very momentous and interesting points, I may probably be a little more copious than the strict laws of argument demand, in order to exhibit some of the great truths of the gospel in so clear a light, that "he may run who readeth them;" in so amiable and inviting a light, that the believer may rejoice in them, and the sinner may long for them. For such digressions I promise myself an easy pardon, both from yourself and the reader. Thus you open the debate: "In the second Dialogue, is not the description often too laboured, the language too stiff and affected?" I must confess, Sir, this animadversion seems to be as just, as the praise which you have here and elsewhere bestowed, appears to be lavish. The former, if not more pleasing, may be no less serviceable than the latter; for both I acknowledge myself your debtor; and if ever I attempt any thing more in the capacity of an author, I will be sure to keep my eye fixed on the caution given. you have I am sorry that the next words bring on a complaint so close to my acknowledgment. "You cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having wrote the rough draught of what follows in Ireland." But should you not, in complaisance to your readers of on this side the water, have referred to the pages the English edition? For want of such reference, there is hardly distinction enough in some places to know which are your words, and which are Aspasio's. Should you not also, in justice to the author, before you transcribed the rough draught for the press, have consulted the last edition of his work? which, you well knew, was not the copy from which the Irish impression was taken, yet might reasonably suppose to be the least inaccurate. When I read your next paragraph, I am struck with reverence, I am ashamed, and almost astonished, at the littleness of the preceding observations. Stiffness of style, and a thousand such trifles, what are they all compared with justification before the infinite and immortal God? This is a subject that commands our most awful regard, a blessing that should engage our whole attention. As this is the grand article to come under our consideration, I would desire to maintain an incessant dependance on the divine Spirit, that my thoughts may be influenced, and my pen guided, by the wisdom which cometh from above; that I may neither pervert the truth by any erroneous representations, nor dishonour it by an unchristian temper. It would be easy to make use of bitter satire and disdainful irony, the contemptuous sneer or the indignant frown. And indeed, Sir, you have laid yourself open to every attack of this kind; but these are not the weapons of a Christian's warfare-Non defensoribus istis;-we are to give a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear: meekness, with regard to those who interrogate or oppose us; fear, with regard to him whose cause we plead, and whose eye is ever upon us. "Is justification, you say, "more or less, than God's pardoning and accepting a sinner, through the merits of Christ?" I somewhat wonder, Sir, that you should ask this question, when it is professedly answered by Aspasio, who has presented you with a very circumstantial definition of justification, explaining it, establishing it, and obviating several objections advanced against it. If you would animadvert with spirit and force, or indeed to any considerable purpose, should you not lay open the impropriety of this definition, shewing, from reason and Scripture, that it is neither accurate nor orthodox? The reader may see Aspasio's account of justification, and find the words imputation and righteousness of Christ particularly explained; the latter denoting all the various instances of his active and passive obedience." Accordingly it is affirmed, "the punishment we deserved, he endures; the obedience which we owed, he fulfils." What Aspasio here professes to understand by the righteousness of Christ, the reader is particularly requested to bear in his memory, that he be not misled by Mr Wesley, who often forgets it, and complains, when the righteousness of Christ is mentioned, that his penal sufferings are quite omitted. I would not wish, Sir, to have a plainer proof that you do not discard the active, than Aspasio has hereby given that he never excludes the passive. By your question, you hint a dislike, yet without informing us what it is, or wherein Aspasio's illustrations and proofs are deficient. You propose, and only propose, another definition. Well, then, to differ from you as little as possible, nay, to agree with you as far as truth will permit, since you are so loath to admit of our representation, we will accede to yours; especially if it be somewhat explained, and a little improved. For indeed the words, in their present form, are rather too vague to constitute any definition. Pardoning and accepting may happen to be only diversified expressions of the same idea. The merits of Christ will certainly comport either with Popish or Socinian notions. It abounds in writers of the former sort, and it is to be found in the latter. Therefore, to be more explicit-By pardoning, I mean God's acquitting a sinner from guilt of every kind, and of every degree: By accepting, I mean still more, God's rceeiving him into full favour, considering and treating him as righteous, yea perfectly and gloriously righteous. By the merits of Christ, I would always be supposed to signify his active and passive obedience; all that he wrought, and all that he suffered, for the salvation of mankind.* Interested in all this, the believer enters into the divine presence, and stands before the divine majesty, not like David's ambassadors, stealing themselves into Jericho; safe, indeed, but with the marks of Ammonitish insults on their * The merits of Christ is certainly an ambiguous phrase, and what I can by no means admire; but as it occurs in Mr Wesley's letter, and in many valuable writers, I have, led by their example, used it in the following debate, still understanding it, and still using it, in the sense explained above. persons: He rather enters like that illustrious exile, Joseph, into the presence of Pharaoh, when his prison garments were taken from him, and he was arrayed in vestures of fine linen, meet for the shoulders of those who appear before kings. With this explication, I am content that your definition takes place of mine.* I would further observe, that you have dropt the word imputed, which inclines me to suspect you would cashier the thing. But let me ask, Sir, how can we be justified by the merits of Christ, unless they are imputed to us? Would the payment made by a surety procure a discharge for the debtor, unless it was placed to his account? It is certain the sacrifices of old could not make an atonement, unless they were imputed to each offerer respectively. This was an ordinance settled by Jehovah himself, Lev. vii. 18. And were not the sacrifices, was not their imputation typical of Christ, and things pertaining to Christ? The former prefiguring his all-sufficient expiation, the latter shadowing forth the way whereby we are partakers of its efficacy. The righteousness (not the righteousness and obedience, Aspasio speaks otherwise,) which Christ performed, is reckoned by God as our own. This you call an ambiguous expression; but if considered in conjunction with the foregoing and following enlargements, I should think it can hardly deserve the charge. Aspasio all along labours to be understood. In this place he more fully opens his meaning, by giving another view of the nature, and by specifying the effects, of imputation: The nature-it being the same as placing to our account something not our own: The effects-Christ's righteousness thus placed to our account being as effectual for obtaining our salvation, as if it was our own personal qualification. To the latter you expressly agree, to the former you To gratify Mr Wesley I have admitted his phrase, "the merits of Christ," though, as it is a phrase of dubious import, and what almost any sect or heresy will subscribe, I should much sooner choose to abide by Aspasio's language. make no objection: To the whole doctrine, thus explained, you elsewhere declare your assent. If in all this we may depend upon you, Sir, must we not feel an alarming shock at your adjuration in the next paragraph? "For Christ's sake do not"-What? surely nothing less can excite or justify this vehement exclamation, but the obtrusion of some doctrine that is most glaringly false, and absolutely damnable. Shall we have such a solemn firing, such a thunder of explosion, only to silence a particular phrase? In another person this would look like profane levity; in Mr Wesley, the softest appellation we can give it is idle pomp. All this clamour merely against words! words too, the explication of which, and the doctrine contained in them, yourself allow. Dear Sir, what is a word or a phrase? Can it do either good or harm, but as conveying right or wrong sentiments? Will the mere pronouncing or hearing of a word, (be it abracadabra, or higgajan selah, or imputed), without its idea, poison the principles of men, and induce them to work all uncleanness with greediness? As you have been firing without an enemy, (Aspasio is owned for an ally), so you seem to be triumphing without a victory. Aspasio's charity for those who are disgusted at the expression, and have no explicit knowledge of the doctrine, is guarded by the words immediately following, "Yet live under the belief of the truth, and in the exercise of the duty:" as well as by the annexed description of the persons, and their temper; who are far enough from fancying, that if they may but be pardoned for the sake of Christ, they can obtain the divine favour, and a title to future happiness, by their own good behaviour. Hence it will appear that he has been too cautious to part with the very thing for which he is contending. And this is more abundantly evident from the close of his charitable paragraph, wherein, though he allows such people to be safe, yet he laments their perplexity, and their deficiency in light, strength, and |