Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

below, Beloved, if our heart condemn us; [and it will condemn us if we sin, but God much more, for] God is greater than our heart, &c. "Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have confidence towards God, &c., because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight," 1 John iii. 20. &c.-Now we apprehend, all the sophistry in the world will never prove, that, evangelically speaking, keeping God's commandments, and doing what pleases him, is sinning. Therefore, when St John pro fessed to keep God's commandments, and do what is pleasing in his sight; he professed what our opponents call sinless perfection, and what we call christian perfec

tion.

Mr. Hill is so very unhappy in his choice of St. John, to close the number of his apostolic witnesses for christian imperfection, that, were it not for a few clauses of his first epistle, the anti-solifidian severity of that apostle might drive all imperfect christians to despair. And what is most remarkable, those few encouraging clauses are all conditional: If any man sin [for there is no necessity that he should :] or rather [according to the most literal sense of the word apaprn, which being in the aorist, has generally the force of a past tense] If any man have sinned :-If he have not sinned unto death if we confess our sins if that which ye have heard shall remain in you :if ye walk in the light ;-then do we evangelically enjoy the benefit of our Advocate's intercession. Add to this, that the first of those clauses is prefaced by these words. My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not: and all together are -guarded by these dreadful declarations: He that says, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar.-If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. If any man say, I love God, and loveth not his brother [note: he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law] he is a liar.-There is a sin unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it. Let no inan deceive you, he that does righteousness is righteous. He that committeth sin [or transgresseth the law] is of the devil. To represent St. John there fore, as an enemy to the doctrine of christian perfection, does not appear to us less absurd, than to represent Satan as a friend to complete holiness.

SECTION XI.

Why the privileges of believers under the gospel of Christ, cannot be justly measured by the experiences of believers under the law of Moses. A review of the passages, upon which the enemies of christian perfection found their hopes, that Solomon, Isaiah, and Job, were strong imperfectionists.

If Mr. Hill had quoted Solomon, instead of St. John; and Jewish, instead of christian saints; he might have attacked the glorious christian liberty of God's children with more success: for the heir as long as he is a a child [in Jewish nonage,] differeth nothing from a servant; but is under tutors [and school-masters] until the time appointed by the Father. Even so we, when we were chil dren, were in bondage :-but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent bis Son made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons,-and stand in the [peculiar] liberty, wherewith Christ has made us [christians] free," Gal. iii. 1.—iv, 1. But this very passage, which shews that Jews are [comparatively speaking] in bondage, shews also that the christian dispensation, and its high privileges, cannot be measured by the inferior privileges of the Jewish dispensation, under which Solomon lived: for "the law made nothing perfect [in the christian sense of the word] and what the law could not do, God sending his only Son, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us [christian believers] who walk after the Spirit;" being endued with that large measure of it, which began to be poured out on believers on the day of Pentecost; for that measure of the Spirit was not given before; "because Jesus was not yet glorified," John vii. 39. But after he had

ascended on high," and had "obtained the gift of the indwelling Comforter" for believ ers; they received, says St. Peter, the end of their faith, even the [christian] salvation of their souls :" [a Salvation this, which St. Paul justly calls so great salvation, when he compares it with Jewish privileges, Heb. ii. 3.] Of which [christian] salvation the [Jewish] prophets have enquired, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you, [christians] searching what or what manuer of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them [according to their dispensation] did signify, when it testified before-hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory [the glorious dispensation] that should follow this return to heaven, and accompany the outpouring of his Spirit. "Unto whem [the Jewish prophets] it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us [christians] they did minister the things which are now preached unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," 1 Pet. i. 9, &c. And, among those things, the Scripture reckons the coming of the spiritual kingdom of Christ with power in the heart of believers, and the baptism of fire, or the perfect love, which burns up the chaff of sin, thoroughly purges God's floor, and makes the hearts of perfect believers an habitation of God through the Spirit, and not a nest for indwelling sin.

As this doctrine may appear new to Mr. Hill, I beg leave to confirm it by the testimony of two as eminent divines as England has lately produced. The one is Mr. Baxter, who (in his comment upon these words, "A testament is of force after men are dead," (Heb. ix. 17,) very justly observes, that « His [Christ's] covenant has the nature of a testament, which supposeth the death of the testator, and is not of efficacy till then, to give full right of what he bequeatheth. Note, that the eminent, evangelical kingdom of the Mediator, in its last, full edition, called the kingdom of Christ and of heaven, distinct from the obscure state of promise before Christ's incarnation, began at Christ's resurrection, ascension, and sending of the eminent gift of the Holy Ghost, and was but as an embryo before."-My other witness is the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, who proposes and answers the following question : "Why was not the Holy Ghost given till Jesus Christ was glorified ?-Because till then he was himself on the earth, and had not taken on him the kingly office, nor pleaded the merits of his death before his heavenly Father, by which he purchased that invalu able blessing for us.” See his Works, Vol. IV. p. 362. Hence I conclude, that, as the full measure of the Spirit, which perfects christian believers, was not given before our Lord's ascension, it is as absurd to judge of christian perfection by the experiences of those who died before that remarkable event, as to measure the powers of a sucking child by those of an embryo.

This might suffice to unnerve all the argu, ments which our opponents produce from the Old Testament against christian perfection. However, we are willing to consider a moment those passages by which they plead for the necessary indwelling of sin, in all christian believers, and defend the walls of the Jericho within, that accursed city of refuge for Spiritual Canaanites and Diabolians.

I. 1 Kings viii. 46, &c. Solomon prays, and says, "If they [the Jews] sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive ;-yet, if they bethink themselves, and repent, and make supplication unto thee, and return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul; then hear thou their prayer." No unprejudiced person, who, in reading this passage, takes the parenthesis (for there is no man that sinneth not) in the connexion with the context, can, I think, If Mr. Hill consults the original, he will find that the word translated sinneth, is in the future tense, which is often used for an indefinite tense in the potential mood because the Hebrews have no such mo od or tense. Therefore our translators would only have done justice to the original, as well to the context, if they had rendered the whole clause, "There is no man that might not sin;" instead of "There is no man that

sinneth not-"

help seeing that the Rev. Mr. Toplady, who, if I remember right, quotes this text against us, mistakes Solomon, as much as Mr. Hill does St. John. The meaning is evidently, that there is no man who is not liable to sin; and that a man actually sins, when he actually departs from God. Now peccability, or a liableness to sin, is not indwelling sin; for angels, Adam, and Eve, were all liable to sin in their sinless state. And, that there are some men who do not actually sin, is indubitable: (1) From the hypothetical phrase in the context, if they sin, which shows that their sinning is not unavoidable: (2) From God's anger against those that sin, which is immediately mentioned. Hence it appears, that so certain as God is not angry with all his people, some of them do not sin in the sense of the wise man and (3) from Solo mon's intimating, that these very mien who have sinned, or have actually departed from God, may bethink themselves, repent and return to God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that is, may attain the perfection of their dispensation; the two poles not being more opposed to each other, than sinning is to repenting and departing from God, to returning to him with all onr heart and with all our soul. Take therefore the whole passage together, and you have a de monstration, that where sin hath abounded, there, grace may much more abound. And what is this, but a demonstration that our doctrine is not chimerical? For if Jews [Solomon himself being judge] instead of sinning and departing from God, can repent, and return to him with all their hearts; how much more christians, whose privileges are so much greater?

II. "But Solomon says also, There is not a just man upon earth, that does good and sinneth not, Eccl. vii. 20."

(1) We are not sure that Solomon says it : for he may introduce here the very same man who, four verses before, says, Be not righte. ous overmuch, &c. and Mr. Toplady may mistake the interlocuter's meaning in one text, as Dr. Trap has done in the other.-But (2) Supposing Solomon speaks? May not he in general assert what St. Paul does, Rom. iii. 23, All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, the just not excepted? Is not this the very sense which Canne, (Calvinist as he was,) gives to the wise man's words, when he refers the reader to this assertion of the Apostle? And did we ever speak against this true doctrine?—(3) If you take the original word to sin in the lowest sense which it bears :-If it means in Eccl. vii. 20, what it does Jud. xx. 16, namely to miss a mark, we shall not differ; for we maintain, that according to the standard of paradisiacal perfection, There is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and misseth not the mark of that perfection, i. e. that does

not lessen the good he does, by some involuntary, and therefore (evangelically speaking) sinless defect (4) It is bold to pretend to overthrow the glorious liberty of God's children, which is asserted in a hundred plain passages of the New Testament, by producing so vague a text as Eccl. vii. 20. And to measure the spiritual attainments of all believers, in all ages, by this obscure standard, appears to us as ridiculous as to affirm, that of a thousand believing men, 999 are in dubitably villains and that of a thousand christian women, there is not one but is a strumpet; because Solomon says a few lines below, "One man among a thonsand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found," Eccl. viii. 28.

III. If it be objected, that "Solomon asks, 'Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?' Prov. xx. 9:" We

answer:

(1) Does not Solomon's father ask, Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? Does a question of that nature always imply an absurdity, or an impossibility? Might not Solomon's query be evangelically answered thus? "The man in whom thy father David's prayer is answered, Create in me a clean heart, O God: -The man who has regarded St. James's direction to the primitive Solifidians, Cleanse your hearts, ye double-minded:-The man who has obeyed God's awful command, "O Jerusalem, wash thy heart from iniquity, that thou mayest be saved."-Or the man who is interested in the sixth beatitude, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God:" -That man, I say, can testify to the honour of the blood which cleanseth from all sin, that he has made his heart clean."

(2) However, if Solomon, as it is most probable, reproves in this passage the conceit of a perfect, boasting Pharisee, the answer is obvious: no man of that stamp can say with any truth, I have made my heart clean; for the law of faith excludes all proud boasting, and if we say with the temper of the Pharisee, "that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;" for we have pride, and pharisaic pride too, which, in the sight of God, is perhaps the greatest of all sins. If our opponents take the wise man's question in either of the preceding scriptural senses, they will find that it perfectly agrees with the doctrine of Jewish and Christian perfection.

IV. Solomon's pretended testimony against Christian perfection is frequently backed by two of Isaiah's sayings, considered out of the context, one of which respects the filthiness of our righteousness; and the other, the uncleanness of our lips. I have already proved [Check IV. Let. viii.] that the righteousness which Isaiah compares to filthy rags, and St. Paul to dung, is only the anti-evangelical, pharisaic righteousness of unhumbled profes

sors; a righteousness this, which may be called the righteousness of impenitent pride, rather than the righteousness of humble faith, therefore the excellence of the righteousness of faith cannot, with any propriety, be struck at by that passage.

V. But Isaiah, undoubtedly speaking of himself, says, "Woe is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips." Isa. vi. 5.

True: but give yourself the trouble to read the two following verses, and you will hear him declare that the power of God's Spirit applying the blood of sprinkling (which power was represented by a live coal taken from off the altar) touched his lips; so that his iniquity was taken away, and his sin purged. This passage therefore, when it is considered with the context, instead of disproving the doctrine of christian perfection, strongly proves the doctrine of Jewish perfection.

If Isaiah is discharged from the service into which he is so unwarrantly pressed, from the land of Uz, our opponents will bring Job, whom the Lord himself pronounces perfect according to his dispensation; notwithstanding the hard thoughts which his friends entertained of him.

VI. Perfect Job is absurdly set upon demolishing christian perfection, because he says, "If I justify myself my own mouth shall condemn me: If I say (in a pharisaic, selfjustifying spirit) I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse, Job ix. 20.-But (1) What does Job assert here, more than Solomon does in the words, to which Canne on this text judiciously refers his readers, "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth: a stranger and not thine own lips." Though even this rule is not without exception; witness the circumstances which drove St. Paul to what he calls a confidence of boasting.-(2) That professing the perfection of our dispensation in a self-abasing and Christ-exalting spirit, is not a proof of perverseness, is evident from the profession which humble Paul made of his being one of the perfect christians of his time, Phil. iii. 15, and from St. John's declaration, that his love was made perfect, John iv. 17. For when we have the witnessing Spirit, whereby we know the things which are freely given to us of God, we may, nay at proper times we should, acknowledge his gifts to his glory, though not to our own.-(3) 1f God himself had pronounced Job perfect according to his dispensation, Job's modest fear of pronounc ing himself so, does not at all overthrow the divine testimony: such a timorousness only shews, that the more we are advanced in grace, the more we are averse to whatever has the appearance of ostentation: and the more deeply we feel what Job felt when he said, "Behold, I am vile: what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon my mouth," Job xl. 4.

VII. But Job himself, far from mentioning his perfection, says, "Now mine eye seeth thee, I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes," Job xlii. 6.-And does this disprove our doctrine? Do we not assert that our perfection admits of a continual growth: and that perfect repentance, and perfect humility, are essential parts of it? These words of Job therefore, far from overthrowing our doctrine, prove that the patient man's perfection grew; and that from the top of the perfection of gentilism he saw the day of christian perfection, and had a taste of what Mr. Wesley prays for, when he sings,

O let me gain perfection's height, &c. Confound. o'erpow'r me with thy grace; I would be by myself abborr'd: All might, all majesty, all praise, All glory be to CHRIST MY LORD! VIII. With respect to these words, "The stars are not pure ;-the heavens are not clean in his sight :-his angels he charged with folly," Job. xxiii. 5.—iv. 18, we must consider them as a proof that absolute perfec tion belongs to God alone; a truth this, which we inculcate as well as our opponents. Besides, if such passages overthrew the doc. trine of perfection, they would principally overthrow the doctrine of angelical perfection, which Mr. Hill holds as well as we. To conclude:

IX. When Job asks, "What is man, that he should be clean ? How can he be clean that is born of a woman ?-Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" And when he answers, "Not one;" he means not one who falls short of infinite power. If he excluded Emanuel, God with us, I would directly point at him who said, "I will, Be thou clean ;" and at the believers who declare, We

the absurdity of the tuin-doctrines of christian imperfection and a death-purgatory.

I HAVE hitherto stood chiefly upon the defensive, by showing that Mr. Hill has no ground to insinuate, that our Church, and Peter, Paul, James, and John, are defenders of the twin-doctrines of christian-imperfection and a death-purgatory, I shall now attack these doctrines by a variety of arguments, which, I hope, will recommend themselves to the candid reader's conscience and

reason.

If I wanted to encounter Mr. Hill with a broken reed, and not with the weapons of a Protestant, Reason and Scripture, I would retort here the grand argument by which he attempts to cut down our doctrines of freeagency and cordial obedience: "The generality of the carnal clergy, are for you, therefore your doctrines are false:" If this argument is good, is not that which follows better still: "The generality of bad men are for therefore that doctrine is false; for if it were your doctrine of christian imperfection; true, wicked people would not so readily embrace it." But as I see no solidity in an argument by which I could disprove the very being of a God (for the generality of wicked men believe there is a supreme Being) I discard it, and begin with one, which I hope is not unworthy of the reader's attention.

I. Does not St. Paul insinuate that no soul goes to heaven without perfection, where he calls the blessed souls that wait for a happy resurrection, πνευματα δικαιων TETEELμevov the spirits of just men made perfect, and not TETEλetwμeva πνevμaтa dikαIWY, the perfected spirits of just men? Heb. xii.

23. can do all things through Christ that strengeneth us," and accordingly "cleanse themselves from all filthiness, of the flesh and spirit: that they may be found of him without spot and blameless." Yea, I would point at the poor leper, who has faith enough "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make

to say,

me clean." They tell me, that my leprosy must cleave to me till death batter down this tenement of clay; but faith speaks a different language; only say the word, Be thou clean, and I shall be cleansed :-" Purge me with hyssop, Sprinkle clean water upon me, and I shall be clean from all my filthiness."

If these remarks are just, does it not ap pear, that it is as absurd to stab christian perfection through the sides of Job, Isaiah, and Solomon; as to set Peter, Paul, James, and John, upon "cutting it up root and

branch ?"

SECTION XII.

Containing a variety of arguments, to prove

Does not this mode of expression denote a perfection which they attained while they were men, and before they commenced separ ate spirits; that is, before death? Can any one go to an holy and just God, without the Apostle say, that the unrighteous, or unfirst being made just and holy? Does not just, shall not inherit the kingdom of God? and that without holiness no man shall see the Lord? Must not this holiness, of whatsoever degree it is, be free from every mixdeath the least degree of any unrighteous ture of unrighteousness? If a man has at and defiling mixture in his soul, must he not go to some purgatory or to hell? Can he go to heaven, if nothing that defileth shall

enter the New Jerusalem ? And if at death

his righteous disposition is free from every unrighteous, immoral mixture, is he not a just man perfected on earth, according to the dispensation he is under.

II. If Christ takes away the outward 'pollution of believers, while he absolutely leaves their hearts full of indwelling sin in this life, why did he find fault with the

Pharisees for cleansing the outside of the cup and platter, whilst they left the inside full of all corruption? If God says, "My son, give me thy heart;" if he requires truth in the inward parts, and complains, that the Jews drew near to him with their lips, when their hearts were far from him: is it not strange, he should be willing that the heart of his most peculiar people, the heart of christians, should necessarily remain unclean during the term of life? -Besides, Is there any other gospel-way of fully cleansing the lips and hands, but by thoroughly cleansing the heart? And is not a cleansing so far pharisaical, as it is heartless? Once more if Christ has assured us, that " Blessed are the pure in heart," and that If "the Son shall make us free we shall be free indeed," does it not behove our opponents, to prove, that a believer has a pure heart, who is full of indwelling corruption; and that a man is free indeed, who is still sold under inbred sin? III. When our Lord has bound the indwelling man of sin, the strong man armed,, can he not cast him out ?-When he cast out devils, and unclean spirits with a word, did he call death to his assistance? Did he not radically perform the wonderful cure, to shew his readiness and ability radically to cure those whose hearts are possessed by indwelling iniquity, that cursed sin whose name is Legion? When the legion of expelled fiends entered into the swine, the poor, brutes were delivered from their infernal guests, by being, choked in the sea. Death therefore cured them, not Christ? And can we have no cure but that of the swine? No deliverance from indwelling sin, but in the arms of death? If this is the case, go, drown your plaguing corruptions in the first pond you will meet with, ye poor mourners, who are more weary of your life, because of indwelling sin, than Rebecca was because of the daughters of Heth.

IV. How does the notion of sin, necessarily dwelling in the heart of the most advanced christians, agree with the full tenor of the new Covenant, which runs thus, "I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts :"- the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus shall make them free from the law of sin and death?" If the laws of perfect love to God and man are fully put in the heart of a believer, according to the full tenor of Christ's gospel, what room remains for the hellish statutes of Satan? Does not the Lord cleanse the believer's heart, as he writes the law of love there? And when that law is wholly written by the Spirit, the finger of God, which applies the all-cleansing blood, is not the heart wholly cleaused? When God completely gives the heart of flesh, does not he completely take away the heart of stone? Is not the beart of stone the very rock in which the serpent

indwelling sin, lurks? Aud will God take away that cursed rock, and spare the venomous viper that breeds in its clefts?

V. Cannot the little leaven of sincerity and truth leaven the whole heart? But can this be done without purging out entirely the old leaven of malice and wickedness? May not a father in Christ be as free from sin, as one who is totally given up to a reprobate mind, is free from righteousness? Is not the glorious liberty of God's children, the very reverse of the total and constant slavery to sin, in which the strongest sons of Belial live and die ?-If a full admittance of Satan's temptation could radically destroy original righteousness, in the hearts of our first parents; why cannot a full admittance of Christ's gospel radically destroy original unrighteousness in the hearts of believers ?-Does not the gospel promise us, that where sin has abounded grace shall much more abound? And did not sin so abound once, as entirely to sweep away inward holiness before death? But how does grace abound much more than sin, if it never can entirely sweep away inward sin without the help of death?

VI. Is there not a present, cleansing power, as well as a present, atoning efficacy, in the Redeemer's blood? Have we not already taken notice, that the same Scripture which informs us, that "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins," declares also that, upon the same gracious terms," he is faithful and just to cleanse us from all unrighteousness?" Now, if the faithful and just God is ready to forgive today a poor mourner who sincerely confesses his guilt; and if it would be doing divine faithfulness and justice great dishonour to say, that God will not forgive a weeping penitent before the article of death; is it doing those divine perfections honour to assert, that God will not cleanse before death a believer who humbly confesses and deeply laments the remains of sin? Why should not God display his faithfulness and justice in cleansing us now from inbred sin, as well as in forgiving us now our actual iniquities; if we now comply with the gracious terms, to the performance of which, this double blessing is annexed in the gospel-charter ?

VII. If our opponents allow, that faith and love may be made perfect two or three minutes before death, they give up the point. Death is no longer absolutely necessary to the destruction of unbelief and sin; for if the evil heart of unbelief departing from the living God, may be taken away, and the completely honest and good heart given two or three minutes before death; we desire to know, why this change might not take place two or three hours,-two or three weeks,-two or three years, before that awful

moment ?

« AnteriorContinua »