Letter 13.

LETTER 13.

To Richard Hill, Esq.

HONOURED AND DEAR SIR, — Having so fully considered in my last the state of our controversy with respect to imputed righteousness, I proceed to the doctrine of free will, which I have not discussed in this Check, because you seem satisfied with what we grant you, and we are entirely so with what you grant us concerning it. Let us, however, just cast three looks, one upon our concessions, another upon yours, and a third upon the difference still remaining between us, with regard to that capital article of our controversy.

I. We never supposed that the natural will of fallen man is free to good, before it is more or less touched or rectified by grace. All we assert is, that whether a man chooses good or evil, his will is free, or it does not deserve the name of will. It is as far from us to think, that man, unassisted by Divine grace, is sufficient to will spiritual good, as to suppose, that when he wills it by grace he does not will it freely. And therefore, agreeable to our tenth article, which you quote against us without the least reason, we steadily assert, that “we have no power to do good without the grace of God preventing us,” not that we may have a free will, for this we always had in the above-mentioned sense, but that we may have a good will: believing that, as confirmed saints and angels have a free will, though they have no evil will; so abandoned reprobates and devils have a free will, though they have no good will.

Again: We always maintained that the liberty of our will is highly consistent with the operations of Divine grace, by which it is put in a capacity of choosing life. We are therefore surprised to see you quote in triumph, (Review, p. 33,) the following paragraph out of the Second Check: “Nor is this freedom derogatory to free grace; for as it was flee grace that gave an upright free will to Adam at his creation, so, whenever his fallen children think or act aright, it is because their free will is mercifully prevented, touched, and rectified by free grace.”

At the sight of these concessions you cry out, “Amazing! Here is all that the most rigid Calvinist ever contended for granted in a moment. Your words, sir, are purely evangelical.” Are they, indeed? Well, then, honoured sir, I have the pleasure to inform you, that, if this “is all you ever contended for,” you need not contend any more with us; since Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, J. Goodwin, and Arminius himself, never advanced any other doctrine concerning free will. For they all agree to ascribe to the free grace of God, through the Redeemer, all the freedom of man’s will to good. Therefore, you yourself being judge, their sentiments, as well as my “words, are purely evangelical.”

II. You cannot be more satisfied with our concessions than we are with yours: for you grant us as much freedom of will as constitutes us free willers, or moral agents; and in so doing, you expose the ignorance and injustice of those who think, that when they have called us free willers, they have put upon us one of the most odious badges of heresy. We are particularly pleased with the following concessions, (Review, p. 38:) “Grace may not violate the liberty of the will: God forceth not a man’s will to do good or ill. He useth no violence. The freedom of the regenerate is such, that they may draw back to perdition if they will.” We are yet better satisfied with what you say, (p. 35:) “Still it is your own opinion, that, to the end of the world, this plain, peremptory assertion of our Lord, ‘I would, and ye would not,’ will throw down and silence all the objections which can be raised against free will — it proves that those to whom it was addressed, might have come if they would. Granted.” And (p. 43) you add: “I have granted Mr. Fletcher his own interpretation of that text, ‘I would, and ye would not.’” Now, sir, if you stand to your concession, you have granted me, that Christ had eternal life for the Jews who rejected it: that he had a strong desire to bestow it upon them: that he had made them so far willing and able to come to him for it, as to leave them inexcusable if they did not: and that his saving grace, which they resisted, is by no means irresistible. Four propositions that sap the foundation of your system, and add new solidity to ours.

However, you try to make your readers believe, that “still we are but just where we were. The fault yet remains in the corruption of the will:” giving us to understand, that because the Jews would not be gathered by Christ, he had never touched and rectified their will. Thus you suppose, that their choosing death is a demonstration that they could not have chosen life: that is, you suppose just what you should have proved.

You imagine that a wrong choice always demonstrates the previous perverseness of the will that makes it; but we show the contrary by matter of fact. Satan and his legions, as well as our first parents, were created perfectly upright. Their will was once as free from corruption as the will of God himself. Nevertheless, with a will perfectly capable of making a right choice; with a will that a few moments before had chosen life, they all chose the ways of death. Hence appears the absurdity of concluding, that a wrong choice always proves the will was so corrupted, previously to that choice, that a better choice was morally impossible. Take us right, however. We do not suppose that the will of the obstinate Jews had not been totally corrupted in Adam. We only maintain, that they made as free and fatal a choice with their free will, which free grace had rectified, as Adam, Eve, and all the fallen angels once made with the upright free will with which free grace had created them.

But I return to your concessions. That which pleases us most of all, I find, (Review, p. 39:) “For my own part, (you say,) I have not the least objection to the expression free will, and find it used in a very sound sense by St. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, the great patrons for the doctrine of man’s natural inability to do that which is good since the fall. God does not force any man to will either good or evil; but man. through the corruption of his understanding, naturally and freely wills that which is evil; but by being wrought upon and enlightened by converting grace, he as freely wills that which is good, as before he freely willed the evil. In this sense the assembly of divines speak of the natural liberty of the will, and affirm that it is not forced.”

These, honoured sir, are our very sentiments concerning free will. How strange is it, then, when you have so fully granted us the natural and necessary freedom of the will, to see you as flushed with an imaginary victory, as if you had just driven us out of the field! How astonishing to hear you cry out, (p. 34,) “Jesus Christ on the side of free will! What! The Gospel on the side of free will! What!” Yes, honoured sir, Jesus Christ and the Gospel on the side of free will! And if that is not enough, appeal to the thirty-fourth page of your Review, to show that the assembly of divines and yourself are on the side of free will also.

III. Consider we now the difference still remaining between us. From our mutual concessions, it is evident we agree,

(1.) That the will is always free.

(2.) That the will of man, considered as fallen in Adam, and unassisted by the grace of God, is only free to evil, — free to live in the element of sin, as a sea fish is only free to live in salt water. And,

(3.) That when he is free to good, free to choose life, he has this freedom from redeeming grace.

But although we agree in these material points, the difference between us is still very considerable; for we assert, that, through the Mediator promised to all mankind in Adam, God, by his free grace, restores to all mankind a talent of free will to do good, by which they are put in a capacity of “choosing life or death,” that is, of acquitting themselves well or ill, at their option, in their present state of trial.

This you utterly deny, maintaining that man is not in a state of probation; and that, as Christ died for none but the elect, none but they can ever have any degree of saving grace, i.e. any will free to good. Hence you conclude, that all the elect are in a state of finished salvation; and necessarily, infallibly, and irresistibly choose life: while all the reprobates are shut up in a state of finished damnation; and necessarily, infallibly, and irresistibly choose death. For, say your divines, God has not decreed the infallible end, either of the elect or the reprobates, without decreeing also the infallible means conducing to that end. Therefore, in the day of his irresistible power, the fortunate elect are absolutely made willing to believe and be waved; and the poor reprobates to disbelieve and be damned. I shall conclude this article by just observing, that we are obliged to oppose this doctrine, because it appears to us a doctrine of wrath, rather than a doctrine of grace. If we are not mistaken, it is opposite to the general tenor of the Scriptures, injurious to all the Divine perfections, and subversive of this fundamental truth of natural and revealed religion, “God shall judge the world in righteousness.” It is calculated to strengthen the carnal security of Laodicean professors, raise horrid anxieties in the minds of doubting Christians, and give damned spirits just ground to blaspheme to all eternity. Again: it withdraws from thinking sinners and judicious saints the helps which God has given them, by multitudes of conditional promises and threatenings, designed to work upon their hopes and fears. And, while it unnecessarily stumbles men of sense, and hardens infidels, it affords wicked men rational excuses to continue in their sins, and gives desperate offenders full room to charge, not only Adam, but God himself, with all their enormities.

I shall now be shorter in the review of the state of our controversy. Free will to good is founded upon general free grace, and general free grace upon the perfect oblation which Christ made upon the cross for the sins of the whole world. General redemption, therefore, I have endeavoured to establish upon a variety of arguments, which you decline answering. Justification by (the evidence of) works in the last day is the doctrine which you and your brother have most vehemently attacked. You nave raised against it a great deal of dust, and some objections, which I hope you will find abundantly answered in the three first letters of this Check, and in the ninth. But suppose I had not answered them at all, you could not have won the day; because after all your joint opposition against our doctrine, both you and your brother bear your honest testimony to the indubitable truth of it, as our readers may see in our first, fifth, and ninth letters. I need not remind you, sir, that upon this capital doctrine, the Minutes in general stand as upon a rock. If you doubt it, I refer you to the fifth and sixth letters.

The doctrine of a four-fold justification appears monstrous to your orthodoxy. Both you and your brother, therefore, have endeavoured to overturn it. But as you had neither Scripture nor argument to attack it with, you have done it by some witticisms, which are answered in the tenth letter.

Calvinian everlasting love, according to which the elect were never children of wrath, and apostates may go any length in sin without displeasing God, is a doctrine which I have attacked in all the Checks. You cannot defend it, and yet you will not give it up. You just intimate, that when the elect commit adultery and murder, they are in a sense penitent. This frivolous plea, this last shift, is exposed, letter tenth. Finished salvation, which you call your” grand fortress,” and which your brother styles, “the foundation of the Calvinists,” you have endeavoured to support by a variety of arguments, answered, I trust, letter vii, in such a manner that our impartial readers will be convinced your foundation is sandy, and your grand fortress by no means impregnable.

The oneness of speculative Antinomianism and of barefaced Calvinism is the point in which our controversy insensibly terminates. I will not say that what we have advanced upon this subject is unanswerable; but I shall wonder to see it answered to the satisfaction of unprejudiced readers. In the meantime, I confess that I cannot cast my eyes upon the Calvinian creed in the seventh letter, and the Gospel proclamation in the eleventh, without being astonished at myself, for not seeing sooner that there is no more difference between Calvinism and speculative Antinomianism than there was between the disciple who betrayed our Lord, and Judas, surnamed Iscariot.

Such, honoured sir, is, I think, the present state of our controversy; but what is that of our hearts? Do we love one another the better, and pray for each other the oftener, on account of our theological contest? Alas! if we sell love to buy the truth, we shall be no gainers in the end. Witness those awful words of St. Paul’ “Though I have all knowledge, and all faith, if I have not charity, I am nothing but a tinkling cymbal.” O sir, we stand in great danger of being carried away by our own spirits beyond the sacred lines of truth and love, which should bound the field of Christian controversy. Permit me, then, to propose to our common consideration, and future imitation, the most perfect patterns in the world. Let us consider Him first, “who in all things has the pre-eminence.” With what wisdom and fortitude, with what a happy mixture of rational and Scriptural arguments, does Christ carry on his important controversy with the Pharisees! He stands firm as a rock against all the frothy billows of their cavils and invectives. With astonishing impartiality he persists in telling them the most galling truths, and condemning them out of their own mouths, consciences, and sacred records. In so doing, he loses indeed their love and applause; but he maintains a good conscience, and secures the praise which comes from God. Nor does he give over bearing his testimony against them by day, and praying for them by night, till they shed his innocent blood: and when they have done it, he revenges himself by sending them the first news of his pardoning love. “Go,” says he to the heralds of his grace, “preach forgiveness of sins among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” the city of my murderers. O sir, if the Lord of glory was so ready to forgive those who, for want of better arguments, betook themselves first to pitiful sophisms, and groundless accusations, and then to the nails, the hammer, and the spear; how readily ought we to forgive each other the insignificant strokes of our pens! Let St. Paul be our pattern next to Jesus Christ. Consider we with what undaunted courage, and unwearied patience, he encounters his brethren, the Jews, who engrossed the election to themselves, and threw dust into the air, when they heard that there was salvation for the Gentiles. In every city, he mightily convinces them out of the Scriptures. They revile him, and he entreats them; they cast him out of the temple, and he wishes himself “accursed from Christ for their sake.” And yet, when they charge him with crimes of which he is perfectly innocent, he scruples not to appeal to the Gentiles, from whose candour he expected more justice than from their bigotry.

Fix we our eyes also upon the two greatest apostles, encountering each other in the field of controversy. Because St. Peter is to blame, St. Paul “withstands him to the face,” with all the boldness that belongs to truth. He does not give him place for a moment, although Peter is his superior in many respects; and he sends to the Churches of Galatia, for their edification, a public account of his elder brother’s mistakes. But does Peter resent it? Does he write disrespectfully of his opponent? Does he not, on the contrary, call him his “beloved brother Paul,” and make honourable mention of his wisdom?

When I behold these great patterns of Christian moderation and brotherly love, I rejoice to have another opportunity of recommending, to the love and esteem of my readers, the two pious brothers, whom I now encounter, and all those who were more or less concerned in the Circular Letter; in particular, our Christian Deborah, the countess of Huntingdon, and my former opponent, the Rev. Mr. Shirley, who are far less honourable and right honourable by the noble blood that flows in their veins, than by the love of Christ which glows in their hearts, and the zeal for God’s glory which burns in their breasts: being persuaded that their hasty step was intended to defend the first Gospel axiom, which, for want of proper attention to every part of the Gospel, they imagined Mr. Wesley had a mind to set aside, when he only wanted to secure the second Gospel axiom.

Once more: I profess also my sincere love and unfeigned respect for all pious Calvinists; protesting, I had a thousand times rather be an inconsistent Antinomian with them, than an inconsistent legalist with many, who hold the truth in practical unrighteousness. I abhor, therefore, the very idea of “dressing them up in devils’ clothes, as the Papists did John Huss; and burning them for heretics in the flames of hell.” (Review, p. 92.) If I have represented an Antinomian in practice, as standing on the left hand with wicked Arminians; it was not to condemn the mistaken persons who lead truly Christian lives, though their heads are full of Antinomian opinions; but to convince my readers that it is much better to be really a sheep, than to have barely a sheep’s clothing; and that our Lord will not be deceived, either by a goat, who imputes to himself the clothing of a sheep, or by a wolf, who tries to make his escape, by insolently wrapping himself up in the shepherd’s garment.

Should it be objected, that, after all the severe things which I have said against the sentiments of the Calvinists, my professions of love and respect for them cannot possibly be sincere: I answer, That although we cannot in conscience make a difference between a man and his actions, candour and brotherly kindness allow and command us to make a difference between a man and his opinions, especially when his exemplary conduct is a full refutation of his erroneous sentiments.

This, I apprehend, is the case with all pious Calvinists. They talk much, I grant, about finished salvation; but consider them with attention, and you will find a happy inconsistency between their words and their actions; for they still “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.” Again: they make much ado about a robe of imputed righteousness: but still they go on “washing their own robes, and making them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Therefore, their errors, which they practically renounce, do not endanger their salvation: and it would be the highest degree of injustice to confound them with abandoned Nicolaitans.

Fantasticus tells you he is possessed of an immense estate in the territories of Geneva; where, by the by, he has not an inch of ground. But though he talks much about his fine estate abroad, he wisely considers that he stands in need of food and raiment; that he cannot live upon a chimera: and that he must work or starve at home. To work therefore he goes, though much against his will. In a little time, by the Divine blessing upon his labour and industry, he gets a good estate, and lives comfortably upon it. And though he frequently entertains you with descriptions of the rich robes which he has at Geneva, he takes care to have always a good, decent coat upon his back. Now, is it not plain, that though Fantasticus would be a mere beggar, for all his great estate near Geneva; yet, as matters are at present, you cannot justly consider him as burthensome to his parish, unless you can make it appear, that his trusting to his imaginary property abroad has lately made him squander away his goods personal, and real estate, in England. This simile needs very little explanation. A pious Calvinist does not so dream about his imaginary imputation of Christ’s personal obedience and good works, as to forget that he must personally believe, or be damned; yea, and “believe too with the heart unto personal righteousness,” and good works. Therefore, he cries to God for the living “faith which works by love.” He receives it; “Christ dwells in his heart by faith,” and “this faith is imputed to him for righteousness,” because it really makes him righteous. Thus, while he talks about the false imputation of righteousness, he really enjoys the true: he has inherent righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. When he speaks against good works, he is so happily inconsistent as to do them. If he ignorantly builds up the Antinomian Babel with one hand, he sincerely tries to pull it down with the other: and while he decries the perfection of holiness, he goes on “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Thus his doctrinal mistakes are happily refuted by his godly conversation.

Hence it is, that, although we severely expose the mistakes of godly Calvinists, we sincerely love their persons, truly reverence their piety, and cordially rejoice in the success which attends their evangelical labours. And although we cannot admit their logic, while they defend a bad cause with bad arguments; we should do them great injustice, if we did not acknowledge that there have been, and still are among them, men eminent for good sense and good learning; — men as remarkable for their skill in the art of logic as for their deep acquaintance with the oracles of God. How they came to embrace doctrines, which appear to us so unscriptural and irrational, will be the subject of a peculiar dissertation. In the meantime, I observe, again, that as many, who have right opinions concerning faith, holiness, and good works, go great lengths in practical Antinomianism; so many Antinomians in principle distinguish themselves by the peculiar strictness and happy legality of their conduct. Both are to be wondered at: the one for doing “the works of darkness,” in the clearest light; and the other for “walking as children of light,” under the darkest cloud. The former we may compare to green wood, that is always upon the altar, and never takes the hallowed fire. The latter to the bush which Moses saw in the wilderness. The flames of Antinomianism surround them and ascend from them; and yet they are not consumed! Would to God I could say they are not singed!

Nay, what is a greater miracle still, the love of Christ burns in their breasts, and shines in their lives. They preach him, and they do it with success. “Some, indeed, preach him of envy and contention, and some of love and good will. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached; and we therein do rejoice; yea, and will rejoice.” Add to this that some are prudent enough to keep their opinions to themselves. You may hear them preach most excellent sermons, without one word about their peculiarities; or, if they touch upon them, it is in so slight a manner as not to endanger either the foundation or superstructure of undefiled religion. Nay, what is a greater blessing still, sometimes their hearts are so enlarged, and their views of the Gospel so brightened, that they preach free grace as well as we: and in the name of God seriously “command ALL [men] EVERY WHERE to repent.”

Far be it from us, therefore, to “cut off all intercourse and friendship” with such favoured servants of the Lord. On the contrary, we thank them for their pious labours; we ask the continuance or the renewal of their valuable love. Whereinsoever we have given them any just cause of offence, we entreat them to forgive us. Upon the reasonable terms of mutual forbearance, “we offer them the right hand of fellowship,” together with our brotherly assistance. We invite them to our pulpits, and assure them, that if they admit us into theirs, we shall do by them as we would be done by; avoiding to touch there, or among their own people occasionally committed to our charge, upon the points of doctrine debated between us; and reserving to ourselves the liberty of bearing our full testimony, in our own pulpits, and from the press, against Antinomianism and Pharisaism in all their shapes.

With these pacific sentiments toward all pious Calvinists, and in particular toward your brother and yourself; and with my best thanks for the condescending manner in which you have closed your Remarks upon the Third Check, I conclude this, assuring you, that, (notwithstanding the repeated proofs, which I find in your Review, of your uncommon prejudice against the second Gospel axiom, and against Mr. Wesley, who is set for the defence of it,) I remain, with all my former love, and a considerable degree of my former esteem, honoured and dear sir, your affectionate companion in tribulation, and obedient servant in Christ, J. FLETCHER.

MADELEY, Nov. 15, 1772.