John Fletcher: Against Antinomianism

HON. AND DEAR SIR,.-My entering the field of controversy to aid and defend St. James' "pure religion," procured me your Five Letters, which I compare to a shower of rain, gently descending from the placid heaven. But the six which have followed resemble a storm of hail, pouring down from the lowering sky, ushered by some harmless flashes of lightning, and accompanied by the rumbling of distant thunder. If my comparison is just, it is no wonder that when I read them first I was almost thunderstruck, and began to fear, lest, instead of adding light, I had only added heat, to the hasty zeal which I endeavoured to check.

But at the second perusal, my drooping hopes revived; the disburdened clouds begin to break; the air, discharged of the exhalations which rendered it sultry or hazy, seems clearer or cooler than before; and the smiling plains of evangelical truth, viewed through that defecated medium, appear more gay after the unexpected storm. Methinks even moderation, the phoenix consumed by our polemic fires, is going to rise out of its ashes: and that, notwithstanding the din of a controversial war, "the voice of the turtle is still heard in our land."

May the gentle sound approach nearer and nearer, and tune our listening hearts to the melodious accents of Divine and brotherly love! And thou Prince of Peace, thou true Solomon, thou pacific Son of warlike David, should an evil spirit come upon me as it did upon Saul, to make me dip my pen in the envenomed gall of discord, or turn it into a javelin to strike my dear opponent through and through; mercifully bow the heavens, gently touch the strings of my heart, and play upon them the melting tune of forgiving love! Teach me to check the rapid growth of Antinomian errors, without hindering the slow progress of thy precious truth; and graciously instruct me how to defend an insulted, venerable father, without hurting an honored, though, alas! prepossessed brother. If the latter has offended, suffer me not to fall upon him with the whip of merciless revenge; and if I must use the rod of reproof, teach me to weigh every stroke in the balance of the sanctuary with tender fear, and yet with honest impartiality.

Should I, in this encounter, gracious Lord, overcome by thy wisdom my worthy antagonist, help me by thy meekness to give him an example of Christian moderation; and while I tie him with the cords of a man and a believer, while I bind him with reason and Scripture to the left wheel of thy Gospel chariot, which, alas! he mistakes for a wheel of antichrist's carriage; let me rejoice to be tied by him with the same easy bonds to the right wheel, which he, without reason, fears I am determined to stop. And when we are thus mutually bound to thy triumphant car, draw us with double swiftness to the happy regions where the good, as well as "the wicked, cease from troubling," and those who are "weary of contention are at rest." So shall we leave for ever behind the deep and noisy" waters of strife," in which so many bigots miserably perish; and the barren mountains of Gilboa, where hurried Saul falls upon the point of his own controversial sword, and lovely Jonathan himself receives a mortal wound.

You remember, honored sir, that I opened the Second Check to Antinomianism by demonstrating that in the day of judgment we shall be justified by works, that is, by the evidence of works. A person of your penetration could not but see, that if this legal proposition stood, your favourite doctrine of finished salvation, and Calvinian imputation of' righteousness to an impenitent adulterer, would lose their exorbitant influence. You design, therefore, to bend yourself, with Samson's might, upon this adamantine pillar of our "heretical" doctrine. Let us see whether your redoubled efforts have shaken it, or only shown that it stands as firm as the pillars of heaven.

You enter upon the arduous labour of deciding, in your first paragraph, that I deal in "sneer, banter, sarcasm, notorious falsehood, calumny, and gross perversions;" and to confirm this charge, you produce three anonymous letters, one of which deposes, that what I have written upon finished salvation "is enough to make every child of God shudder;" while another pronounces, that my "book is full of groundless; and false arguments;" and the third, that I am "infatuated," and have "advanced pernicious doctrines in bitter expressions." Your initial charge, supported by this three-fold authority, will probably pass for a demonstration with some of your readers; but as I consider it only as a faint imitation of Calvin's book, called Responsio ad calumnias Xebulonis, I hasten to what looks a little like an argument.

Page 4, you say, concerning justification by works, that is, by the evidence of works, in the last day, "I may safely affirm, that it has no existence in the word of God." So, honoured sir, the plainest and fullest passages of the sacred oracles are, it seems, to fly like chaff before your "safe affirmation;" for you have not supported it by one single text. Near twenty have I produced, which declare, with one consent, that we shall be judged, not according to our faith, but according to our works; and that the doers of the law, and they alone, shall be justified in the last day; but in your "full and particular answer to my book," you take a full and easy leap over most of these texts. Two, however, you touch upon; let us see if you have been able to press them into the service of your doctrine.

1. You find fault with our translation of Rev. xxii, 14: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life." You say, that the word which is rendered right properly signifies privilege. Granting it, for peace' sake, I ask, What do you get by this criticism-- Absolutely nothing: for the word privilege proves my point as well as the word right; unless you can demonstrate that it makes a material difference in the sense of the following similar sentence: "Blessed was the son of Aaron, whom Moses anointed high priest, that he might have the right, (or, that he might have the privilege,) of entering once a year into the holy of holies." If those different expressions convey the same idea, your objection is frivolous, and Rev. xxii, 14, even according to your own translation, still evidently confirms the words of our Lord and his favourite disciple: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."

2. The other text you touch upon is Matt. xii, 36, 37, "In the day of judgment, by thy WORDS shalt thou be justified." Page 10, you thus comment upon it: "Our Lord points out the danger of vain and idle words; and affirms, that as every tree is known by its fruit, so may the true state of the heart be known by the evil or good things which proceed out of the mouth; and having laid down this rule of judgment, he adds the words which you have so often cited in defence of' your doctrine, 'By thy words thou shalt be justified,' &c, that is, as words and works are the streams which flow from the spring of the heart, so by these it will appear whether that spring was ever [I would say, with more propriety, is now] purified by grace; or whether it still remains in its natural corrupt state; the actions of a man being the declarative evidences, both here and at the great day, whether or no he was [I would say, he is] among the trees of righteousness which the Lord hath planted. This is the plain, easy sense of this passage."

Is it, indeed, honored sir? Well then, I have the pleasure of informing you, that supposing you allow of my little alterations, we are exactly of the same sentiments; and I think that, upon second thoughts, you will not reject them; for it is evident, the actions of to-day show what a free agent is to-day, and not what he was yesterday, or he will be six months hence. By what argument will you prove, that because Lucifer was once a bright angel, and Adam a godlike creature, they continued such under all the horrors of their rebellion? Or that David's repentance after Nathan's expostulation, evidenced that he was a penitent before? In the last day the grand inquiry will not be, Whether Hymeneus, Philetus, and Demas, "were ever purified by grace;" but whether they were so at death. Because our last works will be admitted as the last, and consequently the most important and decisive evidences; for "as the tree falls, so it lies." Apostates, far from being justified for having been once "purified by grace," will be "counted worthy of a sorer punishment" for having "turned from the way of righteousness." Would not the world hiss a physician, who should publicly maintain, that by feeling people's pulse now, he can tell whether they were ever sick or well? Or that because one of his patients was alive ten years ago, he is alive now, though every symptom of death and corruption is actually upon him? And shall your hint, honored sir, persuade your readers that what would be an imposition upon common sense in a gentleman of the faculty, is genuine orthodoxy in Mr. Hill?

But I have too high an opinion of your good sense and piety, dear sir, to think that you will persist in your inaccuracy, merely for the pleasure of maintaining the ridiculous perseverance of Antinomian apostates, and contradicting the God of truth, who expressly mentions "the righteous turning from his righteousness, and dying in the sin that he has sinned." My hopes that you will give it up are the more sanguine, as it is rectified in the same page by two quotations which have the full stamp of your approbation.

"The judicious Dr. Guise," say you, "paraphrases thus on the place: 'Your words, as well as actions, shall be produced in evidence for or against you, to prove [not whether you ever were, but] whether you are a saint or a sinner, a true believer or not; and, according to their evidence, you shall be either publicly acquitted or condemned in the great day.'" And as it is absurd to suppose that Christ shall inquire whether men are believers in the day of judgment, because faith will then be lost in sight; Mr. Wesley, whom you quote next, as if he contradicted me, wisely corrects the little inaccuracy of the doctor, and says, "Your words, as well as actions, shall be produced in evidence for or against you, to prove [not whether you are, but] whether you was a true believer or not, and according to their evidence you will either be acquitted or condemned in the great day." The very doctrine this which I have advanced at large in the Second Check.

However, triumphing as if you had won the day, you conclude by saying, "In the mouth of these two witnesses may THE TRUTH be firmly established." To this pious wish, honoured sir, my soul breathes out a cordial 'amen!' I rejoice to see that God has given you candor to the acknowledgment of THE TRUTH; and as it is firmly established in the mouth of Dr. Guise and Mr. Wesley, may it be forever confirmed by this spontaneous testimony of Mr. Hill! But, in the name of brotherly love, if you thus hold THE TRUTH which I contend for; that is, justification by the evidence of works in the last day; why do you oppose me? Why do you represent my sentiment "as full of rottenness and deadly poison?" Till you solve this problem, permit me to vent my surprise by a sigh, and to say, Logica Genevensis!

Having seen how fully and particularly you have granted the fundamental doctrine of the book, to which you was to give "a full and particular answer," -namely, that our final justification will turn upon the evidence of works in the last day; I go back to page 4, where, to my utter astonishment, you affirm, "that as this doctrine has no existence in the word of God, so neither in any Protestant Church under heaven!" Thus, to unchurch Mr. Wesley and me, you unchurch Dr. Guise and yourself'!

To support your assertion you quote Bishop Cowper, Dr. Fulke, and Mr. Hervey, who agree to maintain, that "justification is one single act, and must therefore be done or undone." As neither you nor they have supported this proposition by one single argument, I shall just observe, that a thousand bishops and doctors are lighter than vanity, when weighed in the balance against the authority of Christ and his apostles.

However, if you forget your proofs, I shall produce mine; and by the following syllogism I demonstrate that justification in the day of our conversion, and justification in the last day, are no more "one single act," than the day of the sinner's conversion and that of judgment are one single day.

Two acts, which differ as to time, place, persons, witnesses, and circumstances, &c, cannot be "one single act;" (the one may be done when the other remains undone.) But our first justification at conversion thus differs from our second in the great day. Therefore our first and second* justification cannot be one single act, &c.

[ * I still call them first and second, not only to accommodate myself to the Rev. Mr. Shirley's expression in his Narrative, but because they may with propriety be thus distinguished, when considered with respect to each other.]

The second proposition, which alone is disputable, may be thus abundantly proved. Our first and second justification differ, (1.) With respect to time: the time of the one is the hour of conversion; and the time of the other the day of judgment. (2.) With respect to place: the place of the former is this earth; and the place of the latter the awful spot, in the new heaven or on the new earth, where the tribunal of Christ shall be erected. (3.) With respect to the witnesses: the witnesses of the former are the Spirit of God and our own conscience; or, to speak in Scripture language, "The Spirit bearing witness with our spirits that we are the children of God;" but the witnesses of the latter will be the countless myriads of men and angels assembled before Christ. (4.) With respect to the Justifier in the former justification "one God justifies the circumcision and the uncircumcision;" and in the latter, "one Mediator between God and man, even the man Christ Jesus," will pronounce the sentence: for, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son." (5.) With respect to the justified: in the day of conversion, a penitent sinner is justified; in the day of judgment, a persevering saint. (6.) With respect to the article upon which justification will turn: although the meritorious cause of both our justifications is the same, that is, the blood and righteousness of Christ, yet the instrumental cause is very different; by FAITH we obtain (not purchase) the first, and by WORKS the second. (7.) With respect to the act of the Justifier: at our conversion God covers and pardons our sins; but in the day of judgment Christ uncovers and approves our righteousness. And, (lastly,) with regard to the consequences of both: at the first justification we are enlisted by the Friend of sinners to "fight the good fight of faith" in the Church militant; and at the second we are admitted by the righteous Judge to "receive a crown of righteousness, and shine like the sun" in the Church triumphant.

Is it not strange that the enchanting power of Calvinian logic should have detained us so long in Babel, where things so vastly different are perpetually confounded? Is it not deplorable that when Mr. Wesley has the courage to call us out of mystic Geneva, so many tongues and pens should be sharpened against him? Shall foreign logic for ever prevail over English good sense, and Christian brotherly kindness'! Have we so "leaned toward Calvinism" as to be totally past recovery? And is the balance between St. Paul's and St. James' justification lost among pious Protestants for ever? O ye regenerate Britons, who have unhappily fallen in love with the Genevan Delilah, "awake! awake! put on strength," and leap out of the arms of that enchantress! If she rocks you asleep in her bosom, it is only to bind you fast with cords of Antinomian errors, and deliver you up to the horrors of Antinomian practices. Has she not already cut off the locks, and put out the eyes of thousands? And does not Samson publicly grind for the Philistine? Have we not seen Mr. Hill himself tell the world that "all sins work for good to the pleasant children," who go on frowardly from adultery to treachery, and from treachery to murder?

But you have an answer ready. Page 6, you insinuate that it is I who have erected a Babel, by denying that the two above-described justifications are one and the same. And, to prove it, you advance a dilemma which is already obviated in the Third Check, p. 161. We readily grant you, honoured sir, that, if a man dies the moment he is justified by faith, the inward labor of his love, (for living faith always works by love,) will justify him in the day of judgment. But you must also grant us, that if he lives, and "turns from his righteousness;" or which is the same, if his faith, instead of working by love and obedience, works by lust and malice, by adultery and murder, it is no longer a living faith; it is a dead faith, of which St. James says, "What does it profit, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can that faith save him? Faith, if it hath not works, is dead." You see, then, how that, in what you call "the intermediate state," as well as in the last day, "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," James ii.

Page 6, you assert, that my "favorite scheme is rather overthrown than supported by the instance of the collier," on whose evidence I supposed myself acquitted in a court of judicature. "His testimony," say you, "proves indeed your innocence, but it does in no degree constitute that innocence." Are then, "to justify a man," and "to constitute him innocent," expressions of the same import? Nay, some believe that when God justifies returning prodigals at their conversion, he does not constitute them innocent, but for Christ's sake mercifully pardons their manifold sins, and graciously accepts their guilty persons; and that when Christ shall justify persevering saints in the last day, he will not constitute them innocent, but only declare, upon the evidence of their last works, that they are "pure in heart," and therefore qualified "to see God, and worthy to obtain that world, where the children of the resurrection are equal to angels."

To show that the instance of the grafted tree overthrows also the doctrine of a two-fold justification, you quote that great and good man, Mr. Hervey. But you forget that his bare assertion is no better than your own. I appeal from both your assertions to the common sense of any impartial man, whether there is not a material difference between declaring that a crab stock is properly grafted, and pronouncing that an apple tree is not cankered and barren, but sound and fruitful. Mr. Hervey's mistake appears to me so much the more surprising, as the distinction which he explodes is every where obvious.

Look into our orchards, and you will see some trees that were once properly grafted, but are now blasted, dead, rotten, and perhaps torn up by the roots. Consider our congregations, and you will cry out, as the pious divine* under whose ministry you sit at present, "O what sad instances does the present state of the Church afford us of persons, who set out with the most vehement zeal at the beginning, seemed to promise great things, and to carry all before them, who are now like the snuff of an extinguished taper, devoid of any apparent life! We swarm with slumbering virgins on the right hand and on the left. The Delilah of this world has shorn their locks, their former strength is gone, their frame is totally enervated, and the Philistines are upon them."

[ * The Rev. Mr. De Courcy, in his "Delineation of true and false Zeal," a little edifying tract, which does justice to St James' "pure religion," and shows, that some pious Calvinists clearly see the growth, and honestly check the progress of Antinomianism, so far as their principles will allow.]

But, above all, search the oracles of God, and there you will see various descriptions of apostates, that is, of men who, to the last, "tread under foot the Son of God, and account the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified," and consequently justified, "a common, despicable thing." These, in a dying hour, have no right to say, "I have kept the faith;" for, alas! by "putting away a good conscience, concerning faith they have made shipwreck." These, like withered. branches" of the heavenly Vine, in which they once blossomed, shall be "taken away, cast forth, and burned," in the last day, together with the chaff, for not "bearing fruit, and ending in the flesh;" agreeable to that awful clause in the Gospel charter, "The works of the flesh are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, idolatry, hatred, variance, wrath, strife, envying, murder, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I tell you, [justified believers,] as I have told you in time past, that they who DO such things SHALL NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven." Thus the numerous tribe of apostates, after having been "justified by FAITH" in the day of their conversion, shall be condemned by WORKS in the day of judgment. So real, so important is this distinction, which Mr. Hervey looks upon as needless, and you, sir, as "full of deadly poison!"

However, says Bishop Cowper, "This distinction confounds two benefits, justification and sanctification." To this assertion, which, according to a grand rule of your logic, is also to pass for proof, I answer, that our sanctification will no more be confounded with our justification in the last day, than our faith is confounded with our acceptance in the day of our conversion. When you shall demonstrate that the witnesses, upon whose testimony a criminal is absolved, are the same thing as the sentence of absolution pronounced by the judge, you will be able to make it appear, that sanctification is the same thing as justification in the last day; or, which is all one, that there is no difference between an instrumental cause and its proper effect. May both our hearts lie open to the bright beams of convincing truth! And may you believe that my pen expresses the feelings of my heart, when I subscribe myself, honoured and dear sir, your most obedient servant in Him who will justify us by our words, JOHN FLETCHER.

LETTER II.

To Richard Hill, Esq.

HONOURED AND DEAR Sir,-An assertion of yours seems to me of greater moment than the quotation from Bishop Cowper, which I answered in my last. You maintain, (p. 11,) "that the doctrine of a two-fold justification is not to be found in any part of the liturgy of our Church."

1. Not to mention again the latter part of St. Athanasius' creed; permit me, sir, to ask you, if on the thirteenth and fourteenth Sundays after Trinity you never considered what is implied in these and the like petitions? "Grant that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises, through the merits of Jesus Christ. Make us to love that which thou dost command, that we may obtain that which thou dost promise." Again: on St. Peter's day, "Make all pastors diligently to preach thy holy word, and the people obediently to follow the same, that they may receive the crown of everlasting glory, through Jesus Christ." And on the third Sunday in Advent: "Grant that thy ministers may so prepare thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient, that at thy second coming to judge the world, we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight."

St. James' justification by works, consequent upon justification by faith, is described in the service for Ash Wednesday: "if from henceforth we walk in his ways: if we follow him in lowliness, patience, and charity, and be ordered by the governance of his Holy Spirit, seeking always his glory, and serving him duly with thanksgiving:"-Then comes the description of our final justification, which is but a solemn and public confirmation of St. James' justification by works.-" This if we do, Christ will deliver us from the curse of the law, and from the extreme malediction which shall light upon them that shall be set on the left hand; and he will set us on his right hand, and give us the gracious benediction of his Father, commanding us to take possession of his glorious kingdom."-Gommination.

I flatter myself, honored sir, that you will not set these quotations aside, by just saying what you do on another occasion: "As to the quotation you have brought from Mr. Henry in defence of this doctrine, for any good it does your cause, it might as well have been urged in defence of extreme unction." I hope you will not object that the WORDS, second justification by works, are not in our liturgy; for if the THING be evidently there, what can a candid inquirer after truth require more? Should you have recourse to such an argument, you will permit me to ask you, what you would say to those who assert, that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is not found in the Scripture, because the WORD Trinity is not read there? And the same answers which you would give to such opponents, I now beforehand return to yourself.

II. As final justification by the evidence of works is clearly asserted in our liturgy, so it is indirectly maintained in our articles. You know, honored sir, that the eleventh treats of justification by faith at our conversion, and you yourself very justly observe, (p. 11,) "That our reformers seemed to have had an eye to the words of our Lord, 'The tree is known, [that is, is evidenced,] by its fruits,' when they drew up our twelfth article, which asserts, that a lively faith may be as evidently known by good works as a tree discerned by its fruit." This, honored sir, is the very basis of Mr. Wesley's "rotten" doctrine; the very foundation on which St. James builds "his pure and undefiled religion." This being granted, it necessarily follows, to the overthrow of your favorite scheme, that a living, justifying faith may degenerate into a dead, condemning faith, as surely as David's faith, once productive of the fruits of righteousness, degenerated into a faith productive of adultery and murder.

You are aware of the advantage that the twelfth article gives us over you; therefore, to obviate it. you insinuate, in your Five Letters, that David's faith, when he committed adultery, was the same as when he danced before the ark. It was justifying faith still, only "in a winter season." This argument, which will pass for a demonstration in Geneva, will appear an evasion in England, if our readers consider that it is founded merely upon the Calvinian custom of forcing rational comparisons to go upon all four like brutes, and then driving far beyond the intention of those by whom they were first produced. We know that a tree on the banks of the Severn may be good in winter though it bear no good fruit; because no trees bear among us any fruit, good or bad, in January. But this cannot be the case either of believers or unbelievers-they bear fruit all the year round-unless you can prove that like men in an apoplectic fit they neither think, speak, nor act "in a winter season." Again:

Believers who commit adultery and murder are not good trees, even in a negative sense, for they positively bear fruit of the most poisonous nature. How then can either their faith or their persons be evidenced a good tree, by such bad fruit, such detestable evidence? While you put your logic to the rack for an answer, I shall take the liberty to encounter you a moment with your own weapons, and making the degraded comparison of our twelfth article walk upon all four against you, I promise you, that if you can show me an apple tree which bears poisonous crabs in summer, much more one that bears them "in a winter season," I will turn Antinomian, and believe that an impenitent murderer has justifying faith, and is complete in Christ's righteousness.

III. Having thus, I hope, rescued our twelfth article from the violence which your scheme offers to its holy meaning, I presume to ask, Why do you not mention the homilies, when you say that the doctrine of a two-fold justification is not found in any part of the offices and liturgy of our Church? Is it because you never consulted them upon the subject of our controversy? To save you the trouble of turning them over, and to undeceive those who are frighted from the pure doctrine of their own Church by the late cries of Arminianism! Pelagianism! and Popery! I shall present you with the following extract from our homilies, which will show you they are not less opposite to Antinomianism than our liturgy and articles:

"The first coming unto God is through faith, whereby we are justified before God. And lest any man should be deceived, it is diligently to be noted, that there is one faith, which in Scripture is called a dead faith, which bringeth forth no good works, but is idle, barren, and unfruitful. And this faith, by the holy Apostle St. James, is compared to the faith of devils. And such faith have the wicked, naughty Christian people, who, as St. Paul saith, 'confess God with their mouth,' but deny him in their deeds. Forasmuch as 'faith without works is dead,' it is not now faith, as a dead man is not a man. The true, lively Christian faith liveth and stirreth inwardly in the heart. It is not without the love of God and our neighbour, nor without the desire to hear God's word and follow the same, in eschewing evil, and doing gladly all good works. Of this faith, this is first to be noted, that it does not lie dead in the heart, but is lively and fruitful in bringing forth good works. As the light cannot be hid, so a true faith cannot be kept secret, but shows itself by good works. And as the living body of a man ever exerciseth such things as belong to a living body, so the soul that has a lively faith in it will be doing always some good work which shall declare that it is living. For he is like a tree set by the water side, his leaf will be green, and he will not cease to bring forth his fruit." (Hom. of Faith, first part.) Here is no Antinomian salve; no "winter state" allowed of, to bring forth the dire fruits of adultery and murder.

"There is one WORK in which are all good works, that is, 'faith which WORKETH by charity.' If you have it, you have the ground of all good works; for wisdom, temperance, and justice, are all referred unto this faith: without it we have not virtues, but only their names and shadows. Many have no fruit of their works, because faith, the chief work, lacketh. Our faith in Christ must go before, and after be nourished by good works. The thief did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him. If he had lived and not regarded the WORKS of faith, [N. B.] he should have lost his salvation again." (Hom. on Good Works, first part.)

"The third thing to he declared unto you is, what manner of works they are which spring out of true faith, and lead faithful men to everlasting life. This cannot be known so well as by our Savior himself, who, being asked of a certain great man this question, 'What works shall I do to come to everlasting life?' answered him, 'If thou wilt come to everlasting life, keep the commandments: Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery,' &c. By which words Christ declared, that the laws of God are the very way which leads to everlasting life. So that this is to be taken for a most true lesson, taught by Christ's own mouth, that the works of the moral commandments of God are the very true works of faith, which lead to the blessed life to come. But the blindness and malice of men hath ever been ready to fall from God and his law, and to invent a new way to salvation by works of their own device. Therefore Christ said, 'You leave the commandments of God to keep your own traditions.' You must have an assured faith in God, love him, and dread to offend him evermore. Then, for his sake, love ALL MEN, friends and foes, because they are his creation and image, and redeemed by Christ as ye are. Kill not; commit no manner of adultery in will nor deed, &c. Thus, in keeping the commandments of God (wherein standeth his pure honour, and which wrought in faith, he hath ordained to be the right trade and pathway to heaven) you shall not fail to come to everlasting life." (Hom. on Good Works, third part.)

"Whereas God hath showed, to all that truly believe his Gospel, his face of mercy in Jesus Christ, which does so enlighten their hearts, that if they behold it as they ought they are transformed to his image, and made partakers of the heavenly light and of his Holy Spirit; so, if they after do neglect the same, and order not their life according to his example and doctrine, he will take away from them his kingdom, because they bring not forth the fruit thereof. And if this will not serve, but still we remain disobedient, behaving ourselves uncharitably, by disdain, envy, malice, or by committing murder, adultery, or such detestable works; then he threateneth us by terrible comminations, swearing in great anger, that whosoever does these works shall never enter into his rest, which is the kingdom of heaven." (Hom. of Falling from God, first part.)

"We do call for mercy in vain, if we will not show mercy to our neighbour. For if we do not put wrath and displeasure forth out of our hearts to our brother, no more will God forgive the wrath that our sins have deserved before him. For under this condition doth God forgive us, if we forgive others. God commands us to forgive if we will have any part of the pardon which Christ purchased by shedding his precious blood. Let us then be favourable one to another, &c. By these means shall we move God to be merciful to our sins. He that hateth his brother* is the child of damnation and of the devil, cursed and hated of God so long as he so remaineth. For as peace and charity make us the blessed children of God, so do hatred and malice make us the cursed children of the devil." (Hom. for Good Friday.)

[ * Did not David once hate Uriah as much as Jezebel did Naboth? Was not innocent blood shed in both cases by means of sanguinary letters? Is it to the honour of David that he outdid Jezebel in kindly desiring Uriah to carry his own death warrant to Joab?]

The Homily on [ ] brings to my mind what you say, p. 35, upon that head. If I am not mistaken, you quote Mr. Hervey in support** of finery, which surprises me so much the more, as the plainness of your dress is a practical answer to what can be advanced in support of that branch of Antinomianism. Permit me, however, to guard your ornamented quotation in the plain, nervous language of our Church. After mentioning "the round attires of the head," exposed by Isaiah, she says: "No less truly is the vanity used among us. For the proud and haughty stomachs of the daughters of England are so maintained with divers disguised sorts of costly apparel, that as Tertullian saith, there is left no difference of apparel between an honest matron and a common strumpet! Yea, many care not what they spend in disguising themselves, ever desiring new toys and inventing new fashions. Therefore we must needs look for God's fearful vengeance from heaven, to overthrow our pride, as he overthrew Herod, who, in his royal apparel, forgetting God, was smitten of an angel, and eaten up with worms.

[ I do blame, in the Second Check, only such professors of godliness as "wear gold, pearls, and precious stones, when no distinction of office or state obliges them to do it." As you find fault with this guarded doctrine, and insinuate that I "dwindle the noble ideas of St. Paul into a meanness of sense befitting the superstitious and contracted spirit of a hermit;" it necessarily follows that you plead for finery, or that you oppose me for opposition's sake, when you exactly mean the same thing with me.]

"But some vain women will object, 'All which we do, in decking ourselves with gay apparel, is to please our husbands.' O most shameful answer to the reproach of thy husband! What couldest thou say more to set out his foolishness, than to charge him to be pleased with the devil's attire? Nay, nay, this is but a vain excuse of such as go about to please [themselves and] others, rather than their husbands. She does but deserve scorn to set out all her commendation in Jewish and heathenish apparel, and yet brag of her Christianity; and sometimes she is the cause of much deceit in her husband's dealings, that she may be the more gorgeously set out to the sight of the vain world. O thou woman, not a Christian, but worse than a Pagan, thou settest out thy pride, and makest of thy indecent apparel the devil's net to catch souls. Howsoever thou perfumest thyself, yet cannot thy beastliness be hidden. The more thou garnishest thyself with these outward blazings, the less thou carest for the inward garnishing of thy mind. Hear, hear, what Christ's holy apostles do write." Then follow those passages of St. Peter and St. Paul, which you suppose "I do not rightly understand."

To convince you, however, that our Church has as much of "the superstitious and contracted spirit of a hermit" as myself, I shall plead a moment more against finery in her own words: "The wife of a heathen being asked why she wore no gold? she answered, That she thought her husband's virtues sufficient ornaments. How much more ought every Christian to think himself sufficiently garnished with our Saviour Christ's heavenly virtues! But perhaps some will answer that they must do something to show their birth and blood: as though these things, [jewels and finery] were not common to those who are most vile: as though thy husband's riches could not be better bestowed than in such superfluities: as though, when thou wast christened, thou didst not renounce the pride of this world and the pomp of the flesh. If thou sayest that the custom is to be followed, I ask of thee, Whose custom should be followed? Of the wise, or of fools? If thou sayest, Of the wise; then I say, Follow them; for fools' customs, who should follow but fools? If any lewd custom be used, be thou the first to break it; labour to diminish it, and lay it down, and thou shalt have more praise before God by it, than by all the glory of such superfluity. I speak not against convenient apparel, for every state agreeable; but against the superfluity whereby thou and thy husband are compelled to rob the poor, to maintain thy costliness. Hear how holy Queen Esther setteth out these goodly ornaments, as they are called, when, in order to save God's people, she put them on: 'Thou knowest, O Lord, the necessity which I am driven to, to put on this apparel, and that I abhor this sign of pride, and that I defy it as a filthy cloth.'" (Hom. against Excess of apparel.)

So far is our Church from siding with Antinomian Solifidianism, which perpetually decries good works, that she rather leans to the other extreme. "If Popery is about half way between Protestantism and the Minutes," you will hardly think that the mass itself is a quarter of the way between Dr. Crisp's scheme and the following propositions, extracted from the Homily on First Deeds.

"Most true is that saying of St. Augustine, Via coeli pauper cr1, 'relieving of the poor is the right way to heaven.' Christ promiseth a reward to those who give but a cup of cold water in his name to them that have need of it; and that reward is the kingdom of heaven. No doubt, therefore, God regardeth highly that which he rewardeth so liberally. He that hath been liberal to the poor, let him know that his godly doings are accepted, and thankfully taken at God's hands, which he will requite with double and treble; for so says the wise man: 'He who showeth mercy to the poor doth lay his money in the bank to the Lord' for a large interest and gain; the gain being chiefly the possession of the life everlasting, through the merits of Christ."

When our Church has given us this strong dose of legality, that she may by a desperate remedy remove a desperate disease, and kill or cure the Antinomian spirit in all her children; lest the violent medicine should hurt us, she, like a prudent mother, instantly administers the following balsamic corrective:

"Some will say, If charitable works are able to reconcile us to God, and deliver us from damnation, then are Christ's merits defaced; then are ice justified by works, and by our deeds may we merit heaven. But understand, dearly beloved, that no godly men, when they, in extolling the dignity, profit, and effect of virtuous and liberal alms, do say that it bringeth us to the favour of God, do mean that our work is the original cause of our acceptance before God, &c. For that were indeed to deface Christ, and to defraud him of his glory. But they mean, that the Spirit of God mightily working in them, who seemed before children of wrath, they declare by their outward deeds that they are the undoubted children of God. By their tender pity, (wherein they show themselves to be like unto God,) they declare openly and manifestly unto the sight of all men that they are the sons of God. For as the good fruit does argue the goodness of the tree, so doth the good deed of a man prove the goodness of him that dote it."

In justice to our holy Church, whom some represent as a patroness of Antinomianism; in brotherly love to you, honoured sir, who seem to judge of her doctrines by a few expressions which custom made her use after St. Augustine; in tender compassion try many of her members, who are strangers to her true sentiments; and in common humanity to Mr. Wesley, who is perpetually accused of erecting Popery upon her ruins; I have presented you with this extract from our homilies. If you lay by the veil of prejudice, which keeps the light from your honest heart, I humbly hope it will convince you that our Church nobly contends for St. James' evangelical legality; that she pleads for the rewardableness (which is all we understand by the merit) of works, in far stronger terms than Mr. Wesley does in the Minutes; and that in perpetually making our justification, merited by Christ, turn upon the instrumentality of a lively faith, and the evidence of good works, as there is opportunity to do them, she tears up Calvinism and Antinomian delusions by the very roots.

Leaving you to consider how you shall bring about a reconciliation between your fourth letter and our godly homilies, I shall just take the liberty to remind you, that when you entered, or took your degrees at Oxford, you subscribed to the thirty-nine articles; the thirty-fifth of which declares, that "the homilies contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, necessary for these" Papistical and Antinomian "times."

That keeping clear from both extremes, we may evidence the godliness of that doctrine by the soundness of our publications, and the exemplariness of our conduct, is the cordial prayer of, honoured and dear sir, your obedient servant in the liturgy, articles, and homilies of the Church of England,