Tobias Crisp

Status
Not open for further replies.
If memory serves correctly, Tobias Crisp was generally considered an antinomian. Some sound reformed authors have disputed this claim. I have not personally read Crisp. However, if there is the possibility of antinomianism in his writings I would urge caution and discernment when reading him. :2cents:
 
If memory serves correctly, Tobias Crisp was generally considered an antinomian. Some sound reformed authors have disputed this claim. I have not personally read Crisp. However, if there is the possibility of antinomianism in his writings I would urge caution and discernment when reading him. :2cents:

Yes, see also this previous thread on the subject.
 
Yes, see also this previous thread on the subject.

Thanks. I often miss some of the threads that were "before my time" on the Puritan Board because I do not search. I read the same bio on Crisp as you did. When men such as Spurgeon dispute the claim of antinomianism it gives one pause to reconsider. I would have to read him for myself though.
 
I would have to read him for myself though.

This is a sermon from his Christ Alone Exalted and I can find no traces of antinomianism! I quote Crisp:

Some, it may be, will object, that all this while it seems that Christ hath not freed us frown being under the law, whereas the apostle saith, "Ye are not under the law, but under grace." I answer, 1. That in respect of the rules of righteousness, or the matter of obedience, we are under the law still; or else we are lawless, to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which I know no true christian dares so much as think; for Christ hath given no new law diverse from this, to order our conversation aright by; besides, we are under the law, to know what is transgression, and what is the desert of it.
 
Anthony Burgess, from Vindiciae Legis, p. 15.

Therefore it is a very wilde comparison of one [marginal note: Dr, Crisp], that a man under grace hath no more to doe with the Law, then an English-man hath with the lawes of Spain or Turkie: For, howsoever every Beleever be in a state of grace, so that his person is justified; yet, being but in part regenerated, so farre as his sins are committed, they are threatned and condemned in him, as well as in another: for there is a simple guilt of sin, and a guilt redundant upon the person.

The title of Samuel Rutherford's work against the Antinomians is

A survey of the Spiritual Antichrist opening the secrets of familisme and antinomianisme in the antichristian doctrine of John Saltmarsh and Will. Del, the present preachers of the army now in England, and of Robert Town, Tob. Crisp, H. Denne, Eaton, and others.

Some statements relative to Crispe:

Crispe and other Antinomians say the beleevers are as cleane from sinne as Christ himselfe

But we must teach that there be two sort of sinners, some who acknowledge their sin, some who securely please themselves therein. I intreat Saltmarsh, Eaton, Crispe, Den, Towne, Del, Randel, Simson, who are so much against all preparations for Christ, and for sole beleeving, and cry out so much against strict walking with God, to consider this.

The Antinomians these new prophets contend that men should be sweetly handled, and ought not to be terrified with examples of Gods wrath, but Paul teacheth another thing, 2 Tim. 2.3. when he saith The Scripture is profitable to rebuke, to correction. So Saltmarsh, Crisp, Den, Del, Town, Randel, preach a honey Gospel, and a short cut to heaven, and exclude all gall and vinegar, from the law.

Crisp, Saltmarsh say, the onely work of the Gospel is faith.

What ever sins, I, or thou, or we all have done, or shall hereafter doe, are as proper Christs sinnes, as if he himselfe had done them.

Not that they were Christs intrinsecally, in the fundamentall guilt, and law-obligation to suffer for them, as Crisp saith, but legally the beleevers sins are Christs, the client and the advocate are in Law one law-person, they have but one cause, the surety and the broken man are one, the debt owed by both is one, therefore Christ is the sinner legally.

Crisp saith, Sin is taken away, as money removed out of a place, it was once in, it is no more in its being and nature there, then if it had never been there. The beleever is as just and as clean from sinne as Christ; God cannot see sinne in a beleever, because pardoned sinne as lost the nature of sinne, and both his person and his workes are perfect and sinlesse before God. The devill cannot teach more fleshly doctrine; for we are only by justification just by a relative righteousnesse as the prodigall bankerupt is just legally, and free from debt, for which is his surety hath satisfied.
 
If the position of Crisp and Gill were correct, the sins of believers could do them no hurt, even before they believed. Faith is thus distorted to be nothing more than an assurance that one is elect, and has never been under the wrath of God. There is therefore no imperative to believe on Christ for salvation -- proving that this gospel is no gospel at all. And the doctrine that good works are in no sense necessary to salvation is pure Antinomianism. Larger Catechism, answer 32, speaks of "holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation."
 
If the position of Crisp and Gill were correct, the sins of believers could do them no hurt, even before they believed. Faith is thus distorted to be nothing more than an assurance that one is elect, and has never been under the wrath of God. There is therefore no imperative to believe on Christ for salvation -- proving that this gospel is no gospel at all. And the doctrine that good works are in no sense necessary to salvation is pure Antinomianism. Larger Catechism, answer 32, speaks of "holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation."

See Gill here:

III. To consider another evangelic truth, which, indeed, is the sum and substance of the gospel, and with the proof of which the scripture abounds, though you are pleased to condemn it is a fancy, and that is, that "God sees no sin in his people." I know this doctrine has been most odiously traduced, and most widely misrepresented; but, I hope, when some few things are observed, it will plainly appear not to be a fancy, or a freak of some distempered minds, but a most glorious and comfortable doctrine of the gospel, and without which the gospel must cease to be good news and glad tidings to the sons of men.

1st, When it is asserted that God sees no sin in his people, the meaning is not, that there is no sin in believers, nor any committed by them, or that their sins are no sins, or that their sanctification is perfect in this life.

1. Sin is in the best of saints; to say otherwise is contrary to scripture, and to all the experience of God’s people; If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). The ingenuous confession of the saints, their groans and complaints, and that continual war between flesh and spirit they feel in themselves, are so many proofs of sin’s being in them; nay, it is not only in them, but it lives in them. It is true, indeed, they do not live in sin, for then there would be no difference between them and unregenerate persons; to live in sin, is not only unbecoming, but contrary to the grace of God: but still sin lives in believers; though there is an inward principle of grace, and a mortification of the outward actions of sin, and a putting off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts; yet this old man is not changed, nor removed, much less destroyed. Moreover, sin is not merely in believers now and then, by fits and starts, as we say, but it dwells in them. Hence the apostle calls it, Sin that dwelleth in me (Rom. 7:17, 20); where it is not idle, but active and busy; it hinders all the good, and does all the mischief it can; it makes war against the soul, and sometimes brings it into captivity.

2. Sin is not only in the best of saints, but is also committed by them: There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not (Eccl. 7:20); nor is there any sin, but what has been, or may be committed by believers, excepting the sin against the Holy Ghost: their daily slips and falls, their frequent prayers for the discoveries of pardoning grace, and the application of Christ’s blood, which cleanseth from all sin, confirm the truth of this. It is true, the apostle John says, that whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God 1 John 3:9); that is, as born of God, he neither does, nor can commit sin. What is that which is born of God? The new creature; the other I, distinguished from sin that dwelleth in him this never did, nor can commit sin; there are an old man and a new man in regenerate persons; the new man never sins, the old man does nothing else but sin; there are flesh and spirit in the saints; all sinful works are the works of the flesh, as all good works are the fruits of the Spirit. The work of grace, though imperfect, is not impure; nothing impure springs from it, nor is any thing impure to be attributed to it.

3. The sins of believers are sins, as well as the sins of others; they are of the same kind, and are equally transgressions of the law, as others are murder and adultery, committed by David, were sins in him, as well as they are as committed by others; yea, oftentimes the sins of believers are attended with more aggravating circumstances than the sins of other men, being acted against light and knowledge, love, grace and mercy. Though believers are justified from all sin by Christ’s righteousness, and have all their sins pardoned through Christ’s blood, yet their sins do not hereby cease to be sins. Justification from sin by Christ’s righteousness, and pardon of sin through Christ’s blood, free them from obligation to punishment due to sin, but do not destroy the nature of sin.

4. The work of sanctification is imperfect in this life it is a good work begun, but not finished; there is something lacking in the faith of the greatest believer; love is not come to its full growth and as for knowledge, it is but in part. There is a twofold sanctification; the one in Christ, this is complete and perfect; the other is derived from Christ, and wrought in the soul by the Spirit of. Christ; this at present is imperfect. There is indeed a perfection of parts, but not of degrees; that is to say, the new creature has all its parts, but these are not grown up to the perfection they will arrive unto. The best of saints need fresh supplies of grace, which they would not, were they perfect: they disclaim perfection in themselves, though they wish for it both in themselves and others; when therefore it is said that "God sees no sin in his people," neither of these things are designed by it.

2ndly, God’s seeing no sin in his people, does not impeach his omniscience: nor is it to be considered as referring to the article of providence, but to the article of justification as I shall shew presently. God is omniscient, he knows and sees all persons and things; nothing is or can be hid from his all-seeing eye: His eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings; there is no darkness nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves (job 34:21, 22). All the actions of men, whether good or bad, are known to him, with their secret springs and principles from whence they flow; he sees the sins of his own people, as well as the sins of others, both in their first motions, and in their open productions; The Lord’s throne is in heaven, his eyes behold, his eyelids try the children of men! the Lord trieth the righteous (Ps. 11:4, 5). About this there is no debate; they must be stupid indeed, if there be any; for my part, I never heard of any who deny that the omniscience of God extends to the sins of his people; it never was thought of, or designed, by this assertion, to limit or deny the omniscience of God; nor is it limited or denied by it. Though the phrases of seeing and knowing, are used as synonymous in the article of providence, yet never in the article of justification; there they are always distinguished: knowledge and sight are two things the one belongs to the attribute of God’s omniscience, the other to the attribute of his justice: when therefore it is said, that God sees no sin in his people, the meaning is not, that he does not with his omniscient eye, see and know sin to be in them; but he does not see any iniquity in them with his eye of justice, or so as to punish them for their sins, or require satisfaction at their hands for them.

3rdly, Nor is the meaning of this proposition, that "God sees no sin in his people," that he takes no notice of them, nor resents them, nor chastises them, in a fatherly way, on the account of them. God does not, indeed, punish his people for their sins in a way of vindictive wrath and justice; for this is contrary to his justice, and must overthrow the satisfaction of Christ; for either Christ has perfectly satisfied for the sins of his people, or he has not; if he has not, they must satisfy for them themselves; if he has, it is contrary to the justice of God to punish for sin twice, or to require satisfaction, both of the surety and the sinner: but though God does not punish his people for their sins, yet he chastises them in a fatherly way; he takes notice of their sins, lays his hand upon them, in order to bring them to a sense and acknowledgement of them; If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from them, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail (Ps. 89:30-33).

4thly, Though God sees sin in his people, as being but in part sanctified, yet he sees no sin in them, as they are perfectly justified; though he sees sin in them, with his eye of omniscience, yet not with his eye of revenging justice; though he sees them, in respect of his providence, which reaches all things, yet not in respect of justification; though he takes notice of his people’s sins so as to chastise them in a fatherly way, for their good; yet he does not see them, take notice of them, and observe them in a judicial way, so as to impute them to them, or require satisfaction for them: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them (2 Cor. 5:9): No, he has imputed them to Christ, he has beheld them in him, he has charged them to him, and Christ has made full satisfaction for them; and therefore who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth: Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died (Rom. 8:33, 34). God will not require satisfaction at the hands of his people for their sins; he will not punish them on the account of them; they shall never enter into condemnation; for there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:1). Was God to see sin in his people in this sense, and proceed against them in a forensic way, he must act contrary to his justice and set aside the satisfaction of his Son. A few things will make it plainly appear that God sees no sin in his justified ones, as such:

First, This will be evident, if we consider what Christ has done with respect to the sins of his people. These have been removed from them to him; they have been placed to his account, imputed to him, and laid upon him. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:6); which he has bore in his own body, on the tree; yea, he is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world; he has removed the iniquity of his people in one day: As he was wounded for their transgressions, and bruised for their sins, so he has washed them from their sins in that blood of his which cleanseth from all sin; by his righteousness he justifies them from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses; and by the sacrifice of himself, he has put away sin for ever; yea, he has finished transgression, made an end of sin, has made reconciliation for iniquity, and has brought in everlasting righteousness. This is the language both of the Old and New Testament, and if this be the case, as it certainly is, God does not, and cannot see iniquity in his people, since all their iniquity has been transferred on Christ, and it is all done away by him.

Secondly, This will be yet more evident, if we consider what God the Father has done on the account of the blood, righteousness, sacrifice, and satisfaction of his Son. He has freely forgiven all the sins of his people for Christ’s sake; he has covered them with a covering of mercy, so as they are not visible; he has blotted them out of his sight, so as they are not legible to the eye of justice; yea, he has cast them all behind his back, and into the depths of the sea; insomuch that the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: such strong expressions as these from the mouth of the Lord of hosts, will sufficiently bear us out in asserting, that "God sees no sin in his people."

Thirdly, Add to this, the view in which the people of God are to be considered, and are considered by Father, Son, and Spirit, being clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and washed in his blood; they are complete in Christ; they are without fault before the throne, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing: Christ says to them, Thou art all fair, my love; and there is no spot in thee (Cant. 4:7). The church is a perfection of beauty in his esteem; all the saints are perfectly comely through the comeliness he has put on them; yea, they are, in the sight of God, in the eye of justice, unblameable and unreproveable; and if so, then surely God sees no iniquity in them. One must transcribe a considerable part of the Old and New Testament to give the full proof of this doctrine.

If this is a fancy, it is the glory of the Bible, and the marrow of the Gospel; what most displays the riches of God’s grace, the efficacy of Christ’s blood, the completeness of his righteousness, and the fulness of his satisfaction it is the foundation of all solid hopes of future happiness, what supports the life of faith, and is the ground of a believer’s triumph. One would have thought, Sir, you might have forbore so severe a reflection on this truth, of God’s seeing no sin in his people, since it is the to rhton, the express words of the sacred oracles: He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel (Num. 23:21).
 
After all of those qualifications, Gill has proven beyond a doubt that it is a fancy to say "God sees no sin in His people." A statement which requires that much qualification in order to understand the true sense of it, is not worth much as a theological statement. God does see sin in His people in all of the ways Gill mentions.
 
A.H. Drysdale, History of the Presbyterians in England, p. 470:

Tobias Crisp, born of a wealthy London family, and educated at both Cambridge and Oxford, became a Wiltshire Rector; but being a Royalist, was driven from his parish at the beginning of the Civil Wars. He died in London, 1642, at the early age of forty-one. At first he was a vehement Arminian in Laud's time; but having adopted Calvinistic views with great earnestness, he wrote and preached these with corresponding vehemence, and to the uttermost extreme; unconsciously caricaturing and travestying each Calvinistic point with puzzle-headed perplexity, though doubtless with the best possible intentions. Through confounding imputation with transference, for example, he wrote of Christ's righteousness, not as if imputed, but actually transferred to the believer; not seeing that it is the benefits of Christ's righteousness that are transferred by virtue of the righteousness itself being imputed. He wrote, too, of Christ, as He were a sinner -- having men's sins actually transferred to Him; whereas it is the penalty that was transferred, the sins being only imputed. Crisp's heresies arrested the attention of the Westminster Assembly Divines, who, however, reckoned them too weak for further notice beyond their exposure by John Flavel and others at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top