Chapter XI: “fourth Check to Antinomianism.”

1772.

THE issue of Fletcher’s “Third Check” was immediately followed by “A Review of all the Doctrines taught by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley; containing a full and particular Answer to a Book entitled, ‘A Second Check to Antinomianism. In Six Letters, to the Author of that Book. Wherein the Doctrines of a Twofold Justification, Free-Will, Man’s Merit, Sinless Perfection, Finished Salvation, and Real Antinomianism are particularly discussed; and the Puritan Divines vindicated from the Charges brought against them of holding Mr. Wesley’s Doctrines.’ To which is added ‘A Farrago.’ London, 1772.” 8vo, 151 pp. The letters are all signed “The Author of P.O.,” meaning, of course, Richard Hill.

Almost at the same time that the book, with this ponderous title, was published, Mr. Richard Hill committed to the press an 8vo tract of sixteen pages, entitled, “Some Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled, A Third Check to Antinomianism. By the Author of ‘_Pietas Oxoniensis_.’”

Of the second of these publications nothing need be said. Considerable bitterness towards Wesley is displayed, and a modicum of severity towards Fletcher; but, perhaps, not more than might be naturally expected; for men dislike to be vanquished.

His first and much larger pamphlet, containing, besides the “Farrago,” “Six Letters” addressed to Fletcher, must have more attention. The “Letters” relate, not to the “_Third_,” but the “Second Check” of Fletcher, and were published only a few days before the appearance of the “Remarks” just noticed. Mr. Hill thus commences his first letter:—

“REVEREND SIR,—After many debates with myself, and much solicitation
from my friends, you now hear from me again on your _Second Check to
Antinomianism_. I make no other apology for writing, than that I think
there is an absolute necessity an answer should be given to it. But,
whilst I make my animadversions on your letters, may the Divine Author
of love and meekness preserve me from the unhappy spirit in which they
are written! Oh, my dear Sir, I never could have supposed that sneer,
banter, and sarcasm, yea notorious falsehood, calumny, and gross
perversions, would have appeared before the world under the sanction
of your venerable name.”

In making such accusations, Mr. Hill ought to have known he was himself guilty of “notorious falsehood and calumny;” but he was angry, and anger is always blindfolding.

Mr. Hill next proceeds to denounce Wesley’s “doctrine of _a second justification by works_;” and asserts that “it has no existence in the Word of God, nor in any Protestant Church under heaven;” but that, in this matter, “Mr. Wesley and Mr. Fletcher have the whole Council of Trent on their side.”

With considerable ability, but with great bitterness and even reviling, especially so far as Wesley is concerned, Mr. Hill endeavours to refute Fletcher’s arguments in support of the doctrine just named, and then remarks:—

“I intended to have made several other extracts from your first
letter; but as I really cannot find many lines together free from
gross misrepresentations and perversions, and hardly one single
paragraph exempt from cutting sneers and low sarcasms, I confess I
have not patience to transcribe them; especially when I consider that
they are addressed to one” (Walter Shirley) “who, notwithstanding your
former unkind behaviour, hath treated you with all the politeness of a
gentleman, and the humility of a Christian.”

This was an ebullition of bad temper. The charges are untrue, and the spirit is unchristian. Fletcher employed irony, but, as all candid readers of his Checks must acknowledge, it was always polite and decorous. None but irritated men, like Mr. Hill, can find “low sarcasms;” and as for “gross misrepresentations and perversions,” they have no existence.

In his Second Letter, Mr. Hill takes up the doctrine of free-will, and pronounces Fletcher’s statements, in support of the free agency of man, to be “as totally void of solid scriptural argument, as they are replete with calumny, gross perversions, and equivocations.”

In his Third Letter, Mr. Hill discusses what he is pleased to call _Sinless_ Perfection,—a doctrine which neither Wesley nor Fletcher ever taught. _Christian_ Perfection[265] they enforced and defended; but _Sinless_ Perfection, using the word in its strict and literal sense, was not a dogma of theirs, but a verbal invention, adopted from Whitefield and others, by Mr. Hill and his angry friends, who desired to make their opponents the target of ridicule and scorn.

Footnote 265:

The reader who wishes to know what is meant by this is strongly
recommended to read Wesley’s invaluable treatise, entitled, “A Plain
Account of Christian Perfection;” his equally important and scriptural
sermon on “Christian Perfection,” and his other irrefutable sermons on
the same subject.

Mr. Hill begins with several revolting anecdotes respecting people who professed themselves to be _perfect_ Christians,—stories which probably were true; but stories concerning _perfect_ fanatics whom Wesley and Fletcher would have condemned as strongly as Mr. Hill. His Letter terminates with a series of the same sort of nauseous anecdotes. In a certain sense, it is smart, and Mr. Hill thought it so; for, in concluding it, he remarks:—

“Now, my dear Sir, I have given you a little in your own way; but,
notwithstanding you have set me the example in this manner of writing,
I shall be glad to set you the example of mutual forgiveness. By
cutting and slashing, we shall never convince each other of our
errors; and the end of our controversy will be, that the world will
laugh at you for taking the sword of banter, the shield of perversion,
the helmet of prejudice, and the breastplate of acrimony, in order to
fight for the doctrine of sinless perfection; and I myself shall be
laughed at, in my turn, for losing so much precious time in answering
you.”

Mr. Hill’s fourth letter is a brief one, and is devoted to what he calls Fletcher’s “heavy bombs of bitter sneer and cutting sarcasm,” hurled at the doctrine of “_the finished salvation of Christ_.”

The fifth and sixth letters, and also the postscript, are not theological, but simply abusive. Fletcher is said to “have traduced all the most celebrated ministers of the Gospel” of that day; and to have “thrown stumbling-blocks into the way of thousands.” A “wretched spirit of low sarcasm and slanderous banter runs throughout” his whole writings. Wesley and Fletcher had “adopted a scheme of religion gathered out of Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, Popery, Mysticism, and Quakerism.”

The “Farrago of Hot and Cold Medicines, by the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, extracted from his own Publications,” is, of course, principally levelled against Wesley. The spirit of it may be gathered from an extract from Bishop Hall, on the title-page of Mr. Hill’s ill-natured pamphlet:—

“I would I knew where to find you; then I could take a direct aim.
Whereas now I must rove and conjecture. To-day you are in the tents of
the Romanists; to-morrow, in ours; next day, between both, against
both. Our adversaries think you ours, we theirs; your conscience finds
you with both and neither. I flatter you not; this of yours is the
worst of all tempers. _Will you be a church alone?_ Alas! how full are
you of contradictions to yourself! How full of contrary purposes! How
oft do you chide with yourself? How oft do you fight with yourself?”

Of course, all this was provoking. Had Fletcher been of a much less combative disposition than he really was, it would have been impossible for him, as a man of honesty and honour, to lay aside his pen. Mr. Hill’s accusations were serious ones, involving Fletcher’s moral character; and a reply to them was imperative. But, before Fletcher’s “Fourth Check to Antinomianism” is introduced to the reader’s notice, another publication, which preceded it, must be mentioned. This was entitled “Friendly Remarks occasioned by the Spirit and Doctrines contained in the Rev. Mr. Fletcher’s Vindication, and more particularly in his Second Check to Antinomianism, to which is added a postscript, occasioned by his Third Check. In a letter to the Author, by ***********. A.M. London: 1772.” 8vo. 71 pp. The letter is dated, “London, July 4, 1772,” and the asterisks stand for the name of Rowland Hill, Mr. Richard Hill’s impulsive and eccentric brother, who had taken his degree at Cambridge, had been refused orders by half-a-dozen bishops, and was now nearly twenty-seven years of age. Berridge and Whitefield had been his friends, and even Wesley had approved of his preaching among his Societies.[266] At present, he was in London, discoursing to immense congregations in Whitefield’s two Metropolitan Chapels, and was resident in the Tabernacle House, in Moorfields.[267] There, no doubt, the pamphlet was written, which must now be noticed.

He begins with a reference to his extensive preaching tours; and states that he was frequently invited to preach in the meeting-houses of Wesley’s Societies, and that this occasioned him considerable perplexity, for to preach against Wesley’s “sentiments in his own congregations would be unfair.” He continues:—

“And yet, when I consider how many excellent Christians are contained
in Mr. Wesley’s Societies, whom I love as my own soul, and to whom I
have frequently given promises of my assistance and labours, how will
it grieve me to be constrained to withdraw from them, whom I so much
honour and respect.”

Rowland Hill proceeds to say, that “hitherto he had declined having the least share in the late contentions.” He was at Bristol in 1771, when Mr. Shirley and his friends invaded Wesley’s Conference, but he refused to join them, and left the city, for, he remarks, “Peace I love, but controversy I hate.” He continues:—

“Upon my return to Bristol, I saw your first publication.[268] As I
dearly loved your character, I read it with great prejudice in your
favour; but still, the _tartness_ of the style, as well as the bad
doctrine it contained, concerned me; but, as I plainly perceived your
intention was to make the ‘_Minutes_’ speak as much Gospel as
possible, though I was sorry for the performance, I felt a loving pity
for the author. About the same time, I called upon Mr. Wesley, then in
Bristol, and, in strong terms, expressed to him my concern about his
‘_Minutes_.’ He told me that he looked upon the whole of them as
truth, and that he should vindicate them as such.

“Still my determination was to appear in no open separation from Mr.
Wesley; hoping that time would soften the edge of the dispute, and
restore calmness and composure among contending parties; but your
_second_ publication[269] compels me to believe that to be neutral any
longer will be criminal. You have now done sufficient to darken every
gleam of hope of future tranquillity, by publishing _such_ doctrine,
and in _such_ a spirit, as has kindled no small flame in the religious
world.”

Footnote 266:

Sidney’s “Life of Rowland Hill,” p. 56.

Footnote 267:

_Ibid_, p. 70.

Footnote 268:

The “Vindication” of Wesley’s Minutes.

Footnote 269:

“Second Check to Antinomianism, in Three Letters,” to Mr. Shirley.

No doubt Rowland Hill was perfectly sincere when he said he hated controversy, and loved peace; and yet, such is the tendency of polemical writing, Rowland Hill and his brother Richard became the principal fomentors of this controversial warfare.

Having given what he calls “a simple narration of facts,” Mr. Rowland Hill proceeds to say:—

“I will now make some strictures principally upon your last
performance. This I pray God I may be enabled to do with meekness and
judgment. I know there is no _argument_ in _banter_, nor _conclusion_
in _sarcasm_, nor _divinity_ in a _sneer_: such weapons I wish totally
to discard; they are _pitiful_ even for the world, but they are
_scandalous_ when used by a Christian. I hate such feeble aids, and
will scorn to use them; they would defile my soul, and stab the cause
I mean to maintain. The meek and dove-like disposition of Christ, I
humbly hope will teach me, while I write, to _pity_, not to _abuse_,
the mistaken; and meekly to deliver my sentiments, without having
recourse to the _low arts_ of _slander_ and _reflection_.”

Rowland Hill had good intentions; but whether he fulfilled them will be seen in the succeeding extracts.

“After having first dressed up Mr. Shirley according to your own
fancy, and branded him with the opprobrious _name_ of _Antinomian_,
you place him at the head of a set of monsters invented by yourself;
and, after having thus raised a hideous and unthought-of ghost, you
remand it to the shades by your own spells and incantations of
_banter_ and _contempt_.”

“After having said so much as to place us in a manner even amongst
_murderers_, on account of our principles of grace, it really shocks
and almost disheartens me from following you any further. I will,
therefore, now omit reminding you of the numberless _sneers_,
_taunts_, and _sarcasms_, which so dreadfully decorate the whole of
your performance; they are nothing better than the infernal _terms of
darkness_; it is _hateful_ to transcribe them; _let darkness be their
doom_.”

“Consider in what detestable colours you have pictured us before the
world. There is scarce an abomination but what we are charged with;
and our enemies triumph at the supposed discovery. You are the man,
they say, that has been among the _Calvinists_, has found out their
hypocrisy, and are now publishing against them. Numbers of them, to my
knowledge, carry about your book in ill-natured triumph, and cast in
our teeth, as certain truth, the _dreadful slanders_ you have
_invented_. In short, Sir, you have brought over us such a day of
_blasphemy_ and _rebuke_ as we never felt before.”

“Our characters now lie bleeding before you; we smart severely under
the cruelty of your pen; and complain loudly against your great
injustice. You have given us up to be trampled upon by the world, who,
from your _pretended_ discoveries, looks upon us all as hypocrites
detected under the mask of religion. If you think us in error, for
Christ’s sake, _sneer_ at us no more; though it may be _sport_ to you,
it is, in a manner, _death_ to us. Learn the more Christian lesson to
pity us, and pray for us, and try to set us right in love.”

Rowland Hill, no doubt, intended to avoid in his pamphlet “_the low art of slander_;” but he failed in carrying out his purpose. Any one who has read, with candour, Fletcher’s first and second Checks to Antinomianism, must admit that Mr. Hill’s accusations are unfounded. Where had Fletcher slandered Rowland Hill, or any of his Calvinistic friends? It is true that he had treated some of the _doctrines_ of the Calvinists with “_banter_” and with “_sarcasm_;” but his Calvinian friends, against whose tenets he had written, had, uniformly, been treated with respectful affection. Impetuous Rowland improperly applied Fletcher’s “_banter_” and “_sarcasm_,” not to _doctrines_, as Fletcher had intended, but to the _men_ who held them, himself and his godly friends included; a thing from which Fletcher’s loving soul revolted.

The remainder of Rowland Hill’s “Friendly Remarks” chiefly consists of animadversions, intended to show “the glaring inconsistencies and palpable mistakes” of Fletcher, in the doctrines he had defended and enforced. It would be an almost endless task to dwell upon the theological criticisms of Fletcher and his opponents. As might be expected, Rowland Hill, in attacking Fletcher’s tenets, is often smart; and, it must be added, often bitter.

A reply to the pamphlets of Richard Hill and his brother Rowland became a necessity. Fletcher could not remain silent under such unfounded and undeserved imputations. Hence, though weary of the warfare, he at once resumed his pen, and began to prepare his “Fourth Check to Antinomianism.” The postscript of Rowland Hill’s “Friendly Remarks,” dated “July 4, 1772,” states that the “Third Check” had just “made its appearance.” The fourth was published before the year was ended, and bore the title of “Logica Genevensis; or, a Fourth Check to Antinomianism, in which St. James’s Pure Religion is defended against the Charges, and established upon the Concessions of Mr. Richard and Mr. Rowland Hill. In a Series of Letters to those Gentlemen, by the Vindicator of the Minutes. Bristol: Printed by William Pine, 1772.” 12mo. 245 pp. The letters are thirteen in number, and all of them are addressed to Mr. Richard Hill, except the ninth, which is addressed “to Mr. Rowland Hill,” and the tenth and eleventh written to the two brothers conjointly. The thirteenth, and last, is dated, “Madeley, Nov. 15, 1772.”[270]

Footnote 270:

The semi-infidel _Monthly Review_, which could hardly exist without
sneering at evangelical religion, remarked concerning this Fourth
Check to Antinomianism:—

“Mr. Fletcher continues to push the Calvinists with unremitting
vigour. He here encounters two formidable adversaries at once. The
veteran Wesley, who now, perhaps, thinks it time to retire from the
well-fought field, is fortunate in having so zealous an auxiliary.”
(_Monthly Review_, 1773, p. 240.)

Meanwhile, Wesley published “Some Remarks on Mr. Hill’s Review of all the Doctrines taught by Mr. John Wesley.” This is not the place to analyse Wesley’s 12mo. pamphlet of 54 pages, but the following extract from it may be acceptable:—

“With regard to Mr. Hill’s objections to Mr. Fletcher, I refer all
candid men to his own writings—his letters, entitled a ‘First, Second,
and Third Check to Antinomianism;’ the rather, because there are very
few of his arguments which Mr. Hill even _attempts_ to answer. ’Tis
true he promises ‘a full and particular answer to Mr. Fletcher’s
“Second Check to Antinomianism”;’ but it will puzzle any one to find
where that answer is except in the title-page. And if anything more is
needful to be done, Mr. Fletcher is still able to answer for himself.
But if he does, I would recommend to his consideration the advice
formerly given by a wise man to his friend, ‘See that you humble not
yourself to that man; it would hurt both him and the cause of God.’
’Tis pity but he had considered it sooner, and he might have escaped
some keen reflections. But he did not. He imagined when he spoke or
wrote in the simplicity of his heart, that his opponents would have
received his words in the same spirit wherein they were spoken; but
they turn them all into poison. He not only _loses his sweet words_,
but they are turned into bitterness—are interpreted as mere _sneer_
and _sarcasm_! A good lesson for _me_. I had designed to have
transcribed Mr. Fletcher’s character of Mr. Hill, and to have added a
little thereto, in hope of softening his spirit. But I see it is in
vain; as well might one hope to soften

‘Inexorable Pluto, king of shades.’

Since he is capable of putting such a construction even upon Mr.
Fletcher’s gentleness and mildness; since he ascribes even to him ‘a
pen dipped in gall,’ what will he not ascribe to _me_? I have done
therefore with humbling myself to these men—to Mr. Hill and his
associates. I have humbled myself to them for these thirty years, but
will do it no more. I have done with attempting to soften their
spirits; it is all lost labour” (pp. 3, 4).

Having come to such a determination, it need not be added that Wesley’s pamphlet was one of the most trenchant he ever published.

Wesley was in Shropshire in the month of August, and probably had an interview with Fletcher. It is not unlikely that Fletcher accompanied Wesley in his journey to Bristol; but if this were not the case, it is certain that he soon after followed him. Hence the following hitherto unpublished letter, written by John Pawson, an itinerant preacher of ten years’ standing:—

“BRISTOL, _September 29, 1772_.

“MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,—Mr. Wesley came here on Saturday, August 29, and
has been with us ever since, but intends to leave Bristol next Monday”
[October 5]. “He seems to be as zealous and active in his Master’s
service as ever, and quite in good health. We have also had the great
Mr. Fletcher here, but he is now returned to Madeley. He seems to be
an eminent saint indeed. I had the satisfaction to hear him twice. He
is a lively, zealous preacher; the power of God seems to attend his
word; yet I admire him much more as a writer than as a preacher. Being
a foreigner, there is a kind of roughness attends his language that is
not grateful to an English hearer; and the English not being his
mother-tongue, he sometimes seems to be at a loss for words. Yet he
certainly is a great and blessed man.

“We have had very large congregations to hear both Mr. Wesley and Mr.
Fletcher, especially the latter; and I hope we shall see the fruit of
their preaching in a little time. I trust that our gracious Lord will
be with us, and that we shall have a prosperous year; though I
apprehend it will be attended with greater difficulties than ever to
keep the people together in Bristol. We have the Tabernacle[273] on
one hand, and Mr. Janes,[274] who has a meeting in Tucker Street, on
the other. Mr. Roquet[271] also is disaffected towards us. He has been
in London for some time with his dear friend Mr. Hill. One night he
preached in the Foundery, where he gave universal offence by using
many Calvinistical phrases, and by telling the whole congregation that
he knew there were whores and bawds even in the Bands[272] in Bristol.
He said, ‘These eyes have seen it, and this heart has groaned on
account of it.’ How he will be when he returns I know not; but these
are the accounts we hear from London. Were it not that so many of our
people are so exceedingly unstable, we need not fear any of these
things; but you well know that many of them have got itching ears, and
will run about, say or do what we will.

“Mr. Wesley has just published his answer to Mr. Hill. I suppose it
will make the Calvinists exceeding angry; but I think Mr. Fletcher’s
‘Fourth Check,’ which is now in the press, will make them much more
so, as he does not spare them at all, but endeavours to show, in the
clearest manner, the horrible consequences of their beloved opinions.
He is writing something upon Perfection, the former part of which I
have seen; and I think he will set that doctrine in so Scriptural a
light, as to stop the mouths of gainsayers.”

Footnote 271:

Whitefield had a Tabernacle at Kingswood; and Lady Huntingdon, in
1753, built one in Bristol, which Whitefield opened.

Footnote 272:

Thomas Janes, who from 1767 to 1770 was one of Wesley’s itinerants.
His health not being equal to the rough work of a Methodist preacher
he settled as the pastor of a dissenting congregation in Bristol. He
died in 1773. He was a man of considerable abilities, and compiled and
published a volume which he entitled “The Beauties of the Poets.”

Footnote 273:

One of the first masters of Wesley’s Kingswood School, but now an
ordained clergyman of the Church of England, and curate of St.
Werburgh in Bristol. He was an intimate friend of Lady Huntingdon.

Footnote 274:

The Band-meetings of the Methodists, consisting of persons selected
from the Methodist classes.

Fletcher dedicated his “Fourth Check to Antinomianism” “to all candid Calvinists in the Church of England.” An extract from this dedication may be useful, as giving, in a brief form, some of the doctrines which Fletcher had defended and enforced, and which had so hugely offended his Calvinistic friends.

“They” [his opponents] “will try to frighten you from reading this
book, by protesting that I throw down the foundation of Christianity
and help Mr. Wesley to place _works_ and _merit_ on the Redeemer’s
throne. To this dreadful charge I answer:—1. That I had rather my
right hand should lose its cunning to all eternity, than use it a
moment to detract from the Saviour’s _real_ glory. 2. That the
strongest pleas I produce for holiness and good works are quotations
from the Homilies of our own Church as well as from the Puritan
divines, whom I cite preferably to others, because they held what you
are taught to call the _doctrines of grace_. 3. That what I have said
of those doctrines recommends itself to every unprejudiced person’s
reason and conscience. 4. That my capital arguments in favour of
practical Christianity are founded upon our second justification by
the evidence of good works in the great day; a doctrine which my
opponent himself cannot help assenting to. 5. That from first to last,
when the _meritorious cause_ of our justification is considered, we
set works aside; praying God _not to enter into judgment with us_, or
_weigh our merits_, but to _pardon our offences_ for Christ’s sake;
and gladly ascribing the whole of our salvation to His alone merits,
as much as Calvin or Dr. Crisp does. 6. That when the word _meriting_,
_deserving_, or _worthy_, which our Lord uses again and again, is
applied to good works or good men, we mean absolutely nothing but
_rewardable_, or qualified for the reception of a _gracious reward_.
And 7. That even this _improper_ merit or rewardableness of good works
is entirely derived from Christ’s _proper_ merit, who works what is
good in us; and from the gracious promise of God, who has freely
engaged Himself to recompense the fruits of righteousness, which His
own free grace enables us to produce.”

In the first eight of his letters, Fletcher quotes copiously from the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies of the Church of England, and from the writings of Puritan divines. He also minutely examines Mr. Richard Hill’s objections to his doctrines and to his Scriptural expositions. Up to this point there is a comparative absence of his cutting irony; but there is a great amount of powerful and triumphant writing.

In his ninth letter, addressed to Rowland Hill, he naturally enough lays aside the restraint he had put upon himself. Richard Hill was now a man of matured life, forty years of age; his brother Rowland was a young man of only twenty-seven. The former had not been sparing in the use of acrimonious epithets; the latter had been lavish. No wonder that Fletcher spared not his youthful opponent. He wrote:—

“What reason have you to assert, as you do, that I ‘_have grossly
misrepresented the Scriptures_,’ and ‘made _universal havoc of every
truth of the Gospel_’? The first of these charges is heavy, the second
dreadful. Let us see by what arguments they are supported. After
throwing away a good part of your book in passing a long, Calvinian,
juvenile sentence upon my spirit as a writer, you come at last to the
point, and attempt to explain some of the Scriptures which you suppose
I have ‘misrepresented.’”

Fletcher proceeds to examine what he calls “the arguments” of Rowland Hill; and then concludes, as follows:—

“Having answered your objections to what you justly call ‘the
principal cause of the controversy among us,’ I may make one or two
observations upon the _friendliness_ of your ‘_Friendly Remarks_.’

“Candid reader, if thou hast read my Checks without prejudice, and
attentively compared them with the Word of God, wouldest thou ever
think that the following lines contain an extract from the _friendly_
sentence, which my young opponent passes upon them?—‘Hard names,
banter, sarcasm, sneer, abuse, bravado, low arts of slander,
slanderous accusation, opprobrious name, ill-natured satire, odious,
deformed, detestable colours, unfair and ungenerous treatment, terms
void of truth, unmerciful condemnations, false humility, irritating
spirit, provoking, uncharitable style, continual sneers, most odious
appellations, abusive words, notorious scandalizing, lines too
dreadful to be transcribed, unworthy of an answer, beneath contempt,
most indecent ridicule, a wretched conclusion, as bitter as gall,
_and_ slanders which ought even to make a Turk blush.’

“If thou canst not yet see, gentle reader, into the nature of Mr.
Rowland Hill’s ‘_Remarks_,’ peruse the following _friendly_ sentences.
‘In regard to the fopperies of religion, you certainly differ from the
Popish priest of Madeley. You have made universal havoc of every truth
of the Gospel. You have invented dreadful slanders. You plentifully
stigmatize many with the most unkindly language. You have blackened
our principles, and scandalized our practice. You place us in a manner
among murderers. It shocks me to follow you. Our characters lie
bleeding under the cruelty of your pen, and complain loudly against
your great injustice. Blush for the characters you have injured by the
rashness and bitterness of your pen. You have invented a set of
monsters, and raised a hideous ghost, by your own spells and
incantations of banter and contempt. Numberless sneers, taunts, and
sarcasms dreadfully decorate the whole of your performance: they are
nothing better than infernal terms of darkness, which it is hateful to
transcribe.’

“When I cast my eyes upon this extract, I cannot help crying out, ‘If
this is my antagonist’s _friendliness_, alas! what will be his
_displeasure_? And what have I done to deserve these tokens of
Calvinian benevolence? Why are these flowers of Geneva rhetoric so
plentifully heaped upon my head?’

“Sir, I do not intimate that I have done nothing displeasing to you.
Far from insinuating it, I shall present my readers with a list of the
manifold, but well-meant provocations, which have procured me your
public correspondence. I say, _well-meant provocations_; for all I
want to _provoke_ any one _to_ is _love and good works_.

“1. I have written my Checks with the _confidence_ with which the
clear dictates of reason, and the full testimonies of Scripture,
usually inspire those who love what they esteem truth more than they
do their dearest friends.

“2. After speaking most honourably of _many Calvinists_, even of all
that are _pious_, I have taken the liberty to insinuate, that the
schemes of _finished salvation_, and _imputed righteousness_, will no
more save a Calvinist guilty of _practical_ Antinomianism, than the
doctrine of _general redemption_ will save an ungodly remonstrant.
Thus I have made no difference between the _backsliding elect_ of the
Lock,[275] and the _apostates_ of the Foundery, when death overtakes
them in their sins, and in their blood.

“3. I have maintained that our Lord did not speak an untruth when He
said, _In the day of judgment, by thy words shalt thou be justified_;
and that St. Paul did not propagate heresy when he wrote, _Work out
your own salvation_.

“4. I have sprinkled with the salt of irony your favourite doctrine
(‘Friendly Remarks,’ p. 39), ‘Salvation wholly depends upon the
purpose of God according to election, without any respect to what may
be in them,’ _i.e._ _the elect_. Now, Sir, as by the doctrine of
undeniable consequences, he who receives a guinea with the _king’s
head_ on the one side cannot but receive the _lions_ on the other
side; so he that admits the preceding proposition, cannot but admit
the inseparable counterpart, namely, the following proposition, which
every attentive and unprejudiced person sees written in blood upon
that side of Calvin’s standard which is generally kept out of sight,
‘Damnation wholly depends upon the purpose of God according to
reprobation, without respect to what may be in the reprobates.’ Here
is no ‘inventing a monstrous creed,’ but merely turning the leaf of
your own, and reading what is written there, namely, _damnation
finished_, evidently answering to _finished salvation_.”

Footnote 275:

The Lock Hospital, where Martin Madan was Chaplain.

Fletcher admits that he had used irony in his Checks, not, however, because he liked it, but because he found it needful. He writes:—

“If I make use of irony in my Checks, it is not from ‘_spleen_,’ but
_reason_. It appears to _me_ that the subject requires it, and that
_ridiculous error_ is to be turned out of the temple of truth, not
only with scriptural argument, which is _the sword of the Spirit_, but
also with _mild irony_, which is a proper scourge for a glaring and
obstinate mistake.”

Holding such a view, he introduces, in one of the two letters addressed to Richard and Rowland Hill unitedly, an illustration of the absurdities involved in Calvinism, which, perhaps, is as severe as anything that his Checks contain. The extract is long, but must be given unabridged.

“You decry ‘illustrations,’ and I do not wonder at it; for they carry
light into Babel, where it is not desired. The father of error begets
_darkness_ and _confusion_. From darkness and confusion springs
_Calvinism_, who, wrapping himself up in some garments he has stolen
from the truth, deceives the nations, and gets himself reverenced in a
dark temple, as if he were the pure and free Gospel.

“To bring him to a _shameful_ end, we need not stab him with the
dagger of ‘_calumny_,’ or put him upon the rack of _persecution_. Let
him only be dragged out of his obscurity, and brought unmasked to open
light. The silent beams of truth will pierce him through! Light alone
will torture him to death, as the meridian sun does a bird of night
that cannot fly from the gentle operation of its beams.

“May the following _illustration_ dart at least one luminous beam into
the profound darkness in which your venerable Diana delights to dwell!
And may it show the Christian world that we do not ‘_slander you_,’
when we assert, you inadvertently _destroy God’s law_, and cast the
Redeemer’s _crown to the ground_: and that when you say, ‘_In point of
justification_’ (and consequently of condemnation) ‘_we have nothing
to do with the law: we are under the law as a rule of life_,’ but not
as a rule of judgment, you might as well say, ‘We are under no law,
and consequently no longer accountable for our actions.’

“The King, whom I _suppose_ in love with your doctrines of free grace
and free wrath, by the advice of a predestinarian council and
parliament, issues out a _Gospel_ proclamation, directed, ‘To all his
dear subjects, and _elect_ people, the _English_.’ By this evangelical
manifesto they are informed, ‘That in consideration of the Prince of
Wales’s meritorious intercession, and perfect obedience to the laws of
England, all the penalties annexed to the breaking of those laws are
now abolished with respect to _Englishmen_: That His Majesty freely
pardons all his subjects, who have been, are, or shall be guilty of
adultery, murder, or treason: That all their crimes, “past, present,
and to come, are for ever and for ever cancelled:”’ That,
nevertheless, his loving subjects, who remain strangers to their
privileges, shall still be served with sham warrants according to law,
and frightened out of their wits, till they have learned to plead they
are _Englishmen_ (_i.e._ elect): And then they shall set at defiance
all legalists, that is, all those who shall dare to deal with them
according to law: And that, excepting the case of the above-mentioned
_false_ prosecution of his chosen people, none of them shall ever be
molested for the breach of any law.’

“By the same supreme authority, it is likewise enacted, that all the
laws shall continue in force against foreigners, (_i.e._ reprobates)
whom the King and the Prince hate with everlasting hatred, and to whom
they have agreed never to show mercy: That, accordingly, they shall be
prosecuted to the utmost rigour of every statute, till they are all
hanged or burned out of the way: And that, supposing no personal
offence can be proved against them, it shall be lawful to hang them in
chains for the crime of one of their forefathers, to set forth the
King’s wonderful justice, display his glorious sovereignty, and make
his chosen people relish the better their sweet, distinguishing
privileges as _Englishmen_.

“Moreover, His Majesty, who loves order and harmony, charges his
loving subjects to consider still the statutes of England, which are
in force against foreigners, as very good _rules of life_ for the
English, which they will do _well_ to follow, but BETTER to break;
because every breach of those rules will _work for their good_, and
_make them sing louder_ the faithfulness of the King, the goodness of
the Prince, and the sweetness of this Gospel proclamation.

“Again, as nothing is so displeasing to the King as _legality_, which
he hates even more than extortion and whoredom; lest any of his dear
people, who have acted the part of a strumpet, robber, murderer, or
traitor, should, through the remains of their inbred corruption, and
ridiculous _legality_, mourn too deeply for breaking some of their
_rules of life_, our gracious Monarch solemnly assures them, that,
though he highly disapproves of adultery and murder, yet these
breaches of _rules_ are not worse, in his sight, than a wandering
thought in speaking to him, or a moment’s dulness in his service: That
robbers, therefore, and traitors, adulterers and murderers, who are
free-born _Englishmen_, need not be at all uneasy about losing his
royal favour; this being utterly impossible, because they always stand
complete in the honesty, loyalty, chastity, and charity of the Prince.

“Moreover, because the King changes not, whatever lengths the
_English_ go in immorality, he will always look upon them as his
_pleasant children_, his _dear people_, and men after his own heart;
and that, on the other hand, whatsoever lengths foreigners go in pious
morality, his gracious Majesty is determined still to consider them as
_hypocrites_, _vessels of wrath_, and _cursed children_, for whom is
reserved the blackness of darkness for ever; because he always views
them completely guilty, and absolutely condemned in a certain _robe of
unrighteousness_, woven thousands of years ago by one of their
ancestors. This dreadful _sanbenito_[276] His Majesty has thought fit
to put upon them by imputation; and in it, it is his good pleasure
that they should hang in adamantine chains, or burn in fire
unquenchable.

“Finally, as foreigners are dangerous people, and may stir up His
Majesty’s subjects to rebellion, the _English_ are informed that if
any one of them, were he to come over from Geneva itself, shall dare
to insinuate that this most gracious gospel proclamation is not
according to equity, morality, and godliness, the first Englishman
that meets him shall have full leave to brand him as a papist, without
judge or jury, in the forehead or on the back, as he thinks best; and
that, till he is farther proceeded with according to the utmost
severity of the law, the chosen nation shall be informed, in the
_Gospel Magazine_, to beware of him as a man who ‘scatters firebrands,
arrows, and deaths,’ and _makes universal havoc of every_ article of
this sweet gospel proclamation.

“Given at Geneva, and signed by four of His Majesty’s principal
secretaries of state for the predestination department.

“JOHN CALVIN. THE AUTHOR OF ‘P. O.’[277]
DR. CRISP. ROWLAND HILL.”

Footnote 276:

A frock, painted with flames and devils, in which heretics were burnt
by the Inquisition.

Footnote 277:

Richard Hill, the author of _Pietas Oxoniensis_.

To those not acquainted with the Calvinian controversy, this “illustration” may appear ungenerous and unfair; but in reality, the doctrines it burlesques had all been asserted by Calvinists, and the theological points involved in them had all been exposed and controverted by Fletcher, in his “Checks to Antinomianism.” No doubt the exposure was unpleasant, but the author of the Checks was not to be blamed for this. His work was done with an aching heart in the defence of truth and righteousness.

Fletcher’s twelfth Letter, addressed to Richard Hill alone, dwells altogether on the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, which Fletcher describes as follows:—

“Consistent Calvinists believe that if a man is elected, God
absolutely imputes to him Christ’s personal righteousness, _i.e._, the
perfect obedience unto death which Christ performed upon earth. This
is reckoned to him for obedience and righteousness, even while he is
actually disobedient, and before he has a grain of inherent
righteousness. They consider this imputation, as an unconditional and
eternal act of grace, by which, not only a sinner’s past sins, but his
crimes _present_ and _to come_, be they more or be they less, be they
small or be they great, are for ever and for ever covered. _He is_
eternally _justified from all things_. And, therefore, under this
imputation, he is perfectly righteous before God, even while he
commits adultery or murder. Or, to use your own expression, whatever
_lengths he runs_, whatever _depths he falls into_, ‘_he always stands
absolved, always complete in the everlasting righteousness of the
Redeemer_.’”

This, to many Calvinists of the present day, will seem to be an extravagant caricature of one of their favourite dogmas, but it must not be overlooked that a great part of Fletcher’s descriptive definition is actually taken from the published writings of Richard Hill. No wonder, therefore, that Fletcher, with stinging irony, proceeds to say:—

“In point of justification, it matters not how unrighteous a believer
actually is in himself; because the robe of Christ’s personal
righteousness, which, at his peril, he must not attempt to patch up
with any personal righteousness of his own, is more than sufficient to
adorn him from head to foot; and he must be sure to appear before God
in no other. In this rich garment of _finished salvation_, the
greatest apostates shine brighter than angels, though they are ‘_in
themselves black_’ as the old murderer, and filthy as the brute that
wallows in the mire. This ‘best robe,’ as it is called, is
full-trimmed with such phylacteries as these,—‘Once in grace, always
in grace;’ ‘Once justified, eternally justified;’ ‘Once washed, always
fair, undefiled, and without spot.’ And so great are the privileges of
those who have it on, that they can range through all the bogs of sin,
wade through all the puddles of iniquity, and roll themselves in the
thickest mire of wickedness, without contracting the least spot of
guilt, or speck of defilement.”

Of course, Fletcher found no difficulty in demolishing such luscious and pernicious nonsense as this.

“If this doctrine is true,” says he, “the Divine perfections suffer a
general eclipse; one half of the Bible is erased; St. James’s Epistle
is made void; defiled religion justly passes for ‘_pure gospel_;’ the
Calvinian doctrine of perseverance is true; and barefaced
Antinomianism is properly recommended as ‘_the doctrines of grace_.’”

Fletcher’s last letter, also addressed to “Richard Hill, Esq.” alone, deals with the doctrine of Free-will. His definition of the Methodist doctrine deserves quotation.

“We never supposed that the natural will of fallen man is free _to
good_, before it is more or less touched and 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, agreeably to our Tenth
Article, which you quote against us without the least reason, we
steadily assert that _we have no power to do good works, 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.”

These may appear to the cursory reader metaphysical niceties of no practical importance; but, a hundred years ago, they were considered doctrines of vital interest. The difference between Fletcher and his Calvinian friends is well stated by himself:—

“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_; and,
3. That when he is _free to good_, free to choose life, he has this
from redeeming grace.

“But, although we agree in those 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 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, that is, _any free will
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.

“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.”

In this piteous way did the evangelical revivalists of the last century become divided. It was a mournful scene; but, in the long run, it was over-ruled for good. Error was crushed, and truth rose triumphant. Meanwhile, on one side at least, great bitterness was engendered, and lamentable epithets were used. In the hottest of the fray, however, Fletcher, the chief combatant, never lost his temper. Hence, in concluding his “Fourth Check to Antinomianism,” he wrote:—

“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 are
still 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. We thank them for their pious
labours; we ask the continuance, or the renewal, of their valuable
love. 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.”

There were other combatants in the field whose power over themselves was not so great and so praiseworthy. Walter Sellon was one of them, to whom Richard Hill addressed the following, hitherto unpublished, letter, just about the time when the Fourth Check of Fletcher first appeared:—

“HAWKSTONE, _December 24, 1772_.

“DEAR SIR,—It will answer no end for you and me to continue our
disputes, except that of stirring up the old man in us both. I believe
you have the grace of God, and I am sure you are blest with a good
understanding, which is well cultivated by acquired knowledge. With
these endowments and qualifications, I trust it will please God to
make you abundantly useful in the cause of Christ. I heartily forgive
whatever has savoured more of Walter Sellon than of Jesus Christ in
your two letters to me; and I beg the same on behalf of poor Richard
Hill. Come, my dear Sir, let us pray for each other. If ever I have
the pleasure of seeing you in the flesh, be assured that I shall
embrace you in the bonds of brotherly love; if not, I trust we shall
one day meet in a better place, where there will be no other
contention between us than who shall sing loudest, ‘Grace, grace unto
it!’ Without undervaluing myself in any respect, this will certainly
be the privilege of that amazing monument of mercy who desires always
to subscribe himself,

“Very dear Sir, your sincere and affectionate friend, in the best of
bonds,

RICHARD HILL.”

“To the Rev. Mr. Sellon,
Ledsham, near Ferry Bridge,
Yorkshire.”

This polemical chapter cannot be more fitly concluded than with these breathings of Christian love, to which may be added an extract from a letter which Fletcher wrote to Mr. Charles Perronet, who was suffering great affliction of body and mind:—

“1772, September 7.—MY VERY DEAR FRIEND,—No cross, no crown; the
heavier the cross, the brighter the crown.

“‘O for a firm and lasting faith,
To credit all the Almighty saith!’

“Faith, I mean the _evidence of things not seen_, is a powerful
cordial to support and exhilarate us under the heaviest pressures of
pain and temptation. By faith, we live upon the _invisible, eternal_
God; we believe that _in Him_ we live, move, and have our being;
insensibly we slide from _self_ into _God_, from the visible into the
invisible, from the carnal into the spiritual, from time into
eternity. Here our spirits are ever young; they live in and upon the
very fountain of strength, sprightliness, and joy. Oh! my dear friend,
let us rest more upon the _truth as it is in Jesus_. Of late, I have
been brought to feed more upon Jesus as _the truth_. I see more in Him
in that character than I ever did. I see Christ _the truth_ of my
life, friends, relations, sense, food, raiment, light, fire,
resting-place. All out of Him are but shadows. All _in Him_ are
blessed sacraments; I mean visible signs of the fountain, or vehicles
to convey the streams of inward grace.”[278]

Footnote 278:

Benson’s “Life of Fletcher.”