Treatise Preface To Treatise On Justification
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-preface-to-treatise-on-justification-021 |
| Words | 377 |
“The grand end which God proposes in all his favourable
dispensations to fallen man is, to demonstrate the sove
reignty of his grace.” Not so: To impart happiness to his
creatures is his grand end herein. Barely to demonstrate
his sovereignty is a principle of action fit for the great Turk,
not the most high God. “God hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servants. He is
a boundless ocean of good.” (Page 341.) Nay, that ocean is far
from boundless, if it wholly passes by nine tenths of mankind. “You cannot suppose God would enter into a fresh
covenant with a rebel.” (Page 342.) I both suppose and
know he did. “God made the new covenant with Christ,
and charged him with the performance of the conditions.”
I deny both these assertions, which are the central point
wherein Calvinism and Antinomianism meet. “‘I have
made a covenant with my chosen;’” namely, with “David
my servant.” So God himself explains it. “He will wash you in the blood which atones, and invest you
with the righteousness which justifies.” (Page 362.) Why
should you thus continually put asunder what God has joined? “God himself at the last day pronounces them righteous,
because they are interested in the obedience of the
Redeemer.” (Page 440.) Rather, because they are washed
in his blood, and renewed by his Spirit. Upon the whole, I cannot but wish that the plan of these
Dialogues had been executed in a different manner. Most
of the grand truths of Christianity are herein both explained
and proved with great strength and clearness. Why was
anything intermixed which could prevent any serious Chris
tian’s recommending them to all mankind? anything which
must necessarily render them exceptionable to so many
thousands of the children of God? In practical writings, I
studiously abstain from the very shadow of controversy. Nay, even in controversial, I do not knowingly write one line,
to which any but my opponent would object. For opinions,
shall I destroy the work of God? Then am I a bigot indeed. Much more, if I would not drop any mode of expression, rather
than offend either Jew, or Gentile, or the Church of God. I am, with great sincerity,
Dear Sir,
Your affectionate brother and servant,
3.