Sermon 13: On Sin in Believers

314

An Introductory Comment [on Sermons 13-14]

In the first edition of SOSO, I (1746), ‘The Witness of the Spirit’ (Discourse I), was followed by a sermon on ‘The Means of Grace’ to round out the volume. Two years later, Wesley placed his third university sermon, ‘The Circumcision of the Heart’ (from 1733), as the first sermon in his second volume, following it with a new sermon on ‘The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God’. The shared theme in this sequence (stressed in three of the sermons and implied in ‘The Means of Grace’) concerned the power bestowed on justified and regenerate believers not to commit sin—a crucial idea in the holy-living tradition, which then was given its climactic statement, up to that date, in Christian Perfection (1750); see No. 40.

This idea of the Christian’s grace-bestowed power not to commit sin was, however, bound to generate controversy and confusion among both critics and some disciples. With their doctrines of the ineradicable ‘remains of sin’ (fomes peccati), the Lutherans had taught that the justified believer was simul justus et peccator but also that his repented sins were covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ and thus inculpable; cf. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), Article II, ‘Original Sin’, especially §§35-45. With similar premises with respect to the fomes peccati (the Christian is ‘a sinner saved by grace’), the Calvinists stressed rigorous examination of consciences, repentance, the final perseverance of the elect, and the perfect and immutable freedom ‘in the state of glory only’; cf. The Westminster Confession VI.v, IX.v; see also XIII-XVIII. On the other side, the Moravians and some of Wesley’s own disciples (e.g., Thomas Maxfield, William Cudworth, James Relly) had taken the claim that ‘those born of God do not commit sin’ to its antinomian extreme of sinless—even guiltless—perfection, as if the power not to sin meant the extirpation of all ‘remains of sin’. For an exposition of this view, see the Supplement to The Christian Magazine for the Year 1762: ‘for all who are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit’s dwelling in them are delivered from the guilt, the power, or, in one word the being of 315sin’ (p. 579; see also below, pp. 328-32). Moreover, they had appealed to Wesley’s basic soteriology as the logical ground for their interpretation.

Wesley, caught in the controversy generated by these two polarities, reacted typically and came up with what he regarded as a valid third alternative. Its root notion was a distinction between ‘sin properly so called’ (i.e., ‘the [deliberate] violation of a known law of God’—mortal if unrepented) and all ‘involuntary transgressions’ (culpable only if unrepented and not discarded when discerned or entertained). This distinction already had a history in Catholic moral theory (‘mortal’ versus ‘venial’); cf. Claude Fleury, Les Moeurs des Israélites (1683; cf. The Manners of the Ancient Israelites…, ed. Adam Clarke [1852], p. 306). But it had also had a special development among Anglican moralists as well. Richard Lucas had analyzed it in his Enquiry After Happiness (1717), III.299-301 (e.g., ‘Mortal sin is a deliberate transgression of a known law of God tending to the dishonour of God and injury of our neighbour or the deprivation of our own nature’). John Kettlewell, in The Measures of Christian Obedience (1681), had spoken of ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ sins (see Bk. IV, chs. 3-4, pp. 330 ff., 335 ff.). Much more to the same effect had been found in Samuel Bradford’s Boyle Lectures for 1699, The Credibility of the Christian Revelation, from its intrinsic evidence; in eight sermons (1700), Sermon II, p. 445; Hugh Binning, Fellowship With God (1671), pp. 216-18, and John Weemse [Weemes], The Portraiture of God in Man… (1627), p. 326 (cf. Weemes’s formulation of the distinction as between ‘sins forgiven ’ and ‘sins passed by…’).

Thus, there was an unstable tension between the claims that a Christian may be delivered from sin’s bondage, and that ‘sin remains but no longer reigns’ (see below, I.6 and n.); this continued to plague Wesley in many ways, as one can see from his frequent references to it; see below, II.3, III.1-9 and n.; and cf. Nos. 1, Salvation by Faith, II.6; 8, ‘The First-fruits of the Spirit’, II.6, 9, III.4-5; 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.2-3; 18, ‘The Marks of the New Birth’, I.5-6; 19, ‘The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God’, II.8; 40, Christian Perfection, II.4-5; 41, Wandering Thoughts, III.6; 43, The Scripture Way of Salvation, III.6-8; 46, ‘The Wilderness State’, II.6, III.14; 58, On Predestination, §7; 62, ‘The End of Christ’s Coming’, III.3; 65, ‘The Duty of Reproving our Neighbour’, III.14; 74, ‘Of the Church’, §21; 76, ‘On Perfection’, II.9; 82, ‘On Temptation’, I.5; 104, ‘On Attending the Church Service’, §18; 128, 316‘The Deceitfulness of the Human Heart’, II.5. Cf. also Wesley’s letters to John Hosmer, June 7, 1761, to Mary Bishop, May 27, 1771, and to Mrs. Bennis, June 16, 1772.

What matters most is that Wesley insisted on holding to both traditions—sola fide and holy living—without forfeiting the good essence of either. Moreover, he saw no inconsistency in his shifting from one emphasis to the other as circumstances seemed to require. He was more concerned to face the dreadful realities of sin while never yielding to any defeatist notion that God’s grace is intrinsically impotent to save souls ‘to the utmost’, in this life. That enough of his comments on this twin concern could have been misconstrued as a doctrine of ‘sinless perfection’ is apparent both in its exaggerations in Cudworth and others, and also in nineteenth-century developments—especially in American Methodism—in which ‘entire sanctification’ was interpreted as ‘a second and separate work of grace’ and normative for the Christian life; cf. Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism.

In 1763, in a needed effort to counter the distortions and bring the controversy more nearly back to balance, Wesley wrote and published a sermon entitled A Discourse on Sin in Believers, ‘in order to remove a mistake which some were labouring to propagate: that there is no sin in any that are justified’ (see JWJ, Mar. 28, and Bibliog, No. 257). In 1767 he wrote out its sequel, The Repentance of Believers, and published it the following year (cf. JWJ, Apr. 17-24, and Bibliog, No. 305).

Here, we find an interesting version of Wesley’s doctrine of ‘entire sanctification’; cf. Pt. II. Shortly after this, when he began to re-arrange the sequence of Vol. I of SOSO for the edition of his Works, he quite deliberately inserted these two sermons as Nos. 13 and 14, between ‘The Witness of Our Own Spirit’ and ‘The Means of Grace’. They are designed, as he says, for the encouragement of ‘the weaker brethren’ whose Christian assurance had been all too easily shaken by their awareness of sin’s residues in their hearts, even in their uncertain pilgrimage of grace toward ‘perfect love’.

The present text of On Sin in Believers is based on the first edition of 1763, and the text of The Repentance of Believers is from its first edition of 1767. For stemmata illustrating text transmissions through the editions published in Wesley’s lifetime and the list of substantive variant readings found in these successive editions, see Appendix, ‘Wesley’s Text’, in Vol. IV.

317 On Sin in Believers

2 Corinthians 5:17

If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.

1

1I. 1. Is there then sin in him that is in Christ? Does sin remain in one that ‘believes in him’?

1

Cf. John 9:36, 41.

Is there any sin in them that are ‘born of God’,

2

1 John 3:9; 4:7, etc.

or are they wholly delivered from it? Let no one imagine this to be a question of mere curiosity, or that it is of little importance whether it be determined one way or the other. Rather it is a point of the utmost moment to every serious Christian, the resolving of which very nearly concerns both his present and eternal happiness.

22. And yet I do not know that ever it was controverted in the primitive Church. Indeed there was no room for disputing concerning it, as all Christians were agreed. And so far as I have observed, the whole body of ancient Christians who have left us anything in writing declare with one voice that even believers in Christ, till they are ‘strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might’, have need to ‘wrestle with flesh and blood’, with an evil nature, as well as ‘with principalities and powers’.

3

Cf. Eph. 6:10, 12.

33. And herein our own Church (as indeed in most points) exactly copies after the primitive;

4

A typical example of Wesley’s unself-conscious Anglican triumphalism. Cf. also No. 33, ‘Sermon on the Mount, XIII’, III.1; ‘Farther Thoughts on Separation from the Church’, §1, dated Dec. 11, 1789 (AM, 1790); and his letter to Sir Harry Trelawney, Aug. 1780. He was ‘anti-Establishment’, to be sure, but never ‘anti-Anglican’ or even ‘pro-Nonconformist’.

The Thirty-nine Articles were a set of doctrinal formulae first adopted by the Church of England in 1563. They gained full official approval in 1571, having evolved from a series of confessional statements in 1536 (‘Ten Articles’), 1537, 1539 (‘Six Articles’), 1543, and 1553 (‘Forty-two Articles’). By design, they were more Reformed and anti-Roman than the Edwardian Homilies (1547) had been, and they had been added to the Elizabethan Prayer Book as an appendix, since they were never intended to be a ‘confession’ in the same sense as The Augsburg Confession (1530), etc. Even so, it was required that Anglican clergy, in Wesley’s day, and even down till 1865, should subscribe to them. In the prayer book prepared by Wesley for the American Methodists in 1784 (The Sunday Service) he included a highly personal abridgement of them, reducing their number from thirty-nine to twenty-four; a twenty-fifth was added by the Americans. As in the BCP, Wesley’s Articles were placed as an appendix; ‘Of Original or Birth Sin’ appears as Art. VII rather than IX.

declaring (in her Ninth 318Article), Original sin […] is the corruption of the nature of every man, […] whereby man is […] in his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth contrary to the Spirit.

5

Cf. Gal. 5:17.

[…] And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek φρόνημα σαρκός,

6

Cf. No. 8, ‘The First-fruits of the Spirit’, I.2, and, below, IV.7; see also No. 43, The Scripture Way of Salvation, III.6.

[…] is not subject to the law of God.

7

Rom. 8:7.

And although there is no condemnation for them that believe […], yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin.’

8

Cf. The Thirty-nine Articles, Art. IX, ‘Of Original or Birth Sin’, and consider Wesley’s omissions. For an even more drastic abridgement, cf. ‘The Twenty-five Articles’ of the Methodists, Art. VII, in Wesley’s Sunday Service.

44. The same testimony is given by all other churches; not only by the Greek and Romish Church, but by every Reformed Church in Europe, of whatever denomination. Indeed some of these seem to carry the thing too far; so describing the corruption of heart in a believer as scarce to allow that he has dominion over it, but rather is in bondage thereto.

9

Cf. No. 9, ‘The Spirit of Bondage and of Adoption’. This is an obvious reference to the more one-sided versions of the simul justus et peccator as formulated by Matthias Flacius Illyricus and also as denounced by Trent, Session V.v. Cf. The Formula of Concord (Epitome), Art. I (‘On Original Sin’), ‘Affirmative’, III: ‘And we do indeed affirm that no one is able to dissever this [sinful] corruption of [human] nature from the nature itself except God alone—which will fully come to pass by means of death in the resurrection into blessedness,’ in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1881-82), III.100-101.

Incidentally, this notion of sin’s being destroyed by death is affirmed by the early Wesley in two sermons written before 1738 (cf. Nos. 109, The Trouble and Rest of Good Men, I, II.6; and 136, ‘On Mourning for the Dead’, ¶5, but the notion never reappears afterward. William Tilly had made the point in his sermon ‘On Grieving the Holy Spirit’ which Wesley extracted. This idea had appeared in Luther’s Treatise on the Holy Sacrament of Baptism (1519), VII-VIII, XVII-XVIII, and had then been developed in classical Lutheran eschatology; cf. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology, pp. 625 ff. For references to Luther in the Wesley corpus, cf. No. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.9 and n.

And by this means they leave hardly any distinction between a believer and an unbeliever.

55. To avoid this extreme many well-meaning men, particularly those under the direction of the late Count Zinzendorf,

10

Wesley’s relations with Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf, the most prominent of the Moravians, were complex and unfortunate; cf. ‘The Rift With the Moravians’ in LPT, Wesley, pp. 347-76. The crucial difference between them, in Wesley’s view, was that antinomianism was a natural consequence of the Moravian doctrines of ‘perfect love’, whereas his own doctrine of ‘perfection’ and ‘holiness’ was strongly moralized (viz., ‘love of God and neighbour’). Cf. below, III.9-10 and V.1, as well as Nos. 48, ‘Self-denial’, III.2; 76, ‘On Perfection’, III.12; 107, ‘On God’s Vineyard’, I.3. See also JWJ, July 12, 1739, and Sept. 3, 1741; Charles’s letter to the Count, Nov. 26, 1737, and John’s letter of Sept. 6, 1745. See also, Dialogue between an Antinomian and his Friend, Bibliog, No. 102, Vol. 13 of this edn.

ran into 319another, affirming that ‘all true believers are not only saved from the dominion of sin but from the being of inward as well as outward sin, so that it no longer remains in them.’ And from them, about twenty years ago, many of our countrymen imbibed the same opinion, that even the corruption of nature is no more in those who believe in Christ.

66. It is true that when the Germans

11

I.e., the Moravians.

were pressed upon this head they soon allowed (many of them at least) that sin did still remain in the flesh, but not in the heart of a believer. And after a time, when the absurdity of this was shown, they fairly gave up the point; allowing that sin did still remain, though not reign, in him that is born of God.

12

Cf. Nos. 1, Salvation by Faith, II.6; 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.2; 19, ‘The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God’, II.2; 43, The Scripture Way of Salvation, III.6-8; 74, ‘Of the Church’, §21; and 128, ‘The Deceitfulness of the Human Heart’, II.5. See also Wesley’s account of Christian David’s beliefs, in JWJ, Aug. 10, 1738, where the same phrase occurs: ‘though it [sin] did not reign, it did remain in me.’

77. But the English who had received it from them (some directly, some at second or third hand) were not so easily prevailed upon to part with a favourite opinion. And even when the generality of them were convinced it was utterly indefensible, a few could not be persuaded to give it up, but maintain it to this day.

13

E.g., John Gambold had been a lively member of the Holy Club and the author of a fine sermon, ‘On the Holy Spirit’ (1736), which Jackson published as Wesley’s own (in his edn. of Works, VII.508-20). Subsequently, Gambold became a pastor of the Moravians in England and, finally, their bishop. There is a poignant record of Wesley’s last visit with him in JWJ, Nov. 5, 1763—very close to the date of the reference above.

2

1II. 1. For the sake of these who really fear God and desire to know ‘the truth as it is in Jesus’,

14

Eph. 4:21.

it may not be amiss to consider the point with calmness and impartiality. In doing this I use indifferently the words ‘regenerate’, ‘justified’, or ‘believers’; since, though they have not precisely the same meaning (the first 320implying an inward, actual change; the second a relative one; and the third the means whereby both the one and the other are wrought) yet they come to one and the same thing, as everyone that ‘believes’ is both ‘justified’ and ‘born of God’.

15

But see below, No. 18, ‘The Marks of the New Birth’, where significant nuances of differentiation between these terms may be found.

22. By ‘sin’ I here understand inward sin:

16

Wesley’s inventory of ‘inward’ sins corresponds to what he speaks of elsewhere as ‘involuntary’ (as the Lutherans had in their Formula of Concord) and to what the Romans had grouped under the heading of ‘venial’ at Trent, Session V; see above, intro. and I.4 and n.

any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ.

33. The question is not concerning outward sin, whether a child of God commits sin or no. We all agree and earnestly maintain, ‘He that committeth sin is of the devil.’

17

1 John 3:8.

We agree, ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.’

18

1 John 3:9.

Neither do we now inquire whether inward sin will always remain in the children of God; whether sin will continue in the soul as long as it continues in the body. Nor yet do we inquire whether a justified person may relapse either into inward or outward sin. But simply this: is a justified or regenerate man freed from all sin as soon as he is justified? Is there then no sin in his heart? Nor ever after, unless he fall from grace?

44. We allow that the state of a justified person is inexpressibly great and glorious. He is ‘born again, not of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’.

19

Cf. John 1:13.

He is a child of God, a member of Christ, an heir of the kingdom of heaven. ‘The peace of God which passeth all understanding keepeth his heart and mind in Christ Jesus.’

20

Cf. Phil. 4:7.

His very ‘body is a temple of the Holy Ghost’,

21

Cf. 1 Cor. 6:19.

and ‘an habitation of God through the Spirit’.

22

Eph. 2:22.

He is ‘created anew in Christ Jesus’;

23

Eph. 2:10.

he is washed; he is sanctified. His ‘heart is purified by faith’;

24

Cf. Acts 15:9.

he is cleansed from ‘the corruption that is in the world’.

25

2 Pet. 1:4.

‘The love of God is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is given unto him.’

26

Cf. Rom. 5:5.

And so long as he ‘walketh in love’

27

Eph. 5:2.

(which he may always do) he ‘worships God in 321spirit and in truth’.

28

John 4:23, 24.

He ‘keepeth the commandments of God, and doth those things that are pleasing in his sight’:

29

Cf. 1 John 3:22.

so ‘exercising himself as to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man’.

30

Cf. Acts 24:16.

And he has power both over outward and inward sin, even from the moment he is justified.

3

1III. 1. ‘But was he not then “freed from all sin”,

31

Rom. 6:7.

so that there is no sin in his heart?’ I cannot say this: I cannot believe it, because St. Paul says the contrary. He is speaking to believers, and describing the state of believers in general, when he says, ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: these are contrary the one to the other.’

Gal. 5:17.

Nothing can be more express. The Apostle here directly affirms that ‘the flesh’, evil nature, opposes ‘the spirit’, even in believers; that even in the regenerate there are two principles ‘contrary the one to the other’.

22. Again: when he writes to the believers at Corinth, to those who were ‘sanctified in Christ Jesus’,

1 Cor. 1:2.

he says: ‘I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ…. Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying and strife, […] are ye not carnal?’

[1 Cor.] 3:1, 3.

Now here the Apostle speaks unto those who were unquestionably believers, whom in the same breath he styles his ‘brethren in Christ’, as being still in a measure carnal. He affirms there was ‘envying’ (an evil temper) occasioning ‘strife’ among them, and yet does not give the least intimation that they had lost their faith. Nay, he manifestly declares they had not; for then they would not 322have been ‘babes in Christ’. And (what is most remarkable of all) he speaks of being ‘carnal’ and ‘babes in Christ’ as one and the same thing; plainly showing that every believer is (in a degree) ‘carnal’ while he is only a ‘babe in Christ’.

33. Indeed this grand point, that there are two contrary principles in believers—nature and grace, the flesh and the spirit—runs through all the epistles of St. Paul, yea, through all the Holy Scriptures.

Almost all the directions and exhortations therein are founded on this supposition, pointing at wrong tempers or practices in those who are, notwithstanding, acknowledged by the inspired writers to be believers. And they are continually exhorted to fight with and conquer these, by the power of the faith which was in them.

44. And who can doubt but there was faith in the angel of the church of Ephesus

when our Lord said to him: ‘I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience…. Thou hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured and hast not fainted.’ But was there meantime no sin in his heart? Yea, or Christ would not have added, ‘Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.’

Rev. 2:2-4.

This was real sin which God saw in his heart, of which accordingly he is exhorted to repent. And yet we have no authority to say that even then he had no faith.

55. Nay, the angel of the church at Pergamos also is exhorted to ‘repent’, which implies sin, though our Lord expressly says, ‘Thou hast not denied my faith.’

And to the angel of the church in Sardis he says, ‘Strengthen the things which remain that are ready to die.’

[Rev.] 3:2.

The good which remained was ‘ready to die’, but was not actually dead. So there was still a spark of faith even in him; which he is accordingly commanded to ‘hold fast’.

Ver. 3.

66. Once more: when the Apostle exhorts believers to ‘cleanse’ themselves ‘from all filthiness of flesh and spirit’,

he plainly 323teaches that those believers were not yet cleansed therefrom. Will you answer, ‘He that “abstains from all appearance of evil” does ipso facto cleanse himself from all filthiness’? Not in any wise. For instance, a man reviles me; I feel resentment, which is ‘filthiness of spirit’; yet I say not a word. Here I ‘abstain from all appearance of evil’, but this does not cleanse me from that filthiness of spirit, as I experience to my sorrow.

77. And as this position, ‘there is no sin in a believer, no carnal mind, no bent to backsliding,’

is thus contrary to the Word of God, so it is to the experience of his children. These continually feel an heart bent to backsliding, a natural tendency to evil, a proneness to depart from God, and cleave to the things of earth. They are daily sensible of sin remaining in their heart, pride, self-will, unbelief, and of sin cleaving to all they speak and do, even their best actions and holiest duties. Yet at the same time they ‘know that they are of God’; they cannot doubt of it for a moment. They feel ‘his Spirit clearly witnessing with their spirit that they are the children of God’. They ‘rejoice in God through Christ Jesus, by whom they have now received the atonement’. So that they are equally assured that sin is in them and that ‘Christ is in them, the hope of glory.’

88. ‘But can Christ be in the same heart where sin is?’ Undoubtedly he can; otherwise it never could be saved therefrom. Where the sickness is, there is the physician,

Christ indeed cannot reign where sin reigns; neither will he dwell where any sin is allowed. But he is and dwells in the heart of every believer who is fighting against all sin; although it be ‘not’ yet ‘purified according to the purification of the sanctuary’.

9 3249. It has been observed before, that the opposite doctrine, ‘that there is no sin in believers’, is quite new in the church of Christ; that it was never heard of for seventeen hundred years, never till it was discovered by Count Zinzendorf. I do not remember to have seen the least intimation of it either in any ancient or modern writer, unless perhaps in some of the wild, ranting antinomians.

And these likewise say and unsay, acknowledging there is sin ‘in their flesh’, although no sin ‘in their heart’. But whatever doctrine is new must be wrong; for the old religion is the only true one; and no doctrine can be right unless it is the very same ‘which was from the beginning’.

1010. One argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. One says, ‘I felt anger today.’ Must I reply, ‘Then you have no faith’? Another says, ‘I know what you advise is good; but my will is quite averse to it.’ Must I tell him, ‘Then you are an unbeliever, under the wrath and the curse of God’? What will be the natural consequence of this? Why, if he believe what I say, his soul will not only be grieved and wounded but perhaps utterly destroyed; inasmuch as he will ‘cast away that confidence which hath great recompense of reward’.

And having cast away his shield, how shall he ‘quench the fiery darts of the wicked one’? How shall he overcome the world? Seeing ‘this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.’ He stands disarmed in the midst of his enemies, 325open to all their assaults. What wonder then if he be utterly overthrown, if they take him captive at their will; yea, if he fall from one wickedness to another, and never see good any more? I cannot therefore by any means receive this assertion ‘that there is no sin in a believer from the moment he is justified’. First, because it is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture; secondly, because it is contrary to the experience of the children of God; thirdly, because it is absolutely new, never heard of in the world till yesterday; and lastly, because it is naturally attended with the most fatal consequences, not only grieving those whom God hath not grieved, but perhaps dragging them into everlasting perdition.

4

1IV. 1. However, let us give a fair hearing to the chief arguments of those who endeavour to support it. And it is, first, from Scripture they attempt to prove that there is no sin in a believer. They argue thus: ‘The Scripture says every believer is “born of God”,

53

1 John 3:9; 4:7.

is “clean”,

54

John 15:3, etc.

is “holy”,

55

Eph. 1:4, etc.

is “sanctified”;

56

Rom. 15:16, etc.

is “pure in heart”,

57

Matt. 5:8.

has a new heart, is a temple of the Holy Ghost.

58

1 Cor. 6:19.

Now, as “that which is born of the flesh is flesh”, is altogether evil, so “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”,

59

John 3:6.

is altogether good. Again: a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy. He cannot be pure and impure, or have a new and an old heart together. Neither can his soul be unholy while it is a temple of the Holy Ghost.’

60

This pejorative summary of Moravian teachings should be compared with Zinzendorf’s public teaching, as in Nine Public Lectures on Important Subjects in Religion, Preached in Fetter Lane Chapel in London, 1746, ed., G. W. Forell (Iowa City, Iowa, University of Iowa Press, 1973); see espec. Lecture IV, ‘Concerning Saving Faith’, and Lecture VII, ‘On the Essential Character and Circumstances of the Life of a Christian’. Zinzendorf’s words and Wesley’s interpretation of them leave ground for pondering: was Wesley reading Zinzendorf in the light of the antinomian views of the English Moravians?

I have put this objection as strong as possible, that its full weight may appear. Let us now examine it, part by part. And (1). 326‘“That which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” is altogether good.’ I allow the text, but not the comment; for the text affirms this, and no more, that every man who is ‘born of the Spirit’ is a spiritual man. He is so. But so he may be, and yet not be altogether spiritual.

61

An interesting inversion of Wesley’s earlier doctrine of the radical difference between ‘almost’ and ‘altogether’ Christians; cf. No. 2, The Almost Christian, proem.

The Christians at Corinth were spiritual men; else they had been no Christians at all. And yet they were not altogether spiritual: they were still (in part) carnal. ‘But they were fallen from grace.’

62

Cf. Gal. 5:4.

St. Paul says, ‘No: they were even then “babes in Christ”.’

63

1 Cor. 3:1.

(2). ‘But a man cannot be clean, sanctified, holy, and at the same time unclean, unsanctified, unholy.’ Indeed he may. So the Corinthians were. ‘Ye are washed,’ says the Apostle, ‘ye are sanctified;’ namely cleansed from ‘fornication, idolatry, drunkenness’, and all other outward sin.

1 Cor 6:9, 10, 11.

And yet at the same time, in another sense of the word, they were unsanctified: they were not washed, not inwardly cleansed from envy, evil surmising, partiality. ‘But sure they had not a new heart and an old heart together.’ It is most sure they had; for at that very time their hearts were truly, yet not entirely, renewed. Their carnal mind was nailed to the cross; yet it was not wholly destroyed. ‘But could they be unholy while they were “temples of the Holy Ghost”?’

1 Cor. 6:19.

Yes, that they were ‘temples of the Holy Ghost’ is certain. And it is equally certain they were, in some degree, carnal, that is, unholy.

22. ‘However, there is one Scripture more which will put the matter out of question: “If any man be (a believer) in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.”

2 Cor. 5:17.

Now certainly a man cannot be a new creature and an old creature at once.’ Yes, he may: he may be partly renewed, which was the very case with those at Corinth. They were doubtless ‘renewed in the spirit of their mind’, or they could not have been so much as ‘babes in Christ’. Yet they had not the whole mind which was in Christ, for they envied one another. ‘But it is said expressly, “Old things are passed away: all things 327are become new.”’ But we must not so interpret the Apostle’s words as to make him contradict himself. And if we will make him consistent with himself the plain meaning of the words is this: his old judgment (concerning justification, holiness, happiness, indeed concerning the things of God in general) is now ‘passed away’; so are his old desires, designs, affections, tempers, and conversation. All these are undeniably ‘become new’, greatly changed from what they were. And yet, though they are new, they are not wholly new. Still he feels, to his sorrow and shame, remains of the ‘old man’, too manifest taints of his former tempers and affections, a law in his members which frequently fights against that law of his mind, though it cannot ‘gain any advantage’ over him as long as he ‘watches unto prayer’.

33. This whole argument, ‘If he is clean, he is clean,’ ‘if he is holy, he is holy’ (and twenty more expressions of the same kind may easily be heaped together) is really no better than playing upon words: it is the fallacy of arguing from a particular to a general,

of inferring a general conclusion from particular premises. Propose the sentence entire, and it runs thus: ‘If he is holy at all, he is holy altogether.’ That does not follow: every babe in Christ is holy, and yet not altogether so. He is saved from sin; yet not entirely: it remains, though it does not reign. If you think it does not remain (in babes at least, whatever be the case with young men, or fathers) you certainly have not considered the height and depth and length and breadth of the law of God (even the law of love laid down by St. Paul in the thirteenth of Corinthians); and that ‘every ἀνομία’, disconformity to, or deviation from this law, ‘is sin.’ Now, is there no disconformity to this in the heart or life of a believer? What may be in an adult Christian is another question. But what a stranger must he be to human nature who can possibly imagine that this is the case with every babe in Christ!328

44.

‘But believers “walk after the Spirit”,

Rom. 8:1.

and the Spirit of God dwells in them. Consequently they are delivered from the guilt, the power, or, in one word, the being of sin.’

These are coupled together as if they were the same thing. But they are not the same thing. The guilt is one thing, the power another, and the being yet another. That believers are delivered from the guilt and power of sin we allow; that they are delivered from the being of it we deny. Nor does it in any wise follow from these texts. A man may have the Spirit of God dwelling in him, and may ‘walk after the Spirit’,

though he still feels ‘the flesh lusting against the Spirit’.

55. ‘But the “church is the body of Christ”.

This implies that its members are washed from all filthiness; otherwise it will follow that Christ and Belial are incorporated with each other.’

Nay, it will not follow from hence—‘Those who are the mystical body of Christ still feel the flesh lusting against the 329Spirit’—that Christ has any fellowship with the devil, or with that sin which he enables them to resist and overcome.

66. ‘But are not Christians “come to the heavenly Jerusalem”, where “nothing defiled can enter”?’

Yes; ‘and to an innumerable company of angels’, ‘and to the spirits of just men made perfect’:

Heb. 12:22-23.

that is,

For quotations of other lines from this hymn, cf. Nos. 107, ‘On God’s Vineyard’, II.6; and 132, ‘On Faith, Heb. 11:1’, §6.

And they are likewise holy and undefiled while they ‘walk after the Spirit’;

although sensible there is another principle in them, and that ‘these are contrary to each other’.

77. ‘But Christians are “reconciled to God”.

Now this could not be if any of the “carnal mind” remained; for this “is enmity against God”. Consequently no reconciliation can be effected but by its total destruction.’

We ‘are reconciled to God through the blood of the cross’.

And in that moment, the φρόνημα σαρκός, the corruption of nature which is ‘enmity with God’, is put under our feet. The flesh has ‘no more dominion over us’. But it still exists; and it is still in its nature enmity with God, lusting against his Spirit.

88. ‘But “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts.”’

They have so; yet it remains in them still, and often struggles to break from the cross. ‘Nay, but they have 330“put off the old man with his deeds.”’

Col. 3:9.

They have; and in the sense above-described, ‘old things are passed away; all things are become new.’ An hundred texts may be cited to the same effect. And they will all admit of the same answer. ‘But, to say all in one word, “Christ gave himself for the church, that…it might be holy and without blemish.”’

Eph. 5:25, 27.

And so it will be in the end: but it never was yet, from the beginning to this day.

99. ‘But let experience speak: all who are justified do at that time find an absolute freedom from all sin.’

That I doubt; but if they do, do they find it ever after? Else you gain nothing. ‘If they do not, it is their own fault.’ That remains to be proved.

1010. ‘But, in the very nature of things, can a man have pride in him, and not be proud? Anger, and yet not be angry?’

A man may have pride in him, may think of himself in some particulars above what he ought to think (and so be proud in that particular) and yet not be a proud man in his general character. He may have anger in him, yea, and a strong propensity to furious anger, without giving way to it. ‘But can anger and pride be in that heart where only meekness and humility are felt?’ No; but some pride and anger may be in that heart where there is much humility and meekness.

‘It avails not to say these tempers are there, but they do not reign; for sin cannot in any kind or degree exist where it does not reign; for guilt and power are essential properties of sin. Therefore where one of them is, all must be.’

Strange indeed! ‘Sin cannot in any kind or degree exist where it 331does not reign’? Absolutely contrary this to all experience, all Scripture, all common sense. Resentment of an affront is sin. It is ἀνομία, disconformity to the law of love.

This has existed in me a thousand times. Yet it did not, and does not, reign. But ‘guilt and power are essential properties of sin; therefore where one is, all must be.’ No; in the instance before us, if the resentment I feel is not yielded to, even for a moment, there is no guilt at all, no condemnation from God upon that account. And in this case it has no power: though it ‘lusteth against the Spirit’ it cannot prevail. Here, therefore, as in ten thousand instances, there is sin without either guilt or power.

1111. ‘But the supposing sin in a believer is pregnant with everything frightful and discouraging. It implies the contending with a power that has the possession of our strength, maintains his usurpation of our hearts, and there prosecutes the war in defiance of our Redeemer.’ Not so. The supposing sin is in us does not imply that it has the possession of our strength; no more than a man crucified has the possession of those that crucify him. As little does it imply that sin ‘maintains its usurpation of our hearts’. The usurper is dethroned. He remains indeed where he once reigned; but remains in chains. So that he does in some sense ‘prosecute the war’, yet he grows weaker and weaker, while the believer goes on from strength to strength, conquering and to conquer.

1212. ‘I am not satisfied yet. He that has sin in him is a slave to sin. Therefore you suppose a man to be justified while he is a slave to sin. Now if you allow men may be justified while they have pride, anger, or unbelief in them—nay if you aver these are (at least for a time) in all that are justified—what wonder that we have so many proud, angry, unbelieving believers!’

I do not suppose any man who is justified is a slave to sin. Yet I do suppose sin remains (at least for a time) in all that are justified. ‘But if sin remains in a believer he is a sinful man: if pride, for instance, then he is proud; if self-will, then he is self-willed; if unbelief, then he is an unbeliever—consequently, no believer at 332all. How then does he differ from unbelievers, from unregenerate men?’

This is still mere playing upon words. It means no more than, ‘If there is sin, pride, self-will in him, then—there is sin, pride, self-will.’ And this nobody can deny. In that sense, then, he is proud or self-willed. But he is not proud or self-willed in the same sense that unbelievers are, that is, governed by pride or self-will. Herein he differs from unregenerate men. They obey sin; he does not. Flesh is in them both. But they ‘walk after the flesh’; he ‘walks after the Spirit’.

‘But how can unbelief be in a believer?’ That word has two meanings. It means either no faith, or little faith; either the absence of faith, or the weakness of it. In the former sense, unbelief is not in a believer; in the latter, it is in all babes. Their faith is commonly mixed with doubt or fear, that is (in the latter sense) with unbelief. ‘Why are ye fearful,’ says our Lord, ‘O ye of little faith?’

Again, ‘O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?’ You see, here was unbelief in believers: little faith and much unbelief.

1313. ‘But this doctrine—that sin remains in a believer, that a man may be in the favour of God while he has sin in his heart—certainly tends to encourage men in sin.’ Understand the proposition right, and no such consequence follows. A man may be in God’s favour though he feel sin; but not if he yields to it. Having sin does not forfeit the favour of God; giving way to sin does. Though the flesh in you ‘lust against the Spirit’, you may still be a child of God. But if you ‘walk after the flesh’, you are a child of the devil. Now, this doctrine does not encourage to obey sin, but to resist it with all our might.

5

1V. 1. The sum of all is this: there are in every person, even after he is justified, two contrary principles, nature and grace, termed by St. Paul the ‘flesh’ and the ‘spirit’. Hence although even babes in Christ are sanctified, yet it is only in part. In a degree, according to the measure of their faith, they are spiritual; yet in a degree they are carnal. Accordingly, believers are continually exhorted to 333watch against the flesh, as well as the world and the devil.

97

BCP, Litany.

And to this agrees the constant experience of the children of God. While they feel this witness in themselves they feel a will not wholly resigned to the will of God. They know they are in him, and yet find an heart ready to depart from him, a proneness to evil in many instances, and a backwardness to that which is good. The contrary doctrine is wholly new; never heard of in the church of Christ from the time of his coming into the world till the time of Count Zinzendorf.

98

See above, I.5 and n., and III.9 and n.

And it is attended with the most fatal consequences. It cuts off all watching against our evil nature, against the Delilah which we are told is gone, though she is still lying in our bosom.

99

Judg. 16. Cf. also Matthew Mead, The Almost Christian Discovered, p. 107: ‘There is a natural man, let him go never so far, let him go never so much in matters of religion, but still he hath his Delilah, his bosom lust.’ For Wesley’s use of ‘bosom sin’, cf. No. 48, ‘Self-denial’, II.2 and n.

It tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith,

100

Cf. Eph. 6:16.

and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

22. Let us therefore hold fast the sound doctrine ‘once delivered to the saints’,

101

Jude 3.

and delivered down by them with the written word to all succeeding generations: that although we are renewed, cleansed, purified, sanctified, the moment we truly believe in Christ, yet we are not then renewed, cleansed, purified altogether; but the flesh, the evil nature, still remains (though subdued) and wars against the Spirit

102

As explicit a version of the ‘saved and yet also a sinner at one and the same time’ as one might ask for. This should be compared to other passages where Wesley himself comes closer to claiming for Christians ‘the power not to sin’ or, indeed, close enough to a doctrine of sinless perfection as to allow for its development in some of his nineteenth-century followers, in his name. Cf. Nos. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.20, III.2; 40, Christian Perfection, II.1-30; 42, ‘Satan’s Devices’, I.1; and see 109, The Trouble and Rest of Good Men, II.4 (which stands almost in contrast on this point to the sermon on Christian Perfection). Cf. also A Plain Account of Christian Perfection; The Principles of a Methodist, §§11-12; and Some Remarks on a Defence of…Aspasio Vindicated, §4. Wesley’s prefaces to the earliest editions of the Hymns and Sacred Poems contain some of the strongest, least nuanced statements of perfection in the Wesley corpus; without the phrase itself, they come close to advocating ‘sinless perfection’ (see Bibliog, Nos. 13, 40, 54, and the text in Vol. 12 of this edn.). Cf. also his letter to Revd. Mr. Plenderlieth, May 23, 1768, and to Thomas Olivers, Mar. 24, 1757.

So much the more let us use all diligence in ‘fighting the good fight of faith’.

103

Cf. 1 Tim. 6:12.

So much the 334more earnestly let us ‘watch and pray’

104

Matt. 26:41; Mark 13:33.

against the enemy within. The more carefully let us ‘take to’ ourselves and ‘put on the whole armour of God’; that although ‘we wrestle’ both with ‘flesh and blood, and with principalities and powers, and wicked spirits in high places, we may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand’.

105

Cf. Eph. 6:11-13.