Wesley Corpus

'By Christ's sufferings alone the law was not satisfied' (page 297). Yes, it was; for it required only the alternative, Obey or die. It required no man to obey and die too. If any man had perfectly obeyed, He would not have died. ‘Where the Scripture ascribes the whole of our salvation to the death of Christ a part of His humiliation is put for the whole’ (ibid.). I cannot allow this without some proof. ‘He was obedient unto death’ is no proof at all, as it does not necessarily imply any more than that He died in obedience to the Father. In some texts there is a necessity of taking a part for the whole; but in these there is no such necessity. ‘Christ undertook to do everything necessary for our redemption’ (page 300) -- namely, in a covenant made with the Father. It is sure He did everything necessary; but how does it appear that He undertook this before the foundation of the world, and that by a positive covenant between Him and the Father You think this appears from four texts: (1) From that, ‘Thou gavest them to Me.’ Nay; when any believe, ‘the Father gives them to Christ.’ But this proves no such previous contract. (2) ‘God hath laid upon Him the iniquities of us all.’ Neither does this prove any such thing. (3) That expression, ‘The counsel of peace shall be between them,’ does not necessarily imply any more than that both the Father and the Son would concur in the redemption of man. (4) ‘According to the counsel of His will’ -that is, in the way or method He had chosen. Therefore neither any of these texts, nor all of them, prove what they were brought to prove. They do by no means prove that there ever was any such covenant made between the Father and the Son.