Part 16

10. One argument more against this new, unscriptural doctrine, may be drawn from the dreadful consequences of it. One says, “I felt anger to-day.” 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 recompence 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, open 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.

IV. 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_, is _clean_, is _holy_, is _sanctified_; is _pure in heart_, has a new heart, is a temple of the Holy Ghost. Now, as _that which is born of the flesh is flesh_, is altogether evil, so _that which is born of the Spirit is spirit_, 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.”

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 “_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_. 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.” St. _Paul_ says no. They were even then _babes in_ Christ. 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. vi. 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_?” Yes, that they were _temples of the Holy Ghost_, is certain. (_1 Cor._ vi. 19.) And it is equally certain, they were, in some degree _carnal_, that is, _unholy_.

2. “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 past away: behold all things are become new_, 2 Cor. v. 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 of 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 expresly, _old things are past away: all things are 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 _past 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, though they cannot _gain_ any _advantage_ over him, as long as he _watches unto prayer_.

3. 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 premisses. 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 intirely: 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?

4. “But believers _walk after the Spirit_.[27] Rom. viii. 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_, tho’ he still feels _the flesh lusting against the Spirit_.

5. “But the _church is the body of Christ_, Col. i. 24. 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 Spirit,” that Christ has any fellowship with the devil, or with that sin which he enables them to resist and overcome.

6. “But are not Christians _come to the heavenly Jerusalem_, where _nothing defiled can enter_?” Heb. xii. 22. Yes; and _to an innumerable company of angels, and to the spirits of just men made perfect_: that is,

Earth and heaven all agree; All his one great family.

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_.

7. “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 thro’ the blood of the Cross_. And in that moment, the φρόνημα σαρκὸς 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.

8. “But _they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts_.” _Gal._ v. 24. They have so: yet it remains in them still, and often struggles to break from the cross. “Nay, but they have _put off the old man with his deeds_.” _Col._ iii. 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._ v. 25, 27. And so it will be in the end: but it never was yet from the beginning to this day.

9. “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.

10. “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 does 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_.

11. “But the supposing sin in a believer is pregnant with every thing 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.

12. “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 all. 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 mixt 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.

13. “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 tho’ 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 incourage to _obey_ sin, but to _resist_ it with all our might.

V. 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 altho’ 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 watch against the flesh, as well as the world and the devil. 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_. 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, tho’ she is still lying in our bosom. It tears away the shield of weak believers, deprives them of their faith, and so leaves them exposed to all the assaults of the world, the flesh and the devil.

2. Let us therefore hold fast the sound doctrine, _once delivered to the saints_, and delivered down by them with the written word, to all succeeding generations: that altho’ 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. So much the more, let us use all diligence, in _fighting the good fight of faith_. So much the more earnestly let us _watch and pray_, 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_.

SERMON XIV.

THE REPENTANCE OF BELIEVERS.

MARK i. 15.

_Repent and believe the gospel._

1. IT is generally supposed, that repentance and faith are only the gate of religion; that they are necessary only at the beginning of our Christian course, when we are setting out in the way to the kingdom. And this may seem to be confirmed by the great apostle, where exhorting the _Hebrew_ Christians, to _go on to perfection_, he teaches them to _leave_ these _first principles of the doctrine of Christ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith toward God_: which must at least mean, that they should comparatively leave these, that at first took up all their thoughts, in order to _press forward toward the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus_.

2. And this is undoubtedly true, that there is a repentance and a faith, which are more especially necessary at the beginning: a repentance which is a conviction of our utter sinfulness, and guiltiness, and helplessness: and which precedes our receiving that kingdom of God, which our Lord observes is _within us_; and a faith, whereby we receive that kingdom, even _righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost_.

3. But notwithstanding this, there is also a repentance and a faith, (taking the words in another sense, a sense not quite the same, nor yet entirely different,) which are requisite after we have _believed the gospel_: yea, and in every subsequent stage of our Christian course, or we cannot _run the race which is set before_ us. And this repentance and faith are full as necessary, in order to our continuance and growth in grace, as the former faith and repentance were, in order to our entring into the kingdom of God.

But in what sense are we to repent and believe, after we are justified? This is an important question, and worthy of being considered with the utmost attention.

I. And first, In what sense are we to repent?

1. Repentance frequently means, an inward change, a change of mind from sin to holiness. But we now speak of it in a quite different sense, as it is one kind of self-knowledge, the knowing ourselves sinners, yea guilty, helpless sinners, even tho’ we know we are children of God.

2. Indeed when we first know this, when we first find redemption in the blood of Jesus, when the love of God is first shed abroad in our hearts and his kingdom set up therein, it is natural to suppose that we are no longer sinners, that all our sins are not only covered but destroyed. As we do not then feel any evil in our hearts, we readily imagine, none is there. Nay some well-meaning men have imagined this, not only at that time, but ever after: having persuaded themselves, that when they were justified, they were entirely sanctified. Yea, they have laid it down as a general rule, in spite of scripture, reason, and experience. These sincerely believe and earnestly maintain, that all sin is destroyed when we are justified, and that there is no sin in the heart of a believer, but that it is altogether clean from that moment. But tho’ we readily acknowledge, _he that believeth is born of God_, and _he that is born of God doth not commit sin_: yet we cannot allow, that he does not _feel_ it within: it does not _reign_, but it does remain. And a conviction of the sin which _remains_ in our heart, is one great branch of the repentance we are now speaking of.

3. For it is seldom long, before he who imagined all sin was gone, feels there is still _pride_ in his heart. He is convinced, both that in many respects he has thought of himself more highly than he ought to think, and that he has taken to himself the praise of something he had received, and gloried in it as though he had not received it. And yet he knows, he is in the favour of God. He cannot and ought not to _cast away_ his _confidence_. _The Spirit_ still _witnesses with_ his _Spirit, that he is a child of God_.

4. Nor is it long before he feels _self-will_ in his heart, even a will contrary to the will of God. A will every man must inevitably have, as long as he has an understanding. This is an essential part of human nature, indeed of the nature of every intelligent being. Our blessed Lord himself had a will as a man: otherwise he had not been a man. But his human will was invariably subject to the will of his Father. At all times, and on all occasions, even in the deepest affliction, he could say, _Not as I will, but as thou wilt._ But this is not the case at all times, even with a true believer in Christ. He frequently finds his will more or less exalting itself against the will of God. He wills something because it is pleasing to nature, which is not pleasing to God. And he nills (is averse from) something because it is painful to nature, which is the will of God concerning him. Indeed (suppose he continues in the faith) he fights against it with all his might. But this very thing implies, that it really exists, and that he is conscious of it.

5. Now self-will, as well as pride, is a species of idolatry: and both are directly contrary to the love of God. The same observation may be made, concerning _the love of the world_. But this likewise even true believers are liable to feel in themselves; and every one of them does feel it, more or less, sooner or later, in one branch or another. It is true, when he first passes from death unto life, he desires nothing more but God. He can truly say, _All my desire is unto thee, and unto the remembrance of thy name. Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee!_ But it is not so always. In process of time he will feel again, (tho’ perhaps only for a few moments) either _the desire of the flesh, or the desire of the eye, or the pride of life_. Nay, if he does not continually watch and pray, he may find _lust_ reviving, yea, and thrusting sore at him that he may fall, ’till he has scarce any strength left in him. He may feel the assaults of _inordinate affection_, yea a strong propensity to _love the creature more than the Creator_: whether it be a child, a parent, an husband or wife, or _the friend that is as his own soul_. He may feel in a thousand various ways, a desire of earthly things or pleasures. In the same proportion he will forget God, not seeking his happiness in him, and consequently being a _lover of pleasure more than a lover of God_.

6. If he does not keep himself every moment, he will again feel _the desire of the eye_, the desire of gratifying his imagination, with something great, or beautiful, or uncommon. In how many ways does this desire assault the soul? Perhaps with regard to the poorest trifles, such as dress, or furniture: things never designed to satisfy the appetite of an immortal spirit. Yet how natural is it for us, even after we _have tasted of the powers of the world to come_, to sink again into these foolish, low desires of things, that perish in the using? How hard is it, even for those, who know in whom they have believed, to conquer but one branch of the desire of the eye, curiosity? Constantly to trample it under their feet? To desire nothing, merely because it is new?