Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

luscious, fulsome additions made to it, to make it richer. And to these, we flatter ourselves, that our controversy will prove useful, as well as to our candid brethren.

We hope it will open to the view of these Gamaliels and Obadiahs, the confused heap of truth and error, at which they so justly stumble; and help them precisely to separate the precious from the vile; that while they abhor that which is evil, they may cleave to that which is good. That is not all: When they will see, that some of those men, whom they accounted wild enthusiasts, candidly take their part, where they are in the right: and fight their battles in a rational and scriptural manner, their prejudices will be softened, the light will imperceptibly steal in upon them, and, by divine grace, convince them that they go as far out of the way to the left hand, as our opponents do to the right.

The truth which we maintain, lies between all extremes; or rather, it embraces and connects them all. The Calvinists fairly receive only the first gospel-axiom, and the Moralists the second. If I may compare the gospel truth to the child contended for in the days of Solomon; both parties, while they divide, inadvertently destroy it. We, like the true mother, are for no division. Standing upon the middle scriptural line, we embrace and hold fast both gospel axioms. With the Calvinists, we give God in Christ all the glory of our salvation; and with the Moralists, we take care not to give him in Adam any of the shame of our damnation. We have need of patience with both, for they both highly blame us, because we follow the poet's direction, Inter utrumque tene, medio tutissimus ibis: Both think hard of us, because we do not so

maintain the particular gospel-axiom which they have justly espoused, as to exclude that which they rashly explode. But if we can use with meekness of wisdom, the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, and give our opposite adversaries on every side, a scriptural and rational account of the hope that is in us; moderate Calvinists and Evangelical Moralists, will at last kindly give us the right hand of fellowship. Discovering that the advantages of both their doctrines join in ours, they will acknowledge that the faith working by love, which we preach, includes all the privileges of Solifidianism and morality; that we do justice to the Gospel, without making void the Law through faith; that we establish the Law, without superseding free grace; and that we extol oûr High Priest's cross, without pouring contempt upon his throne. In a word they will perceive, that we perfectly reconcile St. Paul with St. James, and both with reason, conscience, and all the oracles of God.

Thus shall all good men of all denominations agree at last among themselves, and bend all their collected force against pharisaic unbelief, which continually attacks the first gospel-axiom; and against antinomian contempt of good works, which perpetually militates against the second. The Father of lights grant, that this may be the happy effect of our controversy! So shall we bless the hour when a variety of singular circumstances obliged us to come to a full eclaircissement; and to lay, by that mean, the foundation of a solid union, not only with each other, but also with all good and judicious men, both in the religious, and in the moral world.

END OF THE FOURTH CHECK.

LOGICA GENEVENSIS CONTINUED:

OR THE

FIRST PART OF THE

FIFTH CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM,

[ocr errors]

CONTAINING

AN ANSWER TO "THE FINISHING STROKE" OF

RICHARD HILL, Esq.

In which some Remarks upon Mr. FULSOME's Antinomian Creed, published by the
Rev. Mr. BERRIDGE, are occasionally introduced.

WITH AN APPENDIX,

Upon the remaining difference between the Calvinists and the Anti-Calvinists, with
respect to our Lord's doctrine of Justification by Words, and St. James's
doctrine of Justification by Works, and not by Faith only.

THE CONTENTS.

I. Mr. Hill endeavours to screen his mistakes, by presenting the world with a wrong
view of the Controversy.-§ II. His charge, that the practical religion recommedned in the
Checks" undermine both Law and Gospel," is retorted: and the Mediator's Law of Liber-
ty is defended.-§ III. Mr. Hill's faint attempt to shew, that his scheme differs from spec-
ulative antinomianism: His inconsistency in pleading for and against sin, is illustrated by
Judah's behaviour to Tamar.- IV. At Mr. Hill's special request, Mr. Fulsome, [a gross
Antinomian, first introduced to the world by Mr. Berridge,] is brought upon the stage of
controversy. Mr. Berridge attempts in vain to bind him with Calvinistic cords.—§ V. Mr.
Hill cannot defend his doctrines of Grace before the judicious, by producing a List of the
gross Antinomians that may be found in Mr. Wesley's societies. VI. Mr. Hill, after
passing over all the arguments and scriptures of the Fourth Check, attacks an illustration
with the Ninth Article. His stroke is warded off, and that Article turned against Calvin-
ism.-§ VII. His moral creed about faith and works, is incompatible with his immoral
system. § VIII. He raises a cloud of dust about a fair, though abridged quotation from
Dr. Owen; and in his eagerness to charge Mr. Wesley and his second with disingenuity,
furnishes them with weapons against his own errors.-§ IX. The "execrable Swiss slan-
der" proves sterling English truth.-§ X. The sincerity of our Lord's intercession even
for Judas, is defended.-§ XI. An answer to two capital charges of gross misrepresentation.
- XII. Some queries concerning Mr. Hill's forwardness to accuse his opponents of dis-
ingenuity, gross perversion, calumny, forgery, &c. and concerning his abrupt manner of
quitting the field of controversy.-§ XIII. A perpetual noise about gross perversions, and
base forgeries, become Mr. Hill, as little as any writer, considering his own inaccuracy
with regard to quotations; some flagrant instances of which are produced out of his Finish-
ing Stroke. XIV. The author, after professing his brotherly love and respect for all
pious Calvinists, apologizes for his antagonist before the anti-Calvinists; and,- XV.
Takes his Friendly leave of Mr. Hill, after promising him to publish a sermon on Rom. xi.
5, 6, to recommend and guard the doctrine of Free-grace in a scriptural manner.

In the APPENDIX, the author proves by ten more arguments, the absurdity of supposing
with the Solifidians, that Believers are justified by works before MEN and ANGELS, but not
before God.

AN ANSWER TO THE

Finishing Stroke of
RICHARD HILL, Esq.

HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,

I have received your Finishing Stroke, and return the following answer; to you, or, if you have quitted the field, to your pious Second, the Rev. Mr. Berridge, who by a public attack upon sincere obedience, and upon the doctrine of a believer's justification by works, and not by faith only, has already entered the lists in your place.

I. Page 6, you complain, that I represent you, as fighting the battles of the rankest Antinomians, "Because (say you) we firmly believe and unanimously assert, that the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin, and that, if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, &c, and that this Advocacy prevails."-Not so, Sir: I apprehend you give your readers totally wrong ideas of the question. You know, I never opposed you for saying, that the blood of Christ cleanseth a penitent believer from all sin. On the contrary, this I insist upon in a fuller sense than you do, who if I mistake not, suppose that Death, and not the blood of Christ applied by the sanctifying Spirit, is to be our cleanser from all sin. The point which we debate is not then, whether Christ's blood cleanses from all sin, but whether it actually cleanses from all guilt an impenitent backslider, a filthy apostate; and whether God says to the fallen believer, that commits adultery and murder, "Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled, there is no spot in thee." This you affirm in your Fourth Letter; and this I expose as the very quintessence of Ranterism, Antinomianism, and Calvinistic perseverance. The second part of your mistake is yet more glaring than the first. The question is not [as you inform your readers] whether, if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, &c. You know, Sir, that far from denying this comfortable truth, I maintain it in full opposition to your narrow system, which declares, that if any man who is passed by or non-elected, sinneth, there is no advo cate with the Father for him; and that there are thousands of absolutely reprobated wretches, born to have the devil for a tempter and an accuser, without any help from our Redeemer and Advocate.

Nor yet do we debate whether Christ's advocacy prevails, in the full extent of the word, for all that know the day of their visitation. This is a point of doctrine, in which I am as clear as yourself. But the question, about which we divide, is, 1. Whether Christ's advocacy never prevails, when he asks that barren fig-trees, which are at last cut down

for persisting in their unfruitfulness, may be spared this year also? Whether it prevails in such a manner for all those, who once made ever so weak an act of true faith, that they shall never make shipwreck of the faith, never deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction? 3. Whether Aaron and Korah, David and Demas, Solomon and Hymeneus, Peter and Judas, Philetus and Francis Spira, with all that fall from God, shall infallibly sing louder in heaven for their grievous falls on earth ?In a word, whether the salvation of some, and the damnation of others, are so finished, that, during the day of their visitation, it is absolutely impossible for one of the former, to draw back to perdition from a state of salva tion; and for one of the latter, to draw back to salvation from a state of perdition?

These important questions you should have laid before you readers as the very ground of our controversy. But instead of this you amuse them with two precious Scriptures, which I hold in a fuller sense than yourself. This is a stroke of your logic, but it is not the finishing one, for you say:

§ II. P. 6. "We cannot admit the contrary doctrine [that of the Checks] without at once undermining both law and gospel, For the law is certainly undermined by supposing, that any breach of it whatever, is not attended with the curse of God."-What law do] I undermine? Is it the law of innocence? No. For I insist upon it as well as you, to con vince unhumbled sinners, that there can be no salvation but in and through a Mediator.' Is it the Mediator's law, the law of liberty? Certainly not: for I defend it against the bold attacks you make upon it; and shall now ward off the dreadful blow, you give it in this argument.

O Sir, is it right to confound, as you do, the law of paradisaical innocence, with the evangelical law of liberty, that in point of personal sincere obedience you may set both aside at one stroke? Is not this Calvinistic stroke as dangerous, as it is unscriptural? There is no law but one, which damns for want of absolute innocence: all those that are under any law, must be under this law, which curses for a wandering thought, as well as for incest.But believers are not cursed for a wandering thought. Therefore they are under no law; they are not cursed even for incest; they may break their "rule of life" by adultery as David, or by incest as the unchaste Corinthian, without falling under the curse of any divine law in force against them: in a word, without ceasing to be men after God's own heart.

Now whence arises the fallacy of this argument. Is it not from overlooking the Mediator's law, the law of Christ? Can you see no medium, between being under "a rule of life," the breaking of which shall work for

our good; and being under a law that curses to the pit of hell for the least want of absolute innocnce? Betwixt these two extremes, is their not the evangelical law of liberty?

O Sir, be not mistaken: the Gospel has its law. Hear St. Paul: "God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." Rom. ii. 16. Hear St. James: "So speak ye [believers] and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty; for he [the believer] shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy," Jam. ii. 12, 15, illustrated by Matt. xviii. 23-35.

Christ is neither an Eli, nor a Nero, neither a dolt, nor a tyrant; but a priestly king, a Melchisedec. If he is a king, he has a law; his subjects may, and the disobedient shall be condemned by it. If he is a priestly king, he has a gracious law; and if he has a gracious law, he requires no absolute impossibilities. Thus the covenant of grace keeps a just me. dium between the relentless severity of the first covenant, and the antinomian softness of the covenant trumpeted by some Calvinists.

Be not then frightened, O Sion, from meditating in Christ's law day and night; for it is the law of thy gracious King, who cometh unto thee meek, and sitting upon the foal of a mild pacific animal: and not of thy fierce and fond monarch, O Geneva, who comes riding upon the wings of storms and tempests, to damn the reprobates for the pre-ordained, unavoidable consequences of Adam's pre-ordained, unavoidable sin; and to encourage fallen believers that climb up into their neighbour's beds, by saying to each of them, "Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled, there is no spot in thee." But more of this to Mr. Berridge. When you have given us a wrong idea of the Mediator's law; you proced to do the same by the gospel, with which that law is so closely connected: for you say:

P. 6. "The gospel is certainly undermined, by supposing, that there is provision made in it for some sins, and not for others." Well then, Sir, Christ and the four evangelists have "certainly undermined the gospel;" for they all mention the sin against the Holy Ghost, the sin unto death, or the sin of final impenitency and unbelief; and they not only suppose, but expressly declare, that it is a sin, for which "no provision is made," and the punishment of which obstinate unbelievers and apostates must personally bear. Is it not strange, that the capital doctrine, by which our Lord guards his own gospel, should be represented as a capital error, by which "the gospel is certainly undermined?"

III. P. 6. To shew what your scheme is different from speculative Antinomianism, you ask: "Is the experience of David, Lot, and Solomon, that of all those who abide by those doctrines?"-I answer: It may be that of thousands for ought you know, and if it is not that of myriads, no thanks to you, Sir, for

you have given them encouragement enough: [though I still do you the justice to say, you have done it undesignedly:] And lest they should forget your former inuendo, in this very page you say, that "The covenant of grace" [including no doubt finished salvation] "standeth sure in behalf of the elect, under every trial, state, and circumstance they can possibly be in ;" which, if I mistake not, im plies, that they may be in the impenitent "state" of drunken Lot, and adulterous David; or in the dangerous "circumstances" of idolatrous Solomon, and the incestuous Corinthian, without being less interested in finished salvation, than if they served God with Noah, Job, and Daniel. To this answer I add Flavel's judicious observation. "If the principle will yield it, it is in vain to think corrupt nature will not catch at it, and make a vile use and dangerous improvement of it." But you say, p. 7. "You know in your conscience, that we detest and abhor that damnable doctrine and position of real Antinomians, Let us sin, that grace may abound.” —I believe, Sir, that all pious Calvinists, and consequently you, abhor that horrible tenet practically, so far as you are saved from sin. And yet, to the great encouragement of practical Antinomianism, you have made an enumeration of the good that sin, yea any length in sin, unto adultery, robbery, murder, and incest, does to the pleasant children. You have assured them that "sin shall work for their good;" and you have closed the strange plea by saying, that a grievous fall will make them sing louder the praises of free, restoring grace to all eternity in heaven." Now, Sir, pardon me if I tell you my whole mind; really, to this day I think, that if I wanted to make Christ publicly "the minister of sin," and to poison the minds of my hearers by preaching an antinomian sermon from these words, "Let us sin, that grace may abound." I could not do it more effectually than by shewing, according to the doctrine of your Fourth Letter; 1. That upon the whole, sin can do us no harm. 2. That far from hurting us, it will work for our good: and 3. that even a grievous fall into adultery and murder, will make us sing louder in heaven; all debts and claims against believers, be they more or be they less, be they small or be they great, be they before or be they after conversion, being for ever and for ever cancelled by Christ's fulfilling the law for them." In the name of reason, I ask, where is the difference between publishing these unguarded tenets, and sayingroundly, Let us sin, that grace may abound?

[ocr errors]

Do not reply, Sir, that this objection was brought against St. Paul as well as against you, and therefore the apostle's doctrine and your's exactly coincide; for this would be impeaching the innocent to screen the guilty. The charge of indirectly saying, Let us sin,

that grace may abound, is absolutely false when it is brought against St. Paul; but alas, it is too true when produced against the author of Pietas Oxoniensis. Where did that holy apostle ever say, that sin works for our good? When did he declare, that the Lord over-rules sin, even adultery and murder, for the good of his backsliding people; and that grievous falls in this world, will make us more joyful in the next? But you know, Sir, who has published those maxims, and who stands to them even in a Finishing Stroke; intimating still, that it is God's "secret will" to do good to his people by the abominable thing which his soul hateth, P. 55. l. 36, &c. O Sir, hell is not farther from heaven, than this doctrine from that of the Apostle: for while you absolutely promise fallen believers louder songs in heaven, he conditionally threatens them with much sorer punishment in hell, Heb. x. 29. and Christ says, "Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto thee." But your scheme says, Go any length in sin, and a more excellent thing shall happen unto thee: "A grievous fall will drive thee nearer to Christ."

breaking of which will in the end work f the believer's good; you say:--" Though I have begged you so earnestly in my Review, to point out by name who these wretches" [you should say these persons]" are: Though I have told you, that without this the charge of slander must be forever at your door; still neither they nor their converts are produced, no nor one quotation from their writings, in. order to prove these black charges upon them."-Here is a heap of gross mistakes. I have not only produced one quotation, but many both from Dr. Crisp's writings and your own. See Second Check, from p. 78 to p. 83.-and Third Check, from p. 71 to p. 96. -Again, that "neither they nor their converts are produced," is a capital oversight. Turn to the Fourth Check, p. 145; "Produce a few of them," says your brother; to which I answer: "Well, Sir, I produce first, the Author of Pietas Oxoniensis, next yourself, and then all the Calvinists, who admire your brother's Fourth Letter, where he not only insinuates, but openly attempts to prove, that David, &c. stood absolved and complete in the everlasting righteousness of Christ, while his Leaving you to reconcile yourself with holy eyes were full of adultery, and his hands of Paul and our blessed Lord, I beg leave to blood. Now, Sir, if this was the case of account for the warmth with which you some David, it may not only be the case of many, times plead for, and sometimes against sin. but of all the elect: For the imaginary coveAs a good man, you undoubtedly "detest and nant of finished salvation, stands as sure for abhor" this dangerons maxim of the great fallen believers, who cheat, swear, and get. Diana of the Antinomians; "sin works for drunk; as for those who commit adultery, good to believers; but as a sound Calvinist, murder, and incest. you plead for it, yea, and you father it upon the apostle too: see Third Check, p. 90. This contrariety in your sentiments, may be illustrated by Judah's inconsistent behaviour to Tamar.

As Tamar was an agreeable woman, Judah took an antinomian fancy to her, gave her his signet, bracelet, and staff for a pledge; and faithfully sent her a kid from the flock. But as she was his disgraced daughter-in-law, big with a bastard child, though he himself was the father of it, he rose against her with uncommon indignation, and said, in a fit of legality, "Bring her forth that she may be burnt!" Oh! that, instead of calling me "a spiritual calumniator," and accusing me of "vile false. hood and gross perversion," for bearing my testimony against a similar inconsistency, you would imitate the undeceived patriarch, take your signet and bracelets again; I mean, call in your Fourth Letter that fatal pledge sent me from the press of your great Diana, and from this time know her again no more! Gen. xxxviii. 26.

IV. But you are not put out of countenance by your former mistakes, for p. 8, 9, speaking, it seeins, of those mistaken good men," who say more at times for sin than against it," or of those who traduce obedience, and make void the law through faith; representing it as a bare rule of life, the

N

But since you press me still to produce witnesses, I promise you to produce by and by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, your second, together with his antinomian pleas against sincere obedience. In the mean time I produce "Mr. Fulsome," together with a quotation from "The Christian World unmasked." It con. tains a ludicrous description of a consistent Antinomian brought over to the doctrines of grace by, I know not which of our gospel ministers. 2 Edit. p. 191.

His name (says Mr. Berridge) was Mr. Fulsome, and his mother's maiden name was Miss Wanton. When the cloth was removed, and some few tankards had gone round, Mr. Fulsome's face looked like the red lion painted on my landlord's sign, and his mouth began to open. He talked swimmingly about religion, and vapoured much in praise of [Calvinistic] perseverance. Each fresh tankard threw a fresh light upon his subject, &c. 'No sin, he said, can hurt me. I have had a call, and my election is safe. Satan may pound me, if he please: but Jesus must replevy me. What care I for drunkenness or whoredom, for cheating or a little lying? These sins may hurt another, but they cannot hurt me. Let me wander where I will from God, Jesus Christ must fetch me back again. I may fall a thousand times, but I shall rise again; es I may fall exceeding foully."-"And so be

« AnteriorContinuar »