"It

consolation. "The phrase is not scriptural." Suppose it were not, this would afford but a slight reason for so passionate an outcry: However, this is certain, St Paul uses the phrase God imputeth, Rom. iv. 6., and that righteousness might be imputed, Rom. iv. 11. Now, is it possible that there should be righteousness imputed, yet not an imputed righteousness? To assert this must argue either a wonderful subtile refinement, or an exceeding strong prejudice. is not necessary." Perhaps so; but is it not necessary Mr Wesley should either inform us what sense of the phrase it is which he apprehends so likely to mislead men, or else, instead of exclaiming against Aspasio, should join all his force with him in defending that sense which they both espouse? "It has done immense hurt." When we are made sensible of the immense, or indeed of any real hurt done by the phrase imputed; when we see those who dislike it cordially warm for the sentiment expressed in other words, we will then consent to resign it for its equivalent, "reckoned as ourown," "placed to our account," as effectual as if our own personal qualification." Till then we must guard the casket for the sake of the jewel. We prefer the word imputed, because it says more at once than any other term we know, and because we are aware of a common practice used in all ages by the opposers of sound doctrine. They pretend a zeal only against the phrase, that by bringing this into disuse, they may cause that to be forgotten. Shall we not then dispute for imputed righteousness? Yes, Sir, we must dispute, both for the doctrine and for the phrase, since there are persons who openly strike at the one, and we fear with a view to supplant the other. Shall we not dispute for imputed righteousness-though the words are a grand peculiarity of the Scriptures, and the thing, the very spirit and essence of the gospel? Not dispute for that which is better to us sinners than all worlds, better than our hearts could wish or our thoughts conceive; which, in short, is the best, the noblest, the completest gift that God himself can bestow?

66

When such a gift, and such a righteousness, is the subject of disputation, we must not give place, no, not for an hour: we must maintain its matchless excellency so long as we have any breath, or any being. We must say, in direct opposition to your fervent, but unadvised zeal, " For Christ's sake," let us contend earnestly for imputed righteousness, because it is the brightest jewel in his mediatorial crown. "For the sake of immortal souls," let us hold fast and hold forth this precious truth, because it yields the strongest consolation to the guilty conscience, and furnishes the most endearing, as well as the most prevailing, inducement to universal obedience.

"To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active obedience, is fanciful rather than judicious." The remark is just, not so the quotation: Aspasio is somewhat disfigured by your distortion of his features; he limps a little, by your dislocation of a limb. There is, in his language, guard enough to check every attempt either to dissolve the union, or sever the co-agency, of the different parts of our Lord's righteousness.

But let us give Aspasio a fair hearing. Thus he expresses himself: "To divide them (the active and pássive righteousness) into detached portions, independent on each other, seems to be fanciful rather than judicious." To divide into detached portions, is more than to distinguish between the one and the other. The latter Aspasio practises, the former he disavows."Independent of each other :" Do these words stand for nothing? have they no meaning, that here you shew them no regard, and never recollect them throughout your whole epistle? Had you honoured them with any degree of notice, several of your objections must have been precluded; and if the more candid reader pleases to bear them in memory, several of your objections will at the very first view fall to the ground. Besides, the person who tells us the case seems to be so, is not so peremptory as he who roundly affirms it to be so: the former is

all that Aspasio has advanced. Though I am willing that you should correct his style, yet I must beg of you, Sir, not to make him quite so positive; let him have the satisfaction of being modest, even where he has the misfortune, in your opinion at least, to be erroneous.

"Christ's universal obedience from his birth to his death, is the one foundation of my hope," says Aspasio. To which you assent, and with a laudable vehemence reply, "This is unquestionably right." I wish, Sir, you would ponder your words before you speak, at least before you print, that there may be something fixed and certain on which we may depend, and by which you will abide. One would think, after this acknowledgment, pronounced with such an air of solemnity, you could never so far forget yourself, as to open your mouth against the obedience, the universal obedience of Christ, which surely must include both what he wrought and what he suffered. You confess it to be your foundation, the foundation of your hope, the only foundation of your hope: Can you then, without the most amazing inconsistency, either wish to secrete the doctrine, or offer to discountenance the expression?

"There is no manner of need to make the imputation of Christ's active righteousness a separate head of discourse." No manner of need, even though you declare that this active righteousness, together with the expiatory death, is the only foundation of your hope! Can you think it possible to treat of such a topic too particularly, too distinctly, too minutely? Aspasio has shewn the need, or assigned the reason for this method of handling the subject; because it sets the fulness of our Lord's merit in the clearest light, and gives the completest honour to God's holy law. Have you alleged any thing to disprove, or so much as to invalidate his plea? Ought not this to have been done before your assertion can be valid or even decent?

Besides, are there not persons in the world who

fondly imagine, that if they can but have pardon through Christ, they shall by their own doings secure eternal life? When such persons are in danger of overlooking the active obedience of the Redeemer, why should you not, for their sakes, allow us to make the imputation of his righteousness "a separate head of discourse?" that, seeing the transcendent perfection of Christ's work, they may cease from confiding in their own, Heb. iv. 10.; lest it be said to them another day, "I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works, that (for the grand purpose of justification) they shall not profit thee,” Isa. lvii. 12.

We must therefore take leave to dwell upon the active righteousness of our Lord; we must display its perfection, in opposition to all the vain pretensions of human qualifications, endeavours, or attainments; we must demonstrate that, as the heavens are higher than the earth, so is this divine obedience higher than all the works of the children of men. Yea, so transcendent in itself, and absolutely perfect, as to be incapable of any augmentation. All the good deeds of all the saints, could they be added to it, would not increase in any degree its justifying efficacy: It is like all the other works of God, concerning which we are told, "nothing can be added to them." This brings to my remembrance a most beautiful and sublime representation, which you must have read in the evangelical prophet, "Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together." Here mountains are demolished, valleys are elevated, and the earth is levelled into a spacious plain, on purpose to accomplish what Mr Wesley supposes unnecessary; onpurpose to give the most clear, full, striking view of the great Redeemer, of his wonderful person, and glorious work; that he alone may be distinguished and exalted; may walk majestic and conspicuous through the midst of mankind, as being singly and

completely sufficient for the recovery of sinners. That all flesh-not Jews only, but Gentiles also; not men of reputation only, but the meanest of mortals, the most infamous of wretches-may together see his glory, may on equal ground, without any pre-eminence of one above another, contemplate and partake of his precious death and perfect righteousness, which are the one object of divine complacency, and the sovereign glory of the Lord Redeemer. According to the import of this magnificent piece of imagery, all the differences which subsist between one man and another are abolished; nothing but Christ and his complete work are proposed as the cause of justification and the ground of hope. Faith beholds nothing but the divine Jesus: it never inquires, What have I done? what have I suffered? but, What has that most illustrious personage done, and what suffered? What has Jehovah manifested in our nature, wrought for the benefit and redemption of sinners? Faith is never weary of viewing or reviewing either the active or passive obedience of Immanuel. Faith will declare, that neither of these points can be set forth in too strong or too recommending a light. Faith is ever desiring to see more and more of the Saviour's worthiness, that the soul may rejoice in his excellency, and be filled with all his fulness.

May you, dear Sir, abound in this faith, and live under such views of God our Saviour; then I flatter myself you will be dissatisfied with your present opinion, and not be disgusted at the freedom of speech used by yours, &c.

LETTER II.

REVEREND SIR,-I am particularly pleased at my entrance on this epistle, because it presents me with a view of Mr Wesley in very good humour. Instead of rebuking, he commends. He puts off the frown