apostle, who is the best illustrator of his own expressions, exhorts the Thessalonians to put on the breast-plate of faith and love. Now as we never heard of soldiers having two breastplates on; the imaginary breast-plate of their general, which they wear by imputation; and the solid plate of metal, which actually covers their breast; we conclude, that the breast-plate 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 breast-plate 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 brain-plate, rather than a breast-plate, 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 as more solidity. If the breast-plate of a Christian warrior, is as far from him in time and place, as the personal righteousness wrought by our Lord in Judea 1750 years ago; his shield may be at the same distance, and so undoubt edly 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? Oh! 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 deter mined to proclaim on the walls of 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 righ teousness, the armour of light, the whole ar mour 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 dipt in blood: and the armies which were in heaven, followed him clothed in fine linen, white and clean," Rev. xix 13, 15. 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 ofour 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 an 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 accepting 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 ther surplices 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 begotton 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 be come so vain in your imaginations, 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 Emanuels 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 if you shall see corruption, touch them not, unless it be with the reverential faith of the infirm 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 puting 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 glori ous robe] of the incorruptible God-man, into the infamous cloke of an incestious adulterer? 2. Suppose that still despising the white robes, i. e. the evangelical righteousness of the saints, you aspire at being clothed with the Redeemer's vesture dipt 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 safe ty 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," Rev. vii. 9. By comparing the verse with Rev. xix. 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 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 sin : nor do 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," Rev. vii. 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 even one spot of defilement! Again, those robes where washed, and made white by the saints: THEY have washed their robes. It is evident, therefore, that if those robes were the personal righteousness of Christ, the saints had washed them. 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 nessarily follow, that Christ opened a fountain to wash his own spotted and sinful righteousness? Is it not strange, that those who pretended 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 ap purel! 3. If the testimony of St. John, and that of one of the twenty-four elders, is 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," Rev iii. 18. But that this white raiment cannot be his personal righteousness, we prove, first, from his own words mention ed in the same chapter, "Thou hast a few names in Sardis, which have not defiled their garments," Rev. iii. 4. Now. if these gar ments 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 won der that some persons should have kept them elean? Is it not rather surprising that any names in Sardis should have defiled garments, which remain "undefiled and without spot," even while those who wear them, welter in the mire of adultery, murder, and in cest? 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," Rev. xvi. 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 of 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 return 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, p. 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, toge ther 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, 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 righte ousness, 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 1750 years ago. As some of my readers may desire to know exactly, wherein the difference between personal and imputed graces consists; I shall 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 wis dom 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 Goliath 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, unprejudiced servants of the most high God; ye men of candour and piey, 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 nly because it is best calcula ted 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 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 it ourselves and frequently recommend it to others. Imputed righteousness is highly consistent with personal holi ness. 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, 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 are 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 white 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 impu ted righteousness, you have publicly spoken against inherent-righteousness, and all its 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, selfrighteousness 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 Pharsisee; 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 heart-felt 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 pharasaic delusion. And, I say it again,* this righteousness of faith includes, 1. A pardon through the blood and righteousness of Christ: 2. Acceptance in the Beloved and 3. An 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 weight 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 petitions, not only because the same answers frequently I have on purpose, been guilty of several such resolve different objections: but because I should be glad to stop the mouths of some of my readers, if I may give that name to prejudiced persons, who cast a carea page; and without one grain of candour condemn me less, and perhaps a malignant look over here and there for not saying in one Letter, what I have perhaps already said in half a dozen. In these perilous times unbiassed judgment, that we may not pass for heretics we must run the risk of passing for fools with men of with some of our brethren. And it is well if, after all our repetitions, we are not charged with not holding what we have so frequently asserted. For alas ! what reach breasts, covered with a shield of prejudice, which repetitions, what Scriptures, what expostulations can bears such a common motto as this," Non persuadebis etiamis persuaseris?" 1 could wish, that such reaponents, as well as our own, would never trouble themders as will not do justice to the arguments of our op selves with our books. However, it is by such 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 sees their well-meant error, and can say to each of them,Procellas Cautas 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, 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 mean time, 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. LETTER XIII. Containing a view of the present state of the Controversy, especially with regard to free. will, and a Conclusion, descriptive of the loving apostolic method of carrying on controversy― expressive of brotherly love and respect for all pious Calvinists—and declarative of a desire to live with them' upon peaceable and friendly terms. To Richard Hill, Esq. HONOURED AND DEAR SIR, Having so fully considered in my last the state of our controversy with respect to imputed righteousness, I proceed to the doctrine of free-will, which I have not discussed in this Check, because you seem satisfied with what we grant you, and we are entirely so with what you grant us concerning it. Let us, however, just cast three looks, one upon our concessions, another upon yours, and a third upon the difference still remaining between us, with regard to that capital article of our controversy. 1. We never supposed, that the natural will of fallen man is free to good, before it is more or less touched or rectified by grace. All we assert is, that whether a man chooses good or evil, his Will is free, or it does not deserve the name of Will. It is far from us to think, that man unassisted by divine grace, is sufficient to will spiritual good; as to suppose, that when he wills it by grace, he does not will it freely. And therefore, agree. able to our tenth article, which you quote against us without the least reason, we steadily assert, that "we have no power to do good, without the grace of God preventing us," not that we may have a free will, for this we always had in the above-mentioned sense, but that we may have a GOOD-will: be lieving that as confirmed saints and angels have a free-will; though they have no EVIL will; so abandoned reprobates and devils have a free will, though they have no GOODwill. Again: we always maintain, that the liberty of our will is highly consistent with the operations of divine grace, by which it is put in a capacity of choosing life. We are therefore surprised to see you quote in triumph, Review, p 33, the following paragraph out of the Second Check, "Nor is this freedom derogatory to free grace; for as it was freegrace that gave an upright free-will to Adam at his creation; so, whenever his fallen children think or act aright, it is because their free-will is mercifully prevented, touched, and so far rectified by free-grace." At the sight of these concessions, you cry out, "Amazing! Here is all that the most rigid Calvinist ever contended for, granted in a moment. Your words, Sir, are purely evangelical." Are they indeed? Well then, Sir, I have the pleasure to inform you, that, if this " is all you ever contended for," you need not contend any more with us; since Mr. Wesley, Mr. Sellon, J. Goodwin, and Arminius himself, never advanced any other doctrine concerning free will. For they all |