# Tobias Crisp - Christ Alone Exalted (4 Vols)



## Mayflower (Mar 8, 2006)

Has anyone ever read something of Tobias Crisp ? Thoughts ?

Was he a presbyterian or a baptist ?

Christ Alone Exalted (4 Vols) 

http://www.heritagebooks.org/browse.asp?fname=Tobias&lname=Crisp

http://grace-for-today.com/1413.htm

http://sovereign-grace.com/986.htm

http://sovereign-grace.com/994.htm

http://sovereign-grace.com/981.htm

http://sovereign-grace.com/977.htm


[Edited on 3-8-2006 by Mayflower]

[Edited on 3-8-2006 by Mayflower]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 22, 2006)

Here is a bio which may be helpful.


----------



## Mayflower (Mar 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Here is a bio which may be helpful.



Thanks Andrew, have you ever read something from Tobias Crisp ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I have not read Tobias Crisp's works, but he sounds interesting.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 24, 2006)

Wasn't Crisp a proponent of Anitnomianism? I recall that. I've not read him though.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Wasn't Crisp a proponent of Anitnomianism? I recall that. I've not read him though.



The bio that I cited says:



> Many writers have accused Crisp of Antinomianism but many others have also spoken in his defense. For example, C. H. Spurgeon observed, "Antinomianism was the term applied to the teaching of Dr. Tobias Crisp... He was called an Antinomian, but the term was misapplied." Pages 123-124. The Sword and The Trowel. (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1887). Again Spurgeon said, "Never was there a sounder divine than Crisp, and never one who preached the gospel more fully to all under heaven." Page 104. The Reverend C. H. Spurgeon's Anecdotes and Stories, Oliver Creyton, Editor. (London: n.d.). William Twisse, the presiding officer at the Westminster Assembly, remarked that he had, "read Dr. Crisp's Sermons, and could give no reason why they were opposed, but because so many were converted by his preaching; and, said he, so few by ours." Pages 67 in John Rippon's, A Brief Memoir of the Life and Writings of John Gill. (London: J. Bennett, 1838). The famous Scottish theologian, John Brown of Haddington said, "I look on Dr. Crisp, as by no means an Antinomian, but as a deeply convinced and holy divine, pressing after gospel light." Page 31. Memoirs of the Life and Character of the Late Rev. James Hervey, A. M. (London, 1822). Augustus Toplady spoke in Crisp's defense calling him, "the holy and judicious Dr. Crisp" Page 370. The Complete Works of Augustus Toplady. 1 Volume Edition. (London, 1794). More recently in an article entitled, "Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant" Mark W. Karlberg stated, "The most important of those mistakenly labeled 'Antinomian' was Tobias Crisp (1600-1643)... Crisp more than most of his time, strove to develop in greater fullness and clarity the precise sense in which the Mosaic Covenant had to be considered as a covenant of works." The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, (Fall, 1980), Page 27.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Mar 25, 2006)

Sounds like an excellent start in refuting the oh-so-ever-common approach "Crisp is an antinomian; I heard it was so myself!" Of course, I had heard that sentiment so often that I had begun to doubt whether Gill wasn't merely blinded by _his_ supposed antinomianism.

That excerpt above shows a remarkable diversion from this common approach. I shall renew my interest.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 2, 2007)

See my post: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=227472#post227472


----------



## Mayflower (Apr 18, 2007)

Yesterday i got "Christ alone exalted by Tobias Crisp", and i read the first two sermons which are excellent!


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2007)

Mayflower said:


> Yesterday i got "Christ alone exalted by Tobias Crisp", and i read the first two sermons which are excellent!



I borrowed it from the Gospel Standard Library here in the UK and yes thay are great! As for him being an antinomian...they who say such things show they have never read him especially his second to last sermon _The Use of the Law_


----------



## ADKing (Apr 18, 2007)

The London Testimony singles out Crisp to condemn certain statements he made. I include the following. 

_That, Every elect vessel of God from the first instant of his being, is as pure in the eyes of God, I say, from the charge of sin, as he shall be in glory: No more sin shall be reckoned to him now, than he shall have in heaven. 

—D. Crisp's Serm. intit. Our sins are already laid on Christ, p.274,275.

That, The Lord hath not one sin to charge upon any elect person from the first moment of Conception, till the last minute of his life, there is not so much as original sin to be laid on him.—Let me speak freely to you, and in so doing tell you, That the Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an elect person, yet in the height of iniquity, and in the excess of riot, and committing all the abominations that can be committed, I say, even then, when an elect person runs such a course, the Lord hath no more to lay to that person's charge, than God hath to lay to the charge of a believer; nay, God hath no more to lay to the charge of such a person, than he hath to lay to the charge of a Saint triumphant in glory. 

—D. Crisp in the same Sermon, p272.
_

Samuel Rutherford in his "Survery of Spiritual Antichrist" includes Crisp as an antinomian. It was/is a system of theology with much more to it than merely a rejection of the third use of the law (although it usually includes this). From the bit of reading I have done on the matter I would say that Rutherford, the Westminster Divines and other mid 17th century authorities had a more accurate take on Crisp--with all due repsect to our brother Spurgeon et. al.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 18, 2007)

ADKing said:


> The London Testimony singles out Crisp to condemn certain statements he made. I include the following.
> 
> _That, Every elect vessel of God from the first instant of his being, is as pure in the eyes of God, I say, from the charge of sin, as he shall be in glory: No more sin shall be reckoned to him now, than he shall have in heaven.
> 
> ...



Personally I have read the works of Crisp and admit that at times he makes a statement that out of context could give the impression he is antinomian yet taken in context I believe that the charge was misdirected. 

In the sermon I mentioned earlier he teaches:

It is added because of transgression that is, it is set up to keep men from transgression, for rectum est sui index et obliqui. Now, supposing the law almost obliterated, were it not revived, man should not be able to distinguish what is good and what is evil; now the law renewed, propounding to man what is good and acceptable to God, by looking hereinto he shall see what will please, and what displease; when he doth well, and when he fails; so theft it serves for a rule of life, and a discerner of aberrations. ...

Now had we not directions from the law, men would live as they list; christians would be rather monsters than men; the law, in the tales of it, being holy and good, maintains a part fitting our communion with Christ. ...

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.​



> *William Twisse*, the presiding officer at the Westminster Assembly, remarked that he had, "read Dr. Crisp's Sermons, and could give no reason why they were opposed, but because so many were converted by his preaching; and, said he, so few by ours."
> 
> *Mark W. Karlberg *stated, "The most important of those mistakenly labeled 'Antinomian' was Tobias Crisp (1600-1643)... Crisp more than most of his time, strove to develop in greater fullness and clarity the precise sense in which the Mosaic Covenant had to be considered as a covenant of works." The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, (Fall, 1980), Page 27.


 http://www.ageslibrary.com/authordb/C/crisp.html


----------



## ADKing (Apr 18, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Personally I have read the works of Crisp and admit that at times he makes a statement that out of context could give the impression he is antinomian yet taken in context I believe that the charge was misdirected.
> 
> In the sermon I mentioned earlier he teaches:
> 
> ...



If you can find the time, I would be interested in your thoughts about the thesis of this article. http://www.soundofgrace.com/v7/n5/antinomianism-hartley.htm

When many people hear the term "antinomian" they think only about a denial of the third use of the law. This seems to have had a greater emphasis in 16th century libertinism. It is generally thought that 17th century Antinomianism focused on different issues: sanctification as evidence of justification etc. Many scholars believe (rightly in my opinion) that 17th century antinomianism set out to be a different system of theology than federalism. Read in this light (and fleshed out in much greater detail by the linked article) I think a stronger case can be made that Crisp was in fact an antinomian.


----------



## Mayflower (Apr 19, 2007)

See : Tobias Crisp (1600-1643): Exalter of Christ Alone
http://www.evangelica.de/Tobias_Crisp.htm


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 19, 2007)

ADKing said:


> If you can find the time, I would be interested in your thoughts about the thesis of this article. http://www.soundofgrace.com/v7/n5/antinomianism-hartley.htm
> 
> When many people hear the term "antinomian" they think only about a denial of the third use of the law. This seems to have had a greater emphasis in 16th century libertinism. It is generally thought that 17th century Antinomianism focused on different issues: sanctification as evidence of justification etc. Many scholars believe (rightly in my opinion) that 17th century antinomianism set out to be a different system of theology than federalism. Read in this light (and fleshed out in much greater detail by the linked article) I think a stronger case can be made that Crisp was in fact an antinomian.



I will give it a read later but if we have to change our definition of what antinomianism was inorder for the label to stick then may be the charge is not well founded?


----------



## ADKing (Apr 19, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I will give it a read later but if we have to change our definition of what antinomianism was inorder for the label to stick then may be the charge is not well founded?



I am not suggesting "changing" the definition, only being sensitive to the wider issues that actually defined the movement. Most scholars today seem to recognize that antinomianism of the 17th century variety involved much more theologically than merely libertinism. Thus, it is quite possible that we are looking for evidence of 16th century libertinism in Crisp, seeing that he himself denies these things and drawing conclusions in a wrong way. Crisp can deny the errors of a previous age while holding errors himself.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 19, 2007)

Adam -- Was Crisp mentioned in Lyford's book?


----------



## ADKing (Apr 19, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Adam -- Was Crisp mentioned in Lyford's book?



Not so far. But I am only in chapter 2 which is dealing with the Trinity (chapter 1 dealt with the Word of God). A group at the church here is reading it together on Sabbath afternoons. Lyford does frequently mention the London Testimony (to which you were so kind as to direct me--what a great resource!) with approbation. The London Testimony, as I cited it above, does list Crisp as the source of two quotes in "Errours touching the state of those which are in Christ, in reference to the Moral Law, to Sin, and to the Perfection of their Holiness and good-works in this life."


----------



## ADKing (Apr 19, 2007)

I would highly recommend the book "A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts" by William KB Stoever. He notes Crisp many times in this book and it seems to be well documented. 

In it is provided a helpful "thumbnail" of 17th century antinomianism. "Antinomians were held to maintain that the consciences of believers are not bound by the law and that God sees no sin in Christians; that assurance once obtained is not to be doubed of; that justification is before faith and that faith is a discovery of justification; and that sanctification is no evidence of justification." (p.232 n.11).


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 20, 2007)

I had a read throug the article...wasn't very scholarly and fairly weak...not that he was incorrect but I just did not see that he had evidence to support his claim.

As for Crisp, I agree with him in _Christ Alone Exalted_, if that means I am "antinomian" then so be it but labels mean less and less to me nowadays.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 20, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Not so far. But I am only in chapter 2 which is dealing with the Trinity (chapter 1 dealt with the Word of God). A group at the church here is reading it together on Sabbath afternoons. Lyford does frequently mention the London Testimony (to which you were so kind as to direct me--what a great resource!) with approbation. The London Testimony, as I cited it above, does list Crisp as the source of two quotes in "Errours touching the state of those which are in Christ, in reference to the Moral Law, to Sin, and to the Perfection of their Holiness and good-works in this life."



 I was reading Ernest Kevan, _The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology_ and came across a helpful discussion of the pros and cons of Tobias Crisp. Two quotes in particular interested me:



> Despite all that can be said in favour of the orthodoxy of Tobias Crisp, his name has come down in history as "one of the champions of Antinomianism" and it appears that Benjamin Brook was correct when he writes,
> 
> Persons who have embraced sentiments which afterwards appear to them erroneous, often think they can never remove too far from them; and the more remote they go from their former opinions, the nearer they come to the truth. This was unhappily the case with Dr Crisp. His ideas of the grace of Christ had been exceedingly low, and he had imbibed sentiments which produced in him a legal and self-righteous spirit. Shocked at the recollection of his former views and conduct, he seems to have imagined that he could never go far enough from them. [p. 27]
> ...
> As regards ill-considered expressions, J.B. Marsden makes an apt remark when he says of Tobias Crisp's works, "A person skilled in theology will perceive that many of his statements are capable of a sound interpretation. But they mislead the ignorant and occasioned grievous errors." [p. 32]


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2007)

ADKing said:


> The London Testimony singles out Crisp to condemn certain statements he made. I include the following.
> 
> _That, Every elect vessel of God from the first instant of his being, is as pure in the eyes of God, I say, from the charge of sin, as he shall be in glory: No more sin shall be reckoned to him now, than he shall have in heaven.
> 
> ...



This sounds like the teaching known as eternal justification, which was discussed here.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 20, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> This sounds like the teaching known as eternal justification, which was discussed here.



Antinomians such as Eaton (and Crisp, as cited above) did seem to speak about faith as if it were an assurance that one was already justified. This was realized by a person by a direct "witness" of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly enough this is where John Cotton seems to have been going in his teaching during the "Antinomian Controversy" in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630s.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 20, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> I was reading Ernest Kevan, _The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology_ and came across a helpful discussion of the pros and cons of Tobias Crisp. Two quotes in particular interested me..."But they mislead the ignorant and occasioned grievous errors." [p. 32]" :



Yes, and apparently some not so ignorant people too, like Samuel Rutherford! It does sound, however like there is quite a diversity of opinion as to if or what extent Crisp held the tenents of classic 17th century antinomianism. Perhaps it is a subject to which I will devote more study... it is certainly one that interests me. Does Beeke have an entry for him in his "Meet the Puritans"? (Yes, I know I will have to eventually get this book! I'm adding it to the list  )


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 20, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Yes, and apparently some not so ignorant people too, like Samuel Rutherford! It does sound, however like there is quite a diversity of opinion as to if or what extent Crisp held the tenents of classic 17th century antinomianism. Perhaps it is a subject to which I will devote more study... it is certainly one that interests me. Does Beeke have an entry for him in his "Meet the Puritans"? (Yes, I know I will have to eventually get this book! I'm adding it to the list  )



It is definitely a book worth getting, and Beeke / Pederson devote 5 pages to assessing Crisp and his views, generally cautioning that some good can be found in his works, but also some of his statements, viewed charitably, "could lead to serious doctrinal error."


----------

