Wesley Corpus

“It is just this,” says Mr. Hill, “that the doctrine of imputed righteousness makes those who believe it both holy and unholy.” (Page 26.) Unfold the propositions a little more, and then let any man judge. The First means just this: They whom God justifies, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, (whether they ever heard of that phrase, “imputing the righteousness of Christ,” or not,) are sanctified by his Spirit; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. The Second means: I have known very many who so rested in the doctrine of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, that they were quite satisfied without any holiness at all. Now, where is the contradiction? But my inserting in my own sentence those explanatory words, “I mean, who truly believe,” Mr. H. calls an interpola tion; and supposes I “mean to make a distinction between faith in Christ, and faith in the righteousness of Christ.” I mean just what I have said again and again, particularly in the note above cited. And this is the very thing which John Goodwin means, as he declares over and over. Mr. W. “winds up this point of imputed righteousness with a resolution which astonishes me, that “he will never * Persons of dull understandings.-EDIT. more use the phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, unless it occur to him in a hymn, or steal upon him unawares.’” This is my resolution. I repeat once more what I said in the “Remarks:” “The thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, I have con stantly and earnestly maintained above four-and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others ‘for their good to edification. But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore I will use it no more.” (I mean, the phrase imputed righteousness; that phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, I never did use.) “I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly scriptural.