Wesley Corpus

‘We establish the law, as we expect no salvation without a perfect conformity to it -- namely, by Christ’ (page 135). Is not this a mere quibble and a quibble which, after all the labored evasions of Witsius [Hermann Witsius (1636-1705), Professor at Utrecht and then at Leyden. His principal work, De Oeconomia Foederurn Dei cum Hominibus, 1677, sought unsuccessfully to mediate between the Orthodox and the Federalists.] and a thousand more, does totally ‘make void the law’ But not so does St. Paul teach. According to him, ‘without holiness,’ personal holiness, ‘no man shall see the Lord’; none who is not himself conformed to the law of God here ‘shall see the Lord’ in glory. This is the grand, palpable objection to that whole scheme. It directly ‘makes void the law.’ It makes thousands content to live and die ‘transgressors of the law,’ because Christ fulfilled it ‘for them.’ Therefore, though I believe He hath lived and died for me, yet I would speak very tenderly and sparingly of the former (and never separately from the latter), even as sparingly as do the Scriptures, for fear of this dreadful consequence. ‘“The gift of righteousness” must signify a righteousness not their own’ (page 138). Yes; it signifies the righteousness or holiness which God gives to and works in them. ‘“The obedience of one” is Christ’s actual performance of the whole law’ (page 139). So here His passion is fairly left out! Whereas His ‘becoming obedient unto death’ -- that is, dying for man --is certainly the chief part, if not the whole, which is meant by that expression. ‘“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled” in us -- that is, by our representative in our nature’ (ibid.). Amazing! But this, you say, ‘agrees with the tenor of the Apostle’s arguing. For he is demonstrating we cannot be justified by our own conformity to the law.’ No; not here. He is not speaking here of the cause of our justification, but the fruits of it. Therefore that unnatural sense of his words does not at all ‘agree with the tenor of his arguing.’ I totally deny the criticism on das and daa, and cannot conceive on what authority it is founded. Oh how deep an aversion to inward holiness does this scheme naturally create! (Page 140.)