Wesley Corpus

I cannot but except to several passages also in the Tenth Dialogue. I ask, first, “Does the righteousness of God ever mean,” as you affirm, “the merits of Christ?” (Page 291.) I believe, not once in all the Scripture. It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, God’s method of justifying sinners. When, therefore, you say, “The righteousness of God means, such a righteousness as may justly challenge his acceptance,” (page 292,) I cannot allow it at all; and this capital mistake must needs lead you into many others. But I follow you step by step. “In order to entitle us to a reward, there must be an imputation of righteousness.” (Ibid.) There must be an interest in Christ; and then “every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.” “A rebel may be forgiven, without being restored to the dignity of a son.” (Page 293.) A rebel against an earthly King may; but not a rebel against God. In the very same moment that God forgives, we are the sons of God. Therefore this is an idle dispute. For pardon and acceptance, though they may be distinguished, cannot be divided. The words of Job which you cite are wide of the question. Those of Solomon prove no more than this, (and who denies it?) that justification implies both pardon and acceptance. “Grace reigneth through righteousness unto eternal life;” (page 295;) that is, the free love of God brings us through justification and sanctification to glory. “That they may receive forgiveness, and a lot among the sanctified;” (ibid.;) that is, that they may receive pardon, holiness, heaven. “Is not the satisfaction made by the death of Christ sufficient to obtain both our full pardon and final happiness?” (Ibid.) Unquestionably it is, and neither of the texts you cite proves the contrary. “If it was requisite for Christ to be baptized, much more to fulfil the moral law.” (Page 296.) I cannot prove that either one or the other was requisite in order to his purchasing redemption for us. “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.