Iii.

III.

FOR IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. VS. AGAINST IMPUTED

RIGHTEOUSNESS.

11. “We no more deny the phrase (of imputed righteousness) that the thing.” (“Do not dispute for that particular phrase.” Here is no contradiction: I do not deny it; yet I dare not dispute for it.

12. “This doctrine I have believed and taught for near eight-and-twenty years.” (“The use of that term has done immense hurt.” It has; but there is not contradiction.)

13. This is a citation from the “Christian Library.” So it goes for nothing.

14. “I continually affirm, that the righteousness of Christ (in the sense there explained) is imputed to every believer.” (“Where is the use of contending so strenuously for those expressions?” I ask it again. But where is the contradiction?)

15. This is another citation from the “Christian Library.” So it proves nothing.

16. “The wedding-garment is Christ’s righteousness, first imputed, and then implanted.” (The wedding-garment is holiness. This does not include, but presupposes, the other.)

17. “This is consistent with our being justified through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” (“John Goodwin contradicts this.” Perhaps so; but John Goodwin is not John Wesley. Whatever, therefore, he says, (observe it once for all,) does not prove that I contradict myself. I am no way engaged to defend every expression of either John Goodwin, or Richard Baxter’s Aphorisms. The sense of both I generally approve, the language many times I do not.)

But I observe here, and in fifty other instances, Mr. H. mentions no page. Now, in controversy, he that names no page has no right to any answer.

18. “I frequently put this expression into the mouth of a whole congregation; that is, I sing an hymn wherein it occurs.” (“I dare not require any to use it.” True; but here is no contradiction. I do not require any to use it. Everyone in the congregation may use or let it alone.) Here comes in a thundering note: “Although most of these extracts from Mr. Wesley’s sermon on Jeremiah 23:6, have a very evangelical appearance, yet all their excellency vanisheth away, when we are told in the same sermon, that the righteousness he contends for is not the divine righteousness of Christ, but his human righteousness. When we consider the express words of the text, ‘The Lord our Righteousness,’ one might wonder (if anything is to be wondered at that Mr. Wesley affirms) how he could possibly fall into an error, which at once not only destroys the meritorious efficacy of the Redeemer’s righteousness, but undermines the virtue of his atoning blood.” This is home; Mr. Hill has broke my head sadly. But he will soon give me a plaster: “However, if Mr. Wesley will acknowledge, that by Christ’s human righteousness, he means that mediatorial righteousness which was wrought by God in the human nature, I entirely acquiesce with him on the point.” This is truly marvelous! Why, what could Mr. Wesley mean beside? So this error proves to be no error at all! And “all the excellency” which “vanisheth away,” appears again in statu quo!

But we are not come to the end of the note yet; it contains another dreadful objection: “Mr. Wesley is unwilling” (truly I am) “to be ranked among the Diabolonians, and therefore, with more prudence than candor, has left the whole passage concerning the election-doubters out of the ‘Holy War.”’ And if Mr. Hill had omitted it too, it would have been no more an impeachment of his prudence, than it was of my candor, to omit, in all the tracts I abridged, whatever I disapproved of. This was what I professed at my setting out: “I have endeavored” (these are my very words) “to preserve a consistency throughout, that no part might contradict any other. But in order to this, I have been obliged to omit the far greatest part of several authors. And in a design of this nature, I apprehend myself to be at full liberty so to do.” (Preface, p. 5.) The “abridged Bunyan” is not therefore “the counterfeit Bunyan.” This is a flourish of Mr. Hill’s pen.

19. This instance sets nothing against nothing, the “Christian Library” against John Goodwin.

20. “This is an emblem of the righteousness of the saints, both of their justification and sanctification.” (“John Goodwin contradicts this.” So he may; but I am not John Goodwin. So we have examined twenty witnesses; and not one of all these proves that I contradict myself.)

21. “I would address myself to you who are so ready to condemn all that use these expressions as Antinomians.” (“On Mr. Hervey’s using one of them, Mr. Wesley says, ‘Why are you at such pains to increase the number of Antinomians?’”)

But I do not condemn him as an Antinomian: Therefore, here is no contradiction.

22. Again: “Is not this, that Christ has satisfied the demands of the law, the very quintessence of Antinomianism?” (Whether it is or no, it is wide of the mark; for this is none of the expressions in question.)

23. Again: “To say, ‘The claims of the law are all answered,’ is not this Antinomianism without a mask?” (Yes; but it is none of the expressions in question: So it is no contradiction.)

24. Once more: “There are many expressions in this Dialogue which directly lead to Antinomianism.” (So I think. Yet I do not condemn all that use them as Antinomians: So here is no contradiction still.)

25. “It is by faith we build on this foundation, the imputed righteousness of Christ.” (“If faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ is a fundamental principle, what becomes of all those who think nothing about imputed righteousness?”)

Here is no contradiction. Suppose I build my faith on this foundation, the imputed righteousness of Christ, it does not follow it is so fundamental a principle, that all who think nothing about it will be damned.

26. “But is not a believer clothed with the righteousness of Christ? Undoubtedly he is.” (Goodwin; that is, nothing.)

27. “The mantle of Christ’s righteousness.” (Christian Library.) (Goodwin again: Nothing against nothing.)

28. “Christian Library.” (Nothing.)

29. “The sole cause of our acceptance with God is the righteousness and the death of Christ, who fulfilled God’s law, and died in our stead.” (“I cannot prove, that it was requisite for Christ to fulfill the moral law in order to his purchasing redemption for us. By his sufferings alone the law was satisfied.”)

Undoubtedly it was. Therefore, although I believe Christ fulfilled God’s law, yet I do not affirm he did this to purchase redemption for us. This was done by his dying in our stead.

30. “Verses of Charles Wesley.” (Let him answer.)

31, 32, 33. “Title to Life.” “Christian Library.” Nothing. (John Goodwin: Nothing.)

34. “The righteousness of Christ is imputed to everyone that believes.” (Ditto.)

Here follows another thundering note: “When Mr. Wesley preached this sermon, he told the congregation, ‘It was the same doctrine which Mr. Romaine, Mr. Madan, and Mr. Whitefield preached.’” So it was; Mr. Whitefield did, Mr. Romaine and Mr. Madan do, preach the doctrine contained in that sermon; namely, that “we are justified, sanctified, and glorified, merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for us.” But did I say, this was all the doctrine which they preached? No; and no man in his senses could understand me so. I did not therefore “impose on the credulity of my hearers, by making them believe” any more than was strictly true. But “did they ever hold the tenets pleaded for in the books published by Mr. Wesley?” Whether they did or no is out of the present question; they did, and do, hold the doctrine contained in that sermon. “Mr. Wesley knows, they from their hearts subscribe to Mr. Hervey’s Eleven Letters.” I hope not; from any that do, I expect no more mercy than from a mad dog. “But if he had constantly preached that doctrine, how came so many to testify their surprise at that discourse?” Because God set it home upon their hearts. Hence it appeared new, though they had heard it over and over. “How came they to press the printing of it, in order to stop the mouths of gainsayers?” Because they judged it would affect others as it affected them; though I never thought it would. “Lastly: If Mr. Wesley had constantly maintained this doctrine, why must poor John Bunyan be embowelled, to make him look like Mr. Wesley?” No; his Calvinism is omitted, to make him like the authors going before him; “to preserve a consistency throughout the work;” which still is not done as I could wish. However, those that are fond of his bowels may put them in again, and swallow them as they would the trail of a woodcock.

35. “They to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed (I mean, who truly believe) are made righteous by the Spirit of Christ.” (“The nice,