Wesley Corpus

4. You go on: 'Thirdly, if we consider the nature of faith, it will appear impossible that a man should be justified by that alone. Faith is either an assent to the gospel truths or a reliance on the gospel promises. I know of no other notion of faith.' (Sermon, p. 15.) I do;--an elegcos of things not seen; which is far more than a bare assent, and yet toto genere different from a reliance. Therefore, if you prove that neither an assent nor a reliance justifies, nor both of them together, still you do not prove that we are not justified by faith, even by faith alone. But how do you prove that we cannot be justified by faith as a reliance on the promises Thus: 'Such a reliance must be founded on a consciousness of having performed the conditions. And a reliance so founded is the result of works wrought through faith.' No: of works wrought without faith; else the argument implies a contradiction. For it runs thus (on the supposition that faith and reliance were synonymous terms): Such a reliance is the result of works wrought through such a reliance. 5. Your fourth argument against justification by faith alone is drawn from the nature of justification. This, you observe, 'implies a prisoner at the bar, and a law by which he is to be tried; and this is not the law of Moses, but that of Christ, requiring repentance and faith, with their proper fruits' (page 16); which now through the blood of Christ are accepted and 'counted for righteousness.' St. Paul affirms this concerning faith, in the 4th chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. But where does he say that either repentance or its fruits are counted for righteousness Nevertheless I allow that the law of Christ requires such repentance and faith before justification as, if there be opportunity, will bring forth the 'fruits of righteousness.' But if there be not, he that repents and believes is justified notwithstanding. Consequently these alone are necessary, indispensably necessary, conditions of our justification.