1758

To a Gentleman at Bristol [1]

BRISTOL, January 6, 1758

SIR, -- You desire my thoughts on a paper lately addresses to the inhabitants of St. Stephen’s parish, [Bristol], and an answer thereto entitled A Seasonable Antidote against Popery. I have at present little leisure, and cannot speak so fully as the importance of the subject requires. I can only just tell you wherein I do or do not agree with what is advanced in the one or the other.

I agree with the main of what is asserted in that paper, allowing for some expressions which I could wish had been altered, because some of them are a little obscure, others liable to misinterpretation – indeed, so liable that they could scarce fail to be misunderstood by the unwary and censured by the unfriendly reader.

But I cannot agree that ‘obedience is a condition or antecedent to justification,’ unless we mean final justification. This I apprehend to be a considerable mistake; although, indeed, it is not explicitly asserted, but only implied in some part of that address.

I entirely agree with the author of the Seasonable Antidote in the important points that follow:

‘That a sinner is justified or accounted righteous before God, only through the righteousness’ (or merits) ‘of Jesus Christ; that the end of His living and dying for us was that our persons first and then our works might be accepted; that faith is the hand which apprehends, the instrument which applies, the merits of Christ for our justification; that justifying faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit; that He evidences our being justified by bearing His testimony with our spirits that we are the children of God, and by enabling us to bring forth first the inward and then the outward fruits of the Spirit; and, lastly, that these fruits do not justify us, do not procure our justification, but prove us to be justified, as the fruits on a tree do not make it alive, but prove it to be alive’ (pages 33-4).

These undoubtedly are the genuine principles of the Church of England. And they are confirmed, as by our Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, so by the whole tenor of Scripture. Therefore, till heaven and earth pass away, these truths will not pass away.

But I do not agree with the author of that tract in the spirit of the whole performance. It does not seem to breathe either that modesty or seriousness or charity which one would desire. One would not desire to hear any private person, of no great note in the Church or the world, speak as it were ex cathedra, with an air of infallibility, or at least of vast sell-sufficiency, on a point wherein men of eminence, both for piety, learning, and office, have been so greatly divided. Though my judgment is nothing altered, yet I often condemn myself for my past manner of speaking on this head. Again: I do not rejoice at observing anything light or ludicrous in an answer to so serious a paper; and much less in finding any man branded as a Papist because his doctrine in one particular instance resembles (for that is the utmost which can be proved) a doctrine of the Church of Rome. I can in no wise reconcile this to the grand rule of charity--doing to others as we would they should do to us.

Indeed, it is said, ‘Dr. T. openly defends the fundamental doctrine of Popery, justification by works’ (page 3); therefore ‘he must be a Papist’ (page 4). But here is a double mistake: for (1) whatever may be implied in some of his expressions, it is most certain Dr. T. does not openly defend justification by works; (2) this itself -- justification by works -- is not the fundamental doctrine of Popery, but the universality of the Romish Church and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And to call any one a Papist who denies these is neither charity nor justice.

I do not agree with the author in what follows: Dr. T. ‘loses sight of the truth when he talks of Christ’s having obtained for us a covenant of better hopes, and that faith and repentance are the terms of this covenant. They are not. They are the free gifts of the covenant of grace, not the terms or conditions. To say “Privileges of the covenant are the terms or conditions of it” is downright Popery.’

This is downright calling names, and no better. But it falls on a greater than Dr. T. St. Paul affirms, Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises; yea, and that better covenant He hath obtained for us by His own blood. And if any desire to receive the privileges which are freely given according to the tenor of this covenant, Jesus Christ Himself has marked out the way: ‘Repent, and believe the gospel.’ These, therefore, are the terms of the covenant, unless the author of it was mistaken. These are the conditions of it, unless a man can enter into the kingdom without either repenting or believing. For the word 'condition' means neither more nor less than something sine qua non, without which something else is not done. Now, this is the exact truth with regard to repenting and believing, without which God does not work in us ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so.

‘But the gospel is a revelation of grace and mercy, not a proposal of a covenant of terms and conditions’ (page 5). It is both. It is a revelation of grace and mercy to all that ‘repent and believe.’ And this the author himself owns in the following page: ‘The free grace of God applies to sinners the benefits of Christ's atonement and righteousness by working in them repentance and faith’ (page 6). Then they are not applied without repentance and faith--that is, in plain terms, these are the conditions of that application.

I read in the next page: ‘In the gospel we have the free promises of eternal life, but not annexed to faith and repentance as works of man’ (true; they are the gift of God), ‘or the terms or conditions of the covenant.’ Yes, certainly; they are no less terms or conditions, although God works them in us.

‘But what is promised us as a free gift cannot be received upon the performance of any terms or conditions.’ Indeed it can. Our Lord said to the man born blind, ‘Go and wash in the pool of Siloam.’ Here was a plain condition to be performed, something without which he would not have received his sight. And yet his sight was a gift altogether as free as if the pool had never been mentioned.

‘But if repentance and faith are the free gifts of God, can they be the terms or conditions of our justification’ (Page 9.) Yes. Why not They are still something without which no man is or can be justified.

‘Can, then, God give that freely which He does not give but upon certain terms and conditions’ (Ibid.) Doubtless He can; as one may freely give you a sum of money on condition you stretch out your hand to receive it. It is therefore no ‘contradiction to say, We are justified freely by grace, and yet upon certain terms or conditions’ (page 10).

I cannot therefore agree that ‘we are accepted without any terms previously performed to qualify us for acceptance.’ For we are not accepted, nor are we qualified for or capable of acceptance, without repentance and faith.

‘But a man is not justified by works, but by the faith of Christ. This excludes all qualifications.’ (Page 13.) Surely it does not exclude the qualification of faith!

‘But St. Paul asserts, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.”’ True; ‘to him that worketh not.’ But does God justify him that ‘believeth not’ Otherwise this text proves just the contrary to what it is brought to prove.

But ‘our Church excludes repentance and faith from deserving any part of our justification. Why, then, do you insist upon them as qualifications requisite to our justification’ (Page 19.) Because Christ and His Apostles do so. Yet we all agree they do not deserve any part of our justification. They are no part of the meritorious cause; but they are the conditions of it. This and no other is ‘the doctrine of Scripture and of the Church of England’! Both the Scripture and ‘our Church allow, yea insist, on these qualifications or conditions.’ (Page 21.)

‘But if repentance and faith would not be valid and acceptable without the righteousness of Christ, then they cannot be necessary qualifications for our justification’ (page 22). I cannot allow the consequence. They are not acceptable without the righteousness or merits of Christ; and yet He Himself has made them necessary qualifications for our justification through His merits.

But the grand objection of this gentleman lies against the doctor's next paragraph, the sum of which is: ‘The merits of Christ were never intended to supersede the necessity of repentance and obedience’ (I would say, repentance and faith), ‘but to make them acceptable in the sight of God, and to purchase for them’ (I would add, that obey Him) ‘a reward of immortal happiness.’

I am not afraid to undertake the defense of this paragraph, with this small variation, against Mr. Chapman, Mr. Nyberg, [Laurentius Nyberg, of Haverfordwest, a Moravian minister, and correspondent of James Hutton.] Count Zinzendorf, or any other person whatever; provided only that he will set his name to his work, for I do not love fighting in the dark.

And I, as well as Dr. T., affirm that ‘to say more than this concerning Christ’s imputed merits,’ to say more than that ‘they have purchased for us grace to repent and believe, acceptance upon our believing, power to obey, and eternal salvation to them that do obey Him,’--to say more than this ‘is blasphemous Antinomianism,’ such as Mr. Calvin would have abhorred; and does ‘open a door to all manner of sin and wickedness.’

‘I must likewise affirm that to talk of imputed righteousness in the manner many do at this day is making the imaginary transfer of Christ's righteousness serve as a cover for the unrighteousness of mankind’ (page 26). Does not Mr. Chapman do this at Bristol Does not Mr. Madan at London Let them shudder then, let their blood run cold, who do it; not theirs who tell them that they do so. It is not the latter but the former who 'trample Christ's righteousness underfoot as a mean and vile thing.’

I firmly believe ‘we are accounted righteous before God, justified only for the merit of Christ.’ But let us have no shifting the terms. ‘Only through Christ’s imputed righteousness' are not the words of the Article, neither the language of our Church. Much less does our Church anywhere affirm ‘that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the ungodly, who have no qualifications’ (page 28), no repentance, no faith; nor do the Scriptures ever affirm this.

The reflection on the general inference I so entirely agree with as to think it worth transcribing: ‘If you have faith and repentance, you want no other signs or evidences of your justification. But if you have not these, to pretend to any other assurances, tokens, feelings, or experiences, is vain and delusive.’ Does he know any one who maintains that a man may be in a state of justification and yet have no faith or repentance But the marks and evidences of true faith which the Scripture has promised must not be discarded as vain or delusive. The Scripture has promised us the assurance of faith, to be wrought in us by the operation of God. It mentions ‘the earnest of the Spirit,’ and speaks of ‘feeling after the Lord’ and finding Him; and so our Church in her Seventeenth Article speaks of ‘feeling in ourselves the working of the Spirit of Christ,’ and in the Homily for Rogation Week of ‘feeling our conscience at peace with God through remission of our sin.’ So that we must not reject all ‘assurances, tokens, feelings, and experiences’ as ‘vain and delusive.’

Nor do I apprehend Dr. T. ever intended to say that we must reject all inward feelings, but only those which are without faith or repentance. And who would not reject these His very words are, ‘If you have not these, to pretend to any other feelings is vain and delusive.’ I say so too. Meantime he is undoubtedly sensible that there is a ‘consolation in love,’ a ‘peace that paseth all understanding ,’ and a ‘joy that is unspeakable and full of glory.’ Nor can we imagine him to deny that these must be felt, inwardly felt, wherever they exist.

Upon the whole, I cannot but observe how extremely difficult it is, even for men who have an upright intention and are not wanting either in natural or acquired abilities, to understand one another; and how hard it is to do even justice to those whom we do not throughly understand; much more to treat them with that gentleness, tenderness, and brotherly kindness with which, upon a change of circumstances, we might reasonably desire to be treated ourselves. Oh when shall men know whose disciples we are by our ' loving one another as He hath loved us' I The God of love hasten the time! -- I am, dear sir,

Your affectionate servant.

 

 

To Micaiah Towgood [2]

BRISTOL, January 10, 1758.

SIR,--If you fairly represent Mr. White’s arguments, they are liable to much exception. But whether they are or no, your answers to them are far from unexceptionable. To the manner of the whole I object, you are not serious; you do not write as did those excellent men, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Howe, Dr. Calamy, who seem always to speak, not laughing, but weeping. To the matter I object, that if your argument hold as it is proposed in your very title-page, if ‘a dissent from our Church be the genuine consequence of the allegiance due to Christ,’ then all who do not dissent have renounced that allegiance and are in a state of damnation!

I have not leisure to consider all that you advance in proof of this severe sentence. I can only at present examine your main argument, which indeed contains the strength of your cause. ‘My separation from the Church of England,’ you say, ‘is a debt I owe to God, and an act of allegiance due to Christ, the only Lawgiver in the Church’ (page 2).

Again: ‘The controversy turns upon one single point -- Has the Church power to decree rites and ceremonies If it has this power, then all the objections of the Dissenters about kneeling at the Lord's Supper and the like are impertinent; if it has no power at all of this kind -- yea, if Christ, the great Lawgiver and King of the Church, hath expressly commanded that no power of this kind shall ever be claimed or ever be yielded by any of His followers, then the Dissenters will have honor before God for protesting against such usurpation.’ (Page 3.)

I join issue on this single point: ‘If Christ hath expressly commanded that no power of this kind shall ever be claimed or ever yielded by any of His followers,’ then are all who yield it, all Churchmen, in a state of damnation, as much as those who ‘deny the Lord that bought them.’ But if Christ hath not expressly commanded this, we may go to church and yet not go to hell.

To the point then. The power I speak of is a power of decreeing rites and ceremonies, of appointing such circumstantials (suppose) of public worship as are in themselves purely indifferent, being no way determined in Scripture.

And the question is, ‘Hath Christ expressly commanded that this power shall never be claimed nor ever yielded by any of His followers’ This I deny. How do you prove it

Why, thus: ‘If the Church of England has this power, so has the Church of Rome’ (page 4). Allowed. But this is not to the purpose. I want ‘the express command of Christ.’

You say, ‘Secondly, the persons who have this power in England are not the clergy but the Parliament’ (pages 8-9). Perhaps so. But this also strikes wide. Where is ‘the express command of Christ’

You ask, ‘Thirdly, how came the civil magistrate by this power’ (Page 11.) ‘Christ commands us to “call no man upon earth father and master” -- that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion’ (page 12). At length we are come to the express command, which, according to your interpretation, is express enough – ‘that is, Acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion,’ own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, anything pertaining to decency and order. But this interpretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question.

We allow Christ does here expressly command to acknowledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbis, whom they usually styled either fathers or masters, implicitly believing all they affirmed and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny that He expressly commands to acknowledge no authority of governors in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God or other matters.

You attempt to prove it by the following words: ‘“One is your Master” and Lawgiver, “even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. xxiii. 8-9), all Christians, having no dominion over one another.’ True, no such dominion as their Rabbis claimed; but in all things indifferent, Christian magistrates have dominion. As to your inserting ‘and Lawgiver’ in the preceding clause, you have no authority from the text; for it is not plain that our Lord is here speaking of Himself in that capacity. dsa, the word here rendered ‘Master,’ you well know conveys no such idea. It should rather have been translated 'Teacher.' And, indeed, the whole text primarily relates to doctrines.

But you cite another text: ‘The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you’ (Matt. xx. 25). Very good; that is, Christian pastors shall not exercise such dominion over their flock as heathen princes do over their subjects. Most sure; but, without any violation of this, they may appoint how things shall ‘be done decently and in order.’

‘But Christ is the sole Lawgiver, Judge, and Sovereign in His Church’ (page 12). He is the sole sovereign Judge and Lawgiver. But it does not follow (what you continually infer) that there are no subordinate judges therein; nor that there are none who have power to make regulations therein in subordination to Him. King George is sovereign judge and lawgiver in these realms. But are there no subordinate judges Nay, are there not many who have power to make rules or laws in their own little communities And how does this ‘invade his authority and throne’ Not at all, unless they contradict the laws of his kingdom.

‘However, He alone has authority to fix the terms of communion for His followers, or Church’ (ibid.). ‘And the terms He has fixed no men on earth have authority to set aside or alter.’ This I allow (although it is another question), none has authority to exclude from the Church of Christ those who comply with the terms which Christ has fixed. But not to admit into the society called the Church of England or not to administer the Lord’s Supper to them is not the same thing with ‘excluding men from the Church of Christ’; unless this society be the whole Church of Christ, which neither you nor I will affirm. This society, therefore, may scruple to receive those as members who do not observe her rules in things indifferent, without pretending ‘to set aside or alter the terms which Christ has fixed’ for admission into the Christian Church; and yet without ‘lording it over God’s heritage or usurping Christ's throne.’ Nor does all ‘the allegiance we owe Him’ at all hinder our ‘obeying them that have the rule over us’ in things of a purely indifferent nature. Rather our allegiance to Him requires our obedience to them. In being ‘their servants,’ thus far we are ‘Christ's servants.’ We obey His general command by obeying our governors in particular instances.

Hitherto you have produced no express command of Christ to the contrary. Nor do you attempt to show any such, but strike off from the question for the twelve or fourteen pages following. But after these you say, ‘The subjects of Christ are expressly commanded to receive nothing as parts of religion which are only “commandments of men” (Matt. xv. 9)’ (page 26). We grant it; but this is no command at all not to 'obey those who have the rule over us.’ And we must obey them in things indifferent, or not at all. For in things which God hath forbidden, should such be enjoined, we dare not obey. Nor need they enjoin what God hath commanded.

Upon the whole, we agree that Christ is the only ‘supreme Judge and Lawgiver in the Church’: I may add, and in the world; for ‘there is no power,’ no secular power, ‘but of God’ -- of God who ‘was manifested in the flesh, who is over all, blessed for ever.’ But we do not at all agree in the inference which you would draw therefrom -- namely, that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the Church. You may just as well infer that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the world. Yea, there is, both in the one and the other. And in obeying these subordinate powers we do not, as you aver, renounce the Supreme; no, but we obey them for His sake.

We believe it is not only innocent but our bounden duty so to do; in all things of an indifferent nature to submit ourselves ‘to every ordinance of man’; and that ‘for the Lord's sake,’ because we think He has not forbidden but expressly commanded it. Therefore ‘as a genuine fruit of our allegiance to Christ’ we submit both to the King and governors sent by him, so far as possibly we can, without breaking some plain command of God. And you have not yet brought any plain command to justify that assertion that ‘we may not submit either to the King or to governors sent by him in any circumstance relating to the worship of God.’

Here is a plain declaration: ‘There is no power but of God; the powers that exist are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power’ (without an absolute necessity, which in things indifferent there is not), ‘resisteth the ordinance of God.’ And here is a plain command grounded thereon: ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.’ Now, by what scripture does it appear that we are not to be subject in anything pertaining to the worship of God This is an exception which we cannot possibly allow without clear warrant from Holy Writ. And we apprehend those of the Church of Rome alone can decently plead for such an exception. It does not sound well in the mouth of a Protestant to claim an exemption- from the jurisdiction of the civil powers in all matters of religion and in the minutest circumstance relating to the Church.

Another plain command is that mentioned but now: ‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.’ And this we shall think ourselves hereby fully authorized to do, in things of a religious as well as a civil nature, till you can produce plain, explicit proof from Scripture that we must submit in the latter but not in the former. We cannot find any such distinction in the Bible; and till we find it there, we cannot receive it, but must believe our allegiance to Christ requires submission to our governors in all things indifferent.

This I speak even on supposition that the things in question were enjoined merely by the King and Parliament. If they were, what then Then I would submit to them ‘for the Lord's sake.’ So that in all your parade, either with regard to King George or Queen Anne, there may be wit but no wisdom, no force, no argument, till you can support this distinction from plain testimony of Scripture.

Till this is done, it can never be proved that ‘a dissent from the Church of England (whether it can be justified from other topics or no) is the genuine and just consequence of the allegiance which is due to Christ as the only Lawgiver in the Church.’ As you proposed to ‘bring the controversy to this short and plain issue, to let it turn on this single point,’ I have done so, I have spoken to this alone; although I could have said something on many other points which you have advanced as points of the utmost certainty, although they are far more easily affirmed than proved. But I waive them for the present: hoping this may suffice to show any fair and candid inquirer that it is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time; that we need not separate from the Church in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ, but may be firm members thereof, and yet ' have a conscience void of offense toward God and toward man.’ -- I am, sir,

Your very humble servant.

Editor’s Introductory Notes

[1] Wesley says: ‘At the request of several of my friends I wrote A letter to a Gentleman of Bristol, in order to guard them from seeking salvation by works on one hand and Antinomianism on the other. From those who lean to either extreme I shall have no thanks; but “wisdom is justified of her children.”’ The paper referred to was by ‘Dr. T.,’ and it called forth an answer, A Seasonable Antidote against Popery. See Journal, iv. 247.

[2] At Birstall on April 30 and May 1, 1755, John and Charles Wesley read together Micaiah Towgood’s A Gentleman’s Reasons for his Dissent from the Church of England, in preparation for their Conference which began at Leeds on May 6. Wesley described it ‘an elaborate and lively tract, and contains the strength of the cause; but it did not yield us one proof that it is lawful for us (much less our duty) to separate from it.’ When he finished, he adds: ‘In how different a spirit does this man write from honest Richard Baxter! The one dipping, as it were, his pen in tears, the other in vinegar and gall. Surely one page of that loving, serious Christian weighs more than volumes of this bitter, sarcastic jester.’ Towgood was a Dissenting minister in Exeter, and published his book in 1746. John White, B.D., Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Vicar of Ospringe, near Faversham, replied in three letters; and Towgood then wrote A Dissent from the Church of England fully justified .... Being the Dissenting Gentleman’s Three Letters and Postscript Complete. Wesley says on January 9, 1758: ‘I began a letter to Mr. Towgood, author of The Dissenting Gentleman’s Reasons -- I think the most saucy and virulent satire on the Church of England that ever my eyes beheld. How much rather would I write practically than controversially. But even this talent I dare not bury in the earth.’ See Journal, iv. 114, 247.

Edited by Michael Mattei 2001 Wesley Center for Applied Theology. All rights reserved. No for-profit use of this text is permitted without the express, written consent of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho 83686 USA. Contact the webmaster for permission.