# Tobias Crisp



## JBaldwin (May 5, 2010)

Anyone know anything about Tobias Crisp 1600-1643? 

Today I discovered that someone in our church is a descendent of Crisp. This guy told me that John Gill said that Crisp was one of the greatest preachers that ever lived. I read, however, that Crisp was an antonomianist. I didn't think Gill was. Can anyone clarify this?


----------



## rbcbob (May 6, 2010)

> The leaders of the Antinomian party were named in a petition sent to the 10 August, 1643, when the books complained of were Crisp’s ‘Christ Alone Exalted’ …



Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law, p.25


----------



## DMcFadden (May 6, 2010)

The event that help start the "down grade" controversy for Spurgeon, involved an article published in the Sword and Trowel in 1887 by Robert Shindler, a Baptist pastor and close associate of Spurgeon's. Spurgeon gave full support to Shindler's article and the fight was engaged. A section of it deals with the Tobias Crisp controversy:



> Antinomianism was the term applied to the teaching of Dr. Tobias Crisp. Crisp had been an Arminian, but became an ardent Calvinist, going, perhaps, a little beyond Calvin in some things. He died in 1642, and his sermons were published by his son forty-five years after his death. They were printed from short-hand notes compared with Dr. Crisp's own notes, and therefore were lacking in that correctness and finish which the author's own hand would have given them. This will account for the crudeness of some of his expressions. He was a man of strong faith, ardent zeal, holy life, and great devotion and faithfulness in his ministerial work. He was called an Antinomian, but the term was misapplied. Many of his statements, however, while they will readily admit of an orthodox sense, lie open to the charge of going beyond the truth.
> The publication of his sermons awoke a fierce controversy, which lasted some years, and did much mischief. Dr. Williams exposed what he considered the errors and erroneous tendency of some of his utterances; and even John Flavel was among those who denounced his teaching as erroneous and Antinomian. There need not have been such an outcry. The books written against Crisp, many of them good in their way, had the effect of frightening the timid, the doubtful, and the hesitating, who, to avoid Crispianism, as it was called, went as far as they could to the opposite extreme. They verged upon Arminianism, and some actually became Arminians. The Arminianism of that day was a cold, dry, heartless thing, and many who took that name proved that they were already on "the down grade" towards Socinianism.


----------



## py3ak (May 6, 2010)

This quote from _Christ Alone Exalted_ shows why his writings caused a controversy:
"I say, that faith, as it layes hold upon the righteousness of Christ, it doth not bring this righteousness of Christ to the soul, but only doth declare the presence of this righteousness in the soul that was there, even before faith was."​
Crisp thinks that you had righteousness before you believed, but that belief would seem to make hash of a number of Scriptural texts.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 6, 2010)

An *old thread* mentioned that Crisp was addressed in Beeke's _Meet the Puritans_:


> 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."


----------



## JM (May 6, 2010)

Tobias Crisp (1600-1643): Exalter of Christ Alone 

from MEN'S OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS THEIR GRAND IDOL, "I am not ignorant, beloved, how this assertion goeth under the foul blur of Antinomianism, that blameless walking according to the law, being established, is a fruit of ignorance, and a cause of men's not "submitting to the righteousness of God." And no marvel it goes for such now; for, in the apostle's time it was accounted so; nay, it was objected against the apostle himself as direct Antinomianism: and, therefore, he was enforced to vindicate himself thus," Do we make void the law, (saith he) through faith? God forbid!" he takes away the objection they put to him, upon his establishing of God's righteousness, and his overthrowing our righteousness. It was objected, that hereby he went about to make void the law; and, therefore, it is no marvel it holds still as an objection, that the maintaining of this principle is the overthrowing of the law. But, beloved, I must say to you, as the apostle did in the same case, "God forbid! yea, we establish the law," that is to say; in its right place. It takes men off from performing duties to corrupt ends, and from the bad use they are apt to make of them; namely, idolizing their own righteousness. And, therefore, he doth not condemn the use of the law, and our righteousness, simply: that which he speaks against here is the establishing of our righteousness. Our own righteousness is good in its kind, and for its own proper uses; but then it proves a fruit of sin, ignorance, and a dangerous stumbling-block, and an idol, when we go about to establish it."


----------



## JBaldwin (May 6, 2010)

Thanks for all the replies. I am beginning to get an idea of the controversy.


----------



## JM (May 6, 2010)

You can get a better idea of his thought by reading his sermons: http://www.grace-ebooks.com/Home.html

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY NO LICENTIOUS DOCTRINE
MEN'S OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS THEIR GRAND IDOL
THE ACT OF BELIEVING IS NOT OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
FREE GRACE THE TEACHER OF GOOD WORKS

THE USE OF THE LAW (vol. 4), "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."

It's my personal belief that Crisp was dealing with legalism in the church at the time.

jm


----------



## JBaldwin (May 6, 2010)

> It's my personal belief that Crisp was dealing with legalism in the church at the time


.


Thanks for the links! That's an interesting thought.


----------

