Wesley Corpus

24.) That note runs thus: “‘Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.’ This is fully consistent with our being justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: That is, our being pardoned, and accepted of God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. For though this, and this alone, be the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, yet faith may be said to be ‘imputed to us for righteousness,’ as it is the sole condition of our acceptance.” Now, is there any shadow of contradiction in this? or of our being justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible? 26. “Mr. W. frequently puts the expression, “imputed righteousness,’ in the mouth of a whole congregation. Yet he says, “I dare not require any to use it.’” Hence Mr. Hill deduces these two conclusions:-- (1) “That Mr. W. gives out such doctrines as he dares not require any others to believe.” (Page 25.) By what logic is this deduced? We are not speaking of doctrines at all, but simply of a particular expression. And that expression is not “imputed righteousness,” but “the imputed righteousness of Christ.” (2.) “That a whole congregation may have words in their mouths, and yet be all silent.” Well inferred again! But did I say, “A whole congrega tion had those words in their mouths?” I did not either say or suppose it; any more than that they were all silent. “Will Mr. W. be ingenuous enough to tell me, whether he did not write this when he was last in a certain country, which abounds with crassa ingenia?”* I will. I did not write this in the fogs of Ireland, but in the clear air of Yorkshire. 27. The two next propositions Mr. Hill quotes, are, “They to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed,” (I mean, who truly believe,) “are made righteous by the Spirit of Christ; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness.” “The nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteous ness” (if it is not carefully guarded) “leads not to repent ance, but to licentiousness. I have known a thousand instances of this.” And where is the contradiction between these propositions? “It is just this,” says Mr.