Iv.

metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteousness, instead of furthering men in holiness, makes them satisfied without any holiness at all.”) I have known a thousand instances of this. And yet “they who truly believe in Christ are made righteous by his Spirit.” Where is the contradiction between these propositions?

36. “Christian Library.” (Nothing.)

37. “Christ is not the righteousness of all that truly believe.” (Baxter’s Aphorisms go for nothing. Richard Baxter is not John Wesley.) 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Nothing against. (Nothing.)

44. “To all believers, the righteousness of Christ is imputed.” (Goodwin: Nothing.)

We have now examined four-and-forty witnesses; but still have no proof that I contradict myself, either with regard to the covenant, election, and perseverance, or the imputed righteousness of Christ. With regard to this, the thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, I have constantly and earnestly maintained above four-and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others “for their good to edification.” But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore, I will use it no more, unless it occur in an hymn, or steal upon me unawares; I will endeavor to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural. And I will advise all my brethren, all who are in connection with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambitious, unscriptural phrase, which is so liable to be misinterpreted, and to speak in all instances, this in particular,” as the oracles of God.”

IV.

“SUFFERING THE PENALTY IS NOT ALL THE LAW

REQUIRES.” VS. SUFFERING THE PENALTY IS ALL THE LAW

REQUIRES. (PAGE 132.)

45. “So says the ‘Christian Library.’” (So says John Goodwin.) But this does not prove that I contradict myself.

V.

ST. PAUL SPEAKS OF THE LAW AS A PERSON. VS. ST. PAUL

DOES NOT SPEAK OF THE LAW AS A PERSON. (PAGE 138.)

46. “The law is here spoken of as a person, to which, as to an husband, life and death are ascribed.” (“This way of speaking of the law as a person injured, and to be satisfied, seems hardly defensible.”)

There is no contradiction here. I do affirm, St. Paul speaks of the law “as a person to which, as an husband, life and death are ascribed.” But I deny, that he speaks of it “as a person injured, and to be satisfied.”

VI.

FOR A TWOFOLD JUSTIFICATION. VS.

AGAINST A TWOFOLD JUSTIFICATION.

47. “Mr. F. affirms, justification is twofold.” (“The justification spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is one and no more.” (Page 133.))

Most true. And yet our Lord speaks of another justification. (Matthew 12:37.) Now, I think one and one make two.

VII.

FOR A JUSTIFIED STATE. VS. AGAINST A JUSTIFIED STATE.

(PAGE 139.)

48. “The state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious.” (“Does not talking of a justified or sanctified state tend to mislead men.” It frequently does. But where is the contradiction?)