159. Should we not ASSUME, that there is no opposition to the spread of this doctrine and experience?
We should not. To assume that there is no opposition to it, is to assume what is not true, and what is very generally known not to be true. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed," and there is an opposition, strong and persistent, that every faithful worker in this regard has to encounter. To refuse to look at difficulties and dangers that environ us is not courage, but folly and cowardice.
We should not unduly magnify this opposition, nor dwell much upon it. We should not give it too much attention, nor attach very much importance to it. We are to work as though there were no opposition, and not talk too much about it, so as to let it hinder us. It is especially important that we do not allow it to engender bitterness in our minds, which is the most dangerous item. This should be carefully guarded against, as the many little annoyances and frictions from this source, are calculated to sour or embitter the spirit of those constantly subject to them.
160. How is this opposition usually manifested?
By misrepresentations, false accusations, and by taunts and sneers at those who give it prominence.
There is no doctrine of revealed religion that has suffered more misrepresentation than this blessed doctrine of perfect love. There is rarely an article written against it, that states it fairly, or that does not more or less misrepresent the teachings of its special advocates.
The sneers and taunts, "He is one of the sanctified ones," "He makes a hobby of Holiness," and the like, are so common, and so fruitful of evil, as to demand attention.
That some go to an unwarrantable extreme in regard to the subject of Christian holiness, we admit, and it is a source of grief to all the true friends of holiness. Untimely and unintelligent efforts are injurious to any cause. Nevertheless, where there is one thus chargeable in regard to this subject, there are fifty who fail to seek this grace, and live beneath their privilege and duty.
1. To make a hobby of holiness is both rational and scriptural. Noah Webster defines a hobby; "Any favorite object of pursuit." "That which a person pursues with zeal or delight." In the sense of Mr. Webster's definition, every Christian should make a hobby of holiness. But this is far from the sense in which it is used by these accusers. In its proper sense it would be a commendation rather than a taunt.
2. To say a man makes holiness a hobby, is the same as saying he makes a hobby of religion, for entire sanctification or holiness is religion in full gospel measure. Those who accuse their brethren of making a hobby of holiness do not mean this, and they should say what they mean. They deny making any thrusts at holiness, and say they are not opposed to it. "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." (Luke xix. 22. )
3. These accusations breathe a spirit of opposition to the discipline of the church. The discipline says: "Let your MOTTO be HOLINESS TO THE LORD." This is to the point, and is good authority. The bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church say: "We believe that God's design in raising up the preachers called Methodists, in America, was to reform the continent, and spread scriptural holiness over these lands." This has been subscribed by all our bishops, from Asbury down to the last one elected.
4. These accusations are indicative of a heart unfriendly to the Wesleyan and Bible doctrine of entire sanctification as a distinct blessing to be received subsequently to regeneration. Any man who preaches this doctrine "constantly, strongly, and explicitly," as Mr. Wesley directs, will incur these taunting accusations from the opposers of this doctrine.
Dr. W. F. Warren, president of the Boston University, said in his address before the Boston Preachers' Meeting: "If there is any sin next to the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, it is the making fun of his work in the sanctification of a human soul."
Bishop Foster rebukes this conduct: "There can be no excuse for sneers and epithets, and for an uncharitable spirit which is but too apparent. It is far from creditable to the piety of a Christian minister, when he can so far forget himself as to seem to want sympathy with sanctity, or with the souls which seem to be aspiring after it." -- Christian Purity, p. 279.
5. These railing accusations come from those not walking in the light of perfect love, and whose religious experience is indefinite and uncertain, and who manifest no special desire for a better experience.
6. This mode of opposition serves to quiet the convictions of many who are dissatisfied with their spiritual condition, and feel the need of a clean heart. The maddog cry of hobbyism has frightened multitudes of timid souls from the pursuit of holiness.
7. These accusations are now made mainly by persons within the pale of the Methodist church itself. The time was when the early Methodist preachers had plenty of this kind of treatment from without. They were accused of making a hobby of "free grace," and of "full salvation," by the opponents of those doctrines in other churches. Now, while that kind of opposition from abroad has ceased, we have an abundance of it at home.
Christian holiness and its friends have sufficient opposition in the depraved hearts of the unconverted, and in those who reject the doctrine altogether, without an ambush fire of this kind from their professed friends.
Dr. H. Bannister says: "The animus of such offense, however, seems too like that exhibited in flings and taunts at all religious people." -- Advocate of Holiness, 1875.
We ask, in the language of John Wesley: "Why have the preachers of it been hooted at like mad dogs, even by men that fear God, nay, and by some of their own children, some whom they, under God, have begotten through the gospel? ' -- Plain Account, p. 170.
Dr. Abel Stevens says: "Ministers who profess and preach holiness have to encounter suspicion, denunciation, theological and ecclesiastical ostracism." And he asks, "Is it not time that this thing was not only abandoned, but regarded with shame and penitence?"
8. How would such accusations sound from the lips of John Fletcher, or William Bramwell, or John Nelson, .... from that great and good man, John Wesley? who said "Therefore ALL our preachers should make a POINT of preaching PERFECTION to believers CONSTANTLY, STRONGLY and EXPLICITLY; and ALL believers should mind this one thing, and constantly agonize for it."
Whoever read or heard of Wesley or Fletcher accusing or reproving anybody for making a hobby of holiness? Wesley said to all his preachers, "Let your MOTTO be, HOLINESS TO THE LORD." He declared holiness "the peculiar doctrine committed to our trust" -- and for this he suffered the greatest opprobrium.
Mr. Wesley never accused even George Bell of making a hobby of holiness. He reproved Bell and others for mischievous extravagances, but never for making a hobby of perfect love.
9. These scoffing accusations prevent the subject of entire sanctification from receiving the attention and prominence in ministerial labor its interests demand. Our preachers know, if they follow the advice of Mr. Wesley, and the directions given in the Discipline, and give this subject prominence (and they cannot enjoy it without), they will be accused of being "sanctificationists," and of "riding the hobby of holiness." Many are not willing to trust their ministerial reputation with the advocacy of this doctrine. Our ministers know also, that some of our churches have been so poisoned and prejudiced, that they will not have a preacher who is known to profess and preach it.
10. Odium is no weapon for theological controversy. Throwing smut and mud helps no man to God, and furthers no good cause. Christian men should have too much conscience and honor to use odium as a battering ram to break down truth, or a scarecrow to keep people from an open avowal of gospel privilege and duty.
These unbrotherly accusations help on this condition of things; hence, the attention we have given them as evils, as only evils, and that continually.
Mr. Wesley wrote: "I hope brother C. is not ashamed to preach full salvation, receivable now by faith. This is the word which God will always bless, and which the DEVIL PECULIARLY HATES therefore he is constantly stirring up both his own children and the weak children of God against it."
There is a class of temporizing, self-indulgent, tobacco using men in some of our pulpits, who neither believe in, preach, nor enjoy much religion -- these are ready to utter such accusations against any who profess or preach Christian holiness, and these manifest and shameful facts are neither palliated nor concealed by their stale cry of "Croaker!" against wholly consecrated persons who weep over the desolations of Zion.
Should we address any such, we ask: If you neglect your duty -- do not seek or enjoy this grace, and fail to lead the church to seek and obtain it; ought you to find fault with and hinder those who are keeping their ordination vows, following the Discipline, and are trying to do the very best they can to lead the hungry thousands in the church into the clearer light and deeper experience of perfect love?
The Bible gives prominence to the subject of holiness. All the standards of Methodism, the Discipline, and the Hymn Book, give prominence to it. Why, then, is it censurable for a minister to give it prominence in pulpit and pastoral labor? It is undeniable that multitudes in our ministry but seldom preach a sermon specifically on the subject of holiness, notwithstanding thousands in the church are but partially sanctified, and the church is suffering for the want of purity and power.
No comments:
Post a Comment