Page images
PDF
EPUB

properly belongs to the first, and has therefore already been answered.

We have now gone through with all Mr. Mahan's arguments from the Bible. A few brief remarks will here be made, on his general argument, which could not so well be made in passing. In very many parts of his book, he speaks of the peculiar sentiments he advocates as being in accordance with the most direct and obvious import of the phraseology of the Scriptures the import which most naturally suggests itself to plain, unlettered, unprejudiced men, pp. 103, 116, 117, etc. The writer of this article once heard a celebrated Universalist preacher exclaim, that it is the glory of Universalism that it expresses itself in the direct language of the Bible. The exclamation, repeated a hundred times, is no better for the one than it is for the other. It may do "ad captandum," but will establish no one in the truth. And besides-how is it that the common theory of the church has always been, and is still, against the notion of actual attainment of perfect holiness, if this is so obviously the import of the Bible, as a common man understands it? Is the church now made up of the learned, and the wise; do the poor not now compose the great part of the kingdom of God? Or have the ministry usurped such power, that plain common men in the church are afraid to avow their belief?

Our author also remarks that a limitation of the promises, such as makes them teach not the doctrine of the actual attainment of permanent and perfect holiness in the present life, sanctions those principles of interpretation by which the worst forms of error are sustained from the Bible; and he particularly specifies Universalism, p. 60. He is rather too fast here. Is it on the principle of limiting, or extending the promises, as Mr. Mahan does, that the Universalist proceeds? Does the doctrine, moreover, that no man can enter heaven, in whom the work of holiness has not been begun and continued, in the present life, and finished at death, does this doctrine give occasion to any one to say, True, and no matter how it is in this world, we shall all be holy in eternity?

Mr. Mahan speaks of this natural import of the Scriptures, and the similar phraseology of the Bible in speaking of the attainableness of perfect justification, perfect and permanent sanctification in this life, and perpetual holiness in the life to come, as presenting "difficulties in which the common theory

is inextricably involved, as far as the laws of interpretation are concerned," p. 116, 117. Not to speak of the fog thrown around the question by our author's use of the word attainableness, we ask, what are these laws of interpretation? One of them is the following, and we repeat it from Mr. Mahan's own lips: "When the sacred writers would express a fact which is true of the majority of men, though not of every individual, they make use, in most instances, of universal terms," p. 82. This principle reaches not only men, but things. It reaches, in the first place, the argument that some did attain to a state of perfect and perpetual holiness on earth. The Scriptures in speaking of the exercises of Paul, and of other holy men, describe them in "universal terms," describe the "majority" of their holy exercises. It reaches, in the next place, the sixth argument from the promises conditioned on a state of perfect holiness, and limits many of the passages adduced under the argument from the new covenant. God may not promise a state of perfect and perpetual holiness on earth. Perfect holiness he may promise, in the sense that so far as holy emotions shall be exercised, and holy acts performed, they are in themselves perfect both in kind and degree. This is not, however, a perpetual state; the mind is not without sin through a single day. But perfect holiness may not be promised at all in the sense of being disconnected from sin. The passage on which Mr. Mahan most relies, 1 Thess. 5: 23, 24, we have seen, promises no such thing. So that even the attainableness of holiness cannot be inferred from the "universal terms" in which the new covenant and the promises are expressed. Real holiness, progressing through life, and completed at death, is promised in the new covenant, with a predetermination on the part of God to give it; with the foreknowledge that his grace would be bestowed, and the conditions fulfilled."*

The Bible explains itself. In respect to the command of perfect love to God and man, there are no other passages which modify this; none which show that the language is that of mere universal terms, expressing a general truth which may have its exceptions. This command, the Bible everywhere

* These considerations will enable us to appreciate Mr. Mahan's repeated declaration, that for God not to intend to grant perfect and perpetual holiness on earth, is treating us with the most solemn mockery conceivable, pp. 45, 118, etc.

confirms. But in respect to the promises of perfect love, there are passages which make it necessary to interpret them in the sense, that although perfect and perpetual love to God on earth is men's duty, they never will render it, but on the contrary the holiest will exhibit short comings, nor be wholly free from indwelling sin, until they die.

We have now done with our author's arguments from the Bible, and pass on to a few others of a different kind. On the preceding, however, the whole question rests. It is a matter to be decided by an appeal to the law and to the testimony.`

A ninth argument is, that no one can lay down any line this side of perfect holiness, beyond which it is not practicable to go. It is a sufficient reply that the Bible lays down a line up to which no man ever comes.

A tenth argument is the contrast between the language of the church and that of inspiration, on this subject. Mr. Mahan has partly refuted this himself, in his eleventh argument (which we answer in the present) from the convictions of the church as expressed in her covenants. "I have never," he remarks, "heard or read of such a covenant, which did not pledge its members to a state of entire sanctification." He also says p. 18, that "all agree that we are under obligation to make perfect holiness a subject of constant and fervent prayer, that God himself will thus sanctify us." Not to speak of the contradiction between this acknowledgement, and a previous assertion, that if a minister should begin to pray in this manner his people would think he was becoming a perfectionist, we ask, is this language of the church different from that of inspiration, on the subject? And where does inspiration affirm the fact of actual attainment? Mr. Mahan has failed to show us where. On the other hand, it affirms the contrary again and again.

A twelfth argument is the tendency of his doctrine, as compared with the opposite. In regard to the good tendency of this doctrine, (admitting that Mr. Mahan now represents a class distinct from those whom he calls perfectionists, and who hold that the moral law is superseded,) we shall see-yes, we shall see. But there are certainly those who have always thought that the perfectionists stood at first on the very ground where he now stands, and, from that, shot like wandering stars into darkness. It is certain that the perfectionists in England, in the time of Wesley, first stood on this ground. It is certain also

that the perfectionists in this country sent up a shout of joy when the banner suddenly was seen floating over the walls of Oberlin, bearing the motto, "Christian Perfection." Yes, we shall see.

In regard to the tendency of the common theory, Mr. Mahan affirms that any one at all acquainted with the laws of mind will see that it is impossible to aim at perfection on the supposition of its unattainableness? And he facetiously remarks in illustration: "Let the hunter point his gun at the moon, with the intention of hitting it." If our author means to convey any inpression, it is that the church believes the attainment of perfect holiness to be as really impossible, as for the hunter to hit the moon. Every intelligent reader will perceive that this comparison does not exhibit the perfection of candor in the author. It misrepresents his brethren. But he himself once denied the attainableness of perfect holiness in the sense in which he now maintains it. And yet at the time when he denied it, and was shocked and confounded at the bare mention of it, he saw and entered with transport "the highway of holiness." He does not here give us a very favorable specimen of his philosophical acquaintance with the laws of mind, since his own experience, and that of a thousand others, apart from the doctrine which he now maintains, was so near to guide him to right conclusions.

[ocr errors]

In the pursuits of letters and the arts, many an artist and scholar have before the mind's eye an ideal of excellence which to them is absolutely unattainable. They are conscious, even, that they cannot be a Milton, or a Webster, or a Phidias, or an Angelo, but they have the beau ideal before the mind; they reach forth to that which is before; they are drawn on by what the Roman Orator calls the "aliquid immensum infinitumque ;" their conception of the object aimed at, is continually enlarging, and with it their aim itself grows more direct, and their efforts more vigorous, while they more and more attain. So with the Christian. In the pursuit of holiness he looks to Jesus as the perfect model, the "beau ideal." He sees that the whole question of human obligation to be perfectly holy, is answered fully in him. If he ever entertained a doubt on the subject, it is all chased away by the radiant glory beaming from the life of the Son of God. While the believer looks to him, it is as to the author and finisher of his faith; and he exclaims with deepest feeling,

"I cannot rest till pure within,
Till I am wholly lost in thee."

It is the very nature of the new man to desire perfection in holiness, and to strive for it. That end he also knows he shall attain, at the hour of death. And death, he knows, may come very soon. He is constantly looking for the coming of the Son of man, agreeably to the injunction, Watch, for ye know not the hour. The law of that great attainment is, that he shall be perfect like his great master, if he shall persevere in copying the picture presented, until the Son of God shall himself come to put on the last finishing touches of the pencil, and present it faultless unto his heavenly Father. Does the common theory, then, render it "impossible to aim at perfection?" p. 119, etc. Is "the thought of arriving to such a state one of the most chimerical ideas that ever entered the human mind ?" p. 127, etc. Are the laws of mind contravened? A more thorough acquaintance with them would have led Mr. Mahan to different conclusions.

A thirteenth and final argument for his doctrine, he has found in "the absurdity of the common supposition that the Christian is always perfectly sanctified at death, and never at an earlier period." To show this he says" that the application of the same grace would have sanctified the believer at an earlier period." How does he know this? We say it would not. Or we may say, God has not seen fit to apply it. He also remarks that no other reason can be assigned for this grace being withheld, but the supposition that God can be better glorified by saints partially, than wholly consecrated to their sacred calling." We could give another reason, but would simply reply that no one who holds to the common theory, has ever assigned the reason given by Mr. Mahan. He may call the theory absurd, as he has done three times on half a page, and in one paragraph; but he was obliged to call in the aid of distorted reasons, nor has he shown its absurdity even with these. It is sufficient, however, that it is the doctrine of the Bible, as taught in Phil. 1: 6, 9, 10, and 1 Thess. 5: 23, 24. But why should it be absurd to suppose that as the body is a great occasion of sin, and is that in man which gives to temptation its great power, the Christian is not sinless until the last occasion of transgression is removed, and the original bias to sin wholly eradicated in the separation of the soul from the body?

The close of the second discourse, and the whole of the third, is devoted to considering objections. Mr. Mahan has answered some of these in a very unsatisfactory manner, and has, for some reason, omitted noticing at all the strongest arguments against

« PreviousContinue »