Toplady’s mendacious sneer that Fletcher was fighting “for pay” may be scornfully passed over. This letter might refer to Fletcher’s “Answer to the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s Vindication of the Decrees,” which Fletcher finished in the month of October, 1775; or it might refer to the expected publication of the “Fifth Check to Antinomianism.” The “First Part” of this was completed at Madeley, September 13, 1773; but was not published until the beginning of 1774. The following was its title: “Logica Genevensis continued: or the First Part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism, 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. London: 1774.” 12mo., 48 pp.
Fletcher’s “Answer” to Richard Hill’s “Finishing Stroke,” and his “Remarks upon Mr. Fulsome’s Antinomian Creed,” are able, and characteristic of the writer; but contain no biographical facts worth mentioning. Two extracts, however, from the “Appendix,” upon the remaining differences between the Calvinists and the anti-Calvinists, may be useful; inasmuch as, in a condensed form, they exhibit the point to which, in Fletcher’s opinion, the controversy had brought both parties with respect to the principal of Wesley’s “Minutes” of 1770. Fletcher writes:—
“On both sides, we agree to maintain, in opposition to Socinians and Deists, that the grand, the primary, and properly meritorious cause of our justification, from first to last, both in the day of conversion and in the day of judgment, is only the precious atonement and the infinite merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. We all agree likewise that in the day of conversion faith is the instrumental cause of our justification before God. Nay, if I mistake not, we come one step nearer each other, for we equally hold that, after conversion, the works of faith are in this world, and will be in the day of judgment, the evidencing cause of our justification; that is, the works of faith (under the above-mentioned primary cause of our salvation, and in subordination to the faith that gives them birth), are now, and will be in the great day, the evidence that shall instrumentally cause our justification as believers. Thus Mr. Hill says [Review, p. 149], ‘Neither Mr. Shirley, nor I, nor any Calvinist that I ever heard of, denies that, though a sinner be justified in the sight of God by Christ alone, he is declaratively justified by works, both here and at the day of judgment.’ And the Rev. Mr. Madan, in his sermon on ‘justification by works stated, explained, and reconciled with justification by faith,’ says [p. 29], ‘By Christ only are we meritoriously justified, and by faith only are we instrumentally justified in the sight of God; but by works, and not by faith only, are we declaratively justified before men and angels.’ From these two quotations, which could easily be multiplied to twenty, it is evident that pious Calvinists hold the doctrine of a justification by the works of faith; or, as Mr. Madan expresses it, after St. James, by works, and not by faith only.
“It remains now to show wherein we disagree. At first sight, the difference seems trifling; but, upon close examination, it appears that the whole antinomian gulf still remains fixed between us. Read the preceding quotations, weigh the clauses which I have put in capitals, compare them with what the Rev. Mr. Berridge says in his ‘Christian World Unmasked’ (p. 26), of ‘an absolute impossibility of being justified in any manner by our works,’ namely, before God; and you will see that though pious Calvinists allow we are justified by works before men and angels, yet they deny our being ever justified by works before God, in whose sight they suppose we are for ever justified by Christ alone,’ i.e., only by Christ’s good works and sufferings, absolutely imputed to us from the very first moment in which we make a single act of true faith, if not from all eternity. Thus works are entirely excluded from having any hand either in our intermediate or final justification before God; and thus they are still represented as totally needless to our eternal salvation. Now, in direct opposition to the above-mentioned distinction, we anti-Calvinists believe that adult persons cannot be saved without being justified by faith as sinners, according to the light of their dispensation; and by works as believers, according to the time and opportunities they have of working. We assert that the works of faith are not less necessary to our justification before God as believers, than faith itself is necessary to our justification before Him as sinners. And we maintain that when faith does not produce good works (much more when it produces the worst works, such as adultery, hypocrisy, treachery, murder, etc.), it dies, and justifies no more; seeing it is a living and not a dead faith that justifies us as sinners; even as they are living and not dead works that justify us as believers.”
Thus did these good men quarrel. Berridge was a man of eminent piety and of great wit, but he could scarcely be considered a great theologian; and it may be fairly doubted whether he ever held the doctrines which Fletcher, perhaps somewhat hardly, deduces from a few of his unguarded words.
In his next pamphlet, which was published March 1, 1774,[[298]] Fletcher treats poor Berridge with yet greater severity. The whole work was devoted to an exposure of the objectionable and the weak points in Berridge’s “Christian World Unmasked.” Its title was “Logica Genevensis continued. Or the Second Part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianism; containing a Defence of ‘Jack o’ lanthorn,’ and ‘the Paper-kite,’ i.e., Sincere Obedience;—of the ‘Cobweb,’ i.e., The evangelical law of liberty; and of the ‘Valiant Sergeant I. F.,’ i.e., The conditionality of Perseverance, attacked by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, M.A., Vicar of Everton, and late Fellow of Clare-hall, Cambridge, in his book called ‘The Christian World Unmasked.’ London: 1774.” 12 mo., 44 pp.
Berridge was well aware of Fletcher’s intention to attack his book, for Fletcher himself, seven months before, had told him that what he had “said about sincere obedience was the very core of Antinomianism,” and that he must freely expose what he had written. Berridge, in letters to John Thornton, Esq., and the Rev. John Newton, complained of this, and said Fletcher had misapprehended his meaning. He also wrote to Fletcher to the same effect, and told him that, if he published his attack, he (Berridge) would not answer it. There can be no doubt that Berridge never intended to “disparage sincere obedience” to the law of God; but his similes, allegories, figures, and loose language, might be construed by Antinomian readers in such a sense. Fletcher believed Berridge to be a sincere, earnest, obedient Christian; but he also believed that Berridge’s well-meant book might be turned to a bad account by men with whose Antinomian sentiments Berridge had no sympathy. In the introduction to his pamphlet, Fletcher writes:—
“Before I mention Mr. Berridge’s mistakes, I must do justice to his person. It is by no means my design to represent him as a divine, who either leads a loose life, or intends to hurt the Redeemer’s interest. His conduct as a Christian is exemplary; his labours as a minister are great; and I am persuaded that the wrong touches which he gives to the ark of godliness are not only undesigned, but intended to do God service.
“There are so many things commendable in the pious vicar of Everton, and so much truth in his ‘Christian World Unmasked,’ that I find it a hardship to expose the unguarded parts of that performance. But the cause of this hardship is the ground of my apology. Mr. Berridge is a good, an excellent man; therefore the Antinomian errors which go abroad into the world with his letters of recommendation, speak in his evangelical strain, and are armed with the poignancy of his wit, cannot be too soon pointed out and too carefully guarded against. I flatter myself that this consideration will procure me his pardon for taking the liberty of dispatching his ‘valiant sergeant’ with some doses of rational and Scriptural antidote for those who have drunk into the pleasing mistakes of his book, and want his piety to hinder them from carrying speculative into practical Antinomianism.”
It would weary the reader to follow Fletcher in his minute, sometimes pungent, and always irrefutable criticisms on Berridge’s well-known book. There is often plain speaking, but there is no acidity. Berridge is routed, but he is invariably treated as a Christian and a gentleman. Fletcher’s “Conclusion” is as follows:—