Wesley Corpus

7. But “it is absolutely necessary,” as you observe, “to add sometimes explanatory words to those of the sacred penmen.” It is so; to add words explanatory of their sense, but not subversive of it. The words added to this text, “Ye know all things,” are such; and you yourself allow them so to be. But I do not allow the words wilfully and habitually to be such. These do not explain, but overthrow, the text. That the first Fathers thus explained it, I deny; as also that I ever spoke lightly of them. 8. You proceed: “You allow in another sermon, in evident contradiction to yourself, that the true children of God could, and did, commit sin.” This is no contradiction to anything I ever advanced. I everywhere allow that a child of God can and will commit sin, if he does not keep himself. “But this,” you say, “is nothing to the present argument.” Yes, it is the whole thing. If they keep themselves, they do not; otherwise, they can and do commit sin. I say nothing contrary to this in either sermon. But “hence,” you say, “we conclude that he who is born of God, may possibly commit sin:” An idle conclusion as ever was formed; for who ever denied it? I flatly affirm it in both the sermons, and in the very paragraph now before us. The only conclusion which I deny is, that “all Christians do and will commit sin, as long as they live.” Now this you yourself (though you seem to start at it) maintain from the beginning of your Letter to the end; namely, that all Chris tians do sin, and cannot but sin, more or less, to their lives’ end. Therefore I do not “artfully put this conclusion;” but it is your own conclusion, from your own premises. Indeed were I artfully to put in anything in expounding the word of God, I must be an arrant knave. But I do not; my conscience bears me witness, that I speak the very truth, so far as I know it, in simplicity and godly sincerity. 9. I think that all this time you are directly pleading for looseness of manners, and that everything you advance natu rally tends thereto.