Letter 12.
LETTER 12.
To Richard Hill, Esq.
HON. 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 toward 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 bare-faced Antinomian, who expects to be justified in the great day by Christ’s imputed righteousness without works. To this you have answered, (Review, p. 68, &c,) by exclaiming, “Shocking slander, slanderous banter,” &c, and I might reply only by crying out, Logica Genevensis! But, as honest inquirers after the truth would not be benefited, for their sakes 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, pp. 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.
This scheme of imputation is supported,
1. By Scriptural metaphors, understood in a forced, unscriptural sense. Thus when a sound Calvinist reads about “the breastplate 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 says, “Learn of me, for I am meek,” had kindly invited a man to the 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’ account of the cheat put upon the 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 Rebekah had clothed his body with Esau’s raiment, “she put goat skins 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 blessed him,” Genesis 37:22. Thus the skin of a goat, the emblem of a reprobate, unfortunately comes in to patch up your best robe. And I doubt not but, as the typical garment was too scanty to cover Jacob’s hands and neck; so the fancied antitype will prove too short to cover the hands of those, who, like “Onesimus, rob their masters;” and the neck and heels of those, who, like David, are “swift to shed blood,” and climb up into their neighbour’s bed; if they do not get a more substantial righteousness than that in which you suppose they stand complete, while they commit their enormous crimes.
5. Plain Scripture is also brought to support this imputation. David says, “Blessed is he whose sin is covered: blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,” Psalm 32:1, 2. But, alas for your scheme! it is thrown down by the very next words, “And in whose spirit there is no guile.” Thus, although you would make us believe the contrary, David’s own doctrine shows that he was not the “blessed man whose sins are covered by non-imputation of iniquity,” when his spirit was full of guile, adultery, and murder. And, indeed, he tells us so himself in this very Psalm: “When I kept silence,” says he, when I harboured guile and impenitency, “day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: but when I acknowledged my sin unto thee,” when I parted with my guile, “thou forgavest the iniquity, of my sin.”
6. However, if David’s words are flatly against your imputation, it is supposed, that as prefaced by St. Paul, they make greatly for it: “David describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” Romans 4:6. I have already observed, that as the apostle cannot contradict David and himself, he only means without the works of the law, as opposed to faith and to the work of faith. That this is the true meaning of St. Paul’s words, is evident by those which introduce them: “To him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Who does not see here, that believing, which is the good work that begets all others, is opposed to the faithless works, about which the Pharisees made so much ado to so little purpose? Who does not perceive, that a man must believe, that is, do the work of God before his faith can be “counted for righteousness?” and consequently, that righteousness is imputed to him who believes, not absolutely without any sort of works; but only without the works of the law, emphatically called by the apostle, works, or “deeds of the law,” when he contradistinguishes them from faith, and “the work of faith.”
7. To the preceding scriptures our Calvinist brethren add a plausible argument. “God,” say they, “may as well impute to us Christ’s perfect righteousness in all our sins, and account us completely righteous without one grain of inherent righteousness; as he imputed the horrid crimes of the elect to Christ in all his obedience, and accounted him completely guilty without one single grain of inherent sin. To deny, therefore, that God imputes righteousness to an elect, while he is full of unrighteousness; or to suppose that he imputes sin to an apostate, who ‘is sold under sin,’ is but a decent way of denying the imputation of our personal sins to Christ, and the vicarious satisfaction which he made on the cross.”
To detect the fallacy of this argument, we need only observe,
(1.) That God never accounted Christ “completely guilty.” Such expressions as these, “He made him sin for us: he laid upon him the iniquities of us all,” &c, are only Hebrew idioms, which signify that God appointed Christ a sacrifice for sin; and that “the chastisement of our forfeited peace was upon him;” which no more implies that God put on his back, by an absolute imputation, a robe of unrighteousness, woven with all the sins of the elect, to make him completely guilty, than St. Luke, when he informs us that the Virgin Mary offered two young pigeons for her purification, supposes her ceremonial uncleanness was, somehow, woven into a couple of little garments, and put upon the back of the two young pigeons, which, by that mean, were made completely unclean. I hope the following illustration will convince you, sir, that such refinements as these are as contrary to sober reason as to Scripture duly compared with itself. Gallio gets drunk, and as he reels home from his midnight revels, he breaks thirty-six lamps in the streets, and sends out volleys of curses to the number of two hundred. He is brought before you, and you insist on his going to the house of correction, or paying so much money to buy three dozen of lamps, beside the usual fine for his profane language. As he is not worth a groat, his sober brother Mitio kindly offers to lay down the sum for him. You accept of the “vicarious satisfaction,” and binding the rake to his good behaviour, you release him at his brother’s request. Now, sir, would you be reasonable if you reckoned Mitio completely guilty of getting drunk, swearing two hundred oaths, and breaking thirty-six lamps? Far from supposing him guilty of breaking one lamp, or swearing one oath, even while he makes satisfaction for his brother’s wildness, do you not esteem him according to his own excellent character?
And will you defend a doctrine which charges God with a mistake ten thousand times more glaring than that you would be guilty of, if you really reckoned Mitio an abandoned rake, and Gallio a man of an exemplary conduct? Will you indeed recommend still as Gospel an opinion which supposes that the God of everlasting unchangeable love once loathed and abhorred his beloved Son? and that the God of invariable truth could once say to the holy Jesus, “Thou art all foul, O thou defiled object of my hatred, there is no purity in thee:” while he addresses a bloody adulterer with, “Thou art all fair, my love, my undefiled, there is no spot in thee?” A variety of Scriptural and rational arguments I have, directly or indirectly, advanced in every Check against that capital doctrine of yours, “the absolute imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness to believers;” whether they live chastely with their own wives, or entice away other men’s wives: whether they charitably assist their neighbours, or get them treacherously murdered. All those arguments centre in this: If that doctrine is true, the Divine perfections suffer a general eclipse; one half of the Bible is erased; St. James’ epistle is made void; defiled religion justly passes for “pure Gospel;” the Calvinian doctrine of perseverance is true; and barefaced Antinomianism is properly recommended as the “doctrine of grace.”
Having thus considered your doctrine of imputed righteousness, permit me, honoured sir, to submit to your inspection the harmonizing views that we have of God’s perfections; while we see him impute righteousness to a man (i.e. reckon a man righteous) so long as he actually believes with a faith working by obedient love; and impute iniquity to an apostate (i.e. reckon him unrighteous) as soon as he departs from the faith, to work iniquity, and walk in the ways of unrighteousness.
We firmly believe that God’s imputation, whether of sin or righteousness, is not founded upon sovereign caprice, but upon indubitable truth. As we are partakers by generation of Adam’s original pollution before God imputes it to us, that is, before he accounts us really polluted; so are we partakers by regeneration of Christ’s original righteousness before God imputes righteousness to us, that is, before he accounts us really righteous. And therefore a positive and substantial communication of Christ’s righteousness, apprehended by faith, no less precedes God’s imputation of righteousness to a believer, than Bartimeus’ receiving his sight, and admitting the light, were previous to God’s reckoning that he actually saw. Although we grant the Almighty “calls the things that are not, as though they were,” and that, according to his foreknowledge, he frequently speaks of them in the prophetic style, as if they were now, or had been already; yet when he reckons what is, in order to pass sentence of absolution or condemnation, he cannot deny his truth, and reckon a man actually chaste and charitable that actually commits adultery and murder. We dare not impute this flagrant unrighteousness to God. And as “no guile was found in the Lord’s mouth” while he was upon earth, we cannot admit the most distant thought of his being full of guile in heaven; which we apprehend would be the case, if he reckoned that a man who actually falls from adultery into murder is actually undefiled, and completely righteous. Again: as Christ bore no manner of vicarious punishment for us; or, which is the same, as our iniquities were not actually laid upon him till he partook of our frail nature, and was positively interested in our corruptible blood; so, by a parity of reason, we are not indulged with the pardon and acceptance which he merited for us till we partake of his light and righteousness. Hence appears the weakness of that argument, “righteousness may as well be imputed to us, without any participation of the Divine nature, as sin was imputed to Christ, without any participation of our fallen nature.” We absolutely deny the fact on which this argument is founded; and assert, with St. Paul, that Christ “was made sin for us,” (i.e. a proper sacrifice for our sins,) not by an imaginary robe of unrighteousness put upon him according to your imputation; but by being really “made of a fallen, mortal woman,” and “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh,” that he might suffer and die for us; which he could not have done, if he had not assumed our fallen nature — unfallen man being quite above the reach of pain and death. It is not less certain, therefore, that “he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” than it is indubitable that “he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”
As sure then as Christ was not “made sin [i.e. a sin offering] for us,” by a speculative imputation of our personal sins; but by being actually made flesh, clothed with our mortality, and “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh;” so sure are “we made the righteousness of God in him,” not by a speculative imputation of his personal good works, but by being “made partakers of the Divine nature, begotten of God, and clothed with essential righteousness;” which is the case when we “put on the new man, who after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Thus it appears to us that your imputation may be demolished, only by retorting 2 Corinthians 5:21, the scripture with which it is chiefly supported; and, if we are not mistaken, the venerable fabric raised upon that passage, like Mohammed’s venerable tomb, hangs in the air without one single prop. That the seed of righteousness, by which we are first interested in Christ, is universal in all infants, appears to us evident from St. Paul’s words’ “As by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience the many [the multitudes of mankind] were made sinners,” by a seed of sin; “so by the obedience of one [Christ] shall the many [the multitudes of mankind] be made righteous,” by a seed of righteousness, to the end of the world, Romans 5:19. Hence it is that righteousness is imputed to all infants; and that, as I have proved, Letter X, they stand justified before God, according to the inferior dispensation they are under.
When they grow up, and “hold the truth in unrighteousness,” by sinning against their light, personal iniquity is imputed to them; and till they believe again in the light, and renounce the evil deeds which it reproves, they are “condemned already.” But the moment they truly repent, and unfeignedly believe the Gospel belonging to their dispensation, condemnation vanishes; God again imputes righteousness to them — that is, for Christ’s sake he again pardons their sins, accepts their persons, and considers them as branches that admit the righteous sap of the true vine, and bear “the fruits of righteousness.”
Once more: If these branches do not believingly abide in Christ, the vine, they become such branches in him as bear not fruit. Nay, they bear the poison of unrighteousness. Iniquity therefore is again imputed to them; and so long as they continue in their sin and unbelief, they are every moment liable to be “taken away, cast into the fire, and burned,” John 15. Nevertheless, through the Redeemer’s intercession, God “bears long with them;” and if they despise not to the last the “riches of his forbearance and long suffering,” duly considering how “his goodness leadeth them to repentance,” their backslidings are healed. They believe again “with the heart unto righteousness.” The righteous sap of the true vine has again a free course in their hearts. They again receive Christ, who “is the end of the law,” and the sum of the Gospel, “for righteousness to every one that believeth:” and their faith, which once more admits the beams of the Sun of righteousness, is once more “imputed to them for righteousness.” This, honoured sir, is the holy imputation of righteousness, which we read of in the oracles of God; and we prefer it to yours for three reasons.
(1.) It hath truth for its foundation; but your imputation stands upon a preposterous supposition, that Christ the righteous was an execrable sinner, and that an elect is perfectly righteous, while he commits execrable iniquity.
(2.) Because it perfectly agrees with St. James’ undefiled religion, which your scheme entirely overthrows. And
(3.) Because it is supported by the plainest scriptures.
The popes have at least the letter of one passage to countenance their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation. They save appearances when they make their dupes believe that a bit of bread is really the body of Christ: for, say they, Christ took bread, and declared, This is my body. But, O tell it not in Paris, lest the subjects of the triple crown triumph over us in their turn! The personal righteousness of Christ is not so much as once mentioned in all the Bible with the doctrine of imputation; and yet some divines can make whole congregations of men, who protest against the impious absurdities of the Church of Rome, believe that the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness is a Scriptural doctrine, and the very marrow of the Gospel! This garment of their own weaving they cast over adulterers and murderers, and then represent the filthy, bloody wretches, as complete in Christ’s obedience, perfect in righteousness, and “undefiled” before God!
If I had a thousand tongues, could I employ them more to the glory of Christ, and the good of souls, than by crying to the thousands who are still” sold under sin,” and still take their carnal ease in that imaginary garment of righteousness, “Awake to true righteousness, and sin not?” Search the Scriptures. Where is it said, that Christ’s personal righteousness was ever imputed to either man or angel? And where is it written that righteousness was ever imputed to any one, farther than he was possessed of, and actuated by, a living, powerful inherent principle of righteous faith? “To the law and the testimony!” Can any thing be plainer than the two following positions, on which all our doctrine of imputation is founded?
(1.) Faith is a powerful, quickening, justifying, sanctifying, working, victorious, saving grace.
(2.) This faith, as it springs from and receives Christ, and his righteous power, “is imputed to us for righteousness.”
Does not the first of these propositions stand unshaken upon such scriptures as these? “Faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for: all things are possible to him that believeth: whosoever believeth is born of God: all that believe are justified: purifying their hearts by faith: sanctified through faith that is in me: this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith: ye are saved through faith: faith worketh by love: remembering your work of faith: faith without works is dead: he that believeth hath everlasting life: holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience, which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck,” &c. Is it not evident from these scriptures, that all who have a living faith have not only a pardon, but works, especially love, which is “the fulfilling of the law;” — love, the most excellent “fruit of righteousness,” in which all others are contained? And surely, if they have a pardon, and true inherent righteousness in their Christ accepting, loving, and obedient faith, that faith may well be “imputed to them for righteousness,” or God may well account them righteous.
Nor is the second proposition, upon which our imputation stands, less clearly laid down in the Scriptures. “Abraham believed in the Lord, and he counted, f44 [or imputed] it to him for righteousness,” Genesis 15:6. What says the Scripture? “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness,” i.e. for preceding righteousness, through the remission of his past sins; for present acceptance in the Beloved, whom he received; and for present righteousness through the righteous exertions of a “faith that worketh by love.” Again: “To him that believeth, his faith is imputed for righteousness: we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness: that he might be the father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. He was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe,” Galatians 3:6; Romans 4:3, &c.
As Moses had led the van of these testimonies in favour of our Scriptural imputation, and St. Paul the main body, permit St. James to bring up the rear. “Seest thou,” says he, “how faith wrought with Abraham’s works, and by works was faith made perfect, and the scripture was fulfilled, which says, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness?” James 2:23. The whole is thus summed up by the great defender of free grace: — “The Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to it. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith; but, as it were, by [the faithless] works,” which they did in self-righteous obedience to the letter of the law; trampling under foot the righteousness of faith, which speaketh on this wise: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” Romans 9, and 10.
Who does not see, in reading these words, that we must do something unto righteousness, as well as unto salvation? Is it not evident that we must now “believe with the heart,” in order to the former, and “make confession with the mouth,” as we have opportunity, in order to the latter; and, consequently, that righteousness imputed, as well as salvation finished, without any thing done on our part, is a doctrine that is not less contrary even to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, fairly taken together, than to that strong rampart of undefiled religion, the Epistle of St. James. However, a cloud of objections arises, to keep the light from a prejudiced reader: and as he thinks that three of them are remarkably strong, I beg leave to consider them with some degree of attention.
I. OBJECTION. “Your doctrine of justifying, sanctifying, and working faith imputed to us for righteousness, I bear my loud testimony against; because it confounds righteousness with sanctification, two Gospel blessings, which are clearly distinguished, 1 Corinthians 1:30.”
ANSWER. It would be much better to confound, than to destroy them both; as I fear you do, when you cast a robe of finished salvation, i.e. of complete righteousness and finished holiness, over impenitent adulterers and murderers. But be that as it will, your objection is groundless. I have already observed, and I once more declare, that when we speak of the righteousness of faith we understand three things
(1.) The non-imputation, or “forgiveness of the sins that are PAST,” Romans 3:25.
(2.) Present “acceptance in the Beloved!” Ephesians 1:6. And,
(3.) A principle of universal righteousness, by which we are interested in Christ’s righteousness; just as a branch is interested in the excellence of the vine, by receiving the generous sap which it actually derives from it; and not by an imaginary imputation of the fine grapes which the vine bore seventeen hundred years ago. “Let no man deceive you; he that DOES righteousness,” is a righteous branch; even as Christ is a righteous vine! 1 John 3:7; John 15:5.
On the other hand, when we speak of sanctification we understand the wonderful change wrought in us by the working of the above-mentioned principle of righteousness; and the internal fruits which it produces, till, by “growing up into Christ in all things, we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” It is evident therefore, that, considering righteousness and sanctification even in their most intimate union, we do not confound them at all; but maintain as clear a distinction between them as that which subsists between the derivation of sap by a wild branch from the good olive tree, and the change produced in that branch upon such a derivation.
II. OBJECTION. “Your doctrine is Popery refined. By paying saving honours to a Christian grace, and taking the crown from Christ to set it upon faith, you shake the very foundation of the Mediator’s throne. If this is not high treason against him, what crime deserves that name?” ANSWER. Your fears are laudable, though absolutely groundless.
(1.) Faith, the humble grace that will know nothing but Christ, for “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,” can never dishonour his person, claim his crown, or shake the foundation of his throne. Is it not ridiculous to make so much ado about faith robbing Christ of saving honours, when Christ himself says, “Thy FAITH hath SAVED thee;” and when the apostle cries out, “Believe, and thou shalt be saved!” Were then Christ and St. Paul two refined Papists, and guilty of high treason against the Redeemer?
(2.) If some will be “wise above what is written,” we dare not. If they are ashamed of the oracles of God, we are not: therefore, whatever they think of us, we must say, with the evangelical apostle, “Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness: and to him that believeth, HIS FAITH is imputed for righteousness.”
(3.) Should you say that Abraham’s faith, or his believing God, signifies either Christ’s person or his personal righteousness, we reply, Credat Judæus Apella! There was indeed a time when Calvinist divines could make simple Protestants believe it, as easily as the pope can make credulous Papists believe that a wafer of the size of half a crown is the identical body of our Lord: but as many Romanists begin to shake off the yoke of Popish absurdities, so many Protestants will cast away that of Calvinian impositions. And as our fathers taught us to protest that the hocus pocus of a Popish priest cannot turn bread into flesh, so will we teach our children to protest that the bare assertion of a Calvinist minister cannot turn Abraham’s faith into Christ’s person, or into his personal righteousness; which must however be the case if those words, “Abraham’s faith,” or his believing God, “was imputed for righteousness,” do only mean, as we are confidently told, that “Christ, or, his personal righteousness, was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.”
(4.) Does it reflect any dishonour upon Christ to say, with St. Paul, that “FAITH is imputed to us for righteousness;” when believing includes its object, (Christ the way, the truth, and the life,) as necessarily as eating supposes food, and drinking, liquor? Is it not as impossible to “believe in the light,” without Christ the light; or to believe in the truth, without Christ the truth, as it is to breathe without air, and hear without sounds? Again: if you affirm “that we warm ourselves by going to the fire,” do you sap the foundation of natural philosophy because you do not say ten times over that the warming power comes from the fire, and not from our motion toward it? And do we destroy the foundation of Christianity, when we assert that “faith working by love” instrumentally saves us because we do not spend so much time as you in saying over and over that the saving merit and the saving power flow from the Saviour, and not from our own act of believing? Is not this as clear as it is that the light flows in upon us from the sun, and not from (though it is through) the opening of our eyes? Lastly: would not physicians make themselves appear very ridiculous if they distressed their patients when they were going to take a medicine, with the fear of ascribing their recovery to their taking the remedy, i.e. to “their own doing,” rather than to the virtue of the remedy itself? And are those divines alone partakers of heavenly wisdom who puzzle sinners that are coming to Christ, and place a lion in their way, by perpetually injecting into their minds a fear lest they should ascribe their salvation to faith rather than to the Saviour whom faith receives? Where does the apostle, whose evangelical sentiments they do so deservedly extol, set them the example of such refinements? Is it Romans iv, where he says, directly or indirectly, seven times, that “FAITH is imputed for righteousness?” Is it not strange that at last “orthodoxy” should consist in fairly setting aside, or explaining away the doctrine of St. Paul, as well as that of St. James? III. OBJECTION. “Your mind is full of carnal reasonings. You do not know either Christ or yourself. If you did you would never set up the inherent righteousness of faith, which is nothing but our own righteousness, in opposition to imputed righteousness. If you were not quite blind, or ‘very dark,’ you would see that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and you would humbly acknowledge that the holy breastplate and robe of righteousness, which we may with safety and honour appear in before God, are the breastplate and robe of Christ’s personal righteousness freely imputed to us, without any of our doings. This best robe, which you so horribly bespatter, we must defend against all the Arminians, Pelagians, and Papists in the world.”
ANSWER. To do this grand objection justice, it will be proper to consider it in its various parts, and give each a full answer.
1. We acknowledge that we cannot think nonsense is any more compatible with the wisdom of God, and flat contradiction with his sacred oracles, than adultery is compatible with undefiled religion, and murder with common morality. If these sentiments are “carnal reasonings,” we beg leave to continue carnal reasoners, till you can recommend your spiritual reasonings, either by common sense or plain Scripture.
2. You confound, without reason, the inherent righteousness of faith with Pharisaic self-righteousness. I have already proved that the latter, which is the partial, external, and hypocritical righteousness of unbelieving formalists, is the only righteousness which the prophet compares to filthy rags. With respect to the former, that is our own righteousness of faith, far from setting it up in opposition to imputed righteousness rightly understood, we assert that it is the righteousness of God, the very thing which “God imputes to us for righteousness;” the very righteousness which has now the stamp of his approbation, and will one day have the crown of his rewards.
3. You affirm that the breastplate of righteousness which St. Paul charges the Ephesians to have on, is Christ’s personal righteousness imputed to us; and we prove the contrary by the following arguments. The apostle, who is the best illustrator of his own expressions, exhorts the Thessalonians to “put on the breastplate of faith and love.” Now, as we never heard of soldiers having two breastplates on; the imaginary breastplate of their general, which they wear by imputation; and the solid plate of metal, which actually covers their breasts; we conclude, that the “breastplate of righteousness,” which St. Paul recommends to the Ephesians, together with the “shield of faith,” is nothing but the “breastplate of faith and love,” which he recommends to the Thessalonians.
To help my readers to see your doctrine in a proper light, I might say, If the breastplate of our Lord’s personal obedience has no more to do with our breasts than the personal dinner which he took in the Pharisee’s house has to do with our empty stomachs; and the personal garment in which he shone upon Mount Tabor has to do with our naked shoulders; the judicious apostle would probably have called it a brainplate rather than a breastplate, as having far less to do with the breast and heart than with the brain and imagination. But as this argument would rather turn upon our translation than upon the original, I drop it, and present you with one that has more solidity.
If the breastplate of a Christian Warrior is as far from him, in time and place, as the personal righteousness wrought by our Lord in Judea seventeen hundred and sixty years ago, his shield may be at the same distance; and so undoubtedly may his helmet and sandals, his belt and sword. Thus, by Calvin’s contrivance, you have a soldier of Christ armed cap-a-pee, without one single piece of armour from head to foot. And will you say of these imaginary accoutrements, in which the elect can with all ease commit adultery and incest, that they are “the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,” in which St. Paul fought his battles, and subdued so many kindreds and nations to his Lord’s triumphant cross? O! if that champion were yet alive, who said, in the midst of Corinth, “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power,” how would he cry, in the midst of mystic Geneva, “The armour of God is not a Calvinian notion, but a Divine reality!”
What we are persuaded he would thunder out through the world, we are at last determined to proclaim on the walls of our Jerusalem. “Soldiers of Christ, have on the true breastplate of righteousness! Put on the solid breastplate of inherent faith and love. If Satan’s temptations are not idle imputations of his dreadful assaults upon Christ; if his darts are really fiery and terrible, throw away Calvinian imputation: ‘cast off the works of darkness; and put on the real armour of righteousness, the armour of light, the whole armour of God:’ so shall you be ‘able to stand in the evil day; and having DONE ALL, to stand with safety in judgment, and with honour in the congregation of the righteous.’”
4. We apprehend that you are not less mistaken about the ROBE than about the breastplate of righteousness. And we think we can prove it by the testimony of the three most competent judges in the universe, an apostle, an elder before the throne, and the Lamb in the midst of it. Hear we the apostle first.
1. If all the saints were clothed with the robe of Christ’s personal righteousness, they would all be clothed exactly like Christ. But when St. John had a vision of the Redeemer’s glory, he “saw him clothed with a vesture DIPPED IN BLOOD: and the armies which were in heaven followed him, clothed in fine linen WHITE and clean,” Revelation 19:13, 14. Now, as the white robes worn by the soldiers that compose an army cannot be the red robe worn by the general at the head of the army, we so far give place to what you call “carnal reasonings,” as to conclude, that so sure as white is not red, the robes of the saints are not the robes of our Lord’s personal righteousness. Nay, we, who throw off the veil of prejudice, would be guilty of the very crime you charge us with, were we to entertain that daring idea. Christ’s personal righteousness is the obedience of the Son of God, who, by living and dying for us, became the “propitiation for the sins of the whole world;” now, if we pretended that this identical, all-meritorious “obedience of Christ unto death,” this active and passive righteousness, which made all atonement for all mankind, is fairly made over to, and put upon us; would it not be pretending to merit with Christ, not only our own salvation, but the salvation of all mankind? O sir, it is you, we are afraid, who affect the Saviour; for by presuming to put on his robes, you claim his mediatorial honours. For, after all your fears lest we should make humble faith share the Saviour’s glory, or his glorious apparel, you not only put it on yourself without ceremony, but throw it also over the shoulders of ten thousand elect, without excepting even those who add drunkenness to thirst, and cruelty to lust.
You will, I hope, see the great impropriety of this conduct, if you consider that the Redeemer’s personal and peculiar righteousness is his personal and peculiar glory; and that those who fancy themselves clad with it, (if they do not sin ignorantly,) are as guilty of ridiculous, not to say treasonable presumption before God, as country clergymen would be before the archbishop of Canterbury and the king, if they seriously gave it out that the sleeves of their surpluses are the very lawn sleeves of his grace; and their gowns and cassocks the identical coronation robes of his majesty. The fanciful parsons would no doubt be pitied by all men of sense; and so are we by all our Calvinist brethren; but, alas! for a very different reason. They wonder at and kindly pity us, because we cannot fancy ourselves clothed with robes a thousand times more sacred than those which Aaron wore on the great day of atonement: with robes ten thousand times more incommunicable than the king’s coronation robes: with a Divine garment, that, in the very nature of things, can absolutely suit none but Him, “on whose head are many crowns, and who hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords; — the child born unto us of a virgin, the only begotten Son of the Father, given to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself: — the wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”
O ye sons of men, how long will you become so “vain in your imagination,” as to put on robes on which the very finger of God has embroidered such incommunicable names with adamant and gold! If you are “saviours of the world,” and “mediators between God and man;” if you are “emmanuels” and “gods over all, blessed for ever,” wear them; they fit you, and they are your right. But if “ye all shall die like men,” who cannot atone for one sin; and if the flesh of every one of you “shall see corruption,” touch them not, unless it be with the reverential faith of the Syro-Phenician woman. Like her you may indeed steal a cure through them: but O! do not steal them, as those who “come” in the Redeemer’s dress, and say, “I am Christ,” or those who tell you, “I am carnal, sold under sin,” but no matter! I am safe. In the robes of Christ’s righteousness, I am as righteous as Christ himself. If nevertheless you are bent upon putting them on by self imputation, at the peril of your souls throw them not over the shoulders of impenitent sinners, lest you “turn the truth of God into a flagrant lie;” lest professing yourselves wise to salvation, you “become fools, and change the glory [the glorious robe] of the incorruptible God”-man into the infamous cloak of an incestuous adulterer.
2. Suppose that still despising the white robes, that is, the evangelical righteousness of the saints, you aspire at being clothed with the Redeemer’s vesture dipped in blood; permit me. to oppose to your error the testimony of one of the twenty-four elders who stand nearest the throne, and therefore know best in what robes the saints can stand before it with safety and honour.
“I beheld, (says the beloved disciple,) and lo, a great multitude which no man can number, of all nations, people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with WHITE ROBES,” Revelation 7:9. By comparing this verse with Revelation 19:7, 8, it is evident, that great multitude was the Church triumphant, the wife of the Lamb, who has made herself ready. She is composed of souls who have fulfilled those awful commands, “O Jerusalem, wash thy heart from iniquity, that thou mayest be saved. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Come, and let us reason together; though your sins be as red as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” They continued instant in prayer, that God would “wash them thoroughly from their iniquity, and cleanse them from their sins.” Nor did they give over pleading his gracious promises, till the living water, the cleansing blood, the fuller’s soap, and the refiner’s fire, had had their full effect upon them. Therefore, “to them it was granted, that they should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.” Now the question between us is, whether the “fine linen, clean and white,” and the “white robes” mentioned by St. John, are the evangelical, personal righteousness of the saints, or the mediatorial, personal righteousness of their Lord: but who shall help us to decide it? One of the elders before the throne, who advances and says unto John, “These, who are arrayed in white robes, are they who came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” Revelation 7:14. Does not this information, given by one to whom the beloved disciple had just said, “Sir, thou knowest,” make it indubitable that the righteousness which the saints appear in before God, is a righteousness which was once defiled, and therefore stood in need of washing? Now, what Christian will assert, that the personal righteousness of the immaculate Lamb of God had ever one spot of defilement?
Again: those robes were washed and made white by the saints: “THEY have washed their robes.” It is evident, therefore, that if these robes were the personal righteousness of Christ, the saints had washed it. And who is the good man, that, upon second thoughts, will dare to countenance a preposterous doctrine, which supposes, that the saints have washed the defiled righteousness of the Lord, and made it white?
Once more: These robes are washed “in the blood of the Lamb,” that is, “in the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness.” Now, if they were the robes of Christ’s personal righteousness, does it not necessarily follow, that Christ opened a fountain to wash his own spotted and sinful righteousness? Is it not strange, that those who pretend to a peculiar regard for the Redeemer’s glory, should be such great sticklers for an opinion which pours such contempt upon him and his glorious apparel?
3. If the testimony of St. John, and that of one of the twenty-four elders, be not regarded, let our Lord’s repeated declaration, at least, be thought worthy of consideration. All our righteousness flows from him, as all the sap of the branch flows from the vine. Therefore, speaking of righteousness, he says, “Buy of me white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear,” Revelation 3:18. But that this white raiment cannot be his personal righteousness, we prove, first, from his own words mentioned in the same chapter: “Thou hast a few names in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments,” Revelation 3:4. Now, if these garments were the robes of Christ’s personal obedience, which neither man nor devil can defile, how came our Lord to make it matter of praise to a few names, that they had not defiled them? If David could not in the least bespatter them by all his crimes, was it a wonder that some persons should have kept them clean? Is it not rather surprising that any names in Sardis should have had defiled garments, which remain “undefiled, and without spot,” even while those who wear them welter in the mire of adultery, murder, and incest? Once more: Our Lord says, “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame,” Revelation 16:5. Who does not see here that the garments, which we are to keep with watchfulness, are garments which may be spotted or stolen? Garments of which we may be so totally stripped, as to be seen walking naked? Two particulars that perfectly suit our personal righteousness by faith, but can never suit the personal righteousness of Christ; that “best robe,” which neither man nor devil can steal, neither adultery nor murder defile.
Having spent so much time with my objector, I beg leave to turn to you, honoured sir, and to conclude this essay upon imputed righteousness, by summing up the difference which subsists between us on that important subject; and inviting men of candour to determine who of us have reason, conscience, and Scripture on their side.
You believe that the uninterrupted good works and the atoning sufferings of Christ, which made up his personal righteousness while he was upon earth, are imputed to the elect for complete and eternal righteousness, be their own personal righteousness what it will: insomuch that, as you express it, (Five Letters, pp. 27 and 29,) “All debts and claims against them, be they more or be they less, be they small or be they great, be they before or be they after conversion, are for ever and for ever cancelled: they always stand absolved, always complete in the everlasting righteousness of the Redeemer.” And you think that this imputed righteousness composes the robes of righteousness, in which they stand before God, both in the day of conversion and in the day of judgment.
On the other hand, we believe, that, for the alone sake of Christ’s atoning blood and personal righteousness, our personal faith, working by obedient love, is imputed to us for righteousness. And we assert, that this living faith, working by obedient love, together with the privileges annexed to it, (such as pardon through, and acceptance in the Beloved,) makes up the robe of righteousness “washed in the blood of the Lamb,” in which true believers now walk humbly with their God, and will one day triumphantly enter into the glory of their Lord.
I hope, honoured sir, that when we speak of personal faith, love, and righteousness, you will do us the justice to believe, we do not mean that we can have either faith, love, or righteousness of ourselves, or from ourselves. No: they all as much flow to us from Christ, the true vine, and the Sun of righteousness, as the sap and fruit of a branch come from the tree that bears it, and from the sun that freely shines upon it. “without him” we have nothing but helplessness; “we can do nothing” but sin; but with him we “can do all things.” If we call any graces personal or inherent, it is not then to take the honour of them to ourselves, but merely to distinguish them from “imputed righteousness,” which is nothing but the imputed assemblage of all the graces that were in our Lord’s breast seventeen hundred and fifty years ago.
As some of my readers may desire to know exactly wherein the difference between personal and imputed grace consists, I shall just help their conception by three or four Scriptural examples. Joseph, struggling out of the arms of his tempting mistress, has personal chastity, a considerable branch of personal righteousness: and David, sparing his own flock, and taking the ewe lamb that lay in Uriah’s bosom, is complete in imputed chastity, which is a considerable part of imputed righteousness. Solomon choosing wisdom, and dedicating the temple, has inherent wisdom and piety: but when he chooses Pagan wives, and with them worships deformed idols, he has imputed wisdom and piety. Again: when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he personally wears the girdle of truth: but when he denies his Lord with oaths and curses, saying, “I know not the man,” he wears it only by imputation. Once more: When David killed proud Goliah with his own sword, he stood complete in the personal righteousness we plead for: but when he killed brave Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon, he stood complete in what our opponents extol as the “best robe.”
And now, ye unprejudiced servants of the most high God, ye men of candour and piety, scattered through the three kingdoms, to you, under God, we submit our cause. Impartially weigh the arguments on both sides; and judge whether the robe recommended by our brethren deserves to be called “the best robe,” because it is really better than the robes of “righteousness and true holiness” which we recommend; or only because it is best calculated to pervert the Gospel, dishonour Christ, disgrace undefiled religion, throw a decent cloak over the works of darkness, render Antinomianism respectable to injudicious Protestants, and frighten moral men from Christianity, as from the most immoral system of religion in the world.
By this time, honoured sir, you are perhaps ready to turn objector yourself, and say, “You slander our principles. ‘The doctrines of grace’ are doctrines according to godliness. Far from opposing inherent righteousness in its place, we follow after it ourselves, and frequently recommend it to others. Imputed righteousness is highly consistent with personal holiness.” To this I answer: I know a mistaken man, who believes that he has a right to all his neighbour’s property, because St. Paul says, “All things are yours;” and nevertheless he is so honest that you may trust him with untold gold. Just so it is with you, dear sir. You not only believe, but publicly maintain, that an elect who seduces his neighbour’s wife “stands complete in the everlasting personal chastity of Christ,” and that a fall into adultery will “work for his good:” and yet, I am persuaded that, if you were married, you would be as true to your wife as Adam was to Eve before the fall. But can you in conscience apologize for your errors, and desire us to embrace them, merely because your conduct is better than your bad principles?
Again: “You frequently recommend holiness,” and perhaps give it out that the shortest way to it is to believe your doctrines of imputed righteousness and finished salvation: but this, far from mending the matter, makes it worse. As fishes would hardly swallow the hook, if a tempting bait did not cover it and entice them; so the honest hearts of the simple would hardly jump at imputed righteousness, if they were not deceived by fair speeches about personal holiness. Thus good food makes way for poison, and the right robe decently wraps fig leaves and cobwebs.
Once more: Every body knows, that bad guineas are never so successfully put off, as when they are mixed with a great deal of good gold. But suppose I made it my business to pass them, either ignorantly or on purpose, would not the public be my dupes, if they suffered me to carry on that dangerous trade upon such a plea as this: “I am not against good gold. I pass a great deal of it myself. I have even some about me now. I frequently recommend it to others; neither did I ever decry his majesty’s coin?” Would not every body see through such a poor defence as this? And yet, poor as it is, you could not, with any show of truth, urge the last plea: for, in order to pass your notions about imputed righteousness, you have publicly spoken against inherent righteousness, and all its fruits. In the face of the whole world you have decried the coin that bears the genuine stamp of the Lord’s goodness. You have called good works, “dung, dross, and filthy rags;” and what is still worse, you have given it out that you had “Scripture authority” so to do.
Should you to the preceding objection add the following question: “If you were now dying, in which robe would you desire to appear before God; that of Christ’s personal righteousness imputed to you, without any of your good works; or, that of your own self righteousness and good works, without the blood and righteousness of Christ?” My answer is ready. I would be found in neither, because both would be equally fatal to me: for the robe of an Antinomian is not better than that of a Pharisee; and all are foolish virgins who stand only in the one or in the other. Were I then come to the awful moment you speak of, I would beg of God to keep me from all delusions, and to strengthen my heartfelt faith in Christ, that I might be found clothed, like a wise virgin, with “a robe washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb;” that is, with the righteousness of a living faith working by love: for such a faith is the blessed reality that stands at an equal distance from the Antinomian and Pharisaic delusion. And, I say it again, f45 this righteousness of faith includes,
(1.) A pardon through the blood and righteousness of Christ.
(2.) Acceptance in the Beloved. And
(3.) A universal principle of inherent righteousness. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, much less whim and delusion; but “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
But perhaps you ask, “Which would you depend upon for pardon and acceptance in a dying hour, — your own inherent righteousness of faith, or the atoning blood and meritorious righteousness of Jesus Christ?” If this is your question, I reply, that it carries its own answer along with it. For if I have the inherent righteousness of a living faith, and if the very nature of such a faith is (as I have already observed) to depend upon nothing but Christ for “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,” is it not absurd to ask, whether I would depend on any thing else? Suppose I have faith working by humble love, do not I know that the moment I rely upon myself, or my works, as the meritorious cause of my acceptance, I put off the robe “made white in the blood of the Lamb,” and put on the spotted robe of a proud Pharisee?
However, it is by self-contradictory objections and false dilemmas that the hearts of the simple are daily deceived, as well as by fair speeches, which carry an appearance of great self abasement, and of a peculiar regard for the Redeemer’s glory. Who can tell how many pious souls are driven by the tempter upon one rock, through an excessive fear of dashing against the other? Every judicious, moderate man,
Auream quisquis mediocritatem Diligit, sees their well-meant error, and can say to each of them, Procellas
Cautus horrescis, nimium premendo
Littus iniquum.
Lest you should be found in the odious apparel of a Pharisee, you put on unawares the modish dress of an Antinomian.
But, O thou man of God, whosoever thou art, have nothing to do with the one or the other, except it be to decry and tear them both. In the meantime be thou really “found in Christ, not having thine own Pharisaic righteousness, which is of the letter of the law;” nor yet notions about righteousness imputed to thee in the Antinomian way; but the substantial, evangelical “righteousness, which is through the faith of Christ: the righteousness which is of God by faith: the true armour of righteousness,” with which St. Paul cut in pieces the forces of Pharisaism “on the right hand,” and St. James those of Antinomianism “on the left.” Rejoicing, dear sir, that if our arguments should strip you of what appears to us an imaginary garment, you shall not be found naked; and thanking “the God of all grace” for giving you, and thousands of pious Calvinists, a more substantial robe than that for which you so zealously plead; in the midst of chimerical imputations of “calumny,” I remain, with personal and inherent truth, honoured and dear sir, your affectionate brother, and obedient servant in our common Lord,
JOHN FLETCHER.