« ForrigeFortsæt »
to Dr. Crisp's justification by the imputation of Christ's chastity, he must have gone straight to heaven ; and, according to our Lord's condemnation, by the evidence of personal adultery, he must have gone straight to hell. Thus, by the help of Geneva logic, so sure as the royal adulterer might have died before Nathan stirred him up to repentance, I can demonstrate, that David might have been saved and damned, in heaven and in hell, at the same time!
3. Your distinction insinuates, that there will be two days of judgment; one to try us secretly before God, by imputed sin and imputed righteousness; and the other to try us publicly before men and angels, by persopal sin and personal righteousness: A new doctrine this, which every Christian is bound to reject, not only because the scripture is silent about it, but because it fixes a shocking duplicity of conduct upon God; for it represents him, first, as absolutely saving or damping the children of meu, according to his own capricious imputation of Christ's righteousness, or of Adam's sin; and then as being desirous to make a show of justice before men and angels, by preteuding to justify, or condemn people according to their works,'. when in fact, he has already justified or condemned them without the least respect to their works; for, say Bishop Cowper and Mr. Hill, “ In the act of justification, good works have no place ;" and indeed, how should they, if free grace and free wrath have unalterably cast the lot of all, before the foundation of the world ? -or, in other terms, if finished salvation and finished damnation have the stamp of God, as well as that of Calvin ?
4. Accordiug to your imaginary distinction, Christ, as King of saints, frequently condemns for inherent wickedness, those whom he justifies, as a Priest, by imputed righteousness; and so, to the disgrace of his wisdom, he publicly ręcants, as a judge, the sentence of complete justification, which he privately passes as a God. Permit me, honoured Sir, to enforce this observation by the example of Judas, or any other apostate,
I hope nobody will charge me with blasphemy, for saying that our Lord called Judas with the same sincerity, with which he called his other disciples. Heaven forbid, that any Christian should suppose, the Lamb of God called Iscariot to get him into the pit of perdition, as the fowler does an unhappy bird which he wants to get into a decoy. Judas readily answered the call, and undoubtedly believed in Christ, as well as the rest of the apustles; for St. John says, “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manisested forth his glory, and his disciples (of whom Judas was one] believed in him. His faith was true so far as it went; for he was one of the little flock to whom it was God's good pleasure to give the kingdom.' (Luke xii. 32.) Our Lord pronounced him blessed,' with the rest of his disciples, (Matt. xiii, 16,) and conditionally promised him one of the twelve apostolic crowns in his glory. (Matt. xix. 28.)
If you say, that “ he was always a traitor and a hypocrite," you run into endless difficulties ; for, (1.) You make Christ countenance, by his example, all bishops, who knowingly ordain wicked men; all patrons, who give them livings; and all kings, who prefer ungodly men to high dignities in the church. (2.) You suppose, that Christ who would not receive an occasional testimony from an evil spirit, not only sent a devil to preach and baptize in his name, but at his return encouraged him in his horrid dissimulation, by bidding him rejoice that his name was written in heaven.' (3.) You believe, that the faithful and true Witness,' in whose mouth no guile was ever found, gave this absurd, hypocritical charge to a goat, an ardh hypocrite, a devil: “Behold, I send you forth as a sheep in the midst of wolves ; but fear not, the hairs of your head are all numbered.
A sparrow shall not fall to the ground without your Father, and ye are of more value than many sparrows. Do not premeditate, it shall be given you what you shall speak : For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.'
When our Lord spoke thus to Judas, he was a sheep, i. e. 'he heard Christ's voice, and followed him.' But alas : he was afterwards takeu by the bright shining of silver and gold, as David was by the striking beauty of Uriah's wife. And when he had admitted the base temptation, our Lord, with the honesty of a Master, and tenderness of a Saviour, said, 'Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ?' He has let the tempter into his heart. This severe, though indirect repronf, reclaimed Judas for a time; as a similar rebuke checked Peter on another occasion. Nor was it, probably, till near the end of our Lord's ministry, that he began to be “unfaithful in the mammon of unrighteousness :' Aud even then Christ kindly warned, without exposing him.
Some, indeed, think that our Lord was partial to Peter ; but I do not see it; For with equai love and faithfulness he warned all his disciples of their approach ing fall, and mentioned the peculiar circumstances of Judas's and Peter's apostacy.—“Aye, but hc prayed for Peter, that his faith inight not fail.”—And is this a proof, that he never prayed for Judas? That he always excepted him, when he prayed for his disciples, and that he would have excepted him, if he had been alive when he interceded for all his murderers?" However, he looked at Peter, to cover him with a penitential shame." Nay he did more than this for Judas; for be pointed at him, first indirectly, and then directly, to bring him to a sense of his crime. But supposing/ our Lord had not at all endeavoured to stop him in his dreadful career, would this have been a proof of his reprobating partiality? Is it not said, that “the Lord weigheth the spirits ?' As such, did he not see that Judas offended of inalicious wickedness, and calm deliberation : And that Peter would offend merely through fear and surprise ? Supposing, therefore, he had made a difference between them, would it be right to account for it by Calvinian election and reprobation, when the difference might so naturally be accounted for from the different state of their hearts, and nature of
their falls ? Was it not highly agreeable to the notious we have of justice, and the declarations we read in the scripture, that our Lord should reprobate, or give up, Judas, when he saw him immovably fixed in his apostacy, and found that the last hour of his day of grace was now expired ?
From all these circumstances, I hope I may conclude, that Judas was not always an hypocrite ; that he may be properly ranked among apostates, that is, among those who truly fall from God, and therefore were once truly in him; and that our Lord spoke no untruth, whey he called the Spirit of God the Spirit of Judas's Father, without making any difference between him and the other disciples.
If you ask, How he fell? I reply, That, overlooking an important part of our Lord's pastoral charge to him, He that endureth unto the end, the same shall be saved,' he dallied with worldly temptations, till the evil spirit, which was gone out of him, entered in again, with seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and took possession of his heart, which was once swept from reigning sin, and garnished with the graces which adorn the Christian in his infant state. Thus, like Hymeneus, Philetus, Nemas, and other apostates,
by putting away a good conscience, concerning faith he made shipwreck,' and evideuced the truth of God's declaration, When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned : In his sin that he hath sinued, he shall die.'
“ Nay, Judas kept his Master's money, and was a thief; therefore he was always an hypocrite, an absolute reprobate."
To shew the weakness of this objection, I need only retort it thus: David set his heart upon his neighbour's wife, as Judas did upon his Master's money, and like him betrayed innocent blood; therefore he was always an hypocrite, an absolute reprobate. If the inference is just in one case, it is undoubtedly so in the other.
“But David repented, and did his first works."
Did Judas perish? It was then because he did not do his first works, though he repented. And is David saved ? It is because he not only repented, but did also his first works; or, to use your own expressions, because he recovered “justifying faith, which cannot be without good works.” Thus, when he had recovered justifying faith before God, he could again be justified by the evidence of works, both before his fellow mortals, and that God who ‘judges the world in righte ousness,' and who sentences every man according to his own works, and not merely according to works done by another near 6000 or 1800 years before they were born. Thus the royal adulterer, who died a justified, chaste penitent, can, through the merits of Christ, stand before the throne in a better and more substantial righteousness, than the fantastic robe in which you imagine he was clothed, when his eyes were full of adultery, and his hands full of blood ;-au airy, loose, flimsy robe this, cut out at Geneva and Dort, vot at Jerusalem or Antioch ;-a wretched contrivance, the chief use of which is to cover the iron-clay feet of the Calvinian Diana, and afford a safe asylum, a decent canopy to the pleasant children,' while they debauch their neighbours' wives, and hypocritically murder them out of the way.
O ye good men, how long will ye inadvertently represent our God, who is glorious in holiness, as the pander of vice? And Christ's immaculate righteousness, as the unseemly cloke of such wickedness as is not so much as wamed among the Gentiles? ( that salvation, from this evil, were given unto Israel out of Sion !'Othat the Lord would deliver his people from this preposterous error! O that the blast of divine indiguation, and the sighs of thousands of good men, lighting at once on the great image, might tear away the loose robe of righteousness, which Calvin put upou her in a “ winter season !" Then could all the world read the mark of the beast and the fiend, which she wears on her naked breast : “ Free adultery, free murder, free incest, any length of sin for the pleasant