Sermon

# found: 0

Toggle:

Notes:

Sermon 48: Self-Denial

https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon048

02:236 An Introductory Comment

The concluding trio of sermons in SOSO, IV, suggest that Wesley had finally rounded out his exposition of the ‘order of salvation’ with his paired essays on the difference between spiritual ‘darkness’ and ‘heaviness’. It was, therefore, time to turn to other, separate problems that continued to arise in any programme of Christian living. This sequence would have seemed natural enough, since Wesley’s concept of theology as a scientia practica had always meant to him that evangelical doctrine entailed a series of ethical imperatives which issued, in turn, from clear conceptions of sound doctrine.

It may be somewhat startling to read that, until this sermon, ‘no writer in the English tongue [had] described the nature of self-denial in plain and intelligible terms,’ when one considers the popularity of this topic in Puritan preaching and such familiar classics as Richard Baxter’s Treatise of Self-Denyall (1660, 1675); William Penn, No Cross, No Crown… (1669, 1682); Jeremy Taylor, The Rule and Exercises of Holy Living (1650), and The Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying (1651), Works, I.399-515, 516-604; Thomas Manton, A Treatise of Self-Denial… in Works (1689), IV.17ff; and William Law, Christian Perfection, and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (1729), in Works, Vols. III and IV. And it goes without saying that a reader is free to judge how far Wesley may be compared with such predecessors.

What he may have had more directly in mind was the fact that the tradition on self-denial had rested on a general consensus, at least in an approval of the ideal. The conventional form of the problem had always come from the discrepancies between profession and practice. In his own lifetime, however, Wesley had seen even the ideal decried, both by the spreading fashions of self-advertised ostentation in eighteenth-century culture and by a rising tide of antinomian rejection of self-denial, on principle. As far back as 1741 he had been shocked by Count von Zinzendorf’s scornful dismissal of self-abnegation as a Christian virtue (cf. JWJ, September 3, 1741: ‘We believers do as we please and nothing more; we laugh at all talk of “mortification”’). He had gone on to retort 02:237to this in kind, in his own General Rules of 1743, by instructing the Methodists to ‘trample under foot that enthusiastic doctrine of devils that “we are not to do good unless our heart be free to it.”’ But the tendency of the new piety to turn ‘Christian liberty’ into self-indulgence had persisted; there was evident need for yet another distillation of the ancient Christian wisdom on ‘cross-bearing’ and self-surrender to the will of God; hence, this present sermon.

The idea, as Wesley defines it here, had been a childhood commonplace in his family; it had been a major premise in Susanna’s theory of Christian nurture.

See Nos. 95, On the Education of Children’, and 96, ‘On Obedience to Parents’.

A sermon on this topic appears as No. 25 in Wesley’s own list of his early sermons.

See Heitzenrater, ‘John Wesley’s Early Sermons’, p. 117.

He had preached on Luke 9:23 in Savannah, and very shortly after his return to England (February 21, 1738) he had used the same text for a sermon in one of the oldest churches in the City of London, Great St. Helen’s (in Bishopsgate). In the Journal for August 16, 1744, he had printed a letter about self-denial from his friend, the Revd. Henry Piers (Vicar of Bexley), and a few months later (February 17, 1745), he had inserted another letter into the Journal on the same theme, from his ‘book steward’, William Briggs.

Since then, however, his use of Luke 9:23 had been sparse (only twice, both in 1755). One may suppose, therefore, that our text here had been written expressly for inclusion in the fourth volume of his SOSO; it should be noticed how much more clearly this sermon reflects the problem as it had to be perceived in the 1750s than it would have appeared in 1738. It was, of course, reprinted in the successive editions of SOSO, but never separately.

02:238 Self-Denial

Luke 9:23

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

11. It has been frequently imagined that the direction here given related chiefly, if not wholly, to the apostles; at least to the Christians of the first ages, or those in a state of persecution. But this is a grievous mistake; for although our blessed Lord is here directing his discourse more immediately to his apostles and those other disciples who attended him in the days of his flesh, yet in them he speaks to us, and to all mankind, without any exception or limitation. The very reason of the thing puts it beyond dispute that the duty which is here enjoined is not peculiar to them, or to the Christians of the early ages. It no more regards any particular order of men, or particular time, than any particular country. No; it is of the most universal nature, respecting all times and all persons. Yea, and all things—not meats and drinks only, and things pertaining to the senses. The meaning is, ‘If any man’, of whatever rank, station, circumstances, in any nation, in any age of the world, ‘will’ effectually ‘come after me, let him deny himself in all things; let him take up his cross’ of whatever kind, yea, and that ‘daily, and follow me.’

22. The ‘denying’ ourselves and the ‘taking up our cross’, in the full extent of the expression, is not a thing of small concern. It is not expedient only, as are some of the circumstantials of religion; but it is absolutely, indispensably necessary, either to our becoming or continuing his disciples. It is absolutely necessary, in the very nature of the thing, to our ‘coming after him’ and ‘following him’, insomuch that as far as we do not practise it we are not his disciples. If we do not continually ‘deny ourselves’, we do not learn of him, but of other masters. If we do not ‘take up our cross daily’, we do not ‘come after him’, but after the world, or the prince 02:239of the world, or our own ‘fleshly mind’.

Col. 2:18.

If we are not walking in the way of the cross, we are not following him; we are not treading in his steps, but going back from, or at least wide of, him.

33. It is for this reason that so many ministers of Christ in almost every age and nation, particularly since the Reformation of the Church from the innovations and corruptions gradually crept into it, have wrote and spoke so largely on this important duty, both in their public discourses and private exhortations. This induced them to disperse abroad many tracts upon the subject; and some in our own nation. They knew both from the oracles of God and from the testimony of their own experience how impossible it was not to deny our Master, unless we will deny ourselves; and how vainly we attempt to follow him that was crucified, unless we take up our cross daily.

44. But may not this very consideration make it reasonable to inquire, ‘If so much has been said and wrote on the subject already, what need is there to say or write any more?’ I answer, there are no inconsiderable numbers, even of people fearing God, who have not had the opportunity either of hearing what has been spoke, or reading what has been wrote upon it. And perhaps if they had read much of what has been written they would not have been much profited. Many who have wrote (some of them large volumes) do by no means appear to have understood the subject. Either they had imperfect views of the very nature of it (and then they could never explain it to others) or they were unacquainted with the due extent of it; they did not see how exceeding broad this command is; or they were not sensible of the absolute, the indispensable necessity of it. Others speak of it in so dark, so perplexed, so intricate, so mystical a manner, as if they designed rather to conceal it from the vulgar than to explain it to common readers.

It may be William Law that he has in mind here, or even Madame Guyon; but it is true that he found such classics as St. John of the Cross’s Ascent of Mt. Carmel somewhat ‘dark, perplexed, and intricate’.

Others speak admirably well, with great clearness and strength, on the necessity of self-denial; but then they deal in generals only, without coming to particular instances, and so are of little use to the bulk of mankind, to men of ordinary capacity and education. And if some of them do descend to particulars, it is to those particulars only which do not affect the generality of men, since they seldom, if ever, occur in common life: such as the enduring imprisonment or tortures; the giving up, 02:240in a literal sense, their houses or lands, their husbands or wives, children, or life itself—to none of which we are called, nor are likely to be, unless God should permit times of public persecution to return. In the meantime, I know of no writer in the English tongue

Note the assumption here that Wesley’s readers would not have been interested in cross-checking on so confident a generality.

who has described the nature of self-denial in plain and intelligible terms such as lie level with common understandings, and applied it to those little particulars which daily occur in common life. A discourse of this kind is wanted still. And it is wanted the more because in every stage of the spiritual life, although there is a variety of particular hindrances of our attaining grace or growing therein, yet are all resolvable into these general ones—either we do not deny ourselves, or we do not take up our cross.

In order to supply this defect in some degree, I shall endeavour to show, first, what it is for a man to deny himself, and what to take up his cross; and secondly, that if a man be not fully Christ’s disciple, it is always owing to the want of this.

1I. 1. I shall, first, endeavour to show what it is for a man to ‘deny himself and take up his cross daily’. This is a point which is of all others most necessary to be considered and throughly understood, even on this account, that it is of all others most opposed, by numerous and powerful enemies. All our nature must certainly rise up against this, even in its own defence. The world, consequently, the men who take nature, not grace, for their guide, abhor the very sound of it. And the great enemy of our souls, well knowing its importance, cannot but move every stone against it. But this is not all: even those who have in some measure shaken off the yoke of the devil, who have experienced, especially of late years, a real work of grace in their hearts, yet are no friends to this grand doctrine of Christianity, though it is so peculiarly insisted on by their Master. Some of them are as deeply and totally ignorant concerning it as if there was not one word about it in the Bible. Others are farther off still, having unawares imbibed strong prejudices against it. These they have received partly from outside Christians—men of a fair speech and behaviour who want nothing of godliness but the power, nothing of religion but the spirit—and partly from those who did once, if they do not now, ‘taste of the powers of the world to come’.

Cf. Heb. 6:5.

But are there any 02:241of these who do not both practise self-denial themselves and recommend it to others? You are little acquainted with mankind if you doubt of this. There are whole bodies of men who only do not declare war against it. To go no farther than London, look upon the whole body of predestinarians who by the free mercy of God have lately been called out of the darkness of nature into the light of faith.

See Col. 1:12-13.

Are they patterns of self-denial? How few of them even profess to practise it at all! How few of them recommend it themselves, or are pleased with them that do! Rather do they not continually represent it in the most odious colours, as if it were seeking salvation by works, or ‘seeking to establish our own righteousness’?

Cf. Rom. 10:3; a caricature that ignores the commonplace that men like Thomas Manton, Lewis Bayley, George Whitefield (indeed, most Calvinists) taught both predestination and self-denial. Wesley may have had a special group in mind—e.g., John Cennick, William Cudworth, James Relty, and their disciples.

And how readily do antinomians of all kinds, from the smooth Moravian

A sarcastic reference to the elegant Count von Zinzendorf?

to the boisterous foul-mouthed Ranter,

If this is a reference to George Fox (cf. the ‘foul-mouthed…George Fox’ in No. 68, ‘The Wisdom of God’s Counsels’, §9), Wesley has confused his seventeenth-century church history. The Ranters proper (men like Laurence Clarkson, Abiezer Coope, Thomas Tany) were indeed famous for their indifference to customary morality and their cultic swearing, but they were condemned and disowned by the Quakers and even by the Muggletonians (‘The Seekers’). Cf. Robert Barclay, The Anarchy of the Ranters, and Other Libertines… (1676); abridged in Barbour and Roberts, Early Quaker Writings, pp. 215 ff. Ironically, the ‘Primitive Methodists’ of the early nineteenth century were also called ‘Ranters’, because of their boisterous preaching services and class meetings.

join the cry with their silly unmeaning cant of ‘legality’, and ‘preaching the law’! Therefore you are in constant danger of being wheedled, hectored, or ridiculed out of this important gospel doctrine either by false teachers or false brethren (more or less beguiled from the simplicity of the gospel) if you are not deeply grounded therein. Let fervent prayer then go before, accompany, and follow what you are now about to read, that it may be written in your heart by the finger of God, so as never to be erased.

22. But what is self-denial? Wherein are we to deny ourselves? And whence does the necessity of this arise? I answer, the will of God is the supreme, unalterable rule for every intelligent creature; equally binding every angel in heaven and every man upon earth. Nor can it be otherwise: this is the natural, necessary result of the relation between creatures and their Creator. But if the will of God be our one rule of action in everything, great and 02:242small, it follows by undeniable consequence that we are not to do our own will in anything. Here therefore we see at once the nature, with the ground and reason, of self-denial. We see the nature of self-denial: it is the denying or refusing to follow our own will, from a conviction that the will of God is the only rule of action to us. And we see the reason thereof, because we are creatures; because ‘it is he that hath made us and not we ourselves.’

Ps. 100:3 (AV).

33. This reason for self-denial must hold even with regard to the angels of God in heaven; and with regard to man, innocent and holy, as he came out of the hands of his Creator. But a farther reason for it arises from the condition wherein all men are since the Fall. We are all now ‘shapen in wickedness, and in sin did our mother conceive us’.

Cf. Ps. 51:5 (BCP).

Our nature is altogether corrupt, in every power and faculty. And our will, depraved equally with the rest, is wholly bent to indulge our natural corruption. On the other hand, it is the will of God that we resist and counteract that corruption, not at some times, or in some things only, but at all times, and in all things. Here therefore is a farther ground for constant and universal self-denial.

44. To illustrate this a little farther. The will of God is a path leading straight to God. The will of man which once ran parallel with it is now another path, not only different from it, but in our present state directly contrary to it. It leads from God; if therefore we walk in the one, we must necessarily quit the other. We cannot walk in both. Indeed a man of ‘faint heart and feeble hands’ may ‘go in two ways’,

Cf. Ecclus. 2:12.

one after the other; but he cannot walk in two ways at the same time. He cannot at one and the same time follow his own will and follow the will of God; he must choose the one or the other—denying God’s will to follow his own, or denying himself to follow the will of God.

55. Now it is undoubtedly pleasing for the time to follow our own will, by indulging, in any instance that offers, the corruption of our nature. But by following it in anything we so far strengthen the perverseness of our will; and by indulging it we continually increase the corruption of our nature. So by the food which is agreeable to the palate we often increase a bodily disease. It gratifies the taste; but it inflames the disorder. It brings pleasure; but it also brings death.

602:2436. On the whole, then, to deny ourselves is to deny our own will where it does not fall in with the will of God, and that however pleasing it may be. It is to deny ourselves any pleasure which does not spring from, and lead to, God; that is, in effect, to refuse going out of our way, though into a pleasant, flowery path; to refuse what we know to be deadly poison, though agreeable to the taste.

77. And everyone that would follow Christ, that would be his real disciple, must not only ‘deny himself’, but ‘take up his cross’ also. A cross is anything contrary to our will, anything displeasing to our nature.

A notable and rare instance of allegorical interpretation; see also No. 99, The Reward of Righteousness, §4. Wesley’s standard rule, of course, was that all Scripture is to be interpreted literally unless this leads into an absurdity; cf. No. 21, ‘Sermon on the Mount, I’, §6 and n.

So that taking up our cross goes a little farther than denying ourselves; it rises a little higher, and is a more difficult task to flesh and blood, it being more easy to forego pleasure than to endure pain.

88. Now in ‘running the race which is set before us’

Cf. Heb. 12:1.

according to the will of God, there is often a cross lying in the way; that is, something which is not only not joyous, but grievous, something which is contrary to our will, which is displeasing to our nature. What then is to be done? The choice is plain: either we must ‘take up our cross’, or we must turn aside from the way of God, ‘from the holy commandment delivered to us’

Cf. 2 Pet. 2:21.

—if we do not stop altogether, or turn back to everlasting perdition.

99. In order to the healing of that corruption, that evil disease which every man brings with him into the world, it is often needful to pluck out as it were a right eye, to cut off a right hand; so painful is either the thing itself which must be done, or the only means of doing it; the parting suppose with a foolish desire,

1 Tim. 6:9 (Notes).

with an inordinate affection;

Col. 3:5.

or a separation from the object of it, without which it can never be extinguished. In the former kind, the tearing away such a desire or affection when it is deeply rooted in the soul is often like the piercing of a sword, yea, like ‘the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, the joints and marrow’.

Cf. Heb. 4:12. There is a personal note of remembered anguish here, for Wesley had experienced two profoundly disturbing misadventures in love—the successive loss of the only two women he had ever really loved romantically. The first was the Sophy Hopkey affair in Georgia, to which there are some clues in the printed Journal, more in Wesley’s diary, but the fullest in his several MS journals of his experiences in Georgia, which will appear in print for the first time in the appendix to Vol. 18 of this edn., containing the Journals and diaries for Georgia. The scars of this disappointment may be seen as late as Dec. 23, 1782 (in a letter to an unnamed friend), and in his letters to Samuel Bradburn, Feb. 14, 1786, and to Thomas Roberts, Feb. 12, 1789. Even more deeply disturbing, and more recent, had been his espousal to Grace Murray and his loss of her to John Bennet (through the meddling offices of his brother and George Whitefield); cf. JWJ, July 20-Oct 15, 1749; also Wesley’s MS account of her from her birth to her marriage to Bennet (BL Add. MSS. 7119), published in J. A. Leger, John Wesley’s Last Love (London, J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1910); see also, Curnock, III.417-22. There are not many more pathetic letters in the Wesley corpus than the one to Thomas Bigg, Oct. 7, 1749, expressing his anguish over ‘the fatal, irrecoverable stroke [that] was struck on Thursday last’, when he and Grace Murray ‘were torn asunder by a whirlwind’ (see 26:388-89 in this edn.).

02:244The Lord then sits upon the soul ‘as a refiner’s fire’,

Cf. Mal. 3:2, 3.

to burn up all the dross thereof. And this is a cross indeed; it is essentially painful; it must be so in the very nature of the thing. The soul cannot be thus torn asunder, it cannot pass through the fire, without pain.

1010. In the latter kind, the means to heal a sin-sick soul,

‘Sin-sick soul’ had been a part of poetic diction for over a century, and was becoming almost a religious cliché, even in prose, found in Brooke’s Fool of Quality, Cowper’s Olney Hymns, and in the Wesleys’ Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739), p. 92: ‘Pity and heal my sin-sick soul.’ (Cf. OED.)

to cure a foolish desire, an inordinate affection, are often painful, not in the nature of the thing, but from the nature of the disease. So when our Lord said to the rich young man, ‘Go sell that thou hast and give it to the poor’ (as well knowing this was the only means of healing his covetousness), the very thought of it gave him so much pain that ‘he went away sorrowful’;

Matt. 19:21-22.

choosing rather to part with his hope of heaven than his possessions on earth. This was a burden he could not consent to lift, a cross he would not take up. And in the one kind or the other every follower of Christ will surely have need to ‘take up his cross daily’.

1111. The ‘taking up’ differs a little from ‘bearing his cross’. We are then properly said to ‘bear our cross’ when we endure what is laid upon us without our choice, with meekness and resignation. Whereas we do not properly ‘take up our cross’ but when we voluntarily suffer what it is in our power to avoid; when we willingly embrace the will of God, though contrary to our own; when we choose what is painful because it is the will of our wise and gracious Creator.

1212. And thus it behoves every disciple of Christ to ‘take up’ as well as to ‘bear his cross’. Indeed in one sense it is not his alone: it 02:245is common to him and many others, seeing ‘there is no temptation befalls any man’, εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος, ‘but such as is common to men’,

Cf. 1 Cor. 10:13.

such as is incident and adapted to their common nature and situation in the present world. But in another sense, as it is considered with all its circumstances, it is his; peculiar to himself. It is prepared of God for him; it is given by God to him, as a token of his love. And if he receives it as such, and (after using such means to remove the pressure as Christian wisdom directs) lies as clay in the potter’s hand,

See Jer. 18:6.

it is disposed and ordered by God for his good, both with regard to the quality of it and in respect to its quantity and degree, its duration, and every other circumstance.

1313. In all this we may easily conceive our blessed Lord to act as the physician of our souls, not merely ‘for his own pleasure, but for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness’.

Cf. Heb. 12:10.

If in searching our wounds he puts us to pain, it is only in order to heal them. He cuts away what is putrified or unsound in order to preserve the sound part. And if we freely choose the loss of a limb, rather than the whole body should perish, how much more should we choose, figuratively, to cut off a right hand, rather than the whole soul should be cast into hell!

See Matt. 5:30.

1414. We see plainly, then, both the nature and ground of ‘taking up our cross’. It does not imply the ‘disciplining ourselves’ (as some speak), the literally tearing our own flesh: the wearing haircloth, or iron girdles, or anything else that would impair our bodily health (although we know not what allowance God may make for those who act thus through involuntary ignorance), but the embracing the will of God, though contrary to our own; the choosing wholesome, though bitter, medicines; the freely accepting temporary pain, of whatever kind, and in whatever degree, when it is either essentially or accidentally necessary to eternal pleasure.

1II. 1. I am, secondly, to show that it is always owing to the want either of self-denial or taking up his cross that any man does not throughly ‘follow him’, is not fully a ‘disciple’ of Christ.

It is true this may be partly owing, in some cases, to the want of the means of grace; of hearing the true word of God spoken with power; of the sacraments; or of Christian fellowship. But where 02:246none of these is wanting, the great hindrance of our receiving or growing in the grace of God

See 2 Pet. 3:18.

is always the want of denying ourselves or taking up our cross.

22. A few instances will make this plain. A man hears the word which is able to save his soul. He is well pleased with what he hears, acknowledges the truth, and is a little affected by it. Yet he remains ‘dead in trespasses and sins’,

Eph. 2:1.

senseless and unawakened. Why is this? Because he will not part with his bosom sin,

See below, No. 62, ‘The End of Christ’s Coming’, §1, for Wesley’s quotation of George Herbert’s use of this phrase in verse. Cf. also Nos. 13, On Sin in Believers, V.1; and 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.3. For Wesley’s frequent usage of such phrases as ‘bosom sin’, ‘darling sin’, ‘darling lust’, etc.; cf. No. 25, ‘Sermon on the Mount, V’, III.2 and n.

though he now knows it is an abomination to the Lord. He came to hear, full of lust and unholy desires; and he will not part with them. Therefore no deep impression is made upon him, but his foolish heart is still hardened; that is, he is still senseless and unawakened, because he will not ‘deny himself’.

33. Suppose he begins to awake out of sleep, and his eyes are a little opened, why are they so quickly closed again? Why does he again sink into the sleep of death? Because he again yields to his bosom sin; he drinks again of the pleasing poison. Therefore it is impossible that any lasting impression should be made upon his heart; that is, he relapses into his fatal insensibility because he will not ‘deny himself’.

44. But this is not the case with all. We have many instances of those who when once awakened sleep no more. The impressions once received do not wear away; they are not only deep, but lasting. And yet many of these have not found what they seek; they mourn, and yet are not comforted. Now why is this? It is because they do not ‘bring forth fruits meet for repentance’;

Matt. 3:8.

because they do not, according to the grace they have received, ‘cease from evil and do good’.

Cf. Isa. 1:16, 17.

They do not cease from the easily besetting sin,

See Heb. 12:1; and also Notes.

the sin of their constitution, of their education, or of their profession. Or they omit doing the good they may, and know they ought to do, because of some disagreeable circumstance attending it; that is, they do not attain faith, because they will not ‘deny themselves’, or ‘take up their cross’.

55. ‘But this man did receive “the heavenly gift”.

Heb. 6:4.

He did “taste 02:247 of the powers of the world to come”.

Cf. Heb. 6:5.

He saw “the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”.

2 Cor. 4:6.

The “peace which passeth all understanding” did “rule his heart and mind”;

Cf. Phil. 4:7.

and the love of God was shed abroad

See Rom. 5:5.

therein by the Holy Ghost which was given unto him. Yet he is now weak as another man. He again relishes the things of earth, and has more taste for the things which are seen than for those which are not seen.

Cf. 2 Cor. 4:18.

The eye of his understanding

See Eph. 1:18.

is closed again, so that he cannot “see him that is invisible”.

Cf. Heb. 11:27.

His love is waxed cold, and the peace of God no longer rules in his heart.’ And no marvel: for he has again given place to the devil, and grieved the Holy Spirit of God.

See Eph. 4:30.

He has turned again unto folly, to some pleasing sin, if not in outward act, yet in heart. He has given place to pride, or anger, or desire; to self-will, or stubbornness. Or he did not stir up the gift of God which was in him;

See 2 Tim. 1:6.

he gave way to spiritual sloth, and would not be at the pains of ‘praying always, and watching thereunto with all perseverance’;

Eph. 6:18.

that is, he made shipwreck of the faith

1 Tim. 1:19.

for want of self-denial and ‘taking up his cross daily’.

66. But perhaps he has not made shipwreck of the faith: he has still a measure of the Spirit of adoption, which continues to witness with his spirit that he is a child of God.

Rom. 8:15-16.

However, he is not ‘going on to perfection’;

Cf. Heb. 6:1.

he is not, as once, hungering and thirsting after righteousness,

See Matt. 5:6.

panting after the whole image and full enjoyment of God, as the hart after the water-brook.

See Ps. 42:1.

Rather he is weary and faint in his mind, and as it were hovering between life and death. And why is he thus, but because he hath forgotten the word of God, ‘By works is faith made perfect’?

Cf. Jas. 2:22.

He does not use all diligence in working the works of God. He does not ‘continue instant in prayer’,

Rom. 12:12.

private as well as public; in communicating, hearing, meditation, fasting, and religious conference. If he does not wholly neglect some of these means, at least he does not use them all, with his might. Or he is not zealous of works of charity,

See Titus 2:14.

as well as works of piety. He is not merciful after his power, with the full ability which God giveth. He does 02:248not fervently serve the Lord by doing good to men, in every kind and in every degree he can, to their souls as well as their bodies. And why does he not continue in prayer? Because in times of dryness it is pain and grief unto him. He does not continue in hearing at all opportunities, because sleep is sweet; or it is cold, or dark, or rainy. But why does he not continue in works of mercy?

For this pairing of piety (here ‘prayer’) and mercy, cf. No. 14, The Repentance of Believers, I.13 and n. 65.

Because he cannot feed the hungry, or clothe the naked, unless he retrench the expense of his own apparel, or use cheaper and less pleasing food. Beside which the visiting the sick or those that are in prison is attended with many disagreeable circumstances. And so are most works of spiritual mercy—reproof, in particular. He would reprove his neighbour; but sometimes shame, sometimes fear, comes between. For he may expose himself not only to ridicule but to heavier inconveniences too. Upon these and the like considerations he omits one or more, if not all, works of mercy and piety. Therefore his faith is not made perfect, neither can he grow in grace; namely, because he will not ‘deny himself, and take up his daily cross’.

77. It manifestly follows that it is always owing to the want either of self-denial or taking up his cross that a man does not throughly follow his Lord, that he is not fully a disciple of Christ. It is owing to this that he who is dead in sin does not awake, though the trumpet be blown;

See Amos 3:16; this is both the text and theme of No. 143, ‘Public Diversions Denounced’.

that he who begins to awake out of sleep yet has no deep or lasting conviction; that he who is deeply and lastingly convinced of sin does not attain remission of sins; that some who have received this heavenly gift retain it not, but make shipwreck of the faith; and that others, if they do not draw back to perdition, yet are weary and faint in their mind, and do not reach the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

See Phil. 3:14.

1III. 1. How easily may we learn hence that they know neither the Scripture nor the power of God who directly or indirectly, in public or in private, oppose the doctrine of self-denial and the daily cross! How totally ignorant are these men of an hundred particular texts, as well as of the general tenor of the whole oracles of God! And how entirely unacquainted must they be with true, 02:249genuine, Christian experience! Of the manner wherein the Holy Spirit ever did, and does at this day, work in the souls of men! They may talk indeed very loudly and confidently (a natural fruit of ignorance), as though they were the only men who understood either the Word of God, or the experience of his children. But their words are, in every sense, ‘vain words’:

Exod. 5:9.

they are weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Dan. 5:27.

22. We may learn from hence, secondly, the real cause why not only many particular persons, but even bodies of men, who were once burning and shining lights,

See John 5:35.

have now lost both their light and heat. If they did not hate and oppose, they at least lightly esteemed this precious gospel doctrine. If they did not boldly say, Abnegationem omnem proculcamus, internecioni damus (‘We trample all self-denial under foot, we devote it to destruction’),

An echo of the debate, in Latin, between Wesley and Count von Zinzendorf in Gray’s Inn Walks, Sept. 3, 1741, reported in Wesley’s version in the Journal. There, Zinzendorf is quoted as saying, ‘Abnegationem omnem respuimus, conculcamus’ (lit. ‘we spew out all abnegations [self-denials], we tread them under foot’). Proculcamus is a synonym for conculcamus, and this tends to confirm the impression that Wesley reconstructed his reports from memory, then and here. The addition of internecioni damus is out of order; ad internecionem do is a fragment from an earlier passage in the debate. For other references to Zinzendorf, see No. 13, On Sin in Believers, I.5 and n.

yet they neither valued it according to its high importance, nor took any pains in practising it. Hanc mystici docent, said that great, bad man—‘The mystic writers teach self-denial.’

Apparently yet another snatch from the dispute with Zinzendorf, along with a rare instance of ungracious invective (‘that great, bad man’!). It is yet another indication that Wesley’s rift with the Moravians was still rankling, and a measure of how deep it still went.

No; the inspired writers. And God teaches it to every soul who is willing to hear his voice.

33. We may learn from hence, thirdly, that it is not enough for a minister of the gospel not to oppose the doctrine of self-denial, to say nothing concerning it. Nay, he cannot satisfy his duty by saying a little in favour of it. If he would indeed be pure from the blood of all men he must speak of it frequently and largely; he must inculcate the necessity of it in the clearest and strongest manner; he must press it with his might on all persons, at all times, and in all places; laying ‘line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept’.

Cf. Isa. 28:10, 13.

So shall he have a conscience void of offence;

Acts 24:16.

so shall he save his own soul and those that hear him.

See 1 Tim. 4:16.

402:2504. Lastly, see that you apply this, every one of you, to your own soul. Meditate upon it when you are in secret; ponder it in your heart. Take care not only to understand it throughly, but to remember it to your life’s end. Cry unto the Strong for strength,

A favourite phrase derived from Job 9:19; cf. Nos. 72, ‘Of Evil Angels’, III.4; 78, ‘Spiritual Idolatry’, II.4; 80, ‘On Friendship with the World’, §19; 93, ‘On Redeeming the Time’, III.2; 98, ‘On Visiting the Sick’, II.1. See also JWJ, May 26, 1752; and his letters to Mrs. Bennis, Dec. 16, 1772, and to William Minethorp, Nov. 29, 1776.

that you may no sooner understand than enter upon the practice of it. Delay not the time, but practise it immediately, from this very hour. Practise it universally, on every one of the thousand occasions which will occur in all circumstances of life. Practise it daily, without intermission, from the hour you first set your hand to the plough; and perseveringly enduring therein to the end, till your spirit returns to God.

How to Cite This Entry

, “” in , last modified February 28, 2024, https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon048.

Bibliography:

, “.” In , edited by . , 2024. Entry published February 28, 2024. https://wesleyworks.ecdsdev.org/sermons/Sermon048.

About this Entry

Entry Title: Sermon 48: Self-Denial

Copyright and License for Reuse

Show full citation information...