Here is his quote
"But does not God command us to repent also? Yea, and to 'bring forth fruits meet for repentance'--to cease, for instance, from doing evil, and learn to do well? And is not both the one and the other of the utmost necessity, insomuch that if we willingly neglect either, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all?
But if this be so, how can it be said that faith is the only condition of justification?" God does undoubtedly command us both to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance; which if we willingly neglect, we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all:
therefore both repentance, and fruits meet for repentance, are, in some sense, necessary to justification.
But they are not necessary in the same sense with faith, nor in the same degree. Not in the same degree; for those fruits are only necessary conditionally; if there be time and opportunity for them. Otherwise a man may be justified without them, as was the thief upon the cross (if we may call him so; for a late writer has discovered that he was no thief, but a very honest and respectable person!) but he cannot be justified without faith; this is impossible. Likewise, let a man have ever so much repentance, or ever so many of the fruits meet for repentance, yet all this does not at all avail; he is not justified till he believes.
How John Wesley reconciled the thief on the cross, in my opinion, is based on this paragraph. Here is how I understand his argument:
- Both faith and works are necessary for justification.
- But faith is more necessary compared to works. Faith is necessary unconditionally/absolutely.
- Works are only necessary in a conditional sense, provided there is time and opportunity to do them.
- The thief on the cross had neither the time, nor the opportunity to do works, so he is excused from them.
- For the rest of us however, we do not have that excuse, so works become necessary for our justification.
This is a rather ingenious argument, I have to say. At least, I am glad that John Wesley is willing to state that he believes that, for most of us, works are necessary for our justification. So his argument avoids that circularity.
