|
|
In these sketches and references the first and
great fact is that of full salvation through full trust in Jesus. This fact
needs no proof. It is at once the provision and the demand of the gospel,
and is of course the privilege and duty of all. The Apostle Paul lived in
it himself, and commended it, and commanded it, to others. The apostles and
primitive Christians generally enjoyed it from the day of Pentecost onward.
There were exceptions certainly. The Galatians seem to have been turned aside
from the fulness and simplicity of the faith. Having begun in the spirit,
they thought to be made perfect by works, and the apostle wrote them with
all plainness and urgency of speech, to induce them to look to Christ and
Christ alone for holiness, telling them that he travailed in birth for them
again, until Christ should formed in them the hope of glory. And there were
other churches beside those of Galatia where, through the blindness of unbelief,
they failed of the fulness of God. But, as a general thing, we hear only
of the same life of faith in its fulness, and fulness of joy in all, until
after the death of all the apostles, save John, and he exiled from the churches
and shut up in the lone Isle of Patmos. Then, when the apostles were gone,
and the days of miracles were ended, and inspired teaching ceased in the
churches, and Satan began to be loosed — then, in the epistles of him
who walks in glory amidst the golden candlesticks, we have the first intimation
that the light of the candles was beginning to grow dim.
And surely Luther and Baxter, Wesley and
D’Aubigne, full and rich as their experience of grace and salvation
was, had not outstripped Peter and John, Paul and Apollos! Neither have the
Lutherans, as we have named them, or the Wesleyans, or Oberlinians, got beyond
primitive Christians! Nay, if we shall carry the comparison back to the bright
cloud of witnesses, who passed off before Christ’s coming upon earth,
as they are called up in array before us in the beautiful citation by the
apostle in the eleventh of Hebrews, we shall hardly find the brightest of
moderns outstripping these worthies of old, either in fulness of faith, or
fulness of salvation. Going about, therefore, to prove that there is such
an experience would be but a fool’s work! If any one doubts, with the
Bible in his hand, surely the rushlight of any other proof in the face of
this noon-day blaze, would go for nothing!
Neither does this fact need explanation any more
than it needs proof. It is simply the result of the gospel received in its
fulness. Christ is set forth as all in all for the sinner’s salvation,
and the sinner who receives him as such, and abides in him, has full salvation.
But there is another fact which should be explained: the fact that in the
instances given, as in others not referred to, there is a second experience,
distinct from the first — sometimes years after the first — and
as distinctly marked, both as to time and circumstances and character, as
the first — a second conversion, as it is often called. Baxter speaks
of this in his case as quite as important as the first. So does James Brain
and Taylor, and many others also; while in such cases as Luther’s and
D’Aubigne’s, both the experience and its importance are so marked
as to speak for themselves. Some have tried to account for this fact by denying
the reality of the first experience. “These people were deceived,”
say they, “and not converted at all, as they suppose, in the first
instance.”
But if Luther was not converted, who then is?
If D’Aubigne was deceived in the first instance, who then is not? If
to have been convinced of the deep depravity of the heart by nature, and
led to accept Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour of sinners, and to have
experienced the joys of the new birth, is not to have been really converted,
but deceived, tell us then what conversion is? No, no; this supposition does
violence to truth and common sense; it will not do. We must have a better
solution, or none.
Others have thought to solve the problem by calling
the second experience simply a return from backsliding. But in each of the
cases given, we have the testimony of the witnesses themselves, that it was
more than this, a deeper work of grace, a fuller apprehension of Christ,
a more complete and abiding union with him than at the first. The witnesses
themselves being judges in their own case, this solution is not the true
one. We must go deeper for it. Thousands in every age since the primitive,
have backslidden and returned again without any such great and permanent
advancement in the divine life, as that set forth in the examples before
us. In Luther’s experience, as he describes it, there was that which
made the Bible a new book to him. Already, in his conversion a key had been
put into his hand to unlock vast treasures of truth in the Word of God, but
it was only after his final and full apprehension of Christ as his
sanctification, superadded to his knowledge of Christ in the forgiveness
of sins, that the abundance and wealth of the Bible became the Reformer’s.
And D’Aubigne tells us that after that scene in the inn-room at Kiel
he went through and through the Bible anew, gathering up innumerable passages
full of new significance to him. His description recalls another very like
it, under like circumstances. One who had but just then passed through a
similar “second conversion,” compared himself to a child sent on
an errand, but finding by the wayside so many beautiful flowers and luscious
fruits, now on this side, now on that, inviting the hand to pluck them, as
to keep the child busy all day long, forgetful of the errand. “So,”
said he, “has it happened to me with my Bible. I have set out to find
some desired passage, and so many things beautiful and new have caught my
eye in passing along, as to tempt me to daIly, and pick, and eat, and drink
in their sweet fragrance all the day long, forgetful of my errand. And then
too,” he went on to say “when I kneel down to pray, praise only
swells my heart, for all the glorious things of Christ.” Ah, there is
vastly more in such an experience, than mere return from backsliding! Then,
too, above and beyond all this, it is never the returning backslider who
comes into the fulness of this experience. Indeed, if backsliding and returning
would really bring men into this gospel fulness, pity but the whole church
would backslide and return. It would be a grand thing for the cause of Christ,
and for their own comfort and joy. But in point of fact, in every case, if
the reader will examine, it will be seen that it is only the earnest and
the active Christian, the working, struggling one, who comes to the knowledge
of Christ in his fulness. The backslider returns only to the point attained
when he turned back at most, and hard struggling for that! But the work in
question is a higher height, and a deeper depth, in the comprehension both
of the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, and of the way of salvation
by faith.
Neither of these solutions is the true one. The
true, however, is not difficult. Mark it well: It is in perfect harmony with
all religious experience. What we call experimental religion, is simply this:
The sinner is first awakened to a realization of his guilt before God, and
of his danger, it may be too. He really feels, that is, he experiences his,
need of salvation, and becomes anxious and eager to do anything to secure
it. Tries perhaps all sorts of expedients, except the one only and true,
in vain. Then at last his eyes are opened to see that Jesus Christ is set
forth to be his salvation, and that all he has to do is, just as he is, without
one grain of purity or merit, in all his guilt and pollution, to trust in
his Saviour, and now he sees and feels, that is, he experiences, that Jesus
Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the very Saviour he needs. In
Jesus he triumphs and exults. In Jesus he revels and rejoices. Jesus is the
one amongst ten thousands, altogether lovely. The only one in heaven or on
earth to be desired, filling all the orbit of his soul with faith, and hope
and love. This in substance is the sum of all religious experience. All may
be condensed into three words: the first expressive of the sinner’s
necessities — SALVATION: the second expressive of the gospel provision
for the sinner, a SAVIOUR; and the third embodying the condition of the
sinner’s entire deliverance, FAITH.
And now to account for the two distinct experiences,
each so marked and important, and so alike in character, we have only to
consider two facts, viz., first, that the sinner’s necessities are two-fold
and distinct, although both are included in the one word salvation. We express
the two in the words of that favorite hymn, Rock of Ages, when we
sing,
“Be of sin the double
cure,
The apostle Paul generally includes both in the
one term “Righteousness of God,” as “to all and upon all that
believe,” but in the thirtieth verse of the first chapter of first
Corinthians, he separates them and marks them by the distinct terms,
“righteousness,” and “sanctification,” and now of late
the whole Christian world, has come to distinguish them by the now limited
and definite terms, justification and sanctification. Luther used the term
justification as including both; in the same way that the apostle Paul used
the expression righteousness of God. Justification in the great Reformer’s
sense, was being made righteous; that is, being reckoned righteous before
God, and ‘being made righteous in heart and life. Nevertheless the two
things are distinct and different in their nature, and are expressive of
two great and equal wants of the sinner. He must be just in the eye of the
law, justified before God. And he must also be holy in heart and life, or
he cannot be saved.
This is the first fact to be taken into account
in coming to an understanding of the two separate and distinct experiences,
so clearly marked in such cases as Luther’s, and D’Aubigne’s.
Another is that, practically always perhaps, and theologically often, we
separate between the two in our views and efforts, to secure them to ourselves,
until we are experimentally taught better. We have one process for acceptance
with God, that is faith; and another for progress in holiness, that is works.
After having found acceptance in Jesus by faith, we think to go on to perfection
by strugglings and resolves, by fastings and prayers, not knowing the better
way of taking Christ for our sanctification, just as we have already taken
him for our justification. We see and believe in Jesus as our atonement on
earth, and our Advocate and Mediator in heaven, but we fail to see and receive
him as our ever-present Saviour from sin now here with us in the hourly scenes
of the daily journey heavenward. The consequence is, that as in the first
instance we tried all sorts of expedients, except the right one, and failed
in every one, until at last the Lord opened our eyes to see both our own
folly in all these vain attempts, and at the same breath to see the wisdom
of God in giving us His Son our Saviour as the Way; even so now again in
the second, we try all, and all in vain, until again in this new and equal
necessity, we find anew that all our ways are vain, and that Jesus is the
Way.
These two facts will account for these cases of
“second conversion.” Let it not be supposed, however, that in every
instance there must be two distinct experiences, separated by a gulph of
vain strugglings. It is not necessary that there should be one even. Let
Jesus be received as the all in all, and that is enough! Whoever can say,
“Jesus is mine and I am his, that he is complete and I am complete in
him,” and say the truth, has the experience whether he has an experience
to relate, or not. He has the Rock of Ages for his foundation, and all the
driving storms, and beating tempests, and swelling floods of time and eternity,
will not sweep it from under him. Christ, without any marked experience whatever,
is all-sufficient; but the most brilliant experience without Christ, would
be only quick-sand in the day of trial. Loyola”s experience was as brilliant
as Paul’s; and Mahomet’s was even more wonderful than either; just
as some counterfeits are really finer in appearance than the genuine; but
that did not make the great Jesuit a saint, except in his own eyes, and in
the Romish calendar, nor the false prophet an angel anywhere outside of his
own sensual paradise.
Some voyagers heavenward trouble themselves all
the live-long voyage, clear to the very entrance of the haven of rest, with
doubts whether after all they have really set sail at all or not, because
they had not the same struggles and difficulties in hoisting anchor and getting
the canvas spread to the breezes of heaven, that others describe! Surely
it should be enough that they are on shipboard, with anchor up, sails set,
steam working, outward bound, plowing the deep at the rate of fifteen knots
an hour! What if they did set out in the nighttime, or in a fog? Is it not
enough that the captain and the pilot knew how to find the way, and that
they are now out in the sunlight, on the open sea, and bounding over the
billows to the desired haven?
This, by the way. It is certainly pleasant to
have distinct recollections of one’s conversion, and also of the moment
and the circumstances when full trust for full salvation was first reposed
in Jesus, but this is by no means indispensable. To be in the way, to have
Jesus for the all in all, is the great thing.
There remains yet one thing more to be done before
closing these explanations. In the preceding examples and comparisons, certain
differences were shown between the three classes, which, for convenience,
we named Lutherans, Wesleyans, and Oberlinians. It will be important to note
again, first the points, both of agreement and of difference between them,
and then to give the reasons of both their differences and their
agreements.
It is worthy .of special note again that their
differences are altogether those of opinion, not at all of fact. All are
agreed as to the essential facts of the experience in question. The shades
of difference in the manner of narrating are not at all essential. All agree
especially in the one great matter, that the experience is that of the way
of sanctification by faith: that of really practically receiving Jesus for
sanctification by faith, as before he had been received as the sacrifice
for sins. This may be variously expressed, but this is the marrow and substance
of the whole matter in every case and with every class.
Again: all agree as to the fact that this practical,
experimental apprehension of Christ is instantaneous in every case, whether
the instant can be marked, as in the cases referred to, or not. However long
the struggles beforehand, and however gradual the rising of the light afterwards
in the soul, there is a moment when Christ is first seen to be The Way, and
when the soul leaves every other way and trusts solely in Jesus. In these
facts all agree. And it may be added, that in the one essential doctrine
of the way of sanctification, as by faith and not by works, they all agree,
of course, if they agree in its practical reception in the experience in
question. Theologically, therefore, they are so far in
harmony.
Now the differences are, first, as to whether
this experience is that of entire instantaneous sanctification or not. Whether
the instant the sinner is given up to Christ to be “Sanctified soul,
body and spirit, and preserved blameless, until the coming of our Lord,”
as the apostle prays that the Thessalonians may be, whether then the sinner
is indeed, in that moment, made perfect in holiness or not. Or if not, whether
in any proper sense he may be spoken of as perfect.
Oberlinians affirm, in the case, absolute moral
perfection.
Wesleyans affirm a modified perfection called
“Christian.”
Lutherans affirm neither, but deny both. Then
as to terms descriptive of the experience there is a corresponding
difference.
Oberlinians use freely and without qualification
the term “entire sanctification.”
Wesleyans also,
use the word entire, in a restricted sense, though their favorite names are
“Perfect love” and ”Christian perfection,” as modifying,
and qualifying the idea of absolute perfection.
Lutherans have discussed the experience less as
a thing distinct, and therefore have known it less, and named it less
distinctively, than either Wesleyans or Oberlinians.
Cases of it have always occurred in every great
awakening, and often also in solitary instances, in the furnace of affliction
or under the special influences of sovereign grace and power. Such cases
have generally received the convenient name, “second conversion:”
but in the standards, as in the Westminster Assembly’s Confession, it
is called, “The full assurance of grace and salvation,” and elsewhere,
“The full assurance of faith,” while in hymns it is often named,
“Full salvation.”
Now as to the reasons of these agreements and
these differences, it will be easy to see them, if we scan the matter
closely.
All agree in the facts of the experience, because
the facts themselves are in harmony in all cases. And all agree in the doctrine
of sanctification by faith, because in every case, that is the great principle
received experimentally in place of sanctification by works. And all agree
that this experimental reception of Christ for sanctification is instantaneous,
because it could not be otherwise. For in every change of one principle of
action for another, however long the matter may be under consideration before
hand, the change at last when it does occur, must from the nature of the
case be instantaneous.
But while all agree in this, and thus far —
just here the separation begins.
Oberlinians look upon the soul’s sanctification
as complete, entire, wanting nothing, the instant Christ is accepted for
entire sanctification.
Lutherans look upon this, the acceptance of Christ
as the soul’s sanctification, as the entrance merely upon the true and
only way of being made holy, as the first full discovery of the real and
the right way.
Wesleyans take a middle view, indefinite, and
therefore undefinable. They do not believe in the absolutely perfected holiness
of the soul the instant it trusts fully in Jesus for holiness of heart. They
freely admit that imperfections may and do still exist, while yet a sort
of modified perfection is attained, as they think.
Now what is the right and the truth of the matter?
Exactly what is attained in this experience?
Christ. Christ in all his fulness. Christ as all
in all. Christ objectively and subjectively received and trusted in. That
is all. And that is enough.
But what as to holiness of heart? Nothing! Nothing
but a sense of self-emptiness and vileness, and helplessness. Nothing but
a sense of unholiness, and a full consciousness that all efforts and resolutions,
and strugglings and cries for holiness of heart, are just as vain as the
attempts of a leopard or an Ethiopian to bathe white in any waters. This
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. At the same time while this deep self-abasement,
and utter self-abhorrence fills the soul, there is on the other hand just
as deep a sense of the all-sufficiency and perfect loveliness of Christ,
and a realization of the fulness of his love, and an assurance of his ability
to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask Or think, according
to the power that worketh in us. And a confidence that he will do it, 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 the clay in the hands of the potter; and by faith, Christ is received
by the soul as the potter to mold it at his own sovereign will, into a vessel
for the Master’s own use and for the King’s own
table.
By faith the soul now is opened as a mirror to
the Master, and as in a crystal fount of unrippled face, the Master’s
image is taken in all its meekness and majesty.
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. And by faith Christ is taken
to the soul like an unopened book, title page read it may be, and portrait
frontispiece scanned and admired, but its leaves uncut, and its treasures
of wisdom and knowledge all unexplored, all in reserve, to be gained by daily
and hourly reading, in all after time.
By the power of God, in the light of truth, a
new starting point has been gained. A new and higher level has been reached,
and in the new light all things take on a new loveliness, and from the new
starting point the race becomes swifter and yet easier. A starting point
it is however, and not the goal reached, or the mark of the prize won. Let
this be specially noted, and kept ever in mind. This being the case it is
easy to see why the Lutherans should reject the terms and ideas of perfection,
as attained in this experience, for it is the beginning, not the end; only
the entrance, fully and consciously, by the right principle, upon the process
of sanctification — not sanctification completed.
When a man sick unto death, has become fully convinced
of the utter hopelessness of his case in his own hands, and thrown away every
remedy devised by himself, or recommended by his friends, and sent for a
physician who has wisdom to understand and skill to heal his disease, it
would be folly to say that at the moment his case was en-trusted to the
physician, his cure was complete. So in the Lutheran view, 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. It is the door of the way fairly
entered, and the way clearly perceived. So much, no more. The goal and the
crown are yonder in the glorious future, and in the open vision and unveiled
presence of the King immortal and eternal — but as yet invisible —
the only wise God our Saviour.
And it is also easy to see why the Wesleyans reject
the idea of absolute perfection attained in the experience, for they see
and know that, according to their standard of sinless obedience, it is not
true. While at the same time it is easy to see how the fact that it is an
experimental apprehension of the true way of sanctification, together with
the desire to give the experience a distinctive name has led to the adoption
of such terms as “ Christian perfection” and “Perfect love”
with a disclaimer of any profession of sinless perfection or absolute angelic
holiness of heart and life.
For the Oberlinian idea that the experience brings
the soul into a state of sinless perfection, or entire sanctification the
grounds must be sought in three things: first, their philosophy of the will,
according to which each volition or choice is in itself absolutely holy,
or absolutely unholy and altogether so. So that when God is chosen, while
that choice is predominant, the soul is perfectly holy; and when the world
is chosen, then while that choice is uppermost, then the soul is perfectly
sinful: — This, with their view of the law of God as graduated to the
sinner’s condition, whatever it is, not requiring of all alike the same
entire conformity to the absolute and unchangeable standard of heavenly holiness,
but claiming no more than the sinner’s earthly blindness permits him
to see, and no more than his earthly weakness permits him to do. And to these
two a third must be added; viz., their definition of sanctification, according
to which it is consecration only — or setting apart to God — and
so is man’s own work, instead of God’s. Whereas, according to the
popular acceptation, sanctification is the work of God in the soul after
it is set apart to God by voluntary consecration: — These three things
taken together, and taken together with the experience, may serve to show
us why and how the Oberlinians adopt the terms, and accept the idea of
“entire sanctification” as attained in the
experience.
As a closing remark: Let it be borne in mind that
these differences, are only differences of opinion. Important certainly;
but after all, nothing in comparison with the great facts in which all are
agreed. Not for a moment should they be allowed to keep one back from securing
the great and blessed realities of such an experimental apprehension of Christ
and salvation as is set forth in the examples given. The experience is a
reality. Jesus is freely offered as our sanctification as well as our
justification. Faith — full trust in him will bring full salvation with
him to the soul. Let no one fail of the grace of God. “Behold, saith
he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth, I have
set before thee an open door, and no man can shut
it.”
|
|