Treatise Remarks On Hills Farrago
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-remarks-on-hills-farrago-017 |
| Words | 398 |
Therefore I will use it no more.” (I mean, the phrase
imputed righteousness; that phrase, the imputed righteousness
of Christ, I never did use.) “I will endeavour to use only
such phrases as are strictly scriptural. And I will advise all
my brethren, all who are in connexion with me throughout
the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural
phrase, (the imputed righteousness of Christ,) which is so
liable to be misinterpreted, and speak in all instances, this in
particular, as the oracles of God.”
Of a two-fold Justification. My words cited as contradicting this, run thus:
28. “In the afternoon I was informed how many wise and
learned men, who cannot in terms deny it, (because our
Articles and Homilies are not yet repealed,) explain justifica
tion by faith: They say, Justification is two-fold, the First
in this life, the Second at the last day, &c. In opposition
to this, I maintain, that the justification spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our Articles, is not two-fold; it
is one, and no more.” (Remarks, page 388.) True. And
where do I contradict this? Where do I say, the justifica
tion spoken of by St. Paul to the Romans, and in our
Articles, is any more than one? The question between
them and me concerned this justification, and this only,
which I affirmed to be but one. They averred, “But there
is a second justification at the last day; therefore justification
is not one only.” Without entering into that question, I
replied, “The justification whereof St. Paul and our Articles
speak, is one only.” And so I say still; and yet I do not
deny that there is another justification (of which our Lord
speaks) at the last day. I do not therefore condemn the distinction of a two-fold
justification, in saying, That spoken of in our Articles is but
one. And this is the thing which I affirmed, in “flat opposi
tion to those men.”
29. But “how is it possible to encounter such a man as
this, without watching him through every line? And there
fore I wish my readers would closely compare the “Remarks’
with the “Review’ itself;” (I desire no more. Whoever
does this, will easily discern on which side the truth lies;)
“as it is impracticable to point out half the little arts of this
kind which Mr. W.