“If this doctrine is true,” says he, “the Divine perfections suffer a general eclipse; one half of the Bible is erased; St. James’s Epistle is made void; defiled religion justly passes for ‘pure gospel;’ the Calvinian doctrine of perseverance is true; and barefaced Antinomianism is properly recommended as ‘the doctrines of grace.’”
Fletcher’s last letter, also addressed to “Richard Hill, Esq.” alone, deals with the doctrine of Free-will. His definition of the Methodist doctrine deserves quotation.
“We never supposed that the natural will of fallen man is free to good, before it is more or less touched and rectified by grace. All we assert is, that, whether a man chooses good or evil, his will is free, or it does not deserve the name of will. It is as far from us to think that man, unassisted by Divine grace, is sufficient to will spiritual good; as to suppose that when he wills it by grace he does not will it freely. And, therefore, agreeably to our Tenth Article, which you quote against us without the least reason, we steadily assert that we have no power to do good works, without the grace of God preventing us, not that we may have a free will, for this we always had in the above-mentioned sense, but that we may have a good will; believing that, as confirmed saints and angels have a free will, though they have no evil will, so abandoned reprobates and devils have a free will, though they have no good will.”
These may appear to the cursory reader metaphysical niceties of no practical importance; but, a hundred years ago, they were considered doctrines of vital interest. The difference between Fletcher and his Calvinian friends is well stated by himself:—
“From our mutual concessions, it is evident we agree, 1. That the will is always free; 2. That the will of man, considered as fallen in Adam, and unassisted by the grace of God, is only free to evil; and, 3. That when he is free to good, free to choose life, he has this from redeeming grace.
“But, although we agree in those material points, the difference between us is still very considerable; for, we assert, that through the Mediator promised to all mankind in Adam, God, by His free grace, restores to ALL mankind a talent of free will to good, by which they are put in a capacity of choosing life or death, that is, of acquitting themselves well or ill, at their option, in their present state of trial.
“This you utterly deny, maintaining that man is not in a state of probation; and that as Christ died for none but the elect, none but they can ever have any degree of saving grace, that is, any free will to good. Hence, you conclude that all the elect are in a state of finished salvation; and necessarily, infallibly, and irresistibly choose life; while all the reprobates are shut up in a state of finished damnation; and necessarily, infallibly, and irresistibly choose death.
“We are obliged to oppose this doctrine, because it appears to us a doctrine of wrath, rather than a doctrine of grace. If we are not mistaken, it is opposite to the general tenor of the Scriptures, injurious to all the Divine perfections, and subversive of this fundamental truth of natural and revealed religion, God shall judge the world in righteousness. It is calculated to strengthen the carnal security of Laodicean professors, raise horrid anxieties in the minds of doubting Christians, and give damned spirits just ground to blaspheme to all eternity. Again, it withdraws from thinking sinners and judicious saints the helps which God has given them, by multitudes of conditional promises and threatenings, designed to work upon their hopes and fears. And, while it unnecessarily stumbles men of sense and hardens infidels, it affords wicked men rational excuses to continue in their sins, and gives desperate offenders full room to charge not only Adam, but God Himself, with all their enormities.”
In this piteous way did the evangelical revivalists of the last century become divided. It was a mournful scene; but, in the long run, it was over-ruled for good. Error was crushed, and truth rose triumphant. Meanwhile, on one side at least, great bitterness was engendered, and lamentable epithets were used. In the hottest of the fray, however, Fletcher, the chief combatant, never lost his temper. Hence, in concluding his “Fourth Check to Antinomianism,” he wrote:—
“Although we severely expose the mistakes of godly Calvinists, we sincerely love their persons, truly reverence their piety, and cordially rejoice in the success which attends their evangelical labours. And, although we cannot admit their logic, while they defend a bad cause with bad arguments, we should do them great injustice if we did not acknowledge that there have been, and are still among them, men eminent for good sense and good learning—men as remarkable for their skill in the art of logic, as for their deep acquaintance with the oracles of God. We thank them for their pious labours; we ask the continuance, or the renewal, of their valuable love. We invite them to our pulpits; and assure them that, if they admit us into theirs, we shall do by them as we would be done by,—avoiding to touch there, or among their own people occasionally committed to our charge, upon the points of doctrine debated between us; and reserving to ourselves the liberty of bearing our full testimony in our own pulpits, and from the press, against Antinomianism and Pharisaism in all their shapes.”