Page images
PDF
EPUB

of his promises shall fail. This is our firm belief; though Mr. Mahan charges us with affirming that we ought to offer up prayer for complete sanctification," with the certain expectation of not receiving the blessing." It is a mistaken charge. Our certain expectation is, that we shall receive the blessing. But while we believe that God certainly answers the prayers of his children, we do not forget that he does it at the time, and in the manner which he sees to be best. Sometimes he answers their prayers immediately, and the blessing comes while they are yet speaking. Sometimes he grants them precious blessings, even before their prayers are offered up. Sometimes (as in the case of Paul, 2 Cor. 12) he withholds the particular good sought, and grants another of equal or superior value. Sometimes he begins to answer prayer soon, but gives not a full answer for a long time. For example; in all past ages his people have offered up the prayer dictated by Christ: "Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven." His kingdom has come to some extent, but not generally. His will has been done truly, but hitherto very imperfectly. We however look for the time when the prayer will be more fully answered in the universal prevalence of love and obedience. God sees this way of answering prayer to be the wisest and best. And when we come to be competent judges, we shall see it to be so too. And Mr. Mahan seems to have brought himself, unawares, into contact with the same view of the subject (see Disc. pp. 32, 33). He represents the two petitions above mentioned as containing a pledge that the events shall take place. But have they taken place to the full extent of these petitions? Has the kingdom of God fully come, and his will been done on earth as in heaven? Mr. Mahan says, "we have the pledge of Christ that they shall be granted, when asked in faith." Have they not been asked in faith? Did no one of the apostles or primitive Christians ask them in faith? Has no Christian, from the time when Jesus dictated the prayer to the present day, offered it up in faith? Has not Mr. Mahan, or Mr. Fitch, or Mr. Finney, or some other good man offered up this prayer in faith? And yet we see it not yet fully answered. What then has become of the pledge, "that it shall be granted when asked in faith?" Do these writers mean, that these petitions, when offered in faith, shall be answered immediately? If so, then they must be driven to the painful conclusion, that neither they themselves, nor any

66

But we

other Christians have ever offered them up in faith. have been led to suppose, from their representations, that they would doubt almost any thing sooner than they would doubt the reality and strength of their own faith. And we have supposed that they must, times without number, have prayed in faith: "Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as in heaven." And as they are confident that they have thus prayed, and confident too that God heareth them, " and that they have the petitions which they have desired of him;" why do they not come forward boldly, and say: "God's kingdom is come, and his will is done on earth as in heaven. We have prayed in faith for this; and God has not failed to answer our prayers. We prayed for this some time ago; and God has not delayed to answer our prayers. He has answered them; and we have the petitions we desired of him." And whatever may be appearances to the contrary, his kingdom certainly has come, and his will is now done on earth as in heaven. Yes, it must be so; for God has heard us. And though the eye of sense cannot see it, the eye of faith must see, that the world is now filled with the knowledge of God; that his will is perfectly obeyed by the whole human family, and the earth converted into a paradise." What hinders them from saying this? They must say it; or they must say they have never prayed in faith for the coming of Christ's kingdom; or they must say, God does not answer prayer; or else they must adopt the principle which I have endeavored to defend; namely, that God often extends his answer to prayer over hundreds, and even thousands of years, accomplishing the inestimable good desired gradually; bestowing the blessing for which his people pray, in an increasing measure; and, in the end, bringing about a result, which will display clearly and gloriously, his unfailing faithfulness, in the complete fulfilment of his promise to answer prayer. If they adopt this principle, and apply it to the case in hand, they can no longer argue in support of their peculiar doctrine respecting perfection, from the prayers which Christians offer up for complete holiness, or from the certainty that God will answer their prayers. The Bible teaches that Christians ought to pray and do pray for perfect sanctification, and that God will answer their prayers, and grant the blessing they pray for. But where does the Bible authorize us to take the other step, and limit the time when God must give the answer, to the present day, or the present year, or to any part of the present life?

Mr. Mahan (Disc. p. 33) quotes the prayer of Christ, that all believers "may be one," and "may be made perfect in one." He says, "the union here prayed for is a union of perfect love;" which I think very obvious. He then argues, that this love will exist among believers, or that Christ prayed for what God will not bestow. The latter he does not for a moment admit. Of course he holds that this "union of perfect love will exist among believers." Will exist! I ask you, when? You doubtless remember that Christ offered up this prayer eighteen hundred years ago. And now, after fifty generations, you say, the prayer will be answered, and that perfect love "will exist among believers!" Pray, my dear brother, why don't you say, it has been answered, that union of perfect love, for which Jesus prayed, has existed ever since Christ offered up the prayer, and does now exist? As to the prayers of common Christians, you may say, there is a deficiency;-they are wanting in faith, or in fervor. But you cannot say this of the prayer of Jesus. It was a prayer entirely, and in the highest degree, pleasing to God. Do you say, God has answered it? No. You say, he will answer it. And thus you virtually acknowledge that the faithfulness of God, in answering prayer, did not require him fully to answer the prayer even of Jesus, during his life, or during the life of fifty generations of his followers. You virtually acknowledge, that God may be truly said to hear and answer prayer, even the prayer of his beloved Son, though he does not fully grant the blessing desired for thousands of years. On what pretence then can you any longer maintain, that God cannot properly be said to answer the prayers of believers for perfect holiness, unless he makes them perfectly holy at the present time, or, at farthest, during some part of the present life?

One word more on this point. Prayer for any good plainly implies that the good is not already obtained. For if obtained, why should it be prayed for? The prayers of prophets and apostles for their own complete sanctification, or that of others, had a manifest reference to a future good, a blessing not yet received. Jesus prayed thus for his disciples: "Sanctify them through thy truth." They had been sanctified in part. What Jesus prayed for was, that they might be sanctified in a higher degree, yea, completely; a blessing which he looked upon as future. So the apostle prays for believers at Thessalonica: "the Lord make you to increase and abound in love." Their

love existed in an imperfect degree, and needed increase. He prayed, too, that the Lord would establish their hearts "unblamable in holiness before God, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." He prayed for a future good, and he fixed his eye upon the second coming of Christ, as the time when it was to be completely accomplished. Again, he prayed for believers," that God would fulfil in them all the good pleasure of his goodness, and make them perfect in every good work, always implying, that the blessing prayed for had not yet been fully obtained. And does not every Christian feel this to be the case, when he hungers and thirsts for righteousness, and cries earnestly to God for complete sanctification? Not long since, I heard, with great delight, the fervent prayers of my brother Mahan, for the entire subjection of all the powers of the soul to Christ, for entire sanctification. Doubtless he prays in the same manner still. And when he thus prays, he doubtless looks upon perfect holiness as a blessing to be bestowed upon him by the grace of God, not as already bestowed. For if already bestowed, it should be made the subject not of petition, but of thanksgiving. And in that case, I should expect that my brother, instead of crying to God and wrestling with God for perfect holiness of heart and life, would stand forth with devout confidence, and say: God, I thank thee that I am perfectly free from sin, and perfectly conformed to the holy image of Christ. But does he pray thus? And would he like to hear any other man pray thus? No. Whatever may be the speculative notions of true believers, when they come before a holy, heartsearching God in prayer, they will follow the promptings of their own humble, contrite spirits, and will beseech God to cleanse them from all sin, and make them perfect in holiness. And, however advanced they may be in the divine life, they will continue to pray thus as long as they live, always feeling, as the apostle did, that they are "not already perfect," and always reaching after it, and beseeching the God of all grace to bestow the long desired and precious blessing upon them in all

its fulness.

Here I must close the discussion for the present. And in a review of the ground over which I have passed, I request Mr. Mahan, and every other advocate of "the doctrine of perfection," seriously to consider whether they have not, however unintentionally, claimed or seemed to claim various important principles as peculiar to them, which are equally held by evan

gelical ministers and Christians generally; whether they have not in this way made a wrong impression upon the less intelligent and less cautious members of the religious community; and whether they have not thus been laboring to establish and propagate their opinions by means which are evidently wanting, I would not say in honesty, but in candor and fairness. I now very cheerfully leave them, and all who read these pages, to judge, whether any valid argument in support of " the doctrine of perfection" can be drawn from any of those points which I have examined; that is, from the provisions of the gospel, from the attainableness of perfection, or from the promises of God, or the prayers of his people. The arguments which Mr. Mahan derives from these considerations are the principal arguments on which he rests the truth of his system. And I am greatly mistaken if these principal arguments of his do not prove to be altogether inconclusive and fallacious. And I shall be greatly disappointed if my respected brethren, who have recently advocated the doctrine of perfection, do not feel themselves bound in truth to abstain from any farther attempt to uphold their scheme by the arguments which have here been noticed.

There are several other topics introduced by Mr. Mahan, to which I wish to give a particular and respectful consideration ; but this I must defer to another opportunity.

ARTICLE X.

EXPOSITION OF ROMANS 8: 18-23.

By Edmund Turney, Theol. Sem., Hamilton, N. Y.

THE sense of this passage depends principally upon the word xzios. Before attempting to give its meaning, we will notice a few facts in relation to the object designated, which will aid us in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.

1. Krious seems to designate a definite, individual object. The collective sense, generally assigned to the term in this passage, is unsatisfactory and improbable. Except when used to express the act of creating, it commonly takes, in the New Testament,

« PreviousContinue »