Wesley Collected Works Vol 10
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-wesley-collected-works-vol-10-486 |
| Words | 393 |
John says he will
not be answerable.”
I will now explain myself on this head. Though there are
some expressions in my brother's Hymns which I do not
use, as being very liable to be misconstrued; yet I am fully
satisfied, that, in the whole tenor of them, they thoroughly
agree with mine, and with the Bible. (2) That there is no
jot of Calvinism therein; that not one hymn, not one verse
of an hymn, maintains either unconditional election, or
infallible perseverance. Therefore, I can readily answer Mr. H.’s question, “How can Mr. W. answer it to his own
conscience, to write prefaces and recommendations to Hymns
which he does not believe?” There is the mistake. I do
believe them; although still I will not be answerable for
every expression which may occur therein. But as to those
expressions which you quote in proof of final perseverance,
they prove thus much, and no more, that the persons who
use them have at that time “the full assurance of hope.”
Hitherto, then, Mr. Hill has brought no proof that I
contradict myself. Of Imputed Righteousness. 24. “Blessed be God, we are not among those who are so
dark in their conceptions and expressions. “We no more
deny,” says Mr. W., ‘the phrase of imputed righteousness,
than the thing.’” (Page 23.) It is true: For I continually
* Page 21. affirm, to them that believe, faith is imputed for righteous
ness. And I do not contradict this, in still denying that
phrase, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” to be in the
Bible; or in beseeching both Mr. Hervey and you, “not to
dispute for that particular phrase.”
But “since Mr. W. blesses God for enlightening him to
receive the doctrine, and to adopt the phrase of ‘imputed
righteousness; how came he to think that clear conceptions
of the doctrine were so unnecessary, and the phrase itself so
useless, after having so deeply lamented the dark conceptions
of those who rejected the term and the thing?”
It was neither this term, “the imputed righteousness of
Christ,” nor the thing which Antinomians mean thereby,
the rejection of which I supposed to argue any darkness of
conception. But those I think dark in their conceptions,
who reject either the Scripture phrase, “faith imputed for
righteousness,” or the thing it means. 25. However, to prove his point, Mr.