[FROM JOHN WESLEY'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.]
By John Wesley
BETWEEN AN ANTINOMIAN AND HIS FRIEND.
Ant.—So you say, "Christ was made only under the Jewish dispensation, to redeem the Jews from that dispensation." (Cudworth's Dialogue, pp. 8 and 9.) F.—I do not say so. By inserting "only" you quite pervert my words. You cannot deny that Christ "was made under the Jewish dispensation." But I never affirmed, He was "made under it only to redeem the Jews from that dispensation." Ant.—Was he made under the moral law at all? F.—No doubt he was. For the Jewish dispensation included the moral, as well as ceremonial, law. Ant.—Then the case is plain. "If he was under the moral law, we are redeemed from the moral law." (Ib.) F.—That does not follow. "He redeemed them that were under" this, as well as the ceremonial, "law." But from what did he redeem them? Not "from the law," but from "guilt, and sin, and hell." In other words, He redeemed them from the "condemnation of this law," not from "obedience to it." In this respect they are still, "not without law to God, but under the law to Christ." 1 Cor. 9: 21. Ant.—"Under the law to Christ!" No. The Greek word is ennomos Christo, in a law to Christ; that is, the law of love and liberty." (Ib.) F.—Very true. This is the exact thing I mean. You have spoken the very thought of my heart. Ant.—It may be so. But "a believer is free from the law of commandments," call it moral or what you please. F.—Do you mean only, that he obeys the law of Christ, by free choice, and not by constraint? that he keeps the commandments of God, out of love, not fear? If so, you may triumph without an opponent. But if you mean, he is free from obeying that law, then your liberty is a liberty to disobey God. Ant.—God forbid. It is "a liberty to walk in the Spirit, and not fulfill the lust (or desire) of the flesh." (Ib. p. 8.) F.—Why, this is the thing I am contending for. The very thing I daily assert is this, that Christian liberty is a liberty to obey God, and not to commit sin. Ant.—But how do you understand those words of St. Paul, that Christ "blotted out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way?" Col. 2: 14. F.—I understand them of the Jewish ordinances; as it is plain St. Paul himself did, by the inference he immediately draws: Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink," (the ordinances touching these being now "taken out of the way,") "or in respect of a holy-day," (once observed,) "or of the new moon, or of the (Jewish) Sabbaths." Verse 16. Ant.—But how could the hand writing of these "ordinances" be said to be "against us," or to be "contrary to us?" F.—I will not insist on the criticism of those who render the words "over against us," as alluding to that "hand writing on the wall," which appeared "over against King Belshazzar." The words of St. Peter suffice, which will bear no dispute, who, speaking of these same ordinances, calls them "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." Acts 15: 5, 10. Ant.—You must then understand those words of our Lord, of the moral law alone: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5: 17, 18. But I say, our Lord has fulfilled every jot and tittle of this law too. F.—I grant he has. But do you infer from thence, "therefore he has destroyed the law?" Our Lord's arguing is the very reverse of yours. He mentions his coming to "fulfill the law," as an evident proof that he did not come to "destroy" or "take it away." But suppose you could get over the former verse, what can you do with the following? —"Verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass;" or, which comes to the same thing, "till all be fulfilled." The former evasion will do you no service with regard to this clause. For the word all in this does not refer to the law, but to heaven and earth and all things therein; the original sentence running thus: heos an panta genetai. Nor indeed is the word genetai well rendered, by the ambiguous word 'fulfilled,' which would easily induce an English reader to suppose it was the same word that was rendered so just before; it should rather be translated accomplished, finished, or done; as they will be in the great and terrible day of the Lord, when the "earth and the heaven shall flee from his face, and there shall be no place found for them." Ant.—But why did you say my account of sanctification was crude and indigested? (First Dialogue, p. 73.) F.—Let me hear it again. If it be better digested than it was, I shall rejoice. Ant.—"Our minds are either defiled and impure, or pure and holy. The question is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one? You say, 'By love, meekness, gentleness.' I say by believing in Christ. By this my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin. And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, etc. It is therefore absurd to say, We are made good by goodness, meek by meekness; or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated so from these fruits of the Spirit." (Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 10) F.—You have mended the matter a little, and not much. For 1. "The question," say you, "is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one?" Nothing less. The present question between you and me is this and no other, Has a believer any goodness in him at all? any love, meekness, or gentleness. 2. "You say, an impure mind is made good by goodness, &c. I say, by believing in Christ." This is a mere playing upon words. If the question stood thus, "Which way is an evil mind made good?" you are conscious I should make the very same reply;—By believing in Jesus Christ. 3. "By this my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin." Here you run away from the question, notwithstanding that express caution, "Observe we are not speaking of justification, but sanctification." (First Dialogue, p. 74.) 4. "And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, &c. You here give me all I desire, viz., that "there are these dispositions in all believers." It avails nothing therefore to add, "But we are not made good by goodness, or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated good or gentle from these fruits of the Spirit;" since a believer can neither be made nor denominated so, without having goodness or gentleness in him. Ant.—Then how dare you affirm that a believer in Christ "is not really holy!" F.—You have forgotten yourself. I affirm that he is. If you affirm so too, our dispute is at an end. For if he is really holy, then he is inwardly and inherently holy. And if you grant this you may express it as you please, I have no leisure for strife of words. Ant.—But why will not you cut off all occasion of such strife, by speaking as I do? F.—I cannot in conscience speak in the way that you do; and that for several plain reasons: (even setting aside that main consideration, whether the things you speak be right or wrong:) 1. Because it is a confused way of speaking; so that unless a man has both a clear apprehension, and a large measure of patience, he will hardly find out any consistent meaning in what you say. 2. Because it is an insincere way of speaking. For you seem to mean what you do not. 3. Because it is an unscriptural way of speaking; the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament speaking, frequently and expressly, both of holiness, of good works, of the law and the commandments of God, as expressly and frequently to the full, as of believing in Jesus Christ. 4. Because by experience I find, it is a dangerous way of speaking, and that, both to the speaker and to the hearer; to the speaker, as it has a peculiar tendency to puff him up, to engender pride; to make him exalt himself, (under pretense of exalting the grace of God,) and despise others: to the hearers, as it keeps many who are before our eyes from ever awaking out of the sleep of death; as it throws others again into that fatal slumber, who were just beginning to awake; as it stops many in the midst of their Christian course, and turns others clear out of the way; yea, and plunges not a few into all the wretchedness of unclean living. In consideration of this, I the more earnestly desire, when I speak on this head in particular, "to speak as the oracles of God;" to express scriptural sense in scriptural words; in every phrase I use, to keep as close as I can to "the law and the testimony;" being convinced there are no words so fit to express the deep things of God, as those which "holy men of old spake" when "they were moved by the Spirit of God."