# Tobias Crisp?



## PresbyDane (Dec 12, 2010)

I have seen this on communiting pricing on logos:

Christ Alone Exalted: The Complete Works of Tobias Crisp (2 vols.)

But I can not find a lot of info on him, and what I can find is to unprecise it says he was antinomian but nothing about the details, does anyone on this capable board know more details about him?


----------



## Hippo (Dec 12, 2010)

The interesting bits I can cull from Logos contain the following:

CRISP, TOBIAS (1600–1643)
Popular English preacher; champion of antinomianism
In 1627 Crisp became rector of Brinkworth in Wiltshire. He was sympathetic to the Puritan cause. Forced to leave Brinkworth in 1642 because of questionable teachings, he settled in London and began debating other ministers on the doctrine of “free grace.” Crisp insisted that God’s love was a gift, freely given and not earned. He had little respect for the legalism embedded in many religious practices; therefore, he became a champion of antinomianism (the belief that faith may be exercised apart from adherence to any moral law; hence, one’s actions do not relate to salvation). After his death, several collections of his sermons and lectures were published by R. Lancaster under the general title of Christ Alone Exalted—the first two in 1643, a third in 1646, and a fourth in 1683.


Leid, K. (1992). Crisp, Tobias. In J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort (Eds.), Who's Who in Christian history (J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort, Ed.) (182). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

My predecessor, Dr. Gill, edited the works of Tobias Crisp, but Tobias Crisp went further than Dr. Gill or any of us can approve; for in one place Crisp calls Christ a sinner, though he does not mean that he ever sinned himself. He actually calls Christ a transgressor, and justifies himself by that passage, “He was numbered with the transgressors.” Martin Luther is reputed to have broadly said that, although Jesus Christ was sinless, yet he was the greatest sinner that ever lived, because all the sins of his people lay upon him. Now, such expressions I think to be unguarded, if not profane. Certainly Christian men should take care that they use not language which, by the ignorant and uninstructed, may be translated to mean what they never intended too teach. 

Spurgeon, C. H. (1998). Vol. 6: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 6 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Spurgeon's Sermons. Albany, OR: Ages Software.

A man is not justified from his sins before he has committed them, nor is he saved before he is born. A remarkable illustration of the extreme to which hyper-Calvinism may go is found in Tobias Crisp, Sermons, 1:358—“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 abomination that can be committed.… than he has to the charge of the saint triumphant in glory.

Strong, A. H. (2004). Systematic theology (867). Bellingham, Wa.: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

As early as the 1530s Luther expressed concern that one of his followers, Johann Agricola (c. 1494–1566), had become antinomian. Luther criticized Agricola for not stressing adequately the moral responsibility of Christians. In the 17th century several English Calvinists such as Tobias Crisp (1600–43) were charged with antinomianism. In the first three centuries of Protestantism the number of antinomians was very small, yet among 17th-century English Protestants there were very exaggerated fears of it.

Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. (2000). New dictionary of theology (electronic ed.) (379). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

I remember someone saying that if you are not accused of antinomianism every now and then you are not preaching the Gospel, it is an easy (if misguided) charge to lay on Calvinism so I would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 12, 2010)

Thank you very much for these things


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 12, 2010)

Gill's purpose in editing his works was to show that he was not an antinomian, and because his works were valuable and edifying to the church. Here's a link to an article about his history.

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

Blessings!


----------



## JBaldwin (Dec 12, 2010)

While this has nothing to do with Crisp's theology, one branch of the family (direct descendants of Tobias) live down the road from us. Mr. Crisp's father is a Baptist preacher (gone Calvinist) and a good friend of ours. Obviously, he thinks quite highly of Crisp.


----------



## JM (Dec 12, 2010)

Crisp has been called antinomian by legalists, sometimes called a neonamian, but was neither.

You can read his works here for free: Grace-eBooks.com

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."*

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

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."


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 13, 2010)

Works such as Crisp's are things around which we need to exercise caution, especially when we so freely and publicly defend them as good and profitable literature. And especially in discussions like this in which highly equivocal terms such as "antinomianism" are concerned. We need to remember that, in the context of Crisp's England, antinomian meant far beyond "One who doesn't think the law is a rule for Christians." Theologians of Crisp's own day interacted in detail with his work - Rutherford's _Spiritual AntiChrist_ comes chiefly to mind. 

I suppose what I really want to say is regardless of what readings _we_ today might be able to salvage from Crisp's work, men such as Rutherford and Burgess were ministers dealing very pastorally, not just with some Platonic form of an Ideal Interpretation of "Christ Alone Exalted," but they were dealing with the day-by-day fruits produced by the work in the lives of the ordinary parishioner. The fact is, even if the book did not contain Antinomianism, it was nevertheless read as such and promoted such ideas. Why should we be under the allusion that it will do anything different today? By employing fancy and logical and rhetorical devices, we may (after prolonged discussion and qualification) be able to salvage Crisp's work from charges of Antinomianism (though I'm not certain it can actually be done and still honestly represent the spirit of Crisp's thought): but the question I have to ask is, Why? Why recommend books to those around us who need to hear the plain truth of the Gospel, books which would require extensive qualification and additional reading to keep them from doing damage? There is more _good_ Reformed literature out there to edify us than most people could ever hope to read in a life time. If we want to stick even with 16th and 17th century Puritans, there is other literature out there which has been universally accepted as good and profitable without needing vast qualification to make it safe. I think we have a native trend (at least, I know I've seen it in my own heart) to avoid "mainline" literature because "everyone else is reading it" and we want to know or do something "unique." Well, frankly, within the orthodox tradition anyway, there is good reason that Owen and Goodwin, Rutherford and Manton, Calvin and Burroughs, Brooks and Bridges, Watson and Boston, Colquhoun and Henry, Sibbes and Alleine, etc., are mainline -- it's simply because they truly are good and edifying in themselves. We can stick with the "standards" and not pursue the "fringe" works, and end up with far more certainty concerning our faith.

*Edit*
Martin, I don't post the above in response to your initial question. But in this thread and in others past, I've seen Crisp come up several times where members have attempted to vindicate his work from the charge of Antinomianism in order to encourage the reading of it as good literature. For quick background on Crisp, you might start by consulting his entry in _Meet The Puritans._


----------



## py3ak (Dec 14, 2010)

Great post, Paul. I've noticed that aversion to the mainline in myself and some family members and thought it might just be a peculiarity of our family.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 15, 2010)

Well...being in agreement with my brothers who lay out an appropriate caution to protect our faith, I just want to clarify something for the record. My intent in defending Crisp is not because of the resons they mention. I'm not interested in the "fringe works" just because they are fringe, nor in promoting him for the cause of good reading. For me, Crisp was a much needed antidote to a multi-decade disease I had contracted from a false gospel church. The spiral was deep and the chains were tightly wrapped and heavily tangled. And, with my mind, and the way it thinks in absolutes and infinities, and nit-picks at every detail to the nth degree, Crisp could speak to that and guide me through to the gospel more clearly than any other. I read Spurgeon, Edwards, Boice, Sproul, Hodge, Warfield, Burroughs, Bridges, Manton, Owen, Calvin and others. Crisp and Luther helped me with the gospel more than anyone else, and that's why I speak up about them. I just figure there are others like me who aren't interested in a licentious lifestyle, but need to hear the freeness of the gospel so clearly that it leads to that question being asked in Rom.6:1, "What shall we say then, are we to continue in sin that grace might abound." 

I hope that paints a little bit better picture of things on my end, and I appreciate the cautions.

Blessings and warm fellowship...


----------



## JM (Dec 15, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Crisp and Luther helped me with the gospel more than anyone else



I would have to agree.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 22, 2010)

Charles, I felt I should add that I can understand the benefit received from Crisp. Different emphases and different divines sometimes seem to be suitable for different conditions. I knew someone who was too downcast to read William Guthrie, but enjoyed Walter Marshall.

However, it might also be worth pointing out, that without making specific reference to Crisp, the antinomians did have some attractive points. I know the impression I initially received is that they were people who went out actively fomenting license as their main goal; but that would surely be far too obvious to deceive many Christian hearts. In order to do that, antinomians would have to proclaim large parts of the Gospel message forcefully.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 22, 2010)

Thanks, Ruben. Good point too! I appreciate you sharing this.

Blessings!


----------



## captivewill (Dec 23, 2010)

From Jude, condensed...."..certain men....have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality....these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand and whatever things they do understand by instinct, like un reasoning animals-these are the very things that (will) destroy them..These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualms but they are shepherds who feed only themselves..They are clouds without rain...etc etc...Enoch prophesied of these men saying 'See, the Lord is coming...to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly ACTS they have DONE in their ungodly ways...These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for tyheir own advantage. these are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit....But you dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith....keep yourselves in God's LOVE..."


----------

