“_FIFTH CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM._”
1774.
IN a characteristic letter addressed to Ambrose Serle, Esq., and dated
“January 11, 1774,” Augustus Toplady observed:—
“Mr. Fletcher may fire off as soon as he pleases. The weapons of his
warfare can never wound the truths of God, any more than a handful of
feathers can batter down my church tower. I shall, however, be glad to
see his performance when it appears. Mr. Shirley told me, when I was
last at Bath, that Fletcher is to succeed Pope Wesley, as
commander-in-chief of the Societies, if he should survive his
holiness. No wonder, therefore, that the Cardinal of Madeley is such a
zealous stickler for the cause. One would think that the Swiss were
universally fated to fight for pay.”[297]
Footnote 297:
“Complete Works of Toplady.”
Toplady’s mendacious sneer that Fletcher was fighting “for pay” may be
scornfully passed over. This letter might refer to Fletcher’s “Answer to
the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s Vindication of the Decrees,” which Fletcher
finished in the month of October, 1775; or it might refer to the
expected publication of the “Fifth Check to Antinomianism.” The “First
Part” of this was completed at Madeley, September 13, 1773; but was not
published until the beginning of 1774. The following was its title:
“_Logica Genevensis_ continued: or the First Part of the Fifth Check to
Antinomianism, containing an Answer to ‘_The Finishing Stroke_’ of
Richard Hill, Esq. In which some remarks upon _Mr. Fulsome’s_ Antinomian
Creed, published by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, are occasionally introduced.
With an Appendix upon the remaining difference between the Calvinists
and the Anti-Calvinists, with respect to our Lord’s doctrine of
_Justification by words_, and St. James’s doctrine of _Justification by
works, and not by faith only_. London: 1774.” 12mo., 48 pp.
Fletcher’s “Answer” to Richard Hill’s “Finishing Stroke,” and his
“Remarks upon _Mr. Fulsome’s_ Antinomian Creed,” are able, and
characteristic of the writer; but contain no biographical facts worth
mentioning. Two extracts, however, from the “Appendix,” upon the
remaining differences between the Calvinists and the anti-Calvinists,
may be useful; inasmuch as, in a condensed form, they exhibit the point
to which, in Fletcher’s opinion, the controversy had brought both
parties with respect to the principal of Wesley’s “Minutes” of 1770.
Fletcher writes:—
“On both sides, we agree to maintain, in opposition to Socinians and
Deists, that the grand, the primary, and properly meritorious cause of
our justification, from first to last, both in the day of conversion
and in the day of judgment, is only the precious atonement and the
infinite merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. We all agree likewise that
in the day of conversion faith is the _instrumental cause_ of our
justification before God. Nay, if I mistake not, we come one step
nearer each other, for we equally hold that, after conversion, the
works of faith are in this world, and will be in the day of judgment,
the _evidencing cause_ of our justification; that is, the works of
faith (under the above-mentioned primary cause of our salvation, and
in subordination to the faith that gives them birth), are now, and
will be in the great day, the _evidence_ that shall instrumentally
_cause_ our justification as believers. Thus Mr. Hill says [_Review_,
p. 149], ‘Neither Mr. Shirley, nor I, nor any Calvinist that I ever
heard of, denies that, though a sinner be _justified in the sight of
God by Christ alone_, he is _declaratively justified by works, both
here and at the day of judgment_.’ And the Rev. Mr. Madan, in his
sermon on ‘_justification by works stated, explained, and reconciled
with justification by faith_,’ says [p. 29], ‘By Christ only are we
_meritoriously_ justified, and by faith only are we _instrumentally_
justified _in the sight of God_; but by works, and not by faith only,
are we _declaratively justified before men and angels_.’ From these
two quotations, which could easily be multiplied to twenty, it is
evident that pious Calvinists hold the doctrine of a _justification_
by the works of faith; or, as Mr. Madan expresses it, after St. James,
_by works, and not by faith only_.
“It remains now to show wherein we disagree. At first sight, the
difference seems trifling; but, upon close examination, it appears
that the whole antinomian gulf still remains fixed between us. Read
the preceding quotations, weigh the clauses which I have put in
capitals, compare them with what the Rev. Mr. Berridge says in his
‘_Christian World Unmasked_’ (p. 26), of ‘_an absolute impossibility
of being justified in any manner_ by our works,’ namely, _before God_;
and you will see that though pious Calvinists allow we are justified
by works _before men and angels_, yet they deny our being _ever_
justified by works _before God_, in whose sight they suppose we are
for ever justified by _Christ alone_,’ _i.e._, only by Christ’s good
works and sufferings, absolutely imputed to us from the very first
moment in which we make a single act of true faith, if not from all
eternity. Thus works are entirely excluded from having any hand either
in our intermediate or final justification _before God_; and thus they
are still represented as _totally needless_ to our _eternal_
salvation. Now, in direct opposition to the above-mentioned
distinction, we anti-Calvinists believe that adult persons cannot be
saved without being justified _by faith_ as _sinners_, according to
the light of their dispensation; and _by works_ as _believers_,
according to the time and opportunities they have of working. We
assert that the _works_ of faith are not less necessary to our
justification _before God_ as believers, than _faith_ itself is
necessary to our justification _before Him_ as sinners. And we
maintain that when faith does not produce good works (much more when
it produces the worst works, such as adultery, hypocrisy, treachery,
murder, etc.), it dies, and justifies no more; seeing it is a _living_
and not a _dead_ faith that justifies us as sinners; even as they are
_living_ and not dead works that justify us as believers.”
Thus did these good men quarrel. Berridge was a man of eminent piety and
of great wit, but he could scarcely be considered a great theologian;
and it may be fairly doubted whether he ever held the doctrines which
Fletcher, perhaps somewhat hardly, deduces from a few of his unguarded
words.
In his next pamphlet, which was published March 1, 1774,[298] Fletcher
treats poor Berridge with yet greater severity. The whole work was
devoted to an exposure of the objectionable and the weak points in
Berridge’s “Christian World Unmasked.” Its title was “_Logica
Genevensis_ continued. Or the Second Part of the Fifth Check to
Antinomianism; containing a Defence of ‘Jack o’ lanthorn,’ and ‘the
Paper-kite,’ _i.e._, Sincere Obedience;—of the ‘Cobweb,’ _i.e._, The
evangelical law of liberty; and of the ‘Valiant Sergeant I. F.,’ _i.e._,
The conditionality of Perseverance, attacked by the Rev. Mr. Berridge,
M.A., Vicar of Everton, and late Fellow of Clare-hall, Cambridge, in his
book called ‘The Christian World Unmasked.’ London: 1774.” 12 mo., 44
pp.
Footnote 298:
_Lloyd’s Evening Post_, March 2, 1774.
Berridge was well aware of Fletcher’s intention to attack his book, for
Fletcher himself, seven months before, had told him that what he had
“said about sincere obedience was the very core of Antinomianism,” and
that he must freely expose what he had written. Berridge, in letters to
John Thornton, Esq., and the Rev. John Newton, complained of this, and
said Fletcher had misapprehended his meaning. He also wrote to Fletcher
to the same effect, and told him that, if he published his attack, he
(Berridge) would not answer it. There can be no doubt that Berridge
never _intended_ to “disparage sincere obedience” to the law of God; but
his similes, allegories, figures, and loose language, might be construed
by Antinomian readers in such a sense. Fletcher believed Berridge to be
a sincere, earnest, obedient Christian; but he also believed that
Berridge’s well-meant book might be turned to a bad account by men with
whose Antinomian sentiments Berridge had no sympathy. In the
introduction to his pamphlet, Fletcher writes:—
“Before I mention Mr. Berridge’s mistakes, I must do justice to his
person. It is by no means my design to represent him as a divine, who
either leads a loose life, or _intends_ to hurt the Redeemer’s
interest. His conduct as a Christian is exemplary; his labours as a
minister are great; and I am persuaded that the wrong touches which he
gives to the ark of godliness are not only undesigned, but _intended_
to do God service.
“There are so many things commendable in the pious vicar of Everton,
and so much truth in his ‘Christian World Unmasked,’ that I find it a
hardship to expose the unguarded parts of that performance. But the
cause of this hardship is the ground of my apology. Mr. Berridge is a
good, an excellent man; therefore the Antinomian errors which go
abroad into the world with his letters of recommendation, speak in his
evangelical strain, and are armed with the poignancy of his wit,
cannot be too soon pointed out and too carefully guarded against. I
flatter myself that this consideration will procure me his pardon for
taking the liberty of dispatching his ‘valiant sergeant’ with some
doses of rational and Scriptural antidote for those who have drunk
into the pleasing mistakes of his book, and want his piety to hinder
them from carrying speculative into practical Antinomianism.”
It would weary the reader to follow Fletcher in his minute, sometimes
pungent, and always irrefutable criticisms on Berridge’s well-known
book. There is often plain speaking, but there is no acidity. Berridge
is routed, but he is invariably treated as a Christian and a gentleman.
Fletcher’s “Conclusion” is as follows:—
“Were I to conclude these strictures upon the dangerous tenets,
inadvertently advanced and happily contradicted, in ‘The Christian
World Unmasked,’ without professing my brotherly love and sincere
respect for the ingenious and pious author, I should wrong him,
myself, and the cause which I defend. I only do him justice when I say
that few, very few, of our elders equal him in devotedness to Christ,
zeal, diligence, and ministerial success. His indefatigable labours in
the word and doctrine entitle him to a double share of honour; and I
invite all my readers to esteem him highly in love for his Master’s
and his work’s sake; entreating them not to undervalue his vital piety
on account of his Antinomian opinions; and beseeching them to consider
that his errors are so much the more excusable as they do not
influence his moral conduct, and that he refutes them himself far more
than his favourite scheme of doctrine allows him to do. Add to this
that those very errors spring, in a great degree, from the idea that
he honours Christ by receiving, and does God service by propagating
them.
“The desire of catching the attention of his readers has made him
choose a witty, facetious manner of writing, for which he has a
peculiar turn; and the necessity I am under of standing his _indirect_
attack[299] obliges me to meet him upon his own ground, and to
encounter him with his own weapons. I beg that what passes for
evangelical humour in him may not be called indecent levity in me. A
sharp pen may be guided by a kind heart; and such, I am persuaded, is
that of my much-esteemed antagonist, whom I publicly invite to my
pulpit; protesting that I should be edified and overjoyed to hear him
enforce there the _guarded_ substance of his book, which,
notwithstanding the vein of solifidianism I have taken the liberty to
open, contains many great and glorious truths.”
Footnote 299:
As previously stated, Fletcher’s name was not mentioned in Berridge’s
book, but the book was intended to ridicule and denounce the doctrines
which Fletcher, in his “_Checks_,” had defended.
In all his publications, Fletcher had not only Wesley’s approval, but
his high commendation. In three several letters, written during the
present year, 1774, Wesley thus expressed his opinion of Fletcher:—
“March 1, 1774.—He” [James Perfect], “preaches salvation by faith in
the same manner that my brother and I have done; and as Mr. Fletcher
(one of the finest writers of the age) has beautifully explained it.
None of us talk of being accepted for our works; that is the Calvinist
slander. But we all maintain we are not saved without works; that
works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of final
salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ
that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of
these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of
Him.”[300]
“May 2, 1774. Until Mr.” (Richard) “Hill and his associates puzzled
the cause, it was as plain as plain could be. The Methodists always
held, and have declared a thousand times, that the death of Christ is
the meritorious cause of our salvation, that is, of pardon, holiness,
and glory; loving, obedient faith is the condition of glory. This Mr.
Fletcher has so illustrated and confirmed, as, I think, scarcely any
one has done before since the Apostles.”[301]
“December 28, 1774. If we could once bring all our preachers,
itinerant and local, uniformly and steadily to insist on those two
points, ‘Christ dying for us,’ and ‘Christ reigning in us,’ we should
shake the trembling gates of hell. I think most of them are now
exceeding clear herein, and the rest come nearer and nearer;
especially since they have read Mr. Fletcher’s ‘Checks,’ which have
removed many difficulties out of the way.”[302]
Footnote 300:
Wesley’s Works, vol xii., p. 372.
Footnote 301:
_Ibid_, p. 373.
Footnote 302:
_Ibid_, p. 430.
Such was one of the services which Fletcher, “one of the finest writers
of the age,” had rendered to Wesley’s preachers and people as early as
the year 1774. They had been in danger of departing from the truth, or,
at least, stumbling at it: by Fletcher’s help, they were confirmed in
the Christian faith, and henceforth earnestly contended for it.
As already seen, in 1773 Mr. Richard Hill had extended to Fletcher the
olive branch of peace; and now the Countess of Huntingdon seems to have
done the same. Three years before, she had virtually dismissed him from
her Calvinistic College at Trevecca, because he would not renounce what
were called the “_horrible and abominable_” doctrinal “Minutes” of
Wesley’s Conference in 1770. Since then, he had been incessantly
employed in explaining and defending these “Minutes;” and, in every
instance, had vanquished his opponents. Her ladyship, with her
strong-mindedness, seemed to perceive this, and wished to have an
interview with her disbanded president. She was staying at Bath, and
through James Ireland, Esq., of Bristol, the intimate friend of both,
her wish appears to have been conveyed to Fletcher; who, in reply, wrote
to Mr. Ireland as follows:—
“MADELEY, _February 6, 1774_.
“MY DEAR FRIEND,—In the present circumstances, it was a great piece of
condescension in dear Lady Huntingdon to be willing to see me
privately: but for her to permit me to wait upon her _openly_ denotes
such generosity, such courage, and a mind so much superior to the
narrowness that clogs the charity of most professors, that it would
have amazed me, if everything that is noble and magnanimous were not
to be expected from her ladyship. It is well for her that spirits are
imprisoned in flesh and blood, or I might by this time (and it is but
an hour since I received your letter) have troubled her ten times with
my apparition, to wish her joy of being above the dangerous snare of
professors—the smiles and frowns of the religious world; and to thank
her a thousand times for not being ashamed of her old servant, and for
cordially forgiving him all that is past, upon the score of the Lord’s
love, and of my honest meaning.
“But though, on reading your letter, my mind has travelled so fast to
Bath, yet an embargo is laid upon my body—‘I must not go yet.’ I am
the more inclined to take the hint, for two reasons. I will tell you
all my heart about it. The more I see her ladyship’s generosity, and
admire the faithfulness of the friendship that she has for many years
honoured me with, the more I ought to take care not to bring burdens
upon her. It might lessen her influence with those she is connected
with; and might grieve some of her friends, who possibly would look
upon her condescension as an affront to them. This is the first
reason.
“The second respects myself. _I must follow my light._ A necessity is
laid upon me to clear my conscience with respect to the _Antinomian
world_, and to point out the stumbling-block that keeps many serious
people from embracing the real doctrines of free grace. I cannot do
this without advancing some truths, which I know her ladyship receives
as well as myself, but which, by my manner of unfolding them, will, at
first sight, appear dreadful touches to the Gospel of the day. I am
just sending to the press ‘A Scriptural Essay upon the Astonishing
Rewardableness of the Works of Faith.’ Though it consists only of
plain Scriptures, and plain arguments, without anything personal, I
think it will raise more dust of prejudice against me than my
preceding publications. With respect to myself, I do not mind it; but
I am bound in love to mind it with respect to her ladyship. My respect
for her ladyship, therefore, together with the preceding reason,
determine me to defer paying my respects _personally_ to her, till
after the publication of my ‘Essay,’ and ‘Scripture Scales;’ and, if
she does not then revoke the kind leave she gives me, I shall most
gladly make the best of my way to assure her in person, as I do now by
this indirect means, that I am, and shall for ever be her dutiful
servant in what appears to me the plain Gospel of our common Lord.
“With love to yourself, and dutiful love to our noble friend, I am,
etc.,
“J. FLETCHER.”[303]
Footnote 303:
Letters, 1791, p. 221.
Nothing need be said respecting Fletcher’s considerate kindness in
declining, for the present, an interview with the Countess of
Huntingdon, lest he should become the means of bringing upon her
undeserved reproach from some of her bigoted and narrow-hearted friends.
It was like the man, and worthy of him.
In another letter to Mr. Ireland, Fletcher further refers to the
returning friendliness of the Countess, and to his controversial and
exhausting labours, of which he was becoming weary:—
“MADELEY, _March 27, 1774_.
“MY DEAR SIR,—I think I wrote my last two days before I received your
bounty—a large hogshead of rice and two cheeses. Accept the thanks of
myself and of my poor flock. I distributed it on Shrove-Tuesday, and
preached to a numerous congregation on ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of
God and His righteousness, and all other things shall be added unto
you.’ We prayed for our benefactor, that God would give him a
hundredfold in this life, and eternal life, where life eternal will be
no burden. I saw then, what I have not often seen on such occasions,
gladness without the appearance of envying or grudging.
“I get very slowly out of the mire of my controversy, and yet I hope
to get over it, if God spares my life, in two or three pieces more.
Since I wrote last, I have added to my ‘Equal Check’ a piece which I
call ‘An Essay on Truth; or, a Rational Vindication of the Doctrine of
Salvation by Faith,’ which I have taken the liberty to dedicate to
Lady Huntingdon, to have an opportunity of clearing her ladyship from
the charge of Antinomianism. I have taken this step in the simplicity
of my heart, and as due from me, in my circumstances, to the character
of her ladyship.
“I have just spirit enough to enjoy my solitude, and to bless God that
I am out of the hurry of the world—even the spiritual world. I tarry
gladly in my Jerusalem, till the kingdom of God comes with power. Till
then, it matters not where I am: only as my chief call is here, here I
gladly stay, till God fits me for the pulpit or the _grave_. I still
spend my mornings in scribbling. Though I grudge so much time in
writing, yet a man must do something; and I may as well investigate
truth as do anything else, except solemn praying and visiting my
flock. I shall be glad to have done with my present avocation, that I
may give myself up more to those two things.
“O how life goes! I walked, now I gallop into eternity. The bowl of
life goes rapidly down the steep hill of time. Let us be wise: embrace
we Jesus and the resurrection. Let us trim our lamps, and give
ourselves afresh to Him that bought us, till we can do it without
reserve. Adieu!
“J. FLETCHER.”[304]
Footnote 304:
Letters, 1791, p 223.