Chapter X: “third Check to Antinomianism.”

1772.

WHEN Fletcher finished his “Second Check to Antinomianism,” in “Three Letters” to Walter Shirley, he began a “Vindication of the Doctrine of Christian Perfection.” This, however, for a time, was laid aside; but was afterwards completed, and embodied in his “Last Check to Antinomianism.” The reason for this postponement was a somewhat sudden determination to write upon the Unitarian Controversy, which was now as prominent as the Calvinian one. A brief biographical episode will explain the matter more fully.

Edward Elwall was born at Sedgley, in Staffordshire. He settled in business at Wolverhampton, where he acquired the reputation of great integrity in his dealings. He had not enjoyed the advantages of a learned education, but he possessed a serious and inquisitive turn of mind, and had good natural abilities. One of his first publications was intended to prove that the fourth commandment, appointing the _seventh_ day of the week to be observed as the Sabbath, was binding on all generations. As long as he continued in business, he constantly shut up his shop on that day, and as regularly opened it on the succeeding one. For this he was called a Jew. About the year 1714, he became distinguished as an Unitarian, and published, “A true Testimony for God and His sacred Law, being a Defence of the first Commandment of God, against all Trinitarians under Heaven.” This drew on him the resentment of the neighbouring clergy, who procured an indictment against him for heresy and blasphemy, on which he was tried at Stafford Assizes. He pleaded his own cause, and was acquitted. After this, he removed to London, and became a member of the Seventh-day Baptist Church at Mill-yard, Goodman’s Fields. Towards the end of life, he attended the meetings of the Quakers, and was sometimes permitted to speak at them. He died in London, at an advanced age, about the year 1745.

Elwall’s work “against all Trinitarians under Heaven” had recently been re-published, and Fletcher was requested to answer it. Hence the following, hitherto unpublished, letter, addressed to “the Rev. Walter Sellon, at Ledsham, near Ferry-Bridge, Yorkshire.”

“MADELEY, _January 7, 1772_.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,—I thank you for yours. I hope Glazebrook[253] will be
more moderate, on account of some rubs which his new Calvinistic zeal
has procured him.

“My reason for troubling you soon with an answer is to make a request.
I have laid by my Third ——[254], which is a vindication of the
doctrine of Christian perfection. A pamphlet (the third edition) has
lately been published at Birmingham, and meets with great success. The
author is E. Elwall, a Socinian Quaker, who was tried for blasphemy at
Stafford, and came off with flying colours, after fully denying the
Godhead of Christ, and His atonement.

“Some serious people have desired me to answer the book. As I suppose
your _Dr. Preese_[255]” (sic) “is one of his stamp, I want to see by
your candle as well as my own. Could you send me, by the post, what
you have published against him? By cutting the margin close, you might
bring it to a tolerable size for a packet; and I should not grudge
paying the postage. If you cannot do this, send me, at least, your
best answer to the objection taken from John xvii. 3, and to the words
‘_only God_,’ which seem to exclude Jesus Christ.

“We must fight the Antinomians while the Calvinists put weapons into
their hands against the truth. Mr. Hill has taken Mr. Wesley in hand
very roughly. I have been with him. His answer to my ‘Vindication’ is
expected every day, and is out, I suppose, in London. God give us
wisdom! Set your razor against Mason, for what we mean as keenness
(which is allowable) is directly construed as bitterness.

“When you send the packet, put upon the direction, ‘_Not by London,
but by + Post Bag, Manchester and Salop_,’ or else they will make me
pay double.

“I preach much, and see little fruit. The Holy Ghost is not given
among us. These are hard times. God help us to more gospel and life,
but not my lady’s gospel!

“I am yours in a hurry,
“J. FLETCHER.”

Footnote 253:

The poor collier whom Fletcher so greatly befriended at Madeley, and
who was one of the first students at Trevecca, in 1768.

Footnote 254:

The words are illegible, but, no doubt, his “Third Check to
Antinomianism” is meant.

Footnote 255:

Probably meant for the celebrated Dr. Price, of whom more will have to
be said anon.

Not to mention other matters referred to in this letter, there can be no doubt that Fletcher now began to write his Anti-Socinian Treatises; but, as will be seen hereafter, he never finished them. Other things, even more pressing, claimed his attention, and he was obliged to postpone his attack on the citadel of _religious infidelity_.

“I long to be out of controversy,” said Fletcher to Joseph Benson, in a letter dated February 1772,[256] and yet he continued it. He could not help himself. To say nothing of the duty he owed to Christ and Gospel truth, it was impossible, at present, to retire from the field of conflict without exposing himself to the taunt of recreant timidity. Besides, though his opponents had been vanquished, they would, in that case, have appeared victorious. No doubt, also, he was encouraged to proceed by his bespattered but beloved friend Wesley. In a letter to Lady Maxwell, Wesley wrote:—

“LONDON, _February 8, 1772_.

“MY DEAR LADY,—I commend you for meddling with points of controversy
as little as possible. It is abundantly easier to lose our love in
that rough field, than to find truth. This consideration has made me
exceedingly thankful to God for giving me a respite from polemical
labours. I am glad He has given to others both the power and the will
to answer them that trouble me; so that I may not always be forced to
hold my weapons in one hand, while I am building with the other. I
rejoice, likewise, not only in the abilities, but in the temper, of
Mr. Fletcher. He writes as he lives. I cannot say that I know such
another clergyman in England or Ireland. He is all fire, but it is the
fire of love. His writings, like his constant conversation, breathe
nothing else, to those who read him with an impartial eye. And,
although Mr. Shirley scruples not to charge him with using subtilty
and metaphysical distinctions, yet he abundantly clears himself of
this charge, in the ‘Second Check to Antinomianism.’ Such the last
letters are styled, and with great propriety; for such they have
really been. They have given a considerable check to those who were
everywhere making void the law through faith; setting ‘the
righteousness of Christ’ in opposition to the law of Christ, and
teaching that without holiness any man may see the Lord.”[257]

Footnote 256:

Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”

Footnote 257:

Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 326.

All, however, were not of Wesley’s opinion. In Ireland, Walter Shirley was a great favourite among the Methodists, for there he had preached with much success. Fletcher’s first and second “Checks” were addressed to Shirley; and the Irish Methodists, who, as yet, had neither heard nor seen their author, were divided in their sentiments respecting them. The Dublin Society wrote two letters to him, in answer to which he sent them the following:—

“To the Methodist Society at Dublin.

“MADELEY, _March, 1772_.

“MY DEAR BRETHREN,—Mercy and love be multiplied unto you, from Him who
was and is to come, the Almighty!

“I should have acknowledged before now the favour of the two letters
with which you honoured me, if I had not conveyed my thanks to you
immediately by means of brother Morgan.[258] But thanks at second-hand
do not satisfy my gratitude; permit me, therefore, to present them, if
not in person, at least by some grateful lines personally written.

“I am much obliged to those of you who approve my little attempt to
vindicate practical religion and the character of an eminent servant
of Christ, who ministered unto you in holy things, and whom some of
our mistaken friends in England exposed as the author of dreadful
heresy. The thanks which some of you unexpectedly bestowed upon me on
that occasion, I have laid at the feet of Jesus, to whom all praise
belongs, who is the author of every good gift, and from whom comes all
the help done upon the earth.

“When I took up my pen, I aimed at discharging my duty towards God and
His misapprehended truth; towards my honoured father in Christ, Mr.
Wesley, and his misunderstood ‘Minutes’; and though all the world
should have blamed me, they would never have robbed me of the
satisfaction of having at least attempted to clear my conscience.

“The manner in which part of you have refused me their thanks, is too
civil and brotherly not to deserve mine. I wish many of our English
brethren had been as moderate as you in their disapprobation of my
letters to the Rev. Mr. Shirley. You will see in a ‘Second Check to
Antinomianism’ some things that may reconcile you to the first; and I
have just sent to the press a ‘Third Check,’ to what appears to me the
favourite delusion of the Church; which I trust will cast more light
on the delicate subject about which we divide.

“If we cannot see things in the same light, I hope we never shall, I
beg we never may, disagree in love.

“I am glad you agreed to disagree about the giving or refusing me your
undeserved thanks. Let every little rub of opposition heighten our
love; every little clashing of sentiment make the heavenly spark show
itself, and kindle our souls into that charity which hopeth all
things, endureth all things, thinketh no evil, and is not provoked.

“If I have been obliged to bear a little hardly upon my dear honoured
brother, Mr. Shirley, I beg that nothing I have written to him on
account of his precipitancy, rashness, or hurry, may prevent you from
looking upon him with the love and respect due to a minister of
Christ. Recommending him and myself to your prayers, and taking the
liberty to recommend to you mutual forbearance, a daily increase of
brotherly love, and a continual growth in the genuine liberty of the
Gospel, I remain, my dear brethren, your obliged, affectionate, and
obedient brother and servant,

“JOHN FLETCHER.”[259]

Footnote 258:

One of Wesley’s itinerant preachers, well-read and popular, but now
enervated, and settled in Dublin.

Footnote 259:

“Thirteen Original Letters written by the Rev. J. Fletcher.” Bath,
1791, p. 22.

It has been already stated that at the commencement of the year 1772, Fletcher was writing his “Vindication of the Doctrine of Christian Perfection;” and that this was laid aside for the purpose of writing against Socinianism. Very soon, however, he had to devote his attention to another subject. In the foregoing letter, dated “March, 1772,” he tells the Methodist Society at Dublin that he had sent his “Third Check to Antinomianism” to the press; and this is confirmed by the following extract from a letter by Wesley to his brother Charles:—

“BIRMINGHAM, _March 17, 1772_.

“I am to-day to meet Mr. Fletcher at Billbrook. Part of the ‘Third
Check’ is printing; the rest I have ready. In this he draws the sword
and throws away the scabbard. Yet, I doubt not, they will forgive him
all, if he will but promise to write no more.”[260]

Footnote 260:

Wesley’s Works, vol. xii., p. 128.

Fletcher’s parochial duties were heavy, and yet he seems to have written his “Third Check to Antinomianism” in about a month. It must have been a strain to accomplish this. The work is no flimsy production, but is full of Scriptural arguments, which could not be framed, arranged, and adequately expressed without a vast amount of labour; and the book itself was of no mean size, consisting, as it did, of one hundred and fourteen small typed and closely printed pages. The following was its title: “A Third Check to Antinomianism; in a Letter to the Author of “Pietas Oxoniensis:” By the Vindicator of the Rev. Mr. Wesley’s Minutes. ‘Reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and _Scriptural_ doctrine; for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,’ 2 Tim. iv. 2, 3. ‘_Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith_; but _let brotherly love continue_,’ Tit. i. 13, Heb. xiii. 1. Bristol: Printed by W. Pine in Wine Street, 1772.”

Why was it written and published? Fletcher had replied to the “Circular Letter” and the “Narrative” of Shirley, and in doing so had vindicated Wesley’s “Minutes.” Shirley was now silent, but other antagonists started up. A small 8vo. pamphlet was published, with the title “A Letter to the Rev. Mr. Fletcher, of Madeley, on the Differences subsisting between him and the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Shirley.” The author subscribed himself “An enemy to no man, but a friend to religion;” and his letter was dated “Bath, February 3, 1772.” This religious gentleman alleged that, under the existing circumstances, the publication of Fletcher’s answer to Shirley’s “Circular Letter” “was highly censurable, yea, criminal.” He accused Fletcher of “wantonly scattering firebrands, arrows, and death;” his defence of Wesley’s “Minutes” was “flimsy;” and he was actuated by “personal envy or enmity more than by a love to Christ and a godly zeal to promote truth.” Fletcher, properly enough, declined to notice the virulent and frothy pamphlet of this Bath religionist; but another publication, issued about the same time, demanded his attention. Its author was his friend and neighbour, Richard Hill, Esq., and its title as follows: “Five Letters to the Reverend Mr. F——r, relative to his Vindication of the Minutes of the Reverend Mr. John Wesley. Intended chiefly for the comfort of mourning backsliders, and such as may have been distressed and perplexed by reading Mr. Wesley’s Minutes, or the Vindication of them. By a Friend. London: 1772.” 8vo., 40 pp.[261]

Footnote 261:

A second edition, “revised and much enlarged,” was published about the
same time as Fletcher’s “Third Check.” The first edition consisted of
forty pages, the second of fifty-two. There is nothing of importance,
however, in the second issue which is not in the first, except a few
acrid references to Wesley. The following may be taken as a specimen:
“I shall make no remarks upon the poor, loose, flimsy manner in which
the ‘Minutes’ are worded; but I cannot help observing that it seems
almost impossible for Mr. Wesley to write a page without contradicting
himself” (p. 50).

Mr. Hill’s first letter is dated “December 2, 1771.”[262] His pamphlet is remarkable for two things—_only two_:—First, the highest Christian urbanity towards Fletcher; and secondly, the writer’s curious theology. A few extracts from Mr. Hill’s letters will suffice to show that Fletcher’s task of answering his courteous opponent was not a difficult undertaking.

Footnote 262:

In the second edition it is dated “Feb., 1772.”

“God alone knows the sorrow of heart wherewith I address you; and how
much the fear of casting stumbling-blocks before some who are really
sincere, and the apprehensions of giving malicious joy to others who
desire no greater satisfaction than to see the children of the Prince
of Peace divided among themselves, had well-nigh prevailed upon me to
pour out my soul in silence instead of publicly taking up the pen
against you. But when I perceived the solicitude with which Mr.
Wesley’s preachers recommended your letters to Mr. Shirley in their
respective congregations, and, above all, how many of God’s people had
been perplexed and distressed by reading them,—I say, when I perceived
this to be the case, and had prayed to the Giver of all wisdom for
direction, I could not but esteem it my indispensable duty to send out
a few observations on your book, especially as no other person, that I
know of, had made any reply to the doctrinal parts of it from the time
of its publication. With regard to the ‘_Circular Letter_,’ I shall
studiously avoid the very mention of it; as whether the sending of it
were in itself a wrong step or a right one, is of no consequence in
the matter of salvation. Neither shall I follow you page by page, but
taking the ’Minutes’ in the order they stand, shall dwell upon them,
more or less, as appears necessary.”

The plan here propounded is carried out, but want of space renders it impossible to give an outline of Mr. Hill’s theology. The following quotations must be taken as specimens of others which might be given:—

“Your argument is this; that, ‘_believing is previous to
justification_.’ But, dear Sir, this is begging the question; and,
permit me to say, that I deny the assertion. Waving all disputes
concerning eternal justification, or justification in the mind and
purpose of God, I maintain, that, believing cannot possibly be
previous to justification; and you must yourself maintain the same,
unless you will adopt the phrase of _an unjustified believer_; whereas
the Holy Ghost teaches that _all who believe are justified_. We may as
well suppose that a man eats before he takes any food, and that he
sees before he receives the light of the sun, as that he believes
before he is justified: for believing, and feeding upon Christ, are
not more inseparably connected than eating and taking bodily food, or
than seeing and receiving light are inseparably connected. Yea, true
faith can no more subsist without its object Christ, than there can be
a marriage without a husband. From hence, I conclude, that the
doctrine of believing before justification, and thereby making the
grace of faith a conditional work, is not less contrary to reason than
it is to Scripture itself.”

“I most sincerely abhor the Minute, ‘that we are every hour and every
moment pleasing or displeasing to God, according to our works;
according to the whole of our inward tempers, and our outward
behaviour;’ and, yet, I equally abhor the assertion, ‘that David did
not _displease_ God more when he committed adultery with Bathsheba,
and imbrued his hands in her husband’s blood, than when he danced
before the ark.’ I know, from Scripture authority, that when David
committed the sin you allude to, the thing which he had done
_displeased the Lord_. But, though I believe that David’s _sin_
displeased the Lord, must I therefore believe that David’s _person_
came under the curse of the law? and that, because he was ungrateful,
God, whose gifts and callings are without repentance, was unfaithful?
Surely no. David was still a son, though a perverse one. Like
backsliding Ephraim, he was still a pleasant child, though he went on
frowardly.”

“Either Christ has fulfilled the whole law, and borne the curse, or He
has not. If He has not, no soul can ever be saved; if He has, then all
debts and claims against His people, be they more or be they less, be
they small or be they great, be they before or be they after
conversion, are for ever and for ever cancelled. All trespasses are
forgiven them. They are justified from all things. They already have
everlasting life. They are now (virtually) sat down in heavenly places
with Christ their Forerunner; and as soon shall Satan pluck His crown
from His head, as His purchase from His hand.”

Such were some of the absurd and pernicious doctrines propounded by Mr. Hill, and which Fletcher felt it his duty to refute. Towards Wesley, there is, in Mr. Hill’s pamphlet, an occasional stroke of bitterness, as, for instance, where he asserts that “there is a much nearer resemblance between the doctrines of Mr. John Wesley and mother Church”, (Popery) “than the popish Superior chose to acknowledge;”[263] but towards Fletcher, Mr. Hill, throughout, displays the most respectful kindness, and concludes his fifth and last letter thus:—

“And now, dear Sir, I cannot conclude these letters without expressing
my earnest desire that the contents of them may never cause any
decrease of love and Christian fellowship between us. Pardon then, my
dear Sir, I ardently beseech you, O pardon all that you have found
amiss in the unworthy author of these epistles; and much, I am sure,
your charity will have to overlook. If we cannot see things alike now,
I hope the time is not far off when we shall be thoroughly united in
sentiment, as well as in heart, and each of us, casting our crowns
before the throne, shall join our voices in that one harmonious song
of praise, with which the regions of bliss shall echo without
intermission, and without end, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to
receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and
glory, and blessing.’ ‘Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be
unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and
ever.’

“In the meanwhile, let me acknowledge before the world that there is
not a man living to whom I am more indebted for repeated instances of
affection, and labours of love, than I am to dear Mr. Fletcher; and,
therefore, notwithstanding all differences of judgment between us, I
trust he will always give me leave to subscribe myself his most
affectionate friend and brother, in the bonds of the Gospel of peace,

“The Author of _Pietas Oxoniensis_.”

Footnote 263:

The reference here is to Father Walsh, the Benedictine monk at Paris;
and, it may be added, that, in a foot-note, Mr. Hill acknowledges
himself to have been the author of the “Conversation” with that
gentleman, recently published.

This was worthy of Mr. Hill, who, eleven years afterwards, succeeded to the title and estates of his father, and became Sir Richard Hill, Bart.

Though Mr. Hill’s _first_ letter to Fletcher was dated as recently as December 2, 1771, the whole _five_ were published, and Fletcher’s answer to them committed to the press as early as the month of March,[264] 1772. Fletcher begins his “Third Check to Antinomianism” as follows:—

“HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,—Accept my sincere thanks for the Christian
courtesy with which you treat me in your five letters.

“Some of our friends will undoubtedly blame us for not yet dropping
the contest; but others will candidly consider that controversy,
though not desirable in itself, yet properly managed, has, a hundred
times, rescued truth, groaning under the lash of triumphant error. We
are indebted to our Lord’s controversies with the Pharisees and
Scribes for a considerable part of the four Gospels; and, to the end
of the world, the Church will bless God for the spirited manner in
which St. Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, defended
the controverted point of a believer’s present justification by faith;
as well as for the steadiness with which St. James, St. John, St.
Peter, and St. Jude carried on their important controversy with the
Nicolaitans, who abased St. Paul’s doctrine to Antinomian purposes.

“Had it not been for controversy, Romish priests would, to this day,
feed us with Latin masses and a wafer-god. Some bold propositions,
advanced by Luther against the doctrine of indulgences, unexpectedly
brought on the Reformation. They were so irrationally attacked by the
infatuated papists, and so scripturally defended by the resolute
Protestants, that these kingdoms opened their eyes, and saw thousands
of images and errors fall before the ark of evangelical truth.

“From what I have advanced in my _Second Check_, it appears, if I am
not mistaken, that we stand now as much in need of a reformation from
Antinomianism, as our ancestors did of a reformation from Popery; and
I am not without hope that the extraordinary attack which has been
made upon Mr. Wesley’s anti-Crispian propositions, and the manner in
which they are defended, will open the eyes of many, and check the
rapid progress of so enchanting and pernicious an evil. This hope
inspires me with fresh courage; and, turning from the Hon. and Rev.
Mr. Shirley, I presume to face (I trust in the spirit of love and
meekness) my new respectable opponent.”

Footnote 264:

The date, at the end of the Third Check, is “Madeley, February 3,
1772.”

Fletcher’s first purpose, in this important controversy, was to attack Antinomianism; now he was obliged to attack Calvinism, which, though the parent of Antinomianism, did not in the present instance approve of it. It is needless to recapitulate Fletcher’s arguments in favour of the two doctrines, that all mankind are redeemed by the infinite sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God, and that, through the same sacrifice, “_the_ manifestation of the Spirit is given to _every man_ to profit withal” (1 Cor. xii. 7). A few brief extracts, however, will help to illustrate his spirit, and his style of writing.

“The grace of God is as _the wind_, which _bloweth where it listeth_;
and _it listeth_ to blow, with more or less force successively, all
over the earth. You can as soon meet with a man that never felt the
wind, or _heard the sound thereof_, as with one that never felt the
Divine breathings, or heard _the still small voice_, which we call the
grace of God. To suppose the Lord gives us a thousand tokens of _His
eternal power and Godhead_, without giving us a capacity to consider,
and grace to improve them, is not less absurd than to imagine that
when He bestowed upon Adam all the trees of paradise for food, He gave
him no eyes to see, no hands to gather, and no mouth to eat their
delicious fruits.”

“Waiving the case of infants, idiots, and those who have _sinned the
sin unto death_, was there ever a sinner under no obligation to repent
and to believe in a merciful God? Oh, ye opposers of _free grace_,
search the universe with Calvin’s candle, and among your reprobated
millions, find out the person who never had a merciful God; and show
us the unfortunate creature, whom a sovereign God bound over to
absolute despair of His mercy from the womb. If there is no such
person in the world; if all men are bound to repent and to believe in
a merciful God, there is an end of Calvinism. An unprejudiced man can
require no stronger proof that all are redeemed from the curse of the
Adamic law, which admitted of no repentance; and that the covenant of
grace, which admits of, and makes provision for it, freely extends to
all mankind.

“_Out of Christ’s fulness all have received grace_, a _little leaven_
of saving power, an inward monitor, a divine reprover, a ray of _true_
heavenly _light_, which manifests first moral, and then spiritual good
and evil. St. John _bears witness of that light_, and declares _it
was_ the spiritual _life of man_, the true light _which enlighteneth_
not only _every man_ that comes into the Church, but _every man that
comes into the world_—without excepting those who are yet _in
darkness. For the light shineth in darkness_, even when _the darkness
comprehends it not_. The Baptist also bore _witness of that light,
that all men through it_, not through him, _might believe_; φως,
_light_, being the last antecedent, and agreeing perfectly with δι’
αυτου.”

The reader has already seen Mr. Hill’s strange and pernicious doctrine respecting eternal justification. Fletcher treats this Calvinistic dream with terrible though polite severity. Without attempting to condense his arguments, the following extract will serve to show his perfect victory over his respected opponent:—

“You go on, ‘If Christ fulfilled the whole law and bore the curse,
then all debts and claims against His people, be they more or be they
less, be they small or be they great, be they before or be they after
conversion, are for ever and for ever cancelled.’

“Your doctrine drags after it all the absurdities of eternal, absolute
justification. It sets aside the use of repentance and faith, in order
to pardon and acceptance. It represents the sins of the elect as
forgiven not only before they are confessed, but even before they are
committed. It supposes that all the penitents who have believed that
they were once _children of wrath_, and that God was displeased at
them when they lived in sin, have believed a lie. It makes the
preaching of the Gospel one of the most absurd, wicked, and barbarous
things in the world. For what can be more absurd than to say, ‘Repent
ye, and believe the Gospel;’ ‘He that believeth not shall be damned;’
if a certain number can _never repent or believe_, and a certain
number can _never_ be damned?”

In concluding his Treatise, Fletcher remarks:—

“If I have addressed my _Three Checks_ to the Rev. Mr. Shirley and
yourself” (Mr. Richard Hill), “God is my witness it was not to reflect
upon two of the most eminent characters in the circle of my religious
acquaintance. Forcible circumstances have over-ruled my inclinations.
_Decipimur specie recti._ Thinking to attack error, you have attacked
the very truth which Providence calls me to defend: and the attack
appears to me so much the more dangerous as your laborious zeal and
eminent piety are more worthy of public regard, than the boisterous
rant and loose insinuations of twenty _practical_ Antinomians. The
tempter is not so great a novice in anti-Christian politics as to
engage only _such_ to plead for _doctrinal_ Antinomianism. This would
soon spoil the trade. It is his masterpiece of wisdom to get _good
men_ to do him that eminent service. He knows that their _good_ lives
will make way for their _bad_ principles. Nor does he ever deceive
with more decency and success than under the respectable cloak of
their genuine piety.

“If a wicked man pleads for sin, _foenun habet in cornu_, he carries
the mark on his forehead; we stand upon our guard. But when a good man
gives us to understand that _there are no lengths God’s people may not
run, nor any depths they may not fall into_, without losing _the
character of men after God’s own heart_, that _many will praise God
for_ our _denial of Christ_, that _sin and corruption work for good_,
that _a fall into adultery will drive us nearer to Christ_, and _make
us sing louder to the praise of free grace_; when he quotes Scripture
too, in order to support these assertions, calling them the pure
Gospel, and representing the opposite doctrine as the Pelagian heresy,
worse than popery itself,—he _casts the_ Antinomian _net on the right
side of the ship_, and is likely to enclose a great multitude of
unwary men; especially if some of the _best_ hands in the kingdom
drive the frighted shoal into the net, and help to drag it to shore.

“This is, honoured Sir, what you have done, not designedly, but
thinking to do God service. Hence the steadiness with which I have
looked in the face a man of God, whose feet I should be glad to wash
at any time, under a lively sense of my great inferiority. I beg you
not to consider the unceremonious plainness of a Swiss mountaineer as
the sarcastic insolence of an incorrigible Arminian.

“By a mistake, fashionable among religious people, you have unhappily
paid more regard to Dr. Crisp than to St. James. And, as you have
pleaded the dangerous cause of the impenitent monarch, I have
addressed you with the honest boldness of the expostulating prophet. I
have said to my honoured opponent, ‘_Thou art the man!_’

“I owe much respect to you, but more to truth, to conscience, and to
God. If, in trying to discharge my duty towards them, I have
inadvertently betrayed any want of respect to you, I humbly ask your
pardon; and I can assure you, in the face of the whole world, that
notwithstanding your strong attachment to the peculiarities of Dr.
Crisp, as there is no family in the world to which I am under greater
obligations than yours, so there are few gentlemen for whom I have so
peculiar an esteem, as for the respectable author of _Pietas
Oxoniensis_.”

“Before I lay down my pen,” says Fletcher, in a “Postscript,” “I beg
leave to address, a moment, the _true_ believers who espouse Calvin’s
sentiments. Think not, honoured brethren, that I have no eyes to see
the eminent services which many of you render to the Church of Christ;
no heart to bless God for the Christian graces which shine in your
exemplary conduct; no pen to testify, that, by letting your light
shine before men, you adorn the Gospel of God our Saviour, as many of
your predecessors have done before you. I am not only persuaded that
your opinions are consistent with a genuine conversion but I take
heaven to witness how much I prefer a Calvinist who loves God to a
Remonstrant who does not. If I have, therefore, taken the liberty of
exposing your favourite mistakes, do me the justice to believe that it
was not to pour contempt upon your respectable persons; but to set
your peculiarities in such a light as might either engage you to
renounce them, or check the forwardness with which some have lately
recommended them as the only _doctrines of grace_, and the _pure
Gospel_ of Jesus Christ; unkindly representing their remonstrant
brethren as enemies to free grace, and abettors of a dreadful heresy.

“And you, my remonstrant brethren, permit me to offer you some
seasonable advices. 1. More than ever, let us confirm our love to our
Calvinist brethren. If our arguments gall them, let us not envenom the
sore by maliciously triumphing over them. Nothing is more likely to
provoke their displeasure, and drive them from what we believe to be
the truth. 2. Do not rejoice in the _mistakes_ of our opponents, but
in the _detection_ of error. Desire not that _we_, but that _truth_
may prevail. Let us not only be willing that our brethren should win
the day if they have _truth_ on their side; but let us make it matter
of solemn, earnest, and constant prayer. 3. Let us strictly observe
the rules of decency and kindness, taking care not to treat any of our
opponents in the same manner that they have treated Mr. Wesley. The
men of the world sometimes hint that he is a papist, and a Jesuit; but
good, mistaken men have gone much farther in the present controversy.
They have published to the world, that they _verily believe his
principles are too rotten for even a papist to rest upon_; that he
_wades through the quagmires of Pelagianism_, deals in
_inconsistencies, manifest contradictions, and strange
prevarications_; that if _a contrast were drawn from his various
assertions upon the doctrine of sinless perfection, a little piece
might extend into a folio volume_; and that they are _more than ever
convinced of his prevaricating disposition_. Not satisfied with going
to a Benedictine monk, in Paris, for help against his _dreadful
heresy_, they have wittily extracted an argument, _ad hominem_, from
_the comfortable dish of tea he drinks with Mrs. Wesley_; and, to
complete the demonstration of their respect for that grey-headed,
laborious minister of Christ, they have brought him upon the stage of
controversy in a dress of their own contriving, and made him declare
to the world, that, _whenever he and fifty-three of his
fellow-labourers say one thing, they mean quite another_. And what has
he done to deserve this usage at _their_ hands? Which of _them_ has he
treated unjustly or unkindly? Even in the course of this controversy,
has he injured any man? May he not say to this hour, _Tu pugnas; ego
vapulo tantum_? Let us avoid this warmth, my brethren; remembering
that personal reflections will never pass for convincing arguments
with the judicious and humane.

“I have endeavoured to follow this advice with regard to Dr. Crisp;
nevertheless, lest you should rank him with _practical_ Antinomians, I
once more gladly protest my belief that he was a _good_ man; and
desire that none of you would condemn _all_ his sermons, much less his
_character_, on account of his unguarded antinomian propositions.

“4. If you would help us to remove the prejudices of our brethren, not
only grant with a good grace, but strongly insist upon the great
truths for which they make so noble a stand. Steadily assert, with
them, that the scraps of morality and formality, by which Pharisees
and deists pretend to merit the Divine favour, are only _filthy rags_
in the sight of a holy God; and that no righteousness is current in
heaven but the _righteousness which is of God by faith_. If they have
set their hearts upon calling it _the imputed righteousness of
Christ_, though the expression is not strictly scriptural, let it
pass; but give them to understand, that as _Divine_ imputation of
righteousness is a most glorious _reality_, so human imputation is a
most delusive _dream_; and that of this sort is undoubtedly the
_Calvinian imputation_ of righteousness to a man, who actually defiles
his neighbour’s bed, and betrays innocent blood. A dangerous
contrivance this! not less subversive of common heathenish morality,
than of St. James’s _pure and undefiled religion_.

“Again, our Calvinist brethren excel in setting forth a _part_ of
Christ’s priestly office; I mean the immaculate purity of His most
holy life, and the all-atoning, all-meritorious sacrifice of His
bloody death. Here imitate, and, if possible, surpass them. Shout a
_finished atonement_ louder than they. If they call this complete
atonement _finished salvation_, or _the finished work of Christ_,
indulge them still: for peace’s sake, let those expressions pass;
nevertheless, at proper times, give them to understand that it is
absolutely contrary to reason, Scripture, and Christian experience to
think that _all_ Christ’s mediatorial work is _finished_. Insinuate
you should be very miserable if He had nothing more to do _for_ you
and _in_ you. Tell them, as they can bear it, that He works _daily_ as
a _Prophet_ to enlighten you; as a _Priest_ to make intercession for
you; as a _King_ to subdue your enemies; as a _Redeemer_ to deliver
you out of all your troubles; and as a _Saviour_ to help you to work
out your own salvation; and hint that, in all these respects, Christ’s
work is no more finished than the working of our own salvation is
completed.

“The judicious will understand you; as for bigots, they are proof
against Scripture and good sense. Nevertheless, mild irony, sharply
pointing a scriptural argument, may yet pass between the joints of
their impenetrable armour, and make them feel either some shame, or
some weariness of contention. But this is a dangerous method, which I
would recommend to very few. None should dip his pen in the wine of
irony, till he has dipped it in the oil of love; and even then, he
should not use it without constant prayer, and as much caution as a
surgeon lances an impostume. If he goes too deep, he does mischief; if
not deep enough, he loses his time; the virulent humour is not
discharged, but irritated by the skin-deep operation. And ‘who is
sufficient for these things?’ Gracious God of wisdom and love! if Thou
callest us to this difficult and thankless office, let all our
sufficiency be of Thee! and should the operation succeed, Thine and
Thine alone shall be all the glory.”

Such advices were Christian and opportune. No doubt, they were meant for men like Thomas Olivers and Walter Sellon. Wesley, in a tract of twelve pages, had, in 1770, attacked Toplady’s “Abridgement of Zanchius on Predestination.” Toplady, in the same year, had replied to this, in a most bitter and scurrilous “Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley.” Not having leisure for this kind of work, Wesley had requested Olivers to answer Toplady. Olivers, in 1771, had published his “Letter to the Reverend Mr. Toplady” (12mo, 60 pp.), and had treated Toplady with an amount of well-deserved tartness, which quite justified Fletcher in giving the above advice.

Then, again, Walter Sellon, in the same year, 1771, had published his “Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Absolute Predestination, as is stated and asserted by the Translator of Jerome Zanchius, in his Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nowell. Together with Some Animadversions on his Translation of Zanchius, his Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, and his Sermon on 1 Tim. i. 10.” 12mo, 129 pp. In his small country parish, Ledsham, in Yorkshire, Sellon had dealt Toplady’s predestination theory heavy blows; and, it must be added, he had not been sparing in virulence. He began with telling the abusive vicar of Broad Hembury, “I shall deal plainly with you; more plainly, perhaps, than you might _desire_; yet not so plainly as you might _justly expect_. I would not say a word _barely_ to enrage you; and yet, I doubt not, but I shall _enrage_ you, because there is no coping with such writers as you, without speaking a little in your own manner; and I have always observed, those that are most prone to _give_ offence are also most prone to _take_ it.” Sellon fulfilled his threatening promise, and concluded: “Excuse my plainness, Sir, if I tell you farther, you seem much to stand in need of learning the lesson dictated by Solon of Athens, ‘_Know thyself_;’ and of praying heartily that prayer prescribed by our Church, ‘_From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness,—Good Lord, deliver us!_’”

Fletcher, in this irritating controversy, never lost his temper. Some of his coadjutors and opponents did; and hence the Christian and needed cautions and advices at the end of his “Third Check to Antinomianism.”