symbols of the Reformed Church although Zwingle had previously expressed milder opinions on these points.

But the Anabaptists had already denied the existence of original sin, and the Socinians and Arminians utterly rejected the doctrine and maintained the views of Pelagius which in modern times had found a growing number of friends, of whom we might name Eberhard, Steinbart, Stark, Cannabich, Wegscheider and others. Already had Michaelis, Morus, Starr and Reinhard claimed that man after the fall has yet the power of knowing the good and admitted as the results of the fall only a wayward preponderance of sensuality over the reason. Doderlein, Eckermann, Henke, and Ammon considered this preponderance, which they called innate vitiosity, as something natural, not as something which springs up accidentally. Hence accrued what is called by Kant a radical evil in human nature.

The system of De Wette, which borrows the philosophy of Fries, and considers freedom as the intelligent action of a free will, represents the innate ruin as something originated in time, inasmuch as he locates it in this, that the intellectual conception of the rule of life is in part not a pure determination of the will, and in part it has not always, in point of power and vivacity, equal weight with the sensual conception of sensual motives, so that the rational free will cannot always determine according to its own taste. But the conscience, which always presupposes that we should and can withstand the sensual impulses, imputes to us this weakness as a free choice and as guilt.

Still farther do the Schelling school recede from the views held by the Church and taught in the Scriptures.

Since the doctrine of an inherited sin and sin-guiltiness is not grounded upon the New Testament, one need not restrict himself to the popular views of the unscriptural expression-original sin; and the same might be said of the extravagant representations made of the greatness of the moral ruin thence resulting and of the incompetency of human nature for good. Much more must we notice, in accordance with the New Testament teachings on this point, that the Divine law is written on the heart of man, and that this can and should prove efficient for his moral training. But together with this we must also observe that according to the Scriptures, no man continues wholly free from sin; that no one performs all he should and that the hindrances to moral development which arise in the social and religious life from sin,

perpetually strengthen the dominion of sin; whence they become exceedingly perilous as well to the temporal as to the eternal welfare of man. This view of the doctrine will have a good influence, on the one hand, not to crush the spirit of moral improvement by means of the disheartening notion that human nature is utterly ruined, and on the other, to make us keenly alive to the power and ruinousness of sin. This will guard us against a dangerous confidence in our own good estate; will arouse us to the consequences of sin in reference to distant generations; and thereby will instill a yet stronger abhorrence of sin, showing the necessity as to the state of religious institutions for the moral and physical education of the people and the danger of moral indifferentism; will make useful the value of that redemption from sin, which is prepared through Jesus, and will lead us to appreciate the love of God; and consequently will awaken us to a yet more hearty obedience to the institutions of God for our salvation and to the great truths of the Gospel.

[The following note may be convenient for reference to some of our readers, and the translator therefore inserts it here at the request of the Senior Editor. It respects the period when the several ancient Christian fathers flourished whose testimony is cited by our author.]

Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, (author of the Recognitions and Homiles.) Ignatius and Polycarp, are supposed to have been contemporaries with at least the last of the apostles. Justin Martyr died A. D. 164-Origen, 253-Theophilus 181-Athenagoras flourished about 177-Clement of Alexandria died 222-Archelaus flourished 228-Lactantius died in old age 330. Ireneas lived A. D. 97-202. Tertullius lived 466-220. Cyprian died A. D. 258. Athanasius, Cyrus of Jerusalem, Basil, the great, Gregory, Nyssen, Chrysostome, Jerome, Ambrose and Hilary, all lived in the fourth century. Augustine, Pelagius and Celestius flourished in the early part of the fifth.

The subsequent writers alluded to by Bretschnider belong to the era of the Reformation, or to yet more modern times.

F.

ARTICLE LXVII.

Sanctification.

Essay XVII, Princeton Theological Essays.

BY PREST. ASA MAHAN.

THE essay above named was originally published in the Biblical Repository and Princeton Review in 1842. At that time we did not receive the Review, and as a consequence never heard of this article until about a year since, when we obtained the volume of Essays in which it was re-published. This will account for the fact of its not receiving an early notice from us. Nor do we notice it now, because it presents any new aspects of the subject, but because an ar ticle on such a subject which does not receive a formal answer will be regrded by its authors and abettors, as unanswerable. This essay also, presenting, as it does, the Old School side of the question, completes the circle of argumentation against the doctrine of Sanctification. Our readers are already in full possession of the arguments of the New School on the subject. They will, therefore, not be uninterested, in being put in possession of the arguments and objec tions proceeding from the opposite School. Without any further preliminary remarks we proceed at once to our task of introducing our readers to this hitherto unanswered essay.

The introduction comprising between three and four large and closely printed pages, is wholly occupied with an argumentum ad invidiam. After affirming that" contrary as this doctrine is to Scripture and experience, it is too deeply radicated in man's selfishness, not to find apologists and advo cates among the conceited, the enthusiastic, and such as are unaccustomed to an impartial scrutiny of their own hearts," they go on to give a professed succinct history of the doctrine. "A kind of perfection," they say, "has been claimed for Greek and Roman sages, for Hindoo devotees, for Mahommedan saints; and even for the savage warrior, smiling in death

at the impotent efforts of his enemies to extract from his agonized nature the shriek or the groan of suffering." Pantheists, we are further informed, prior to Christ, and heretics of the apostolic age, such as the "Nicolaitans and Simonians, held similar views." The Gnostics of the first and second. centuries and the Manichaeans of the third," together with new Platonists of Egypt "held substantially the same views." Again, "Manichaeus, Preccilian. Evagrinus, Hyperboreus, Flavineus and the Menalians of Syria, were Perfectionists." So also were "Pelagius and Celestius, in the fourth century, who denied the innate sinfulness of the human heart and consequent necessity of efficacious grace in its removal." The following is the keystone of the arch. "The primitive Quakers, the French prophets, the Shakers, Jemima Wilkinson, Joanna Southcott, and the great body of mystics in every communion, held to perfection in this life, as the attainment of the privileged few." In respect to the manner in which the doctrine has been introduced into Congregational and Presbyterian churches, we will permit the Princeton brethren to speak for themselves without abridgement.

"It is not till lately that Perfectionism has been professed within the pale of Congregational and Presbyterian churches. By our fathers it was accounted heresy, inconsistent with the express testimony of the Scriptures, contradictory to Christian experience, and subversive of the entire scheme of the Gospel. But, in consequence of certain Pelagian speculations concerning moral agency, human ability, and the divine influence in sanctification-errors that have become extensively popular-individuals, once reputed most zealous for revivals of religion have been led to join Pelagius and other kindred spirits, in their views of the attainableness of perfection in the present life. Such, as we believe, is the philosophical origin of Perfectionism, as held by the professors at Oberlin and their theological friends."

How fully prepared the readers of this essay must have been, by such an introduction, for a careful and candid examination of the subject to be examined in the remaining portion of the article. How much like the spirit of Christianity is it, to place a Christian opponent in such an attitude before. the public, ere he has had any opportunity to speak for himself, or an attempt has been made, to state or answer any of his arguments. We have studied morality in a different school from our brethren at Princeton. Without a violation of conscience we could not, upon such principles, argue any question of Christian doctrine. Here we may also be permit ted to ask our brethren, why they did not present the opposite view of the subject? While they have informed their readers that the doctrine of Perfection has been the standing faith of Heathens, Mahomedans, and heretics in christen

dom, why did they not also present the well attested fact, that it was also the standing faith of the holiest men in the Christian Church, from the time of the apostles down to the Reformation? They tell their readers, that this doctrine was held by the Nicolaitans and Simonians of apostolic times. Why did they not inform us, that it was held by Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, in common with the church, generally of the same age? They tell us, that it was held by Pelagius and Celestius of a subsequent age. Why did they not inform us, that the same doctrine was also held by such men as Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ambrose and Turtullian of that and previous eras? They might have presented the doctrine in the very words of Athanasius himself, one to say the least, of the most influential of all the Christian fathers since the apostles, to wit, "there have been a great many holy men who have been free from all sin." While they have referred us to the great heretic Pelagius, as holding this doctrine, why did they not inform their readers, that in a trial of this same individual for heresy, before a council of Bishops at Jerusalem, a council denominated by Augustine himself "the Holy council of Jerusalem," this same doctrine was pronounced, by said council, the orthodox faith of the church? In the year 1844. we published, in the Oberlin Evangelist, a series of essays designed to establish the fact, by an appeal to the writings of the ancient fathers, that the doctrine of Entire Sanctification was generally, if not universally the received doctrine of the primitive Church, for the first three or four centuries of the Christian cra. We know of a distinguished minister of the Presbyterian Church, who affirmed, that he would give the subject a full examination, and then prove our position false. His articles have never-appeared, nor has any one attempted a reply to what we then wrote. We shall not, in this place, present the passages we then cited, but, as an example of what the primitive church did hold on this subject we will present our readers with a few passages from a single author, Macarius. He was born about the year 301, and died 391. For many years, he presided over one of the colleges and schools of the prophets. Moshiem says of him, that he "undoubtedly deserves the first rank among the practical writers of his time, as his works displayed, (some few things excepted,) the brightest and most lovely portrai ture of sanctity and virtue."

HOMILY 5.-" Concerning those things that happen to Christians in time of prayer, and concerning the degrees of perfection.'