Wesley Corpus

I have lately read them both over with all the attention I am capable of; and I still believe they contain the true Scripture doctrine concerning justification by faith: But it does not follow, that I am accountable for every sentence contained in either of those treatises. “But does Mr. Wesley believe the doctrine therein con tained, or does he not?” I do; and John Goodwin believed the doctrine contained in the sermon on “The Lord our Righteousness;” the sum of which is, “We are justified, sanctified, and glorified, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for us.” Nothing he asserts is inconsistent with this; though it may be inconsistent with passages left in the “Christian Library.” When therefore I write “Nothing” against those passages, or the extracts from Goodwin, that con tradict them, this does not prove, (as Mr. Hill archly says,) that “I have nothing to say,” but that all those passages and extracts put together are nothing to the purpose. For, were it true, that John Goodwin and Richard Baxter contradicted all those passages, it is nothing to the point in hand; it never can prove, that I, John Wesley, contradict myself. 18. But to return to the everlasting covenant: “Mr. Wesley himself, in his Annotations on Gen. i. 1, calls the Elohim, a “covenant God.’” True, in covenant with man. But I say not one word of any covenant between the Father and the Son. But “in his note on Isaiah lv. 4, speaking of the covenant made between God and David, he says, “This David is Christ.’” Undoubtedly I do; but what is this brought to prove? My words are, “I have appointed, and will in due time give him--the David last-mentioned, even Christ--a witness--to declare the will of God concerning the duty and salvation of men, to bear witness to the truth, to confirm God’s promises, and, among others, those which respect the calling of the Gentiles; to be a witness to both parties of that covenant made between God and man.” (Page 209.) Yea, of the “covenant made between God and man l” Of a covenant between the Father and the Son here is not a word. “The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this defence of Mr. Wesley’s is, that he became a commentator on the Bible before he could read the Bible.” That is pity!