signed by four of his majesty's principal secretaries of state for the predestinarian department. "John Calvin. "The Author of P. O. "Dr. Crisp. What would wise men think of such a manifesto? Who does not see, his majesty might as well have informed us at once, that all the laws of the land are now repealed; that, instead of being laws, they shall be only moral finger-posts, directing men in the narrow way of righteousness, or in the broad way of iniquity, if the one pleases them better than the other? Suppose a courtier asserted, that we are still under the laws of the land as rules of life; would not thinking men answer, "No: we are now absolutely lawless; for statutes according to which no Englishmen can be prosecuted, much less executed, are no laws at all for Englishmen; they are only directions, which every one is at full liberty to follow or not, as he pleases?" It is not less absurd to give the name of laws to rules which are not enforced with the sanction of proper rewards or penalties, than to call Baxter's Directory, a code of laws, because it contains excellent rules of life. O ye abettors of Dr. Crisp's mistakes, how long will you regard vain words, and inadvertently pour contempt upon the King of kings? How long will you rashly charge us with robbing him of his glory, because we cannot join you when, under the plausible pretence of advancing the honour of his priesthood, you explain away the most awful protestations which he made as a prophet; and rob him of the royal glory of punishing his rebellious, and rewarding his faithful, subjects, according to law, as a righteous king? Alas! even while you seem zealous for God's sovereignty, do you not unawares represent Jesus as the weakest of princes, or fiercest of tyrants? Do you not inadvertently, (for I know you would not do it deliberately for the world,) do you not, I say, inadvertently crown him with the sharpest thorns that ever grew in the territory of mystic Geneva ? Instead of the sceptre of his kingdom, which is a right sceptre, do you not at one time put in his hand a reed, which the antinomian elect may insult with more impunity, than the frog in the fable did the royal log sent by Jupiter to reign over them? And at another time, while you give him Nimrod's iron sceptre, do you not put upon him Nero's purple robe; and even slip into his loving bosom a black book of horrible decrees, more full of the names of unborn reprobates, than the emperor Domitian's fatal pocket-book was full of the names of the poor wretches, to whom, in a gloomy day, he took an unaccountable dislike, and whom, on this account, as well as to maintain his dreadful sovereignty, he tyrannically appointed for the slaughter? Never, no never shall you be able to do justice to the scripture, and our Lord's kingly office, till you allow, that, agreeably to his evangelical law, he will one day "reward every man according to his works ;" and the moment you allow this, you give up what you unhappily call your "foundation," that is, unconditional election, and finished salvation; in a word, you allow justification by works in the great day, and are as heretical (should I not say, as orthodox?) as ourselves. I am, Honoured and dear sirs, Yours, &c., J. FLETCHER. LETTER XII. TO RICHARD HILL, ESQ. HONOURED AND DEAR SIR, ALTHOUGH I reserve for two separate tracts, my answer to your objections against "the monstrous doctrine of perfection," and my reply to the argument which you draw from our seventeenth article in favour of the doctrine of unconditional election; the already exorbitant length of this Check calls for a speedy conclusion: and I hasten towards it, by laying before my readers the present state of our controversy; enlarging chiefly upon imputed righteousness and free will, two points which I have not yet particularly discussed in this piece. Imputed righteousness, as it is held by the Calvinists, I have endeavoured to expose in the Second Check, by the most absurd, and yet (upon your plan) most reasonable, plea of a barefaced antinomian, who expects to be justified in the great day by Christ's imputed righteousness without works. To this you have answered, Review, page 68, &c., by exclaiming, "Shocking slander, slanderous banter," &c.; and I might reply only by crying out, "Logica Genevensis!" But, as honest inquirers after truth would not be benefited, for their sake I shall in this letter show how far we agree, wherein we disagree, and what makes us dissent from you, about the doctrine of imputed righteousness. We agree, that all the righteousness which is in the spiritual world is as much Christ's righteousness, as all the light that shines in the natural world at noon is the light of the sun. And we equally assert, that when God justifies a sinner who believes in Christ, he freely pardons his past sins, graciously accounts him righteous, and, as such, admits him to his favour, only through faith in the Redeemer's meritorious blood and personal righteousness. To see clearly wherein we disagree, let us consider both your doctrine, and ours; touching, as we go along, upon the capital arguments by which they are supported. Consistent Calvinists believe, that if a man is elected, God absolutely imputes to him Christ's personal righteousness; that is, the perfect obedience unto death which Christ performed upon earth. This is reckoned to him for obedience and righteousness, even while he is actually disobedient, and before he has a grain of inherent righteousness. They consider this imputation as an unconditional and eternal act of grace, by which, not only a sinner's past sins, but his crimes present and to come, be they more or be they less, be they small or be they great, are for ever and for ever covered. He is eternally justified from all things. And, therefore, under this imputation, he is perfectly righteous before God, even while he commits adultery and murder. Or, to use your own expressions, whatever "lengths he runs," whatever " depths he falls into," "he always stands absolved, always complete in the everlasting righteousness of the Redeemer." (Five Letters, pages 26, 27, 29.) In point of justification, therefore, it matters not how unrighteous a believer actually is in himself; because the robe of Christ's personal righteousness, which, at his peril, he must not attempt to patch up with any personal righteousness of his own, is more than sufficient to adorn him from head to foot; and he must be sure to appear before God in no other. In this rich garment of "finished salvation," the greatest apostates shine brighter than angels, though they are "in themselves black" as the old murderer, and filthy as the brute that actually wallows in the mire. This "best robe,” as it is called, is full trimmed with such phylacteries as these, "Once in grace, always in grace; once justified, eternally justified; once washed, always fair, undefiled, and without spot." And so great are the privileges of those who have it on, that they can range through all the bogs of sin, wade through all the puddles of iniquity, and roll themselves in the thickest mire of wickedness, without contracting the least spot of guilt or speck of defilement. 66 This scheme of imputation is supported, 1. By scriptural metaphors, understood in a forced, unscriptural sense. Thus when a sound Calvinist reads about the "breast-plate of righteousness," and "the garment of salvation;" or about putting on Christ, walking in him, being in him, being found in him, or being clothed with righteousness;" his prepossessed mind directly runs upon his imputation. And if he reads in the Psalms, "I will make mention of thy righteousness, and thine only," he immediately concludes that the Psalmist meant the personal righteousness of the man Christ: as if David really made mention of no other righteousness but that in all the Psalms! or God had had no righteousness, before the virgin Mary "brought forth her first-born Son." 2. By the parable of the man who was "bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness," because "he had not on a wedding garment," that is, upon your scheme, because Christ's personal righteousness was not imputed to him. As if the "Prince of peace," the mild Jesus, who "Learn of me, for I am meek,” had kindly invited a says, man to a feast, and then commanded him to be thrust into hell, merely because he had not on a garment which he never could procure; a robe, which none but God could clothe him with; and which God determined should never be for him, when he decreed that Christ should never work out an inch of righteousness for one single reprobate. Does not this exceed Ovid's description of the iron age? Non hospes ab hospite tutus. The bare mention of such a dreadful reflection cast upon God's goodness, and our Lord's hospitality, will amount to a strong argument against your imputation, with those who are yet concerned for God's adorable perfections, and our Lord's amiable character. 3. By the parable of the prodigal son, who, it is supposed, was clothed with the "best robe" of Christ's personal righteousness. But this notion is overturned by the context itself: for the Father had met, forgiven, and embraced, his returning son in his own ragged garment, before the "best robe was called for and put upon him. Whence it would follow, that a sinner may be forgiven. without the garment of righteousness, and as completely accepted out of Christ as the prodigal was without the "best robe." " 4. By the "goodly raiment of Esau," in which Jacob got his father's blessing. But Moses's account of the cheat put upon short-sighted Isaac entirely overthrows the scheme of the Calvinists. The robe which they recommend is made of Christ's complete and personal righteousness; it is long and wide enough, perfectly to cover even a giant in sin; nor must it be patched with any thing else. But Jacob's dress, far from being all of a piece, was a mongrel sort of human and beastly garment. For, when Rebecca had clothed his body with Esau's raiment, "she put goatskins upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck," to make them feel like Esau's hairy hands and shaggy neck. And the worst is, that the goat-skins, and not Esau's borrowed dress, deceived the aged patriarch, and got the blessing. Hear the historian: "Jacob went near to his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau: and he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy; so he |