_FURTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE YEAR_
1774.
IN _Lloyd’s Evening Post_ for March 2, 1774, there appeared the
following advertisement:—
“_In the Press._ An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism; and
the Scripture Scales to weigh Gospel Truth; both by the Rev. Mr. John
Fletcher, Vicar of Madeley, Shropshire.”
“_The Scripture Scales_,” however, were published separately, and not
until the year was ending. First of all, Fletcher issued a 12mo. volume
of 264 pages, entitled, “The First Part of an Equal Check to Pharisaism
and Antinomianism, containing, I. An Historical Essay on the Danger of
parting Faith and Works. II. Salvation by the Covenant of Grace, A
Discourse preached in the Parish Church of Madeley, April 18, and May 9,
1773. III. A Scriptural Essay on the astonishing Rewardableness of
Works, according to the Covenant of Grace. IV. An Essay on Truth, or, A
rational Vindication of the Doctrine of Salvation by Faith, with a
dedicatory Epistle to the Right Hon. the Countess of Huntingdon. By the
Author of the Checks to Antinomianism. Shrewsbury: Printed by J.
Eddowes: and sold at the Foundery; and by J. Buckland, in Paternoster
Row, London; by T. Mills in Bath; and S. Aris in Birmingham. 1774.”
Fletcher’s Preface is dated, Madeley, May 21, 1774. The following
extracts from it convey an idea of the scope of his book:—
“I. The first piece of this Check was designed for a preface to the
Discourse that follows it; but as it swelled far beyond my intention,
I present it to the reader under the name of _An Historical Essay_,
which makes way for the tracts that follow.
“II. With respect to the Discourse, I must mention what engages me to
publish it. In 1771, I saw the propositions called the ‘_Minutes_.’
Their author invited me to ‘_review the whole affair_.’ I did so; and
soon found that I had ‘leaned too much toward Calvinism,’ which, after
mature consideration, appeared to me exactly to coincide with
_speculative_ Antinomianism; and the same year I publicly acknowledged
my error.[305]
“When I had thus openly confessed that I was involved in the guilt of
_many of my brethren_, and that I had so leaned towards _speculative_
as not to have made a proper stand against _practical_ Antinomianism,
who could have thought that one of my most formidable opponents[306]
would have attempted to screen his mistakes behind some passages of a
manuscript sermon which I preached twelve years ago, and of which, by
some means or other, he has got a copy?
“I am very far from recanting that old discourse. I still think the
doctrine it contains excellent, in the main, and very proper to be
enforced, though in a more guarded manner, in a congregation of
hearers violently prejudiced against the first gospel axiom.[307]
Therefore, out of regard for the grand, leading truth of Christianity,
and in compliance with Mr. Hill’s _earnest entreaty_ (‘Finishing
Stroke,’ p. 45), I send my sermon into the world upon the following
reasonable conditions: 1. That I shall be allowed to publish it, as I
preached it a year ago in my church, namely, with _additions in
brackets_, to make it at once a _fuller_ Check to Pharisaism, and a
_finishing_ Check to Antinomianism. 2. That the largest addition shall
be in favour of _free grace_. 3. That nobody shall accuse me of
_forgery_, for thus adding my present light to that which I had
formerly; and for thus bringing out of my little treasure of
experience _things new and old_. 4. That the press shall not groan
with the charge of _disingenuity_, if I throw into Notes some
unguarded expressions, which I formerly used without scruple, and
which my more enlightened conscience does not suffer me to use at
present. 5. That my opponent’s call to print my sermon will procure me
the pardon of the public, for presenting them with a plain, _blunt_,
discourse, composed for an audience chiefly made up of colliers and
rustics. And, lastly, that, as I understand English a little better
than I did twelve years ago, I shall be permitted to rectify a few
French idioms, which I find in my old manuscript; and to _connect_ my
thoughts a little more like an Englishman, where I can do it without
the least misrepresentation of the sense.
“III. With regard to the ‘_Scriptural Essay_’ upon the rewardableness
or evangelical worthiness of works, I shall just observe that it
attacks the grand mistake of Solifidians countenanced by three or four
words of my old sermon. I pour a flood of Scriptures upon it; and,
after receiving the fire of my objector, I return it in a variety of
scriptural and rational answers, about the solidity of which the
public must decide.
“IV. The ‘_Essay on Truth_’ will, I hope, reconcile judicious
moralists to the doctrine of salvation _by faith_, and considerate
Solifidians to the doctrine of salvation _by_ the _works_ of faith;
reason and Scripture concurring to show the constant dependence of
works upon faith; and the wonderful agreement of the doctrine of
present salvation by TRUE _faith_, with the doctrine of eternal
salvation by GOOD _works_.
“I hope that I do not dissent, in my observations upon _faith_, either
from our Church, or approved Gospel ministers. In their _highest_
definitions of that grace, they consider it _only_ according to the
fulness of the _Christian_ dispensation; but my subject has obliged me
to consider it also according to the dispensations of John the
Baptist, Moses, and Noah. Believers under these _inferior_
dispensations have not always _assurance_, nor is the assurance they
sometimes have so bright as that of adult Christians, Matt. xi. 11.
But, undoubtedly, assurance is inseparably connected with the faith of
the _Christian_ dispensation, which was not _fully_ opened till Christ
opened _His_ glorious baptism on the Day of Pentecost, and till His
spiritual kingdom was set up with power in the hearts of His people.
Nobody, therefore, can truly believe, according to _this_
dispensation, without being _immediately_ conscious both of the
forgiveness of sins, and of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is a
most important truth, derided indeed by fallen Churchmen, and denied
by Laodicean Dissenters; but, of late years gloriously revived by Mr.
Wesley and the Ministers connected with him.”
Footnote 305:
In the “Second Check to Antinomianism.”
Footnote 306:
Mr. Richard Hill.
Footnote 307:
Thus defined by Fletcher in his “Doctrines of Grace and Justice:” “Our
salvation is of God; or, There is free grace in God; which, through
Christ, freely places all men in a state of temporary redemption,
justification, or salvation, according to the various Gospel
dispensations, and crowns those who are faithful unto death with an
eternal redemption, justification, or salvation.”
His definition of the second Gospel axiom is, “Our damnation is of
ourselves: or, There is a free-will in man; by which he may, through
the grace freely imparted to him in the day of temporary salvation,
work out his own eternal salvation; or he may, through the natural
power which angels had to sin in heaven, and our first parents in
paradise, choose to sin away the day of temporary salvation. And by
thus working out his damnation, he may provoke just wrath, which is
the same as despised free grace, to punish him with eternal
destruction.”
From these extracts, the reader may gather the difficult and important
doctrines discussed by Fletcher in his book of pamphlets. In a work like
this it is impossible to follow him in his careful statements of truth,
in the arguments by which he proves them, and in his answers to
objections raised against them; but a few remarks respecting some of
these publications must be attempted.
In a prelude to his sermon first delivered in 1762, and now amended,
Fletcher gives a doleful picture of what he himself had witnessed during
the interval. He says:—
“The substance of the following Discourse was committed to paper many
years ago, to convince the Pharisees and papists of my parish that
there is no salvation by the faithless works of the law, but by a
living faith in Jesus Christ. With shame I confess that I did not
_then_ see the need of guarding the doctrine of _faith_ against the
despisers of _works_. I was chiefly bent upon pulling up the tares of
Pharisaism: those of Antinomianism were not yet sprung up in the
field, which I began to cultivate: or my want of experience hindered
me from discerning them. But since, what a crop of them have I
perceived and bewailed!
“Alas! they have, in a great degree, ruined the success of my
ministry. I have seen numbers of lazy seekers, enjoying the dull
pleasure of sloth on the couch of wilful unbelief, under pretence that
God was to do all in them without them. I have seen some lie flat in
the mire of sin, absurdly boasting that they could not fall; and
others make the means of grace means of idle gossiping or sly
courtship. I have seen some turn their religious profession into a way
of gratifying covetousness or indolence; and others, their skill in
church music, their knowledge, and their zeal, into various nets to
catch esteem, admiration, and praise. Some I have seen making
_yesterday’s_ faith a reason to laugh at the cross _to-day_; and
others drawing, from their misapprehensions of the atonement,
arguments to be less importunate in secret prayer, and more
conformable to this evil world than once they were. Nay, I have seen
some professing believers backward to do those works of mercy, which I
have sometimes found persons, who made no profession of godliness,
quite ready to perform. And—oh! tell it in Sion, that watchfulness may
not be neglected by believers, that fearfulness may seize upon
backsliders, and that trembling may break the bones of hypocrites and
apostates—I have seen those who had equally shined by their gifts and
graces strike the moral world with horror by the grossest
Antinomianism, and disgrace the doctrine of _salvation through faith_
by the deepest plunges into scandalous sins.”
As already stated, Fletcher’s “Essay on Truth; or, Rational Vindication
of the Doctrine of Salvation by Faith,” was dedicated to his quondam
friend and patroness, the Countess of Huntingdon, who again desired his
friendship, his counsel, and his prayers. In his “Dedicatory Epistle” he
says:—
“MY LADY,—Because I think it my duty to defend the _works of faith_
against the triumphant errors of the Solifidians, some of your
ladyship’s friends conclude that I am an enemy to the doctrine of
_salvation by faith_, and their conclusion amounts to such
exclamations as these: ‘How could a lady, so zealous for God’s glory
and the Redeemer’s grace, commit the superintendency of a seminary of
pious learning to a man that opposes the _fundamental_ doctrine of
Protestantism! How could she put her sheep under the care of such a
wolf in sheep’s clothing!’ This conclusion, my lady, has grieved me
for your sake; and, to remove the blot that it indirectly fixes upon
you, as well as to balance my ‘Scriptural Essay on the Rewardableness’
of the works of faith, I publish, and humbly dedicate to your
ladyship, this last piece of my ’_Equal Check to Pharisaism and
Antinomianism_.’ May the kindness which enabled you to bear for years
with the coarseness of my ministrations incline you favourably to
receive this little token of my unfeigned attachment to Protestantism,
and of my lasting respect for your ladyship!
“Your aversion to all that looks like controversy can never make you
think that an _Equal Check_ to the two grand delusions, which have
crept into the Church, is needless in our days. I flatter myself,
therefore, that though you may blame my _performance_, you will
approve of my _design_. And indeed what true Christian can be
absolutely neuter in this controversy? If _God has a controversy_ with
all _Pharisees_ and _Antinomians_, have not all God’s children a
controversy with _Pharisaism_ and _Antinomianism_? Have you not, for
one, my lady? Do you not check in private what I attempt to check in
public? Does not the religious world know that you abhor, attack, and
pursue _Pharisaism_ in its most artful disguises? And have I not
frequently heard you express, in the strongest terms, your detestation
of _Antinomianism_, and lament the number of sleeping professors, whom
that Delilah robs of their strength? Nor would you, I am persuaded, my
lady, have countenanced the opposition which was made against the
‘Minutes,’ if your commendable, though (as it appears to me) at that
time, too precipitate zeal against Pharisaism had not prevented your
seeing that they contain the Scripture truths, which are fittest to
stop the rapid progress of Antinomianism.
“However, if you still think, my lady, that I mistake with respect to
the importance of those propositions, you know I am not mistaken when
I declare, before the world, that a _powerful, practical, actually
saving_ faith is the only faith I ever heard your ladyship recommend,
as worthy to be contended for. And so long as you plead only for such
a faith, so long as you abhor the winter-faith that saves the
Solifidians, in their own conceit, while they commit adultery, murder,
and incest, if they choose to carry Antinomianism to such a dreadful
length; so long as you are afraid to maintain, either directly or
indirectly, that the _evidence_ and _comfort_ of justifying faith may
be suspended by sin, but that the _righteousness_ of faith, and the
_justification_ which it instrumentally procures, can never be lost,
no, not by the most enormous and complicated crimes,—whatever
diversity there may be between your ladyship’s sentiments and mine, it
can never be fundamental. I preach salvation by a faith that
_actually_ works by obedient love, and your ladyship witnesses
salvation by an _actually_ operative faith; nor can I, to this day,
see any material difference between those phrases in the present
controversy. I remain, with my former respect and devotedness, my
lady, your ladyship’s most obliged and obedient servant in the Gospel,
“J. FLETCHER.
“Madeley, _March 12, 1774_.”
Fletcher’s “Essay on Truth” is one of his ablest and most important
works. It is full of his own peculiar genius, and—what cannot be said
concerning all his writings—it is very readable. The following brief
extracts from it may be acceptable and useful:—
_Saving faith._ “What is _saving_ faith?[308] I dare not say that it
is ‘believing heartily’ my sins are forgiven me for Christ’s sake;
for, if I live in sin, that belief is a _destructive_ conceit, and
not _saving_ faith. Neither dare I say, that ‘saving faith is _only_
a sure trust and confidence that Christ loved me, and gave Himself
for me;’[309] for, if I did, I should almost damn all mankind for
four thousand years. Such definitions of saving faith are, I fear,
too _narrow_ to be just, and too _unguarded_ to keep out
Solifidianism.[310] To avoid such mistakes; to contradict no
Scriptures; to put no black mark of _damnation_ upon any man, that
in any nation fears God and works of righteousness; to leave no room
for Solifidianism, and to present the reader with a definition of
faith adequate to _the everlasting Gospel_, I would choose to say,
that justifying or saving faith is _believing_ the saving truth
_with the heart unto_ internal, and (as we have opportunity) _unto_
external _righteousness_, according to our light and dispensation.
To St. Paul’s words, Rom. x. 10, I add the epithets _internal_ and
_external_, in order to exclude, according to 1 John iii. 7, 8, the
filthy imputation, under which fallen believers may, if we credit
the Antinomians, commit internal and external adultery, mental and
bodily murder, without the least reasonable fear of endangering
their faith, their interest in God’s favour, and their inamissable
title to a throne of glory.”
_Faith the gift of God, and the act of man._ “How is faith the gift of
God? Some persons think that faith is as much out of our power as the
lightning that shoots from a distant cloud; they suppose that God
drives sinners to the fountain of Christ’s blood, as irresistibly as
the infernal _legion_ drove the herd of swine into the sea of
Galilee.”
Footnote 308:
As usual, these extracts are made from the _original_ edition, and the
_italics_ are Fletcher’s own.
Footnote 309:
In a foot-note, Fletcher remarks, “When the Church of England and Mr.
Wesley give us particular definitions of faith, it is plain that they
consider it according to the _Christian_ dispensation; the privileges
of which must be principally insisted upon among Christians.”
Footnote 310:
Solifidianism, now a favourite word with Fletcher, is thus defined by
him, in his “Fifth Check to Antinomianism:”—“Solifidianism is the
doctrine of Solifidians; and the Solifidians are men who, because
sinners are justified _sola fide_, ‘by sole faith,’ in the day of
conversion, infer, as Mr. Berridge, that ‘believing is the total term
of all salvation,’ and conclude, as Mr. Hill, that the doctrine of
final justification by the works of faith in the great day is ‘full of
rottenness and deadly poison.’ It is a softer word for Antinomianism.”
After amply refuting this “_absurd_” idea, Fletcher proceeds:—
“Having thus exposed the erroneous sense in which some people suppose
that _faith is the gift of God_, I beg leave to mention in what sense
it appears to me to be so. _Believing_ is the gift of the _God of
Grace_, as _breathing_, _moving_, and _eating_ are the gifts of _the
God of Nature_. He gives me lungs and air, that I may breathe; He
gives me life and muscles, that I may move; He bestows upon me food
and a mouth, that I may eat; but He neither _breathes_, _moves_, nor
_eats_ for me. Nay, when I think proper, I can accelerate my
breathing, motion, and eating: and, if I please, I may _fast_, _lie
down_, or _hang myself_, and, by that means, put an end to my
_eating_, _moving_, and _breathing_. _Faith_ is the gift of God to
believers, as _sight_ is to you. The parent of good freely gives you
the light of the sun, and organs proper to receive it. Everything
around you bids you use your eyes and see; nevertheless, you may not
only drop your curtains, but close your eyes also. This is exactly the
case with regard to faith. Free grace removes, in part, the total
blindness which Adam’s fall brought upon us; free grace gently sends
us some beams of truth, which is the light of _the sun of
righteousness_; it disposes the eye of our understanding to see those
beams; it excites us, in various ways, to welcome them; it blesses us
with many, perhaps with all the means of faith, such as opportunities
to hear, read, enquire, and power to consider, assent, consent,
resolve, and re-resolve to believe the truth. But, after all,
_believing_ is as much our own act as _seeing_. We may in general do,
suspend, or omit the _act_ of faith. Nay, we may do by the eye of our
faith, what some report Democritus did by his bodily eyes. Being tired
of seeing the follies of mankind, to rid himself of that disagreeable
sight, he put his eyes out. We may be so averse from _the light, which
enlightens every man_ that _comes into the world_; we may so dread it
because our works are evil, as to exemplify, like the Pharisees, such
awful declarations as these: _Their eyes have they closed, lest they
should see: wherefore God gave them up to a reprobate mind_, and,
_they were blinded_.”
It need not be added, that Fletcher abundantly sustains these figurative
arguments by scriptural quotations.
Two extracts more. In his description of “_saving faith_,” Fletcher
refuses to put the “black mark of damnation upon any man, that in any
nation fears God and works righteousness.” In his “Appendix to Prevent
Objections,” he explains his meaning, as follows:—
“I make no more difference between the faith of a righteous heathen,
and the faith of a father in Christ, than I do between daybreak and
meridian light:—That the light of a sincere Jew is as much one with
the light of a sincere Christian, as the light of the sun in a cold,
cloudy day in March is one with the light of the sun in a fine day in
May:—And that the difference between the saving faith peculiar to the
sincere disciples of Noah, Moses, John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ,
consists in a variety of _degrees_, and not in a diversity of
_species_; saving faith, under all the dispensations, agreeing in the
following essentials: 1. It is begotten by the revelation of some
saving truth presented by free grace, impressed by the Spirit, and
received by the believer’s prevented free agency. 2. It has the same
original cause in all, that is, the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. 3.
It _actually_ saves all, though in various degrees. 4. It sets all
upon _working righteousness; some bearing fruit thirty, some sixty,
and some a hundredfold_. And 5. Through Christ, it will bring all that
do not make shipwreck of it to one or another of the ‘_many
mansions_,’ which our Lord is gone to prepare in heaven for His
_believing_, _obedient_ people.
“And here honesty obliges me to lay before the public an objection,
which I had for some time against the _appendages_ of the Athanasian
Creed. I admire the scriptural manner in which it sets forth the
Divine Unity in Trinity, and the Divine Trinity in Unity; but I can no
longer use its damnatory clauses. It abruptly takes us to the very top
of the _Christian_ dispensation, considered in a doctrinal light. This
dispensation it calls _the Catholic faith_; and, without mentioning
the faith of the inferior dispensations, as our other Creeds do, it
makes us declare, that ‘_except everyone keep that faith_’ (the faith
of the highest dispensation) ‘_whole_ and _undefiled, he cannot be
saved; without doubt, he shall perish everlastingly_.’ This dreadful
denunciation is true with regard to proud, ungodly infidels, who, in
the midst of all the means of _Christian_ faith, obstinately,
maliciously, and finally set their hearts against the doctrine of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; equally despising the Son’s atonement,
and the Spirit’s inspiration. But I will no more invade Christ’s
tribunal, and pronounce that the fearful punishment of damnation shall
‘_without doubt_’ be inflicted upon ‘_every_’ Unitarian, Arian, Jew,
Turk, and heathen, _that fears God and works righteousness_, though he
does not _hold the faith_ of the Athanasian Creed _whole_. For, if you
except the last Article, thousands, yea, millions, are never called to
hold it _at all_; and therefore shall never perish for not _holding it
whole_. At all hazards, then, I hope I shall never use again those
damnatory clauses, without taking the liberty of guarding them
agreeably to the doctrine of the dispensations. And if Zelotes presses
me with my subscriptions, I reply beforehand, that the same Church,
who required me to subscribe to St. Athanasius’s Creed, enjoins me
also to believe this clause of St. Peter’s Creed, ‘_In every nation,
he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of Him_.’
And, if those two creeds are irreconcilable, I think it more
reasonable that Athanasius should bow to Peter, warmed by the Spirit
of love, than that Peter should bow to Athanasius, heated by
controversial opposition.”
Some will object to Fletcher’s teaching. Be it so: the writer’s business
is neither to defend nor to condemn; but simply to show, as far as
possible, what Fletcher’s opinions were. John Wesley approved them. “Mr.
Fletcher,” says he, in a letter dated January 17, 1775, “has given us a
wonderful view of the different dispensations. I believe that difficult
subject was never placed in so clear a light before. It seems God has
raised him up for this very thing—
“‘To vindicate eternal Providence,
And justify the ways of God to man.’”[311]
Footnote 311:
Wesley’s Works, vol. xiii., p. 52.
Fletcher himself, evidently, felt great interest in his “Essay on
Truth.” In a letter, dated March 20, 1774, and addressed to the Rev.
Joseph Benson, he observed:—
“I do not repent having engaged in the present controversy, for,
though I think my little publications cannot reclaim those who are
given up to believe the lie of the day, yet, they may here and there
stop one from swallowing it at all, or from swallowing it so deeply as
otherwise he might have done. In preaching, I do not meddle with the
points discussed, unless my text leads me to it, and then I think them
important enough not to be ashamed of them before my people.
“I am just finishing an ‘Essay on Truth,’ which I dedicate to Lady
Huntingdon, wherein you will see my latest views of that important
subject. My apprehensions of things have not changed since I saw you
last; save that in one thing I have seen my error. An over-eager
attention to the doctrine of the Spirit has made me, in some degree,
overlook the medium by which the Spirit works—I mean the _Word of
Truth_, which is the word by which the heavenly fire warms us. I
rather expected lightning, than a steady fire by means of fuel. I
mention my error to you lest you should be involved therein.
“My controversy weighs upon my hands; but I must go through with it;
which I hope will be done in two or three pieces more: one of which,
‘Scripture Scales to Weigh the Gold of Gospel Truth,’ may be more
useful than the Checks, as being more literally scriptural.
“I have exchanged a couple of friendly letters with Lady Huntingdon,
who gives me leave to see her publicly; but I think it best to
postpone that honour till I have cleared my mind.”[312]
Footnote 312:
Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”
Charles Wesley read and criticized the “Essay on Truth,” upon which
Fletcher wrote him as follows:—
“I am glad you did not altogether disapprove my ‘_Essay on Truth_.’
The letter, I grant, profiteth little, until the Spirit animate it. I
had, some weeks ago, one of those touches which realize, or rather
spiritualize the letter; and it convinced me more than ever that what
I say in that tract, of the _Spirit_ and of _faith_, is _truth_. I am
also persuaded that the _faith_ and _Spirit_, which belong to
_perfect_ Christianity, are at a very low ebb, even among believers.
When the Son of Man cometh to set up His kingdom, shall He find
_Christian_ faith upon the earth? Yes; but, I fear, as little as He
found of Jewish faith, when He came in the flesh. I believe you cannot
rest with the easy Antinomian, or the busy Pharisee. You and I have
nothing to do but to die to all that is of a sinful nature, and to
pray for the power of an endless life. God make us faithful to our
convictions, and keep us from the snares of outward things. You are in
danger from music, children, poetry; and I from speculation,
controversy, sloth, etc. Let us _watch_ against the deceitfulness of
self and sin in all their appearances.
“What power of the Spirit do you find among the believers in London?
What openings of the kingdom? Is the well springing up in many hearts?
Are many souls dissatisfied, and looking for the kingdom of God in
power? Watchman! what of the night? What of the day? What of the dawn?
“I feel the force of what you say about the danger of so encouraging
the inferior dispensations, as to make people rest short of the faith
which belongs to perfect Christianity. I have tried to obviate it in
some parts of the ‘_Equal Check_,’ and hope to do it more effectually
in my reply to Mr. Hill’s _Creed for Perfectionists_. Probably, I
shall get nothing by my polemic labours, but loss of friends, and
charges of ‘novel chimeras’ on _both_ sides. I expect a letter from
you on the subject. Write with openness, and do not fear to discourage
me by speaking your disapprobation of what you dislike. My aim is to
be found at the feet of all, bearing and forbearing until truth and
love bring better days.
“I am, rev. and dear Sir, your most affectionate brother and son in
the Gospel,
“J. FLETCHER.”[313]
Footnote 313:
Letters, 1791, p. 224.