Wesley Corpus

Wesley Collected Works Vol 10

AuthorJohn Wesley
Typetreatise
YearNone
Passage IDjw-wesley-collected-works-vol-10-486
Words393
Works of Piety Justifying Grace Scriptural Authority
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.