safely put into the hands of others, hopeful of good, fearless of evil; one they could heartily commend as unfolding the fulness of the blessings of the gospel, without feeling under the necessity of cautioning and warning against false theories, wrong terms, or evil tendencies" (p. 18). What, now, must be the influence of such a book, and of such popularity? We doubt not some will be profited by it, as a spiritual Christian may, now and then, be profited under a Unitarian sermon. An orthodox sense will be put upon much of its heterodoxy; and there is in it not a little of excellent truth. Some of the sketches are not without merit: as, for example, "The Shakeress," "Gov. Duncan," "The Hon. Judge and the poor African woman," "The Miner of Potosi," "Oriental Prince and his Captive." Still, the principal influence of the book cannot but be most unhappy. It so totally misleads the mind, on the whole subject of evangelical experience. The idea here held out is, that, after going through the struggle of a "second conversion," we may then dismiss trouble about our own hearts and rejoice in the full blessings of a present deliverance.1 1 Perhaps we ought in justice to the author, as throwing some light upon his inconsistencies, to allude to his theory of sanctification itself as an actual process and accomplishment. This is only incidentally touched in the book, and that for the sake of showing a point of divergence from the Oberlinian doctrine of Perfection. Our review has confined itself to the one subject the author professedly has in hand-the means of Christian sanctification. (Condition might be a more appropriate term than means, or “ Principle,” as he has it.) This is an instantaneous reception of Christ for sanctification, a faith not usually associated with the faith by which he is first received for justification, but an after experience, a "second conversion." Now on the point as to what is "obtained" in second conversion, how can the author seem to teach that we obtain instantaneous and entire sanctification, and yet maintain that "unholiness" still remains, and only the "entrance" of a process" of sanctification is reached? that "cleansing from sin is a process of indefinite length"? His idea appears to be this: that, while our work is done, Christ's is just begun. "The transfer and the trust of the soul, for the whole work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, is but the first effectual step in the work." But that is the whole step taken in "second conversion." He does not profess to have matured, or given much time to this part of his theory of sanctification; for he considers it more a matter of curious speculation than of practical importance. "Lutherans [he is a Lutheran on this subject] have discussed the experience less as a thing distinct, and therefore have known He speaks of the second conversion as almost perfectly analogous to the first conversion, in conviction, unwilling it less, and named it less distinctively, than either Wesleyans or Oberlinians." And yet his notion is, as a thing essential to his whole doctrine, that Christ in some unrevealed way, without any of our coöperation, gradually assimilates the soul to himself by forming it in his own image. Nothing can be more fanciful, or more contrary to scriptural teaching, yet it is sufficiently apparent that he makes that fancy a sine qua non to his general theory. "This [a full consciousness that all efforts and resolutions, and strugglings and cries for holiness of heart, are just as vain as the attempts of an Ethiopian to bathe white in any waters] with a sense of absolute dependence upon Christ for holiness of heart and life, just as for the forgiveness of sin, is the sum and substance of the soul's attainment" in second conversion. It is simply "a confidence that he will do it, [the italics are his own in all our quotations] according to the plan of God. Then what follows? Then follows the work, according to our faith. By faith the soul is now placed in the hands of Christ, as clay in the hands of the potter; and by faith Christ is received by the soul as the potter to mould it at his own sovereign will. ... By faith the soul now is opened as a mirror to the Master,... the Master's image is taken. ... By faith the soul is put into the hands of Christ, like paper into the hands of the printer, to be unfolded and softened and printed, with all the glorious things of God" (pp. 61, 59, 60). The work, then, is in the future. Though out of our hands transferred to Christ, to be executed “at his own sovereign will,” “according to the [secret] plan of God". - the work yet remains to be done. We are yet in "utter unholiness." "In the first [conversion] the work of Christ is already done the instant the soul believes, while in the second, the work of Christ remains yet to be done in the future after the soul believes" (p. 116). Now if this is so, how can he speak as he does of the victory already obtained by all those who have experienced the "second conversion," and of their present unmixed joy and triumph? For, on the supposition of their having arrived at the goal of sinless perfection of angelic purity itself— he could not speak in fuller terms of the value and blessedness of the attainment. Such a believer "has full salvation." Faith, full trust in him, will bring full salvation with him to the soul." "From that day onward until now he has rejoiced in full salvation, through full trust in Jesus." "She has the liberty as well as the fulness of the blessings of the gospel." We have "the witness of the Spirit... that the power and dominion of sin is broken, that we are free." "They have learned that there is deliverance now here in this life through faith in Jesus.... They have learned experimentally, they know, that Jesus Christ cur Lord, through faith in his name, does actually deliver the trusting soul from the cruel bondage of its chains under sin, now in this present time." The chain is broken by the power of Christ. We are freed from the dead body of sin. We are linked to the living Saviour as our deliverer from present corruption, and from all the power of sin. The dead body is dropped." How can he speak in such terms, if "as to holiness of heart" there is "nothing but a sense of vileness," and the universal confession is: "I never saw my imperfection so clearly, or felt it so deeply?" There is, of course, much inconsistency with himself. But his general idea ness to receive the light, vain attempts and fruitless struggles, temptations of the adversary, etc. In another place, he speaks of the experience as "within sure and easy reach of all who will make it a point." The tendency of his doctrine of sanctification must, therefore, be to remove from the church all that kind of experience which relates to brokenness of heart, the lowliness and meekness that think better of others than one's self, mortification of the earthly members, self-reproach, watchfulness, striving for victory, “glorying in infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon us, taking pleasure in reproaches, necessities, persecutions, distresses for Christ's sake, that when weak we may be strong." The tendency is to conceit and spiritual pride. He has afforded us an example exactly in point. He says: "a scene occurred, one morning, in far-famed Old South Boston chapel. At the close of the meeting,.. two of the seems to be that what we have (in second conversion) is a proper equivalent for a completed sanctification. We have made the "transfer" to Christ; we may, therefore, in the full confidence that he will carry on the work to its completion, dismiss trouble about our present imperfect state. We may act and feel and rejoice and triumph just as if the work was already consummated. We have "conquered an abiding peace, and gained the full salvation" - Or we may conceive of the matter in another way (the book authorizes this view also). Christ's personal holiness (imputed) is an equivalent — more than an equivalent for our own "unholiness." 'Exactly what is attained in this experience? Christ, Christ in all his fulness, Christ objectively and subjectively received. That is all. And that is enough." "Taking him as our bridegroom, ... with him we have all he has, as well as all he is." "He had his eyes opened to see his utter unholiness, and to see that Christ must answer wholly for him, and clothe him altogether with his own (Christ's own) righteousness.” Having Christ,... and having in him the fountain of holiness, indeed our own holiness, just as really and fully as he is our own sacrifice for sin" (pp. 58, 119, 69, 30). Exactly here (in that equivalent) we find what is to our mind the special pernicious tendency of the book. Not only are means dispensed with, because it is perfectly needless, as well as useless, to "watch, pray, struggle, read, fast, work,” in order to "be sanctified;" but a most deplorable spiritual state is induced. This book itself is an illustration of what we mean. You would not suspect from it, so at least it strikes us, that the author had on his mind so much as the remembrance even of the “fear and trembling" with which God commands Christians to work out their salvation. There is a lightness and flippancy, a want of true evangelical unction, and of the sweet savor of a penitential spirit, most painful to those serious, sober, solemn, watchful, wrestling Christians, who have only experienced the first conversion, and who "know no better way than abid. ing in Christ to "labor to enter into that rest," and "give diligence to make their calling and election sure." venerable men always occupying the front seats, with their ear-trumpets upturned to catch every word, arose and greeted each other. One placed his trumpet to his ear, and turned up its broad mouth toward his stooping white-headed companion. The other, bending down and almost burying his face in the open mouth of the trumpet, with a slow, loud, wailing utterance, said: Well, brother, we have been long -meditating-thinking-trying to find out how-this divine life could be best promoted in the soul—and 6 -- 6 we shall get it yet! yes, we shall find it yet!' O yes, yes! we shall we shall!' was the answer. . . . In that same assembly, a moment before its breaking up, a fair-haired youth arose and said: 'Dear brethren, help me to praise God! I have found the way! Jesus is the way! He is mine, and I am his! He is complete, and I am complete in him?' Here were the venerable fathers, feeling after the better way, and here was the child in it already, happy and satisfied" (pp. 310, 311). This represents what we take to be the legitimate tendency of the doctrine. It puts the "child," the "fair-haired youth," in advance of the "venerable fathers" of the church and the ministry. Upon the whole, we would say, as a self-evident truth, the more the book is circulated, the less sanctification there will be in the world, and the further off will be the millennium. ARTICLE IV. SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST. BY REV. DAVID B. FORD, SOUTH SCITUATE, MASS. It is a question of our Saviour's asking, and therefore of some importance: What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? The scriptures tell us, in reply, that he is both the son of David and the Lord of David; both the son of man, and the only-begotten Son of God. It is well known that there exists, in the New Testament, a wide diversity of representation in regard to the person and character of our Lord. Hence a large majority of the Christian church, in all ages, have been led, in supposed accordance with the scriptures, to ascribe to the person of Christ a two-fold nature, the human and the divine. That Christ had an existence previous to his human birth, and that he possessed a nature higher than our own, is evident from those passages which speak of his various manifestations under the old dispensation (John 12: 41. 1 Cor. 10:4 (9). 1 Pet. 1:11); of his existence before Abraham (John 8:58); and before the world was (John 17:5, 24); before all created things (John 1:3. Col. 1: 15, 17. 1 Cor. 8: 6); even with God, in the beginning (John 1:1). Of like import, also, are those numerous passages which affirm that he came (into the world) from God, from the Father, from above, from heaven, "where he was before;" that, with us, he partook of flesh and blood; that he was made flesh; that he came in the flesh; was manifested in the flesh; was made in the likeness of men; inade like unto his brethren; and was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh; that he was born of a woman; and was according to the flesh (in contrast with his higher nature) a descendant of David and the Jewish fathers.! All these passages, with others which are supposed to ascribe to Christ the distinctive titles, attributes, and works of Deity, either expressly assert or fairly imply this two-fold nature, and are wholly meaningless and absurd on any other supposition. Even De Wette (on John 17: 5) thus remarks: "Two ideas are here combined: that of the λóyos aσаркos and that of the λóyos evσaρkos, who, after his incarnation, his sufferings and death, is exalted to divine honor; as also there are, in general, two views presented of Christ, which yet are never wholly separated, namely, the theosophic-speculative, descending view, according to which he is God incar See John 8:42; 13:3; 16: 27, 28; 3: 13, 31; 6: 38, 51, 62; 1: 14, 15; Eph. 49, 10; 1 Cor. 15:47; Heb. 2: 14, 17; 5:7; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7; Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3; 9: 5, et al. |