which he was effectually called to leave all, and follow Jesus, he grossly deceived himself: or if he depended upon imputed righteousness, when he neglected personal holiness, he built upon the loosest sand.
The seasonableness of Mr. Wesley’s caution in this respect will strike you, honoured sir, if you cast your eyes upon the numbers of fallen believers, who once, like obedient Judas, left all to follow Christ; but having resumed their besetting sin, like the apostolic traitor, now sell their Saviour and election, perhaps for a less valuable consideration than he did. However, they were once in a justified and sanctified state, and Mr. Hill tells them, that “in the act of justification good works have no place,” and insinuates, that adulterers and murderers may be in the winter season of a sanctified state; therefore they reasonably conclude, that they are still justified and sanctified. Thus they live, and if God does not send them an honest Nathan, or if when he comes they stop their ears, and cry out, Heresy, thus like Judas they will die.
With respect to the last clause of the Minutes, you must acknowledge, “that we are every moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to the whole of our inward tempers and outward behaviour:” or, to clothe Mr. Wesley’s doctrine in words in which you agree with me, you must confess, that, “as we may die every hour, and every moment, we are liable to be every hour and every moment justified, or condemned, by the evidence of our works.”f40 This is evident, if you consider St. Paul’s words, “Without faith it is impossible to please God;” and if you do not recant what you say, (Review, p. 12,) “Justifying faith [the faith by which we please God] cannot be without good works.” You must therefore prove that adultery, treachery, and murder, are good works, and by that means openly plead for Belial, Ball, and Beelzebub; or you must grant, that when David committed those crimes he had not justifying faith, and consequently did not please God. And the moment you grant this, you set your seal to the last proposition of the Minutes, which you esteem most contrary, and I entirely agreeable, to sound doctrine.
Having thus, by the help of your own concessions, once more removed the rock of offence, under which you try to crush the seasonable rampart of St. James’ undefiled religion, which we call the Minutes, I leave you to consider how much Mr. Wesley has been misunderstood, and how much the truth of the Gospel has been set at naught.
I am, honoured and dear sir, yours, &c,
J. FLETCHER.