10. Discourse Ix
DISCOURSE IX
QUESTION. IS LUST OR CORRUPTION,
HABITUALLY PREVALENT, CONSISTENT
WITH THE TRUTH OF GRACE?
Q UESTION. Is lust or corruption, habitually prevalent, consistent with the truth of grace?
ANSWER. This is a difficult question; there are complexities in it, and, perhaps, it is not precisely to be determined. I am certain we should be extremely careful about what we say on such a question, which determines the present and eternal condition of the souls of people.
Assuming we retain something of what was spoken in defining a lust or corruption so habitually prevalent, because this is the foundation of our current inquiry, I shall organize what I have to say on this question into a few points, so they may be remembered.
I say, then,— First. It is the duty of every believer to ensure that this may never be his own case practically. We shall encounter enough hardships, fears, and
doubts about our eternal condition, even if we have no lust or corruption habitually prevalent; therefore, I say, it is the duty of every believer to ensure this may never be his case. David did so, Ps. 19:12, 13, "Who can understand his errors?" he says, "Cleanse me from secret faults. Keep your servant also from presumptuous sins: then I will be upright, and I will be innocent from the great transgression." He acknowledges his errors and sins, and prays for cleansing, purifying, pardon; but for presumptuous sins, sins with a high hand, and every habitual corruption, which has something of presumption,— "Lord, keep your servant from them," he says. The apostle's caution is to the same purpose, Heb. 12:15, "Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness spring up."
There is the root of bitterness in everyone; which I consider as a corruption in some measure habitual if it springs up unto great defilement. And I implore you, brethren, beg of God, for your own souls and mine, that we may be careful this be never our case.
Secondly. The second thing I would note is this,—whatever may be said concerning its consistency with grace, it is certainly inconsistent with peace. I wish we could remember what description was given before of this prevalent corruption, that we might consider the things now applied to it.
Here (though I would be as tender as of the apple of my eye in these things) I will not fear to say this, that the peace which anyone has concurrent with a prevalent corruption, is security, not peace. I know people may be at great peace under prevalent corruptions, and live on good hopes that they shall be accepted by God,—that it shall be well with them in the end; and that they shall have power at some point against this corruption, and will abandon it when it is appropriate, and fight against it more than they have done: but all such peace is but security. Under prevalent corruption there is a drawing
back; for I would state the matter thus:—a person who is a professor, and has kept up to duties and obedience until some lust has gained strength, by constitution, temptations, or life circumstances, and has drawn him away from his former renewal in walking with God; there is then a drawing back.
Now, says the apostle, "If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him," Heb. 10:38. And when God has no pleasure according to the various degrees of backsliders (it may be that is meant of final apostasy), he does not suggest anything that is a basis of peace to that soul.
So Isa. 57:17; "For the iniquity of his covetousness was I angry, and hid myself from him." If there be an incurable iniquity of covetousness, or any other iniquity, whether apparent to us or not, God is angry, and does hide himself from us. I pray, brethren, let us examine our peace; and if we find we have a peace that can maintain its position under prevalent corruption, trust no more to that peace,—it will not stand us in good stead when it comes to a trial.
Thirdly, the third point I would like to make is this - while a prevalent corruption may not be inconsistent with the truth of grace, it is certainly inconsistent with the true exercise of grace. Indeed, it is not inconsistent with the performance of duties, but it is inconsistent with the true exercise of grace in the performance of these duties. It is often observed that individuals under prevalent corruption will increase their duties in an attempt to appease their conscience and to compensate God for their wrongdoings. People may increase their prayers, follow preaching, and attend to other duties, but when they use all these things, through the deceitfulness of sin, merely as a cover for some prevailing corruption, there is no true exercise of grace in all those duties.
The accurate interpretation of this issue depends on a correct understanding of 1 John 2:15. If we could comprehend that verse, it would clarify this point, "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them." The question here is whether prevalent corruption is inconsistent with true grace? I understand that the words may be interpreted as, "If anyone makes the world their primary good, if anyone puts the world in place of God, then love for the Father is not in them; they have either received no love from God, or they have no love for God as a Father in Christ." However, I believe that the apostle, speaking to believers, is not referring to the whole kind, but degrees
- if there is a prevalence of love for the world, there is no prevalence of the acts of love for the Father - that they do not concern the habitual principles of love for the world and love for the Father, but the prevailing actions of one and the other. Accordingly, it can be said of all other graces whatsoever, that where there is a prevalence of the act of sin, there is a suspension of the exercise of grace. Brothers, if any of us have been under the power of prevalent corruption (I will be gentle, and speak what ought to be accepted and believed, whether people do or not), it is much to be feared we have lost all our prayers and hearing, because we have not had a true exercise of grace in them. There may be some exercise, but a proper and true exercise of grace will be suppressed by prevalent corruption. Therefore, let us beware of prevalent corruption, as we would beware of losing everything that we have accomplished - our praying, hearing, suffering, charity - for lack of a proper exercise of grace in them.
Fourthly, I shall concede this: spiritual life may be in a swoon, even when the spiritual man is not dead. There is a kind of fainting of the spirits, a swooning away, that may befall believers, which suspends all acts of life,
even though the person is not dead. So I say, even if I should see a man, through the dominance of corruption, have all the evidences of a spiritual life cast into a swoon, I will not immediately conclude that the spiritual man is dead. Consider the case of David, from the time of his great fall and transgression in the matter of Uriah until the arrival of Nathan the prophet.
People are generally inclined to believe that the spiritual life was in a swoon, when the spiritual man was not dead. His fall, as an honest man said, knocked the breath out of his body, and he lay a long time like a man dead, due to the power that one significant sin left in his soul. And take that as a significant instance that one sin, not immediately addressed by great humiliation, leaves strong and even habitual inclinations in the soul towards the same sin. So that some attribute it to the corruption of our nature. For it is a significant and difficult question in theology, how one particular sin, as the sin of Adam was, could bring about habitual corruption to our nature. To which some respond thus: That any one single moral act, committed with a high hand, has great obliquity in it, predisposing our whole nature to corruption. David, by that single act of blatant wickedness, did continue in it for such a long period of time, until Nathan came and administered some good spirits to him, that revived him out of his swoon. Therefore I say that I will not judge a person to be spiritually dead, whom I have previously judged to have had spiritual life, even though I see him at present in a swoon as to all evidences of the spiritual life. And the reason why I will not judge so is this—because if you judge a person dead, you neglect him, you leave him; but if you judge him in a swoon, however dangerous, you use all means for the recovery of his life. So should we do to one another and our own souls.
Fifthly, there is a dominance of sin that is inconsistent with true grace, which may befall those who have been professing faith. So the apostle clearly declares in Romans 6:16, "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" There is such a serving of sin that puts a person into a contrary state.
Sixthly, I shall add but one thing more, and that is this—there may be a corruption, sin, or lust, habitually dominant, as to whatever evidences the person in whom it is or others can discern; and yet the root of the matter, the root of spiritual life, may still be in the person.
Suppose, then, there is such a dominance that the soul judges to be habitual, how shall we know whether the root of the matter is in such a person or not?
If the soul has anything left of spiritual life, there will be something of vital operations in that soul. Now, the vital operations that give evidence the soul is not absolutely slain by prevalent corruption are opposition and humiliation. As long as the soul, though it may be very much captivated, is conscious to itself of a sincerity in the opposition it makes, there is evidence of a vital operation; as likewise where it is constant in its humiliation on that account.
But if it is further inquired, how can it be known that this humiliation is sincere?
I answer, it cannot be known from its vigor and efficacy; for that negates the question. For if the opposition was vigorous and effective, it would break the power of lust and corruption, so that it would no longer be prevalent. But it can be known in two ways.
1. By its constancy. If the essence of the matter is still in us, there will be a constant opposition to every act of any prevailing corruption whatsoever. I am not speaking about violent temptations, but ordinary cases; in which I do not know from where we should conclude the essence of the matter is in that man who does not make a sincere opposition to every instance of the acting of prevalent corruption. If a man can overlook one and another instance of prevalent corruption without any humiliation for it, may the holy, sovereign God show him grace and mercy! But to me it is "the way of a serpent upon a stone,"—I do not see it, I do not know it.
2. It is sincere, if it comes from its proper spring; that is, if the opposition is not from conviction, light, or conscience only, but from the will of the poor sinner. "I would do otherwise; I would have this sin destroyed,—I would have it eradicated, so that it should no longer be in me; my will is against it, even though it has captivated my affections and disrupted my course."
This is all I dare say on this question,—that there may be a habitual prevalence of corruption, which may seem so to those in whom it is, as well as to those who interact with them, and yet the essence of the matter may be in them. We may know the essence of the matter by the acting of spiritual life,—in opposition going before, and humiliation coming after. We may know the sincerity of these vital actions by their constancy, and by their source,—if we are constant in them, and if they arise from our wills.———