what wonder, Sir, that you should ask this question, when it is profeffedly anfwered by Afpafio, who has prefented you with a very circumftantial definition of juftification, explaining it, establishing it, and obviating feveral objections advanced against it. If you would animadvert with spirit and force, or indeed to any confiderable purpofe, fhould you not lay open the impropriety of this definition, fhewing, from reason and scripture, that it is neither accurate nor orthodox ?

At pages 57, 58. the reader may fee Afpafio's account of juftification, and find the words imputation and righteousness of Christ, particularly explained: the latter denoting, "all the various inftances "of his active and paffive obedience:" accordingly it is affirmed (page 58.) "The punishment we de"ferved, he endures; the obedience which we ow

ed, he fulfils."-What Afpafio here profeffes to understand by the righteoufnefs of CHRIST, the reader is particularly requested to bear in his memory, that he be not misled by Mr. Wefley, who often forgets it, and complains, when the righteousness of Christ is mentioned, that his penat fufferings are quite omitted. I would not with, Sir, to have a plainer proof, that you do not difcard the active, than Afpafio has hereby given, that he never excludes the paffive.

By your question, you hint a diflike, yet without informing us what it is, or wherein Afpafio's illuftrations and proofs are deficient. You propofe, and only propose, another definition. Well then, to differ from you as little as poffible, nay, tò agree with you, as far as truth will permit; fince you are fo loth to admit of our reprefentation, we will accede to yours; efpecially if it be fomewhat explained, and a little improved. For indeed the words, in their prefent form, are rather too vague to constitute any definition. Pardoning and accepting may happen to

be only diversified expreffions of the fame idea. The merits of CHRIST will certainly comport, either with Popish or Socinian notions. It abounds in writers of the former fort, and it is to be found in the latter. Therefore, to be more explicit,-by pardoning, I mean, GOD'S acquitting a finner from guilt of evvery kind, and of every degree. By accepting, I mean still more, GOD'S receiving him into full favour, confidering and treating him as righteous, yea perfectly and gloriously righteous.-By the merits of CHRIST, I would always be fuppofed to fignify, his active and paffive 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 ambaffadors, ftealing themselves into Jericho; fafe indeed, but with the marks of Ammonitish infults on their perfons: he rather enters like that illuftrious exile, Jofeph, into the presence of Pharaoh, when his prifon-garments were taken from him, and he was arrayed in ' veftures of fine linen,' meet for the fhoulders of those who appeared before kings. With this explication I am content that your definition take place of mine t. I would farther obferve, that you have

* The merits of CHRIST is certainly an ambiguous phrafe, and what I can by no means admire; but as it occurs in Mr. Wefley's letter. and in many valuable writers, I have, led by their example, ufed it in the following debate, fill understanding it, and ftill using it, in the fenfe explained above.

To gratify Mr. Wefley, I have admitted his phrafe," the merits of CHRIST," tho', as it is a phrafe of dubious import, and what almost any fect or herefy will fubf ribe, I should much fooner chufe to abide by Afp fio's language. And why should we not all speak with the fcriptures? Why should we not use the expreffions of the apoftle? He fays, juftified by the blood of CHRIST; he fays, made righteous by the obedience of CHRIST. When therefore we lay, Sinners are pardoned and accepted through the blood, and through the obedience of CHRIST, we have a warrant for our doctrine, which is indisputable; and a precedent for our language, which is unexceptionable.

dropt the word imputed, which inclines me to suspect, you would cafhier the thing. But let me afk, Sir, how can we be juftified by the merits of CHRIST, unless they are imputed to us?, Would the payment made by a furety, procure a difcharge for the debtor, unless it was placed to his account? It is certain, the facrifices of old could not make an atonement, unless they were imputed to each offerer refpectively. This was an ordinance settled by JEHOVAH himself *. And were not the facrifices, was not their imputation typical of CHRIST, and things pertaining to CHRIST? the former prefiguring his all-fufficient expiation,the latter fhadowing forth the way whereby we are partakers of its efficacy. The righteoufnefs (not the righteousness and obedience, Afpafio fpeaks otherwife) which CHRIST performed | is reckoned by GOD as our own. This you call an ambiguous expreffion; but, if confidered, in conjunction with the foregoing and following enlargements, I fhould think it can hardly deserve the charge. Afpafio 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 fame as placing to our account fomething not our own t. The effects,-CHRIST'S righteousness, thus placed to our account, being as effectual for obtaining our falvation, as if it was our own perfonal qualification . To the latter you exprefly agree, to the former you make no objection: to the whole

* Lev. vii. 18. If any of the flesh of the facrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither fall it be imputed unto him that offereth it.' It shall not be accepted: why? For this reafon, because it fall not be imputed. A plain indication, that the latter is the caufe of the former. That without imputation, whether it be of the typical or real facrifice, the blood of the beaf or the death of CHRIST, there is no acceptance.

+ Theron and Afpalio, p. 66.....

Ibid. p. 48.

doctrine, thus explained, you elfewhere declare your affent.

If in all this we may depend upon you, Sir, muft we not feel an alarming fhock at your adjuration in the next paragraph?

"For CHRIST'S fake do not." What? Surely nothing lefs can excite or juftify this vehement exclamation, but the obtrufion of fome doctrine, that is most glaringly falfe and abfolutely damnable. Shall we have fuch a folemn firing, fuch a thunder of explosion, only to filence a particular phrase? In another person this would look like profane levity; in Mr. Welley, the fofteft appellation we can give it, is idle pomp.-All this clamour merely a-, gainst words! words too, the explication of which, and the doctrine contained in them, yourself allow. Dear Sir, what is a word or a phrafe? Can it do either good or harm, but as conveying right or wrong fentiments? Will the mere pronouncing or hearing of a word (be it abracadabra, or biggajon felah, or imputed) without its idea, poifon the principles of men, and induce them to work all uncleannefs with greediness? As you have been firing with out an enemy, (Afpafio is owned for an ally,) fo you seem to be triumphing without a victory. A pafio's charity for those who are disgusted at the expreffion, 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 exercife of the duty," as well as by the annexed defcription of the perfons, and their temper; who are far enough from fancying, that if they may but be pardoned for the fake 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 D

the clofe of his charitable paragraph, wherein, tho' he allows fuch people to be fafe; yet he laments their embarrass, and their deficiency in light, ftrength, and confolation. "The phrase is not fcriptural." --Suppofe it were not, this would afford but a flight reason, for fo paffionate an out-cry: however, this is certain, St. Paul ufes the phrafe, GOD imputeth, and that righteoufnefs might be imputed + Now, is it poffible, that there should be t righteousness imputed, yet not an imputed righteoufnefs? To affert this, muft argue either a wonderful fubtile refinement, or an exceeding ftrong prejudice. "It is not neceffary."-Perhaps fo. But is it not neceffary Mr. Wefley fhould either inform us, what fenfe of the phrafe it is, which he apprehends fo likely to mislead men, or else, inftead of exclaiming against Afpafio, fhould join all his force with him, in defending that fense which they both efpouse?" It has done immenfe hurt."-When we are made fenfible of the immenfe, or indeed of any real, hurt done by the phrafe, imputed; when we fee those who diflike it, cordially warm for the sentiment expreffed in other words, we will then confent to refign it for its equivalent, reckoned as our own,-placed to our account,-as effectual 'as if our own perfonal qualification.' Till then, we muft guard the cafket for the fake of the jewel. We prefer the word imputed, because it fays more at once, than any other term we know; and because we are aware of a common practice used in all ages, by the oppofers of found doctrine. They pretend a zeal only against the phrafe, that by bringing this into difufe, they may caufe that to be forgotten. Shall we not then difpute for imputed righteousnefs? Yes, Sir, we muft difpute, both for the doctrine and for the phrafe, fince there are perfons who openly ftrike at the one, and we fear + Rom iv. II.

* Rom. iv. 6.