b'\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\nB \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS. \n\n\xc2\xa9^,Sl.lqa|nB^la \n\nShelf.im. \n\n\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \n\n\n\n/ \n\nTHE PROBLEM SOLVED; \n\nOR, \n\nTHE SECOND MM AND HIS WORK: \n\n\n\nBeing a Review of the " Second Blessing \xc2\xbb Theory \nof Sanctification, and of Its Reviewers. \n\n\n\nBY G. H. HAYES, D.D., \n\nAuthor of "Children in, Christ." \n\n\n\n11 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (St. Paul.) \n\n\n\nA8| \n\n\n\nNashville, Tenn. : , \n\nPublishing House of the M. E. Church, South. J Q Q2~ *^ \n\nT\xc2\xa3 X TtT>T?TP &T ,QvrTT<XT A m?XTT<G \' \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\nBarbee & Smith, Agents. \n1892. \n\n\n\nEntered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1892, \n\nBy the Book Agents op the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, \n\nIn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. \n\n\n\nThe Library \nof Congress \n\nWASHINGTON \n\n\n\nPREFACE. \n\n\n\nThe author of the " Problem of Methodism " says in his " Pref- \nace:" "The conclusions which we have adopted are the most \nreasonable and scriptural solution of the difficult problem in- \nvolved." Of course he means, to his own mind and with the \namount of light he has received; for he says, " If we are in error, \nwe are ready to receive new light," and that " we are ready to \nadopt any theory of the divine life which is more reasonable \nand scriptural than the one we have adopted." Certainly there \nis no theory more "reasonable and scriptural" than the most \n" reasonable and scriptural," and the last statement is a confes- \nsion of doubt as to the truth of the first. \n\nWhether the light emitted in this effort to solve " the difficult \nproblem involved " will enable him and others to see a " more \nreasonable and scriptural " theory of the divine life " is yet to \nbe determined. If, however, the writer did not hope to accom- \nplish something in that direction, this contribution to the litera- \nture of the Church would not be made. If, in the arguments it \ncontains, the premises are false or the conclusions erroneous, he \nsincerely hopes that the fact will be clearly demonstrated by \nsome kind and competent lover of the truth, and that no reader \nwill be damaged by this writer\'s misguided zeal for the glory of \nGod and the good of his Church. For, whatever may be the \nresults, he is certainly conscious of no motive impelling to the \npublication of this volume, except the hope of contributing to a \nbetter understanding of the word of God and the consequent \nbettering of those who love and study it. \n\nIf this attempt to solve the "problem of Methodism" should \nprove satisfactory to the reader, and be the means of bringing \ntogether, into closer fellowship, the seemingly divided member- \nship of our loved Church, and of accelerating the spread of scrip- \ntural holiness over these lands, then will have been accomplished \nthe heart\'s desire and praver of the Authok. \n\n(3) \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. \n\nChapter I. Page \nThe Question Stated \xc2\xab* 7 \n\nChapter II. \nMy Correspondent 17 \n\nChapter III. \nDepravity Not Sin 23 \n\nChapter IV. \nPurification\xe2\x80\x94 How Effected 33 \n\nChapter V. \nThe " Problem of Methodism " 42 \n\nChapter VI. \nThe " Old and the New Man " 50 \n\nChapter VII. \nMan\'s Fall and Recovery 61 \n\nChapter VIII. \nMercy \xe2\x80\x94 Why Needed 76 \n\nChapter IX. \nThe Ark and Its Lesson 82 \n\nChapter X. \nExtremes Meet 103 \n\nChapter XL \nChristian Perfection B 119 \n\nChapter XII. \n" Unmethodistic Methodism " , . . . . 133 \n\nChapter XIII. \n" Sanctin cation, by Rev. P>. Carradine, D.D." 143 \n\nChapter XIV. \n\nConclusion 167 \n\n(5) \n\n\n\nThe Problem Solved. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE I. \n\nThe Question Stated. \n\nTheke is, so far as I know, perfect agreement \namong Methodists as to the fact that Christian per- \nfection is a Bible doctrine. As to what that perfec- \ntion is and how it is attained, whether instantaneous- \nly or by growth, there is apparent difference of \nopinion. Mnch has been said and written of late on \nthis subject, and with apparent intensity of conflict \nin opinion. There is, however, if I understand the \nopposing parties, agreement in that which is the es- \nsential error of those who are designated as the " res- \nidue " and "second blessing" party \xe2\x80\x94 viz., the eradi- \ncation of what is called "original sin." One party \ncontends that in regeneration man is freed from his \npersonal sins, but that original sin remains for an aft- \ner work, and that he must be convicted and repent \nof that "original sin" and exercise faith with special \nreference to its removal, when he is cleansed from all \ncarnality, or inbred sin. This they call sanctification, \nholiness, the second blessing, etc. \n\nThe other party, who find a representative and de- \nfender in the "Problem of Methodism, "^oppose the \n" residue " theory, and contend that in regeneration \n\nG) \n\n\n\nTHE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nman is cleansed not only from his personal and act- \nual sins, but also from "inbred" or "original sin." \n(See "Problem of Methodism," pp. 125-128.) Now \nif it should turn out that in that about which they \nare agreed both are mistaken, are in error, to what \nwill their controversy over their difference amount? \nAbsolutely nothing. If the thing is never done at \nall in this life, of course their dispute about the when \nand how it is done is a waste of time and energy. \n\nThis depravity question is a troublesome one, as is \nalso the thing itself, depravity. It is indeed a root \nof bitterness. It is, to change the figure, a stream \nwhich, as it flows, divides into many branches of suf- \nfering, sorrow, and disappointment, and always and \neverywhere ends in death. Its source is sin. It ris- \nes in the mount of transgression, flows through the \nvalley of disobedience, and empties into the gulf of \ndestruction. Depravity is a difficult problem to \nsolve. It is experienced by all; understood by none. \nThere are some things about it, however, that we may \nand ought to know. We may not be able to tell\xe2\x80\x94 \nmay not know \xe2\x80\x94 just what it is, but we may, it seems \nto me, know what it is not \xe2\x80\x94 entailed depravity, I \nmean. \n\nThere are some truths too plain for argument; \nthey are self-evident. They do not admit of proof, \nexcept what is found in the bare, simple statement of \nthem; neither can they be disproved. Such are the \nfacts that entailed depravity is not sin, in the sense \nof guilt as attaching to the subject of it, and that a \nman cannot repent of and find forgiveness for that of \nwhich he is not guilty. Also that personal sin that \nis necessitated by entailed depravity is not guiltiness \n\n\n\nTHE QUESTION STATED. 9 \n\nto the heir and instrument of it. Guilt attaches to \nthe agent, never to the mere instrument of wrong. It \nis, I doubt not, because of these self-evident facts that \nsome are disposed to discard entirely the idea of en- \ntailed depravity. They are nnable to separate in \ntheir minds the idea of depravity from that of guilt. \nThey can see but one meaning to the word sin, and \nseem not to distinguish between moral nature and \nmoral character. Moral nature is necessary to moral \ncharacter, and has of necessity a prior existence. \nMoral corruption, or depravity, as applied to the na- \nture of a moral being, cannot therefore mean the \nsame as when applied to the character of such a be- \ning. This is true even when predicated of the result \nof personal moral guilt; but it is not then so impor- \ntant to observe the distinction, because the person so \ncorrupted or depraved is himself responsible for the \ncorruption of his nature, and is justly punishable for \nit. He is not, however, punished, nor in justice pun- \nishable, for being dejjraved, but only for that which \ncaused his depravity \xe2\x80\x94 for his sins, his personal trans- \ngressions of the moral law. \n\nDepravity is the result of sin, but is not punisha- \nble. To him who commits the sin and is the subject \nof the resulting depravity, it rather comes as, in part> \nthe punishment of the sinner. In this sense, and to \nthis extent, it carries with it its own punishment of \nthe sinner, and is thus, in the gracious and merciful \nprovidence of God, compelled to lift its voice at every \nstep with ever increasing volume in earnest warning \nto every dying immortal against the first step in the \npaths of the destroyer. Personal guilt is impossible \nwhere there is no personal act in the violation of law. \n\n\n\n10 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nIll other words, sin, in the active and guilty sense of \nthe word, cannot attach to one who has not himself \nviolated the law, the transgression of which is sin. \nWhen, therefore, sin is predicated of anything else \nthan one\'s personal act, the word " sin " is used in a \ndifferent sense from that of guiltiness, or the charge \nis gratuitous and false. \n\nAs guilt and consequent condemnation and punish- \nment cannot be entailed\xe2\x80\x94 that is, transmitted to pos- \nterity\xe2\x80\x94it is difficult \xe2\x80\x94 not to say impossible \xe2\x80\x94 to see \nhow any unfitness for heaven can be entailed, except \nthat which is necessary to and inseparable from a \nmortal state of probation. I know it is thought by \nmany, and often taught, that infants, being depraved, \nare unfitted for heaven, and must, if they die in in- \nfancy, be regenerated and fitted for their heavenly \nhome; that this will be done if they die; but that, if \nthey live and develop into personally responsible be- \nings their regeneration will be conditioned upon their \nrepentance and faith, even though they do not per- \nsonally sin! That there is not a word in the Bible \nto justify such a belief is sufficient reason for not ac- \ncepting it. But if the Bible not only does not teach \nit, but teaches that of which it is contradictory, it be- \ncomes our duty to antagonize it, and to drive it away \nas an \'\'erroneous and strange doctrine." Let us see \nif this latter is not the true state of the case. It is \ncertainly taught that God is no respecter of persons, \nand I presume that it will not be denied that infants \nare persons. Now if there be that in infants, as an \nentailment from Adam, which unfits them for heaven, \nand which will not be taken away unless they die in \ninfancy, and having which when they come to years \n\n\n\nTHE QUESTION STATED. 11 \n\nof personal accountability renders them more liable \nto sin, and which is taken out of the converted adult \xe2\x80\x94 \neither at the time of his conversion or, as a "second \nblessing," at some subsequent time \xe2\x80\x94 is not God par- \ntial and a respecter of persons? Does not such a \ntheory, by logical necessity, make God put a premium \nupon personal sin? \n\nThe possibility of sin \xe2\x80\x94 the power to sin \xe2\x80\x94 inheres \nin the very nature of a moral agent. We cannot con- \nceive of such an agent without it. But if there be \nsuch a thing as depravity attaching to a moral being \n\xe2\x80\x94 whether as an inheritance or as the result of per- \nsonal sin \xe2\x80\x94 the depraved person is certainly more lia- \nble to sin than he would be without it. If this w T ere \nnot true, there would be no reason for nor justice in \nthe redemption of man through the sacrificial death \nof Jesus Christ. If there had been no involvement of \nhis descendants in Adam\'s sin, recovery through the \natoning sacrifice of the Son of Man would have been \nnot only unnecessary, but impossible. If, as man\'s \nRedeemer, Jesus Christ did not provide for the un- \nconditional recovery of every one from the necessary \neffects of Adam\'s sin upon his descendants \xe2\x80\x94 that is, \nthe effect for which they are in no way and in no \ndegree personally responsible \xe2\x80\x94 then the provision is \nincomplete, and he is an imperfect and incomplete \nSaviour, which is equivalent to saying he is no Sav- \niour at all. If such provision was made, then it is \nonly for personal sins \xe2\x80\x94 that is, sins committed by the \nindividual himself \xe2\x80\x94 that anything can be required \nas a condition of pardon, or of the individual in order \nto fitness for heaven. \n\nProvision being made, where there are no condi- \n\n\n\n12 THE PK0BLEM SOLVED. \n\ntions to be complied with or where the conditions \nhave all been met, it cannot be supposed that God \neither does or can fail or refuse to give the necessary \nfitness for the home which he has prepared for the re- \ndeemed. To one who has personally sinned pardon \ncan be offered, or given, only on condition of personal \nrepentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus \nChrist. If there is any unfitness for heaven in the \npardoned sinner, it is found in the defilement conse- \nquent upon sin, and from this defilement he must be \ncleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ, which only can \ncleanse from sin, and which cleanseth from all sin. \nThis cleansing* of course, is also conditioned upon faith \n\xe2\x80\x94 the same repentance and faith that were necessary \nto the pardon \xe2\x80\x94 for the simple reason that one cannot \nbe cleansed while he continues to wallow in filth; \nbut the cleansing thus conditioned can only be from \nthat defilement which is the result of the personal \nsins, for which pardon was sought and found. If \nthere was any defilement in or attaching to the indi- \nvidual prior to his committing personal sin, it must \nhave been entailed \xe2\x80\x94 that which was consequent upon \nAdam\'s sin; and if there, it was there either because \nGod could not, consistently with his own nature and \nthe best interest of his creature, the subject of this \nentailment, remove it, or because he ivould not. The \nlatter is an inconceivable hypothesis, and we must \naccept the first: that he could not. If he could not, it \nwas either because his action was barred by some act of \nthe defiled person, as a moral agent, or by something \ninherent in and inseparable from his nature as a mortal \nand moral being. It could not be the first, for we are \nspeaking of one who has done no wrong, and such an \n\n\n\nTHE QUESTION STATED. 13 \n\nact would itself be sin, and the actor would be per- \nsonally guilty; whereas we have assumed that the de- \nfilement was entailed, that it was inherited, and that, \nof course, the defiled person is in no way responsible \nfor it. It must, therefore, be the last \xe2\x80\x94 that is, some- \nthing inseparable from the nature of a moral being \nin a state of mortal probation; and if so, of course it \ncannot be removed, either before or after the commis- \nsion of actual personal sin, until this mortal shall put \non immorality. \n\nBut supposing such a thing possible \xe2\x80\x94 the eradica- \ntion of entailed depravity in this life \xe2\x80\x94 what reason \ncan any one give for its removal from one who has, in \naddition to the entailment, incurred personal guilt \nand not from the innocent and unoffending \xe2\x80\x94 the in- \nfant? Has God conditioned the removal of original \nsin (depravity) upon the commission of actual, per- \nsonal sin? If so, has he not put a premium upon \nsin, in the active sense of the word, and, by so doing, \nbecome himself the tempter of man to evil? But \n" God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempt eth \nhe any man." If he has not made personal sin the \ncondition necessary to the removal of original sin \n(depravity), then it follows either that it is removed \nfrom infants \xe2\x80\x94 all infants \xe2\x80\x94 and therefore from the \nworld, or that he does not remove it at all in this life. \nIf removed from infants, of course it has never exist- \ned in adults, since Adam; for it cannot be entailed \nthe second time, as to do so would imply the impossi- \nbility suggested by Nicodemus when he asked: "How \ncan a man be born when he is old? " \n\nBut let it be supposed that original sin (depravity) \nis eradicated in sanetification\xe2\x80\x94 or in regeneration, it \n\n\n\n14 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmatters not which \xe2\x80\x94 what then? . Can a man entail \nwhat he has not? Can parents from whom all de- \npravity has been eradicated entail depravity upon \ntheir children? Impossible. If either theory be \ntrue, original or inbred sin \xe2\x80\x94 that is, depravity en- \ntailed from Adam \xe2\x80\x94 can descend no farther than to \n} the first converted or sanctified pair along that line. \nHow it would be if only one *of the parents were sanc- \ntified it is difficult to tell. The children, I presume, \nwould be a sort of hybrid. \n\nMr. Wesley disposes of the objection here raised in \na very brief but illogical manner; yet, no doubt, satis- \nfactorily to himself and many of his readers. Re- \nmembering that, however w^ise and good, he was not \ninfallible, let us, without prejudice and in the love of \ntruth, examine his reply to the objection: "But if two \nperfect Christians had children, how could they be born \nin sin, since there was none in the parents? It is a \npossible, but not a probable case. I doubt whether \nit ever was or ever will be." According to my read- \ning of the Bible, barrenness is not a fruit of righteous- \nness, but of sin. But it is strongly implied in this \nquotation that to obey the command, "Be ye holy!" \nwe must cease to observe the injunction, "Multiply \nand replenish the earth" \xe2\x80\x94 that it is wicked to bear \nchildren, to propagate the species! \n\nThis is very unlike Mr. Wesley, and serves to show \nthe extremes to which good and great men may be \nled in defense of a preconceived theory. Hear him \nfurther: "But waiving this, I answer: Sin is entailed \nupon me, not by immediate generation, but by my \nfirst parent. \'In Adam all died: by the disobedience \nof one all were made sinners;\' all men, without ex- \n\n\n\nTHE QUESTION STATED, 15 \n\nception, who were in his loins when he ate the forbid- \nden fruit." This is no better. Nay, it is worse. It \nis a misappropriation, and, thereby, a perversion of \nthe Scriptures (not intentionally, of course) to sup- \nport an illogical and absurd position. How can any- \nthing be "entailed upon me" "by my first parents" \nexcept by immediate generation and through my last \nparents? Can anybody tell? Can any even imagine? \nAs to the Scripture quoted, when the apostle says, \n"As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be \nmade alive," he is speaking of physical death and the \nresurrection of the body. He nowhere says that \n" by the disobedience of one, all men were made sin- \nners;" but he does say: "As by the offense of one, \njudgment came upon all men to condemnation: even \nso by the righteousness of one, the free gift came \nupon all men unto justification of life." More liter- \nally: "As through one offense condemnation came \nupon all men: even so through one righteousness jus- \ntification of life came upon all men." That is, what- \never of condemnation came upon man \xe2\x80\x94 the whole \nhuman family \xe2\x80\x94 as the result of Adam\'s sin, was re- \nmoved in Jesus Christ, whose obedience unto death \nwas for all men, and unconditionally. \n\nContinuing, Mr. Wesley says: " We have a remark- \nable case of this in gardening: Grafts on a crab stalk \nbear excellent fruit; but sow the kernels of this fruit, \nand what will be the result? They produce as mere \ncrabs as ever were eaten." The illustration is as un- \nfortunate as the position it is intended to support is \nillogical. If the analogy holds good, the sinner that \nis grafted into the true vine (Christ) will not bear \nfruit unto holiness, but of unrighteousness unto death ; \n\n\n\n16 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nbut his children (seed) will bring forth fruit unto \nholiness and inherit eternal life, reverting to the na- \nture of the stalk (Christ) on which the sinner was \ngrafted ! \n\nAnother difficulty (and it has already been suggest- \ned) is that to remove entailed depravity is to place \nman where Adam was before he sinned, in relation \nto the law of death, and render the sanctified One im- \nmortal, physically, in this life. It would be to ex- \nempt him from physical death until he should forfeit \nhis sanctification by sin. This result is logically in- \nevitable, unless it be shown that the apostle Paul is \nmistaken when he says: "As by one man sin entered \ninto the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed \nupon all men, for that all have sinned;" "for since \nby man came death, by man came also the resurrec- \ntion of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so \nin Christ shall all be made alive." It is here taught \nnot only that death to man is the result of sin, but \nthat death to all men is the result of the same sin, \nAdam\'s sin. It is true that man by personal trans- \ngressions may shorten his life; that "bloody and de- \nceitful men shall not live out half their days;" but it \nis also true that infants die who have never sinned \npersonally at all. But all die, according to the apos- \ntle, because all have sinned. They must therefore \nhave sinned in Adam. "As in Adam all die, even so \nin Christ shall all be made alive" \xe2\x80\x94 that is, as all die \nas the result of Adam\'s sin, even so all shall be raised \nfrom the dead as the result of Christ\'s resurrection, \nhis triumph over death. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE IL \nMy Correspondent. \n\nAbout a year and a half ago, in private correspond- \nence with a worthy piid much loved brother, I wrote \na letter which, though it contains some things already \nsaid, I will here submit to the reader: \n\n"Dear Brother: I am, if possible, more than ever \nconvinced that much of the seeming difference of \nopinion among us is due to the different senses in \nwhich the same word is often (and correctly) used. \nYou object to the idea expressed in the words \' they \nare corrupt in nature/ \'depravity of nature,\' or \'de- \npraved nature;\' and say: \xc2\xa3 A nature cannot be cor- \nrupted; vegetables may rot, but not vegetable nature,\' \netc. In the sense you use the words I doubt not you \nare correct; but let us not forget that words have dif- \nferent meanings, and shades of meanings, according \nas they stand related to other words. In \'depravity \nof nature,\' the word \'depravity \' must be understood \nto express only that in nature which renders it liable or \nmore liable to corruption in the individuals possessing \nthat nature. The possibility of sin inheres by neces- \nsity in the very nature of a dependent moral being. \nBuf, in addition to this possibility, there may be a \nbias, or tendency, which renders the liability to sin \ngreater in him who possesses it than if he possessed \nonly the poiver which renders sin a possibility. To say \nthat it makes sin a necessity would be to say that it \n2 (17) \n\n\n\n18 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmakes sin impossible ; for that which cannot be avoided \ncannot be sin. This is what I mean, and what I under- \nstand Methodism to mean, by the word * depravity,\' \nas applied to the nature of man; and this is what we \ncall \'original sin,\' naming the effect for that which \ncaused it. In this sense, I take it, Paul frequently \nuses the word \'sin.\' Instance: \'Now then it is no \nmore I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.\' \n(Eom. vii. 17.) In this passage and its context Paul \nuses the word \'sin\' as expressive of a tendency not \nto commit sin for sin\'s sake, but to that which, if \nwillingly done, would be sin. \n\n"That such infirmity attaches to human nature as \nthe result of Adam\'s transgression is, it seems to me, \na self-evident proposition, if we accept the atonement \nas a fact, and the resurrection as a fruit to man of the \nsame, a pledge and first fruit of which we have in the \nresurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If death, \nphysical and temporal, is not a result to man of \nAdam\'s transgression, the resurrection caimot be a \nfruit of redeeming love \xe2\x80\x94 cannot be a part and com- \npletion of redemption, which seems to be implied \nwhen the apostle says : * Waiting for the adoption, to \nwit, the redemption of our body.\' Nor can I see \nany force in the argument when the same apostle \nsays : \'As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be \nmade alive.\' He is here arguing the resurrection of \nthe body, and the death spoken of must be the death \nof the body \xe2\x80\x94 physical death. Unless that death to \ndescendants of Adam \xe2\x80\x94 the human race\xe2\x80\x94 results from \nsome change in the physical nature of man, or in the \nenvironments of that nature, consequent upon Adam\'s \nsin, there is to me no conceivable sense in which all \n\n\n\nMY CORRESPONDENT. 19 \n\ndie in Adam. It is this inherent tendency to corrup- \ntion that we call depravity, or corruption in the phys- \nical nature of man. When the apostle says, \'When \nthis corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and \nthis mortal shall have pat on immortality,\' etc., he \nspeaks of that state of mortality and corruptibleness \nentailed by Adam upon the race, recovery from which \ncomes through Jesus Christ \xe2\x80\x94 the second Adam\xe2\x80\x94 and \nis to be completed in the resurrection. \n\n" Of course the possibility of death existed before \nthe fall, but only as the result of sin. If man had \nnot sinned, he would not, could not have died; and \nwas, therefore, immortal, provided he did not sin. \nNot so since the fall. \' By one man sin entered into \nthe world, and death by sin; and death passed upon \nall men, for that all have sinned.\' All have not \nsinned, personally, who die. Infants, for instance, \nhave not personally sinned, yet they die. They must, \ntherefore, have sinned in Adam, and therefore die in \nAdam; that is, die because Adam sinned \xe2\x80\x94 as a conse- \nquence of his sin. All infants do not die, as infants, \nyet all are physically depraved \xe2\x80\x94 L e., liable to die. \nFrom this death, and this liability to death, they are \nrecovered through the redemption which is in Christ \nJesus, which redemption is to be consummated, com- \npleted in the resurrection. -The physical infirmities, \nwhich are necessary and inseparable attendants of a \nstate of mortality, are the workings of entailed de- \npravity, the end of which will be, to all who die, ab- \nsolute depravity, or physical corruption \xe2\x80\x94 rottenness. \n\n"The intellectual and moral tenant of this mortal \ntenement is not only very closely related to, but large- \nly dependent upon it, while in a probationary state, \n\n\n\n20 THE PROBLEM SOLYED. \n\nfor development of intellectual and moral character; \nand has a natural if not a necessary inclination to \ntake pleasure in the gratification of its sensual appe- \ntites. When these have been vitiated and abnormal- \nly developed \xe2\x80\x94 as they always are by sin when in- \ndulged in \xe2\x80\x94 the law by which they work, called by \nPaul, \'a law in my members,\' is at war with the law \nof the mind in its intellectual recognition and con- \nsciously felt sense of duty, along the line of moral \nresponsibility. It is this bias of the whole man \xe2\x80\x94 i. e., \nof man taken as a whole \xe2\x80\x94 to moral evil that we call \ndepravity; and total depravity because it affects the \nwhole man. The depravity is not total, but the total \nman is depraved. \n\n"I do not repudiate the phrase \'original sin,\' but \nonly the misapplication of it. To my mind it is very \nexpressive and, properly understood, forbids the idea \nof guilt, as attaching to those upon whom it has been \nentailed. Guilt can attach only to the originator of \nsin, the doer of the act which is sin. Everybody un- \nderstands the word \'original \' in the phrase quoted to \nrefer to the act of the original man, the first man. \nIf, therefore, we recognize the self-evident proposition \nthat \'guilt is a concomitant of sin,\' the phrase is a \nplain denial of the idea that guilt can attach to those \nupon whom original sin had been entailed. It only \nasserts, and is intended only to assert that the effects \nof that original act have been entailed upon the de- \nscendants of the original actor. What you say of \n\'holy and unholy,\' as \'predicable of character\' only, \nI heartily indorse, when using the word \' holy,\' or \n\'holiness,\' in the active sense. But holiness, as ex- \npressive of activity along the line of right in the de- \n\n\n\nMY CORRESPONDENT. 21 \n\nvelopment of moral character, is possible only where \nthere is holiness \xe2\x80\x94 in the sense of wholeness \xe2\x80\x94 of nature \nin that which is requisite to the existence of moral \ncharacter. In this latter sense God created man a \nholy being. It is, I apprehend, for want of discrimi- \nnation as to the different uses and meanings of words \nthat men often appear to differ, when if they under- \nstood each other there would be perfect harmony. \n\n"You say: \'The requirement that we be bom again \nis not in consequence of sin or depravity [in the offen- \nsive sense] in the first or initial birth.\' I am glad \nyou here recognize the fact that there is an \'offen- \nsive \' and an inoffensive sense in which the words \n\'sin\' and \' depravity \' may be used. Again I must in- \ndorse what you say, and even more than you say. It \ncannot be predicated of the new birth that it is a re- \nquirement consequent upon \'sin or depravity\' (in any \nsense) \'in the first or initial birth.\' To do so would \nbe to make a child responsible for its own birth \xe2\x80\x94 for \ncoming into the world. It would be also to make the \nnew birth \xe2\x80\x94 being born again \xe2\x80\x94 consist in the eradica- \ntion or destruction of all that was entailed upon the \nrace of man as a consequence of Adam\'s sin, call it \ndepravity, original sin, or what you please. To do \nthis would be to place man, when \'born again,\' just \nwhere Adam was before he sinned; and, unless we \ndeny that the \' wages of sin is death,\' that death en- \ntered the world by sin, as a result of sin, w r ould ren- \nder it impossible for a converted man to die unless he \nshould sin again; thus making man physically im- \nmortal in this world. The truth is, depravity, what- \never you may define it to be, provided only that it be \nan entailment from Adam\'s sin, is an inseparable ac- \n\n\n\n22 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\ncompaniroent of a state of mortal probation. \' Ye must \nbe born again\' is not intended to be descriptive of any \nchange in its modus operandi, the analogy of which is \nto be found in the literal, physical birth which intro- \nduces us into this mortal pilgrimage; but rather of re- \nsultant relationship \xe2\x80\x94 child relationship \xe2\x80\x94 to the All \nFather. It is therefore called \'adoption.\' As a \' re- \nquirement,\' it applies to those only who have sinned, \npersonally sinned, and is necessary to make them \' as \nlittle children,\' who have not sinned. Depravity remains \nin both, and is that through which the \'law in our \nmembers\' works wretchedness until, like Paul, we are \noften ready to cry out: \'O wretched man that I am, \nwho shall deliver me from this body of death?\' You \nsay: \'Rather is it [to be born again] after the analo- \ngy of hatching an egg after it has been laid.\' As ap- \nplied to infants \xe2\x80\x94 assuming that they must be born \nagain \xe2\x80\x94 that may he true; but certainly not as applied \nto sinners, unless they be presumed to have crept back \ninto the shell." \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE III. \n\nDepravity Not Sin. \n\nIf it is true, as I honestly think is conclusively- \nshown in the arguments presented above, that origi- \nnal sin (depravity) is an inseparable accompaniment \nof a mortal state of probation, and is never to be \neradicated in this life, of course the "residue" and \n"second blessing" theory of sanctification is false, \nwhatever may be thought of the experience of those \nwho profess and teach it. "A rose by any other \nname would smell as sweet," and I doubt not the ex- \nperience of constant communion with God, and fel- \nlowship with his Son, Jesus Christ, is as sweet to \nthem who enjoy it as though the theory of "second \nblessing" were true. I do not assail, do not question \nthe experience of perfect love. I would that all men \nenjoyed it. Christian perfection, I verily believe, is \na Bible doctrine; and the idea that a man cannot by \nthe grace of God live without sin in this w^orld is not \nonly absurd; but, when taught and believed, destruc- \ntive of good morals and ruinous to the souls of men. \nMen cannot be induced to attempt what they really \nbelieve to be impossible; and if a man believes it im- \npossible to avoid sinning, he will not try to avoid it. \nIf he cannot avoid it, it is not a sin; for no man is re- \nsponsible beyond his ability. If he can avoid a mor- \nally wrong act, and does not, he sins. If he sins, and \ndoes not repent, he cannot obtain pardon; and if he \n\n(23) \n\n\n\n24 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ndies without pardon, he cannot enter heaven, for noth- \ning impure can enter there. If all past sins are par- \ndoned, as they are in the case of every one who "is \nborn of God," the pardoned man is ready for judg- \nment; and if he does not sin again before called into \njudgment, will assuredly be admitted into the heav- \nenly city- If these statements are not true, then my \nunderstanding and reason are greatly at fault. If \nthey are true, then the idea that an additional bless- \ning, conditioned upon the repentance and faith of the \nsubject, a child of God, is necessary as a qualification \nfor heaven cannot be true. That one who has repent- \ned, believed, and is justified, pardoned, regenerated \nand adopted, and has the Spirit itself bearing witness \nwith his spirit that he is the child of God, is also \nsanctified, there can be no doubt, unless it can be sup- \nposed that such a one has not set himself apart to the \nservice of God and been accepted of him. He may \nnot have been sanctified by an authorized minister of \nChrist in. and by the ordinance of Christian baptism, \nbut he has certainly sanctified himself and been sanc- \ntified by the Spirit of God. If the reader doubts \nthis, let him, with the help of a concordance, study the \nmeaning of the word " sanctify " as used in the Script- \nures. An unsanctified man is an unsaved man ac- \ncording to the Scriptures; and so of an unholy man. \nDo I then deny and oppose the Methodist Wesley- \nan doctrine of Christian perfection? Assuredly not. \nIt is laid upon this foundation, and the builders there- \nof had never laid the first stone, had never conceived \nthe idea but for the doctrine and experience of sanc- \ntification in regeneration and the witness of the Spir- \nit thereto. "The natural man receiveth not the \n\n\n\nDEPRAVITY NOT SIN. 25 \n\nthings of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness \nunto him: neither can he know them, because they \nare spiritually discerned." The doctrine of course \nwas taught in the Bible, but the spiritual eye had to \nbe couched before it could be seen. Had Mr. Wesley \nnever experienced the pardon of sins and the witness \nof the Spirit that he was a child of God, he would \nnever have taught the doctrine of Christian perfec- \nfection. One must know what it takes to constitute \na Christian before he can teach Christian perfection, \nand must be a Christian before he can become per- \nfect as a Christian, before he can go on to perfec- \ntion; must be holy before he can perfect holiness \nin the fear of the Lord. If a Christian is not a \nsaved man, one created anew in Christ Jesus, we \nmay well ask: Who then can be saved? Who \never heard of a man who was not spiritually mind- \ned contending for and urging to the attainment of \nChristian perfection, unless he was a hypocrite? \nWho ever heard of one professing to have attained \nit \xe2\x80\x94 by whatever name he may have called it \xe2\x80\x94 who \ndid not first profess to have been regenerated \nand received the witness of the Spirit? As well \nsearch for a man who is professing to have attained \nto perfect development in physical manhood, and who \nis teaching the means of its attainment, who was nev- \ner born into the world! If a man has "received the \nSpirit of adoption" and has the Spirit itself bearing \nwitness with his spirit that he is a child of God, what \nmore can he need to constitute him an heir? Has \nGod any children who are not heirs? Not if the \napostle Paul understood the subject: "If children, \nthen heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." \n\n\n\n26 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nO what honor is here! What a thrilling experience! \nWhat unutterable joy to be a child of God and to \nhave the assurance from him that he owns us as such! \nSurely nothing but the forfeiture of the relation by \npersonal sin can cause a single child of God to be dis- \ninherited. \n\nBut is a man thus constituted a child of God, and \nas soon as he is born of the Spirit and has the wit- \nness of it, perfect? Yes; and no. He is perfectly a \nchild of God, and as such perfectly an heir; but he \nhas not yet gone on to perfection in that perfect rela- \ntion. He is only just now ready to begin the work \xe2\x80\x94 \ncall it growth or what you will \xe2\x80\x94 of developing \n"unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature \nof the fullness of Christ." This he must do if he \nmaintain the relation. I will not say that it is im- \npossible for a child to eat just enough to sustain life \nand yet not enough to minister to its growth; but I \nhazard nothing in saying it would be a dangerous ex- \nperiment, and one that few, if any, could be induced \nto make in the realm of the physical; and they w T ho \nattempt it in the spiritual are apt to die of inanition. \nIf a child eats enough to sustain life, he is apt to eat \nenough to make him grow, especially if he relishes \nthe food and can get it. This is true of the spiritual \nas well as of the physical man. Every newly adopted \nchild of God is in a sense a babe spiritually, but they \nare not all the same size morally. A fact this which \nseems to be overlooked in the analogies sought and \napplied in the discussion of this question. There is \nreally no analogy between the literal physical birth \nand what is called the new birth, being "born of the \nSpirit," except in the relation which results. Indeed, \n\n\n\nDEPBAVITY NOT SIN. 27 \n\nas to the modus operandi, there is an exact reversal of \nthe process. Attempts to argue from analogies sup- \nposed to exist here have been productive of the ludi- \ncrous, the ridiculous, and the vulgar, but have con- \ntributed nothing to the development of truth, nor to \nthe growth of God\'s children in the grace and knowl- \nedge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor will it do to try \nto run the analogy through childhood to mature man- \nhood w T ith the results, for here we find that the child \nfrom utter helplessness and absolute dependence \ngrows to be self-sustaining and independent, and \nsometimes to be the support of a dependent father or \nmother. Of course in the spiritual birth the child is \nutterly helpless and dependent on the Father (God) \nfor all spiritual blessings and protection, but not \nmore so than he must continue to be as long as he \nabides in "the earthly house of this tabernacle." \nHe can do nothing of himself, but he "can do all things \n[that are required of him] through Christ which \nstrengthened" him. His sufficiency is of God from \nfirst to last. It is not to be supposed, however, that \nevery adopted child of God starts on his Christian \ncareer with the same advantages and strength, as to \nhis mental and moral development, and that they are \nall equally "babes." If we begin at the foundation \nand build according to the true philosophy of the \nplan of salvation, this will do. Otherwise we will \nwander in mazy darkness for material, and rear an \nunsubstantial building. If we accept the philosoph- \nical and Biblical truth, that every infant born into this \nworld is born a child of God as well as a child of man, \nwe may find analogies between the two relations \xe2\x80\x94 to \nGod and man \xe2\x80\x94 in the states of absolute and uncondi- \n\n\n\n28 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\ntional dependence. If we take the case of adopted chil- \ndren, persons who have by personal transgressions \nforfeited the relation, who on complying with the pre- \nscribed condition, repentance toward God and faith \nin the Lord Jesus Christ, "have received the Spirit \nof adoption," we must begin the analogy at the point \nof mental and moral development to which the person \nhas attained before conversion, as to moral charac- \nter and manhood. \n\nGod deals with man as an intellectual being, and \nintelligence is necessary to the perfection of Christian \nmanhood. If this were not true, there would be no \nneed of the revelation which he has made and given to \nman. Because it is true, he has provided for the ne- \ncessity and given in his inspired word just the kind \nof food that is adapted to the nature of an intellect- \nual and morally responsible being in a mortal state \nof probation. The standard of perfection is present- \neel in this word, and the model of it in the person and \nlife of the Son of Man. The more a man knows of \nthe truth as it is in Jesus Christ and is revealed in \nhis word, if he measures up to his duty and privilege \nin practical life, the more nearly he approximates \nChristian perfection. No man can know more of the \ntheory of human redemption than is revealed, unless \nwe assume that the Revelation is incomplete and is \nto be supplemented to individuals. Nor can any hope \nto know in this life all that is revealed in the Script- \nures: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, \nsave the spirit of man which is in him? even so the \nthings of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of \nGod." Assuming that perfection is attained, it is \nnot to be supposed that every perfect Christian has \n\n\n\nDEPRAVITY NOT SIN. 29 \n\nacquired the same amount of intelligence and the \nsame degree of moral development that any and every \nother has. He may be, and is if perfect at all, as ab- \nsolutely perfect in moral character, relatively to his \nown intelligence in that which is necessary to it; but \nin proportion as he is, as compared with others, want- \ning in intelligence, he is necessarily less in moral \nstature, so to speak. The moral cannot outstrip the \nintellectual in actual development, though it may in \ncomparative; but the intellectual does often exceed \nthe moral. If a man does the very best that he \nknows, all the while and in everything, he is perfect \nin moral, however deficient in intellectual manhood. \nBut he is not therefore the equal of every other man \nwho does the same thing. Saul of Tarsus was intel- \nligent, earnest, and honest. He was learned in the \nScriptures, but not spiritually enlightened. When \nthe Spirit shone into his heart and revealed to him \nits true condition, he recognized in the Jesus whom \nhe persecuted the Messiah of his own Scriptures, and \naccepted him as his personal Saviour. He now saw \nthe facts and prophesies, with which he had long been \nfamiliar, in a new light, and was prepared to prove \nout of the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. A \nchild of five years, or even less, may believe in Jesus \nand have the witness of acceptance with him, and be \nas honestly determined as was Paul to do all he can \nin his service and for his sake; but is he therefore \nequal in moral stature to the apostle? Relatively, he \nmay be; but absolutely, he is not. The moral may \nbe as fully up to the intellectual in the child as in the \napostle; but if only equal in that both are measuring \nup to ability\xe2\x80\x94 each to his own, of course \xe2\x80\x94 the abso- \n\n\n\n30 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nlute inequality of moral stature must be in exact pro- \nportion to the difference in their intellectual develop- \nment and native capacity, as this is the measure of \nability and responsibility. They are both children of \nGod, and, in a sense, they are both "babes" in \nChrist; but are they equally and in the same sense \n"babes," morally and spiritually? As well contend \nthat a babe of a few days and a youth of sixteen or \neighteen years, being adopted by some kind-hearted \nman, are equally and in the same sense babes, liter- \nally, because they are at the same time adopted into the \nfamily and legally constituted children of their foster \nfather. They are, indeed, equally his children, and, \nas expressive of their new relation, might be called \ntwins; but certainly no one will contend that they are \nliterally and equally babes. \n\nAn infant is a child of God and a babe, literally \nand spiritually. It may, and ought to be nourished \nwith the discipline and doctrine of the Lord, so that it \nwill never forfeit the relation by sin. To deny that \nthis is possible is to say that personal sin is a neces- \nsity, which is a contradiction of the thing affirmed. \nThat it is hard to do, and seldom done, I do not deny. \nBut if all Christian parents were what they ought to \nbe, and there were no nonchristians in the world, it \nwould be an easy thing to accomplish. If the intel- \nlect were properly developed and proper discipline \nenforced from the start, and there were no evil exam- \nples set before the child, it is difficult to see how a \nfailure could be made. I doubt not that very much \nof the depravity that curses the world, moral, mental, \nand physical, and that is attributed to original sin \n(Adam\'s sin), if the exact truth were known, would be \n\n\n\nDEPRAVITY NOT SIN. 31 \n\nseen to be personally acquired or, if inherited, consid- \nerably augmented by the personal sins of ancestors \nless remote than the original pair. If children were \ndealt with touching their relation to their earthly \nparents and to other members of their natal house- \nhold as often they are with respect to their heav- \nenly Father and the household of God (the Church), \nthe result would be to segregate the family and sap \nthe foundation of civilized society and of republican \ngovernment. If children from their early infancy \nwere wet-nursed from home and not taught their re- \nlation to their parents and their rights and duties as \nmembers of the family, but rather taught that it is \ntheir right to choose in after years \xe2\x80\x94 when they attain \nto competency of judgment \xe2\x80\x94 whether they will ac- \nknowledge their parents and recognize and submit to \ntheir authority, what would be the results as to fami- \nly government, and upon society and civil govern- \nment? Is it to be wondered at that children grow up \nto disregard the claims of religion and become open \nand avowed sinners against God, when their right to \nmembership in the visible Church \xe2\x80\x94 the family of God \n\xe2\x80\x94 is denied by many professed Christians, and the \npossibility of their retaining the favor of the heaven- \nly Father and continuing members of his spiritual \nfamily practically denied by all, even by those who \nnominally recognize their rights and relationship and \nplace the appointed seal of the covenant upon them ? \nThis serious blunder \xe2\x80\x94 fatal, I fear, in many instances \n\xe2\x80\x94 grows out of the idea so long and almost universally \nreceived, that original sin (entailed depravity) unfits \nthe descendants of Adam for heaven, and it is, by \nsome means, to be gotten rid of in this life. The bare \n\n\n\n32 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nintimation that possibly the idea is neither founded \nin reason nor supported by the Scriptures is quite \nsufficient to arouse the cry of " heresy" against the \npresumptuous offender. If by these utterances I \nsubject myself to the charge of heresy, I have only to \nsay: Back the charge with proofs from reason and \nand Scripture or from our book of Discipline, and I \nwill at once recant. Otherwise I am obliged by the \nChurch, as well as by my own conviction of duty, \nto "drive away" as a " strange and erroneous doc- \ntrine" the idea that entailed depravity is sin, in the \nguilty sense of the word, and is to be gotten rid of in \nthis life. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE IV. \n\nPUBIFICATION\xe2\x80\x94 HOW EFFECTED. \n\nIf depravity is not sin \xe2\x80\x94 in the sense of guiltiness \n\xe2\x80\x94 (and it cannot be if entailed) then no requirement \ncan be made of its subject as a condition of its remov- \nal. This is as true of adults as -of infants, for they \nare no more responsible for growing up and develop- \ning into moral agents than for being born into the \nworld. If its removal cannot be conditioned upon \nany act of obedience required of man, it cannot be a \nbar to his perfect acceptance with God and fitness for \nheaven, so far as fitness can be acquired in this life. \nIf any unfitness for heaven remains in one who is ac- \ncepted of God and whose personal sins are pardoned \n\xe2\x80\x94 who is born of God \xe2\x80\x94 except that which pertains to \nthe body and is to be removed in the resurrection, in \nwhat does it consist ? and when and how is it to be re- \nmoved? We have seen that it does not consist in \noriginal sin, or inherited depravity. It must there- \nfore be found in some unpardoned sin or in the re- \nmaining effects of sins that have been forgiven \xe2\x80\x94 that \nis, acquired depravity. The first it cannot be, unless \nGod can be supposed to accept, renew, and adopt as \nhis child one a part of whose sins he does not forgive. \nIt cannot be the latter unless an effect can be greater \nthan its cause; for, whether we consider the power \nrequired or the condition necessary to its exercise, that \nwhich removed the cause would be sufficient to re- \n3 (33) \n\n\n\nSi THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmove the effect also. Besides, the effect, while it \nmight be regretted, could not be repented of; and \nthat for which repentance is impossible cannot be a \nmoral unfitness for heaven. If not a moral unfitness, \nit must pertain to the physical man, the body; and- if \nin the body, it cannot be removed until the resurrec- \ntion. \n\nSin pardoned and its effects removed, redemp- \ntion is completed. "The wages of sin is death; but \nthe gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ \nour Lord." Death, "to man at least \xe2\x80\x94 and it is of man \nonly that we speak \xe2\x80\x94 is an effect of sin, and we may \nsay the only effect, for it embraces all its accompany- \ning infirmities and sufferings, whether we speak of \nmoral or physical death. Sin is the transgression of \nthe law, and as such requires pardon in order to its \nremoval. Only he of whose law it is the transgres- \nsion can pardon sin. When sin is pardoned, it is re- \nmoved, in the only sense in which it can be removed, \nand completely. The effect of sin is death, and the \nremoval of death is the recovery of the sinner from \nthe effect of sin. As the body dies as the result of \nAdam\'s sin, in which his descendants took no part, it \nis to be unconditionally raised from the dead as the \nresult of Christ\'s triumph over death, even so the \nmoral man is unconditionally raised from the death \nwhich would have been an entailment consequent upon \nthe same sin, and for the same reason and by the same \nnecessity. Eternal death, which is spiritual death con- \nsummated and perpetuated, can come to none but the \npersonal transgressors of the law \xe2\x80\x94 the morally guilty \nInfants are not personally guilty, and therefore can- \nnot die eternally, as infants. If eternal death is the \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION \xe2\x80\x94 HOW EFFECTED. d5 \n\nconsummation and perpetuation of a death in sin, \nthey are not dead in sin. If infants are not depraved, \nthere is no such thing as inherited or entailed de- \npravity. If there is no entailed depravity, there can \nbe no recovery from such entailment, and therefore \nno Redeemer, in a moral sense, of infants at all. II \ninfants are depraved and not dead in sin, then de- \npravity is not sin in the guilty sense of the word \n"sin." \n\nThe pardon of sin and the removal of its effects \nconstitute the perfect recovery of the sinner \xe2\x80\x94 com- \npleted redemption. Man is a twofold being \xe2\x80\x94 spirit \nand body; and to both death is the effect of sin. The \nspirit is "dead in trespasses and in sins" \xe2\x80\x94 that is, if \nguilty of personal transgressions of the law; other- \nwise not. The Christian is "alive to God through Je- \nsus Christ" \xe2\x80\x94 that is, in his spirit. In one of these \ntwo classes every human being is found \xe2\x80\x94 dead or \nalive. There is no medium ground, no third class. \nBoth alike are mortal, as to their physical bodies, and \nare destined to die a physical death. This death, to \nall, is the effect of the same sin, original sin. "In \nAdam all die." The restoration of the body to a life \nfreed from the seeds of death, from mortality, is \ncompleted redemption to the body. "This corrup- \ntible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must \nput on immortality: then shall be brought to pass the \nsaying that is written, Death shall be swallowed up \nin victory." \n\nResurrection, then, is the only remedy for the ef- \nfects of sin, whether of spirit or body, as death is the \nonly effect, comprehending in itself all its accompany- \ning infirmities, corruptions, and sufferings. The type \n\n\n\n36 THE PBOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nof the resurrection that awaits the body, or that to \n\xe2\x96\xa0which, it is to be raised, is determined by the charac- \nter of the spirit by which it is tenanted at the time of \nits death; for that same spirit is to tenant the body \nwhen it is "raised a spiritual body." If it dies the \ntenement of a spirit "dead in trespasses and sins," it \nwill be raised fitted for the indwelling of that same \nspirit throughout the endless ages of eternity, where \nhope comes not and mercy is clean gone forever. If \nthe tenanting spirit is " alive unto God through Jesus \nChrist," who is "the resurrection and the life," when \nthe body dies, it -will, when raised, be fashioned like \nunto the glorious body of our risen and glorified Re- \ndeemer, and the man, perfectly recovered from the ef- \nfects of sin in spirit and body, awaking in the like- \nness of him after whose image he was originally cre- \nated, "shall be satisfied." The others, bearing the \nlikeness of their chosen father, the devil, will be \nraised to shame and everlasting contempt. \n\nThe resurrection of the spirit takes place in this \nprobationary life and is conditioned to the personally \nguilty \xe2\x80\x94 none others are dead in trespasses and sins\xe2\x80\x94 \nupon "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord \nJesus Christ." It is made conditional because the \ndeath from which it delivers is the result, to those to \nwhom it is conditioned, of their personal and volun- \ntary sins. To none other is a condition either neces- \nsary or possible; and where the condition is not ap- \nplicable the state (death) cannot exist, for where no \nbarrier is interposed the quickening Spirit effects his \nwork. Resurrection is purification, and that which is \nraised is purified. "So also is the resurrection of the \ndead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incor- \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION \xe2\x80\x94 HOW EFFECTED. 37 \n\nruption." This, it is true, is spoken of the body; but \nit is also true of the spirit. "And you, being dead in \nyour sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath \nhe quickened together with him, having forgiven you \nall trespasses." In pardon, or forgiveness, sin is re- \nmoved, and in quickening there is recovery from \ndeath, which is corruption. As well expect the body \nto be raised in the final resurrection with the remains \nof mortal corruption attaching to or inhering in it as \nthe spirit to be raised from the death in trespasses \nand sins with the remains of moral corruption still \ndwelling in it. Only those who die wall need to be \nraised from the dead, or can be. Only those who sin, \npersonally sin, are said to be or are dead in trespass- \nes and sins, and such only are said to be quickened. \nThe quickening is called "redemption through his \nblood " \xe2\x80\x94 the blood that cleanseth from all sin \xe2\x80\x94 and \nthis redemption is defined to be forgiveness of sins. \nThe witnessing of this redemption to our conscious- \nness as an accomplished fact the apostle calls being \n"sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which [the \nbeing sealed] is the earnest of our inheritance until \nthe redemption of the purchased possession," which \nin another place he calls, " the adoption \xe2\x80\x94 to wit, the \nredemption of the body." \n\nThe same terms that are used to express the change \nwrought in the resurrection of the body are used to \nexpress the renewal of the spiritual man, which is \ncalled being born again, born of the Spirit; such \nas " redemption," " regeneration," " quickening," \n"raised," "adopting," "children." "In the regener- \nation when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of \nhis glory," evidently refers to the renewal in the gen- \n\n\n\n38 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\neral resurrection, when they who "have followed" \nChrist in this probationary life shall be raised to in- \nherit everlasting life." (Matt. xix. 28, 29.) In that \nregeneration there will certainly be no remains of \ncorruption left, but salvation will be completed to the \nbody as well as spirit. How about the regeneration \nthat takes place in this life and the salvation which it \neffects? Is it complete or incomplete, thorough or \npartial?- It is the work of God. "According to his \nmercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration \nand renewing of the Holy Ghost." Is any part of \nthe man thus saved left unwashed? \xe2\x80\x94 of the Spirit, I \nmean. \n\nThe word "quicken" is used to express the resur- \nrection of the body. "That which thou soweth is not \nquickened, except it die." "So also is the resurrec- \ntion of the dead." (1 Cor. xv. ) The connection \nshows that this quickening is recovery from all cor- \nruption. In Romans viii. 11 the same apostle says: \n"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from \nthe dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from \nthe dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his \nSpirit that dwelleth in you." None will question \nthat when the work expressed by the word "quick- \nen" is wrought upon the "mortal bodies" it w T ill ef- \nfect immediate and full deliverance from all mortal \ndefilement, from all physical corruption. Does the \nsame work, when wrought upon the spirit of man, ef- \nfect less? Is it then only a partial and incomplete \nwork? If so, what does this mean: "And ye are com- \nplete in him, which is the head of all principality and \npower: in whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- \ncumcision made without hands, in putting off the \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION \xe2\x80\x94 HOW EFFECTED. 39 \n\nbody o\xc2\xa3 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of \nChrist: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye \nare risen with him through the faith of the operation \nof God, who hast raised him from the dead?" Is the \ncompleteness incomplete? Is the circumcision par- \ntial? Is only a part of the body of the sins of the \nflesh put off? Are we only partly buried and partly \nrisen? Who will dare to affirm either of these im- \nplied propositions? It will not do to say that the \napostle is speaking only of those who have sought and \nobtained "the second blessing," who, after they were \njustified and regenerated, were convicted of inbred \nsin, repented of it and exercised a special additional \nfaith for its removal; for he immediately exhorts them \nto set their " affections on things above, not on things \non the earth," assigning as a reason that if they were \nthus risen they were dead \xe2\x80\x94 to sin, of course. The \napostle says: "He that is dead is freed from sin" \xe2\x80\x94 \nnot from some sin, but from sin, all sin. He also \nsays: "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." \nHe does not mean, as some seem to think he does, \nthat we cannot please God while we live in this world, \nwhile we dwell in these mortal bodies; for he imine- \ndiately adds: " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the \nSpirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. \nNow if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is \nnone of his." Every man \xe2\x80\x94 every human being \xe2\x80\x94 is \neither dead to sin or dead in sin. If dead to sin, he \nis alive to God through Jesus Christ, and dead to sin \nby virtue of relationship to God in Christ, who "died \nunto sin once" \xe2\x80\x94 and died for all. "If one died for \nall, then were all dead," having died in him. His \ndeath was the death of all, because he " died for all, \n\n\n\n40 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthat they should . . . live unto him which died \nfor them, and rose again." (2 Cor. v. 14, 15.) Such \nis the statement and argument of the apostle Paul. \nThe " all " applies to universal humanity and to every \ndescendant of Adam; but can do so only in infancy. \nHe refers, I doubt not, to the same fact when he \nsays: "I was alive without the law once: but when \nthe commandment came, sin revived, and I died." \nAll infants are partakers of Christ\'s death, and are \ntherefore dead to sin. If they die, physically, before \nthe commandment comes to them \xe2\x80\x94 that is, before they \nare intellectually developed to the point of personal \nresponsibility, and are capable of receiving the com- \nmandment \xe2\x80\x94 they are taken to heaven. If when the \ncommandment comes they violate it, sin revives, and \nthey die. They that do so are dead in trespasses and \nsins, and need to be quickened. This quickening is \nequivalent to the "new birth" \xe2\x80\x94 is the new birth. It \nis the first resurrection, in which the spirit is renewed \nafter the image of God in knowledge and true holi- \nness. Being dead, it is freed from sin. Depravity \nstill remains and is augmented, to the amount of the \npersonal sins that have been allowed to grow out of \noriginal sin and have been added thereto. This aug- \nmentation may have been going on through several \ngenerations; and if so, the liability to personal sin has \nbeen increased; but the grace of God, in every case, \nis sufficient in enablement to overcome it, or man \nwould not be responsible \xe2\x80\x94 would not be capable of \nsin \xe2\x80\x94 for that which cannot be avoided is not sin, in \nthe active and guilty sense of the word. The idea \nthat original sin (depravity) is eradicated in this life \nis the source of much, if not all, of the strife and con- \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION \xe2\x80\x94 HOW EFFECTED. 41 \n\nfusion that have attended the discussion of the sub- \nject of Christian perfection, miscalled, by many, "en- \ntire sanctification." Beginning with this false, but \nlong cherished idea, the difficulty has been to harmo- \nnize the Scriptures with it; and efforts to do so have \nresulted in errors at both extremes, while the dispu- \ntants who believe in the fact of entailed depravity \nagree in that which is the essential error of both par- \nties, without seeming to know that they are agreed \nand that they are conducting a mere logomachy. \n\nOthers, not being able to grasp the idea of entailed \ndepravity, except as the necessitating cause of sin, go \nto the extreme of denying that man is in any way af- \nfected by the sin of Adam \xe2\x80\x94 that is, that there is any \ndepravity except that which is acquired by personal \nsin. This latter is, logically, to deny that infants \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe whole human race except the first pair \xe2\x80\x94 have any \ninterest in the world\'s Redeemer until they acquire \nit by sin. For, if there be no involvement of his de- \nscendants, recovery from the effects of the original \nsin is an absurdity, and redemption is not only not \nnecessary, but absolutely impossible. \n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. \n\nThe "Problem of Methodism." \n\nDoctoe Boland says: "Now this depravity or \'in- \nfection of our nature \' creates the necessity of the new \nbirth or regeneration; but, strange to say, learned \ntheologians (?) and bishops (?) would have us be- \nlieve, or stultify our common sense by trying to believe, \nthat this corruption of our nature remains in them \nthat are regenerated!" ("Problem of Methodism," \npp. 127, 128.) Again he says: "Now every tyro in \ntheology knows that the \'standards\' all teach that \nthe necessity of the new birth grows out of the exist- \nence of this \' inbred sin;\' so that if the new birth does \nnot remove this \'inbred sin,\' this \'carnal mind,\' this \nnatural \' corruption of our nature,\' where is the ne- \ncessity of \'being born again?\'" (Pages 153., 154.) \nThe logic of these quotations is unanswerable, and is \nfatal to the " residue " and " second blessing " theory; \nbut, taken in connection with other utterances of his, \nit is equally fatal to his own theory. It is simply \nself-evident that, if the "necessity of the new birth \ngrows out of this inbred sin," it is removed by the \nnew birth; else the necessity would still remain! \nBut look at this: "Now it comes to this: As Metho- \ndists, we must either give up the doctrine of \'inher- \nited depravity/ or we must abandon the \'residue \ntheory of regeneration ; \' for if depraved Adam begat \na son in his own likeness, after his image, then the \n(42) \n\n\n\nTHE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 43 \n\nsoul that is \' born of God,\' \' of incorruptible seed/ \' of \nthe Holy Spirit,\' cannot be \' impure,\' cannot have l in- \nJbred sin remaining in it; but it must be \'pure,\' \n\'cleansed from all unrighteousness/ from all sin!\'" \n( "Problem," pp 126,127.) Strange that so acute a \nreasoner should fail to see that the inevitable result \nof his own logic is that the "necessity of the new \nbirth " cannot exist in the children of regenerated \nparents! and that "original sin," "inherited deprav- \nity," stops with the first regenerated pair of Adam\'s \ndescendants! Tea, with Adam himself, provided he \nand mother Eve were saved, were regenerated before \nthey had any children! The fault is not in his logic. \nTherefore "it comes to this: As Methodists, we must \neither give up the doctrine of inherited depravity, or \nwe must abandon the \'residue theory of regenera- \ntion\'" \xe2\x80\x94 and the theory that "the necessity of the \nnew birth grows out of the existence of this inbred \nsin." \n\nWe cannot "give up the doctrine of inherited de- \npravity " without denying the whole scheme of human \nredemption; that is, the idea that the human race fell \nin Adam and is redeemed by the sacrificial death of \nJesus Christ \xe2\x80\x94 that "as in Adam all die, even so in \nChrist shall all be made alive," and that, "as by the \noffense of one judgment came upon all men to con- \ndemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the \nfree gift came upon all men unto justification of life." \nWe mast, therefore, "abandon" the idea that "the \nnecessity of the new birth [to personal sinners] \ngrows out of the existence of this inbred sin." This, \nit seems to me, will not be difficult for a Methodist to \ndo, if he would preserve consistency in his system of \n\n\n\n44 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ndoctrinal theology; for if in regeneration original sin \n(depravity) is removed \xe2\x80\x94 as it must be, if the neces- \nsity of regeneration exists in it \xe2\x80\x94 to what shall we look \nfor "the necessity of the new birth" to one who has \napostatized? He cannot get back his "inherited de- \npravity" unless he can be born again "when he is \nold," after the manner suggested by Nicodemus! He \nmust need to be born again, born of the Spirit, or he \nis still a child of God and an heir, though an apostate \nand in a worse state than before he was converted! \nHe cannot come to need the new birth when that out \nof which the necessity grows has no existence, for the \ngood and sufficient reason that an effect cannot exist \nwithout a cause. The necessity of the new birth is \nfound in the fact of nonchildship to God, whatever \nmay cause this want of relationship. It follows there- \nfore that apostasy is impossible, or that the necessity \nof the new birth cannot be predicated of original sin. \nIf inbred sin (depravity) does not furnish the ne- \ncessity of the new birth, then it must be found in \nsomething else; for "except a man be born again, he \ncannot see the kingdom of God," "cannot enter \ninto the kingdom of God." In searching for that \nwhich makes the new birth a necessity the first \nthing to be settled is: To whom is it a necessity? \nHaving determined this, it will then be in order to \ninquire: Why is it necessary? \xe2\x80\x94 that is, what is it that \nbrought about the necessity? What caused it? \nWhatever caused the necessity perpetuates it, and \nwill do so as long as it remains untaken away. To \nwhom, then, is the new birth a necessity? If this \nquestion be answered correctly, it will be less difficult \nto answer the next, and to ascertain the truth after \n\n\n\nTHE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 45 \n\nwliich we are in search. The new birth, is necessary \nto entering the kingdom of God, and is not, therefore, \nand cannot be, necessary to those who are already in \nthe kingdom, but only to those who are without. \nEvery child of God is of the kingdom \xe2\x80\x94 that is, in the \nkingdom \xe2\x80\x94 of God, and constitutes a part of it. To \nsuch, of course, the new birth is not now necessary, \nwhatever may have been, or may be at some future \ntime. If the new birth is necessary to infants, who \nhave never personally sinned, then they are not " of \nthe kingdom of God;" for it is necessary to entering \nthe kingdom and can, therefore, be necessary only to \nthose who are without. But Jesus says of them, - of \nsuch is the kingdom;" and when the disciples asked \nhim, " Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? " \nhe "called a little child unto him, and set him in the \nmidst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except \nye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall \nnot enter into the kingdom of heaven." It will not \nbe questioned \xe2\x80\x94 by Methodists, at least \xe2\x80\x94 that, what- \never "the kingdom of heaven" here means, it is com- \nposed of infants and adults who, by conversion \xe2\x80\x94 the \nnew birth \xe2\x80\x94 become " as little children." This, I pre- \nsume, is the same kingdom to enter which it is neces- \nsary to be "born again;" and if so, infants \xe2\x80\x94 all in- \nfants\xe2\x80\x94are either not in the kingdom or they do not \nneed "the new birth." They are "of the kingdom; " \ntherefore they do not need to be "born again." If \nthey do not need to be born again, it is either because \nthey are not depraved \xe2\x80\x94 have no "inbred sin " \xe2\x80\x94 or the \nnecessity of the new birth does not "grow out of the \nexistence of this inbred sin." If infants are not de- \npraved, of course "inherited depravity" is a myth. \n\n\n\n46 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nWe must, therefore, give up the theory that finds the \n"necessity of the new birth" in original sin \xe2\x80\x94 inherited \ndepravity. \n\nCan a man be a Christian, a child of God, and be \nat the same time depraved? I answer unhesitatingly: \nYes; he most certainly can, or there is no such thing \n\' as a Christian in the world. There is not a man \xe2\x80\x94 a \nhuman being \xe2\x80\x94 in the world- who is not depraved. \nSome are more depraved than others, because they \nhave added to inherited depravity a greater amount \nof their own acquiring through personal transgres- \nsions of the law. Some inherit more depravity than \nothers, because, in addition to the stock of "original \nsin " which is the common inheritance of all, they \ninherit that which has been acquired by their more \nimmediate progenitors. But, whether inherited or \nacquired, depravity is not sin in the active and pun- \nishable sense of the word. Salvation from sin is not \nnecessarily nor generally, if ever in this life, salva- \ntion from the effects of sin, even when the effect is \nconnected with the sin from which the salvation de- \nlivers, as its immediate cause. If the effect caused \nby the sin of one person is visited upon another, the \nremoval of the effect cannot be conditioned upon the \npardon of personal sins committed by him on whom \nthe effect has fallen, unless it be also conditioned \nupon the commission of those personal sins. In that \n-case, sin would be the antidote of sin, and the only \nantidote! Actual, personal sin is thus made the rem- \nedy, and the only remedy, for original sin, or inher- \nited depravity! Infants are either the children of \nGod or they are the children of the devil. If the chil- \ndren of the devil, they are not "of the kingdom of \n\n\n\nTHE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 47 \n\nGod," unless the kingdom of God is composed, in \npart, of the children of the devil. If the children of \nGod, either they are not depraved, or one may be a \nchild of God and at the same time be depraved. If \ninfants are not depraved, there is no such thing as in- \nherited depravity. \n\nThe truth is, and it may as well be stated in plain \nterms, inherited depravity pertains to and inheres in \nthe physical man, the mortal body. It is therefore \ncalled the flesh; and when the spirit \xe2\x80\x94 the intellectual \nand moral man \xe2\x80\x94 is dominated by the physical and \nsensual, he is said to be "carnally minded," to "walk \nafter the flesh," to be "in the flesh." "The right- \neousness of the law" is "fulfilled "only in them "who \nwalk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For \nthey that are after the flesh do mind the things of \nthe flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the \nthings of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [to \nmind the flesh] is death ; but to be spiritually minded \n[to mind the Spirit] is life and peace. Because the \ncarnal mind [the minding the flesh] is enmity against \nGod: for if is not subject to the law of God, neither \nindeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh \n[in subjection to the flesh] cannot please God. But \nye are not in the flesh [obeying the flesh, walking \nafter the flesh], but in the Spirit [walking after the \nSpirit], if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. \nNow if any man have not the Spirit of Christ [dwell- \ning in him], he is none of his." (Kom. viii. 4-9. ) That \nthe apostle is here speaking of the literal flesh \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe mortal body \xe2\x80\x94 and the obedience of the mind \n(the spirit) to its sensual appetites, as opposed to \nobedience to the Spirit of God, is evidenced by the \n\n\n\n48 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nverses immediately following and the argument of \nthe remainder of the chapter: "And if Christ be \nin you [i. e, jf "the Spirit of God dwell in you"], \nthe body is dead because of sin [i. e., mortal, doomed \nto death]; but the spirit is life because of righteous- \nness. But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus \nfrom the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ \nfrom the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies \nby his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, breth- \nren, we are debtors, hot to the flesh, to live after the \nflesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but \nif ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the \nbody, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the \nSpirit of God, they are the sons of God." Here the \nintellectual and morally responsible man, with will \npower to make choice between the two, is presented \nto us as solicited by the flesh \xe2\x80\x94 the sensual appetites \nof the physical man \xe2\x80\x94 on the one hand, and the Spirit \nof God on the other. The one leads downward to \ndeath; the other, upward to God and life. To mind \nor follow the flesh is death; to mind or walk after \nthe Spirit is life and peace. The one is corrupt and \ncorrupting, depraved and depraving; the other is \npure and purifying, living and life-giving. \n\nBefore following the apostle to the conclusion of \nhis argument, let us examine a little more closely the \nidea that original sin\xe2\x80\x94 entailed depravity\xe2\x80\x94 furnishes \nthe necessity of regeneration, or the new birth. \nThis, except by those who, in theory, reserve original \nsin to be disposed of in sanctification as a " second \nblessing," is very commonly believed, and very in- \nconsistently, as I believe and propose to show. The \nidea of conditioning the salvation of infants on their \n\n\n\nTHE "PROBLEM OF METHODISM." 49 \n\ndying in infancy, as is generally done, is unjust, ab- \nsurd and unscriptural. To hold one who, as to his \npersonal and responsible acts, is absolutely innocent \xe2\x80\x94 \nas all infants are \xe2\x80\x94 under condemnation and liable to \neternal punishment is as unjust as it is unreasonable; \nand, because unjust and unreasonable, it is impos- \nsible in the economy and government of the infinite \nGod. Calvinism is consistent with itself, however \nhorrible its decrees, in having elect and, of course, \nnonelect infants; but to teach that infants are liable, \nas infants, to eternal death, and at the same time \nthat, if they die infants, they will be saved \xe2\x80\x94 that \nnone such can be lost \xe2\x80\x94 is self-contradictory and ab- \nsurd. The truth is, no Arminian believes, or can be- \nlieve, that it is possible for an infant, as such \xe2\x80\x94 one \nthat never sins \xe2\x80\x94 to be lost; and where there is no \npossibility, to talk of liability is preposterous. How \nintelligent men with logical minds can indulge in \nsuch statements, without seeing their inconsistency, \nis marvelous indeed. It is, however, the legitimate \nresult of fruitless efforts to reconcile the irreconcila- \nble, and grows out of the false assumption that origi- \nnal sin, entailed depravity, is incompatible with person- \nal acceptance with God, on the part of its unfortunate \nsubjects, and must be gotten rid of in this life. \n\nWhatever renders regeneration \xe2\x80\x94 the new birth \xe2\x80\x94 \nnecessary must, by absolute necessity, be removed by \nregeneration; for as long as it remains the necessity \nremains, or its presence does not produce the neces- \nsity. In other words, if the necessity of the new birth \nis found in the existence of entailed depravity, the \ndestruction of entailed depravity is the new birth. \nAnd if original sin \xe2\x80\x94 entailed depravity \xe2\x80\x94 is destroyed, \nits further entailment is thereby rendered impossible. \n4 \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE VI. \n\nThe " Old and the New Man." \n\nDr. Anson West, in his otherwise excellent book, \nthe " Old and the New Man," presents some strange \nand self-contradictory views on this subject. He \nsays: "If there is no such thing as original sin or \nimputed guilt, then there is no such thing as infant \nsalvation." (Page 100.) If he means, as he seems to \nmean, that "original sin" is only "imputed guilt," it \nis certainly a new definition of original sin, or deprav- \nity. My idea has been, and is, that depravity is a \nreal effect of Adam\'s sin upon the race, and not a \nmere imputation of guilt. It seems to me that one \nwho can accept the idea of "imputed guilt" might \nvery readily accept imputed righteousness as its anti- \ndote, and dispense with all that is real in the salva- \ntion of infants! Unfortunately for the theory, how- \never, Paul tells us that " sin is not imputed when there \nis no law;" by which he evidently means that there \nis no guilt when there is no transgression of law; for \ncertainly the presence of law, when it is not infracted, \ncould not furnish ground for the imputation of guilt. \nIt is true, he tells us, that "death passed upon all \nmen, for that all have sinned;" but he tells us also \nthat "the free gift came upon all men unto justifica- \ntion of life." Just so far as the sin of the " one man " \naffected his descendants \xe2\x80\x94 the human race \xe2\x80\x94 without \ntheir personal concurrence in the sin, just that far are \n(50) \n\n\n\nTHE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 51 \n\nthey affected by the grace of God, in Jesus Christ, in \nabsolute and unconditional recovery from the effects \nof Adam\'s sin. The sin was a real transgression of \nlaw, and had real effect upon the real sinner. The \nposterity of Adam were really present, seminally, in \nhim, and in so far as the nature, which must descend \nto his children \xe2\x80\x94 if allowed to propagate his species \xe2\x80\x94 \nwas affected by his sin, every individual possessing \nthat nature must be effected, until the effect is re- \nmoved. The effects of that sin, in personal suffering \nand death, could not, in justice, be visited upon the \ndescendants of Adam unless there was provision for \ncompensation and final deliverance. Herein is found \nthe necessity for the atonement, if God would people \nthe earth by means of the original and now fallen \nAdam. The divine plan was to furnish, in the per- \nson of his own Son, who should assume human nature \nand become the Son of man, a sacrifice sufficient to \ntake away the sin of the world (of the race of man), \nand also to provide for the pardon of personal sins, \nto which each individual is more liable because of the \nweakness consequent upon the original transgression, \nand for the final and complete recovery from all the \neffects of that sin. As all died in Adam \xe2\x80\x94 being semi- \nnally in him \xe2\x80\x94 even so in Christ shall all be made \nalive \xe2\x80\x94 he, assuming the part of human nature and \noffering himself for its recovery from death, secured \n* a resurrection of the body, unconditionally, to all that \npossesses that nature; and gave a pledge and first fruits \nof it in his own rising out of death. This effect of \nAdam\'s sin is real, not imputed; and recovery from \nit is to be real, complete, and unconditional to all, \nbecause it came upon all as the result of an act not \n\n\n\n52 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ntheir own, and for which they cannot be held respon- \nsible. Here is salvation for infants "w T ho die in in- \nfancy;" not from sin, but from the effects of sin. \nNone are sinners except those who sin, who person- \nally transgress the law of God, the moral law. If, \nas Dr. West says (p. 100), "none can be saved but \nsinners," I do not hesitate to say infants cannot be \nsaved. But is he right in so saying? 1 think not. \nAs well say none can be saved from death but those \nwho die; none can be saved from drowning but those \nwho are drowned! He admits that they have "no \nsin through their own personal action," and contends \nthat, therefore, they must have " Adam\'s sin imputed \nto them" in order to be saved, because "Christ died \nonly for sinners." His argument ( ?), rightly put, is \nabout this: "Christ died only for sinners;" infants \nhave " no sin through their own personal action," and \ntherefore "they are not sinners;" but God, in order \nthat they might be saved, " imputed guilt " \xe2\x80\x94 the guilt \nof Adam\'s sin \xe2\x80\x94 to them, and then saved them from \nthe imputation \xe2\x80\x94 there w^as nothing else to save them \nfrom ! That is, he saves them provided they die ! If \nthey persist in living, they are to be sentenced to eter- \nnal death ! He says: " In consequence of sin imputed, \nchildren are sinners, and being sinners, they are under \nthe full penalty of sin; and were they left where they \nare thus placed by sin, they would have to endure \nand suffer the penalty of sin throughout eternity." \nAs well say that a pardoned adult is "under the full \npenalty of sin," as that infants are, who are covered \n"by the atonement of Jesus Christ made for them," \nso that, "dying in infancy," they "are saved in \nheaven." They are both in a condition dying in \n\n\n\nTHE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 53 \n\nwhich they will be taken to heaven; the one because \nhis sins are pardoned, the other because he has not \nsinned and needs no pardon; and both through the \natoning merit of Jesus Christ, the only difference \nbeing that one has sinned and the other has not. If \nthe adult had never sinned by his " own personal \naction," he would never have needed to be converted. \nIt is because of this fact that Jesus said (and says) \nto sinners, "Except ye be converted, and become as \nlittle children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of \nheaven." It is true of infants and of converted adults \nthat, if they die such, they will go to heaven; but it \nis not true of either that, if they die they will be \nsaved in the sense of being pardoned. Death is not \nmade a condition prerequisite to salvation to any. \n\nOn page 103 the Doctor says: "The infant is in- \ncapable of exercising repentance and faith, and \nequally incapable of resisting the will of God and of \nrejecting the atonement and grace of Christ; and \nhence it is as much within the principles and methods \nof divine government to justify and regenerate the \ndying infant without faith and repentance as the \nadult with them." Justification, as applied to one \nwho has personally transgressed the law \xe2\x80\x94 to a sinner \n\xe2\x80\x94 includes pardon; as applied to an infant who has \nnot sinned, it does not. The one is justified in the \nsense that his sins are pardoned; the other in the \nsense that he has not sinned and therefore is not and \ncannot be condemned. If there is a single passage \nof scripture or a particle of reason given in support \nof the idea that innocent infants must die in order to \nbe approved of God, it has not been my good fortune \nto see it. As to regeneration, it would be well to de~ \n\n\n\n54 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nfine what it is and ascertain the ground of its neces- \nsity before growing dogmatic about it. The Doctor \ntells us that "the same spirit that regenerates the \nadult person regenerates the infant, and this regen- \neration is the same work in the one case and in the \nother. The same God who justifies the adult justifies \nthe infant, and this justification is the same thing in \nthe one case and in the other." If the infant and the \nadult are in the same case as to the law, the trans- \ngression of which is sin, then the justification of the \none is the same as the other; otherwise it is not. \nBut they are not and cannot be unless the adult is an \nidiot; and if an idiot, he is an infant in all that re- \nlates to the question of justification. If the adult has \nsinned "by his own personal action," then the differ- \nence between his justification and that of the infant \nis just the difference between one who has sinned and \nis pardoned of his sin, and one who has never sinned \nand needs no pardon. If regeneration consists in the \nremoval of the guilt of original sin, neither the one \nnor the other has been, or ever can be, regenerated; \nfor the simple and sufficient reason that neither was \never or can ever be guilty of Adam\'s sin. If it con- \nsists in the removal of the effects of the original trans- \ngression, it does not, cannot, take place in this life, if \ndeath\xe2\x80\x94 mortality \xe2\x80\x94 is an effect of original sin, but \nmust be deferred to the general resurrection. But \nwe are speaking of a work to be clone in this life, and \nby which we are prepared for death and fitted for a \nhome in heaven, and which is called regeneration or \nthe new birth. \n\nIf it does not consist in the removal of the guilt of \noriginal sin, nor in the removal of its effects^ we must \n\n\n\nTHE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 55 \n\nlook elsewhere for its necessity; for whatever makes \nthe new birth a necessity must be removed in and by \nregeneration. The thing that makes justification, in \nthe sense of pardon, a necessity is guilt. If one is \nnot guilty, he cannot be pardoned. If pardoned, he is \nno longer guilty in the eye of the law, and cannot \njustly be punished for the sin of which he was guilty. \nThe fact still remains that he did sin andivas guilty, \nbut he is no longer held as guilty, but stands before \nthe law just as if he had never violated it. Pardon \nremoves guilt because guilt is that which renders par- \ndon a necessity. So of regeneration. It removes \nthat the existence of which makes it a necessity. \nWhat, then, is regeneration, or the new birth? What \nis it that, being present, makes regeneration a neces- \nsity, and the removal of which constitutes the new \nbirth? Justification, in the sense of pardon, removes \nthe guilt of the sinner \xe2\x80\x94 that is, it frees him from the \npunishment incurred by sin and places him in the \nsame legal relation that he sustained before he sinned. \nEegeneration removes the love of sin and substitutes \nit with the love of God and that which is right and \ngood. "Every one that loveth is born of God, and \nknoweth God;" and "we know that we have passed \nfrom death unto life because we love the brethren." \nIt is the removal of death by the impartation of life \n\xe2\x80\x94 a quickening, a resurrection from death. It is a \nwork wrought on the conscious self, the spiritual, in- \ntellectual, and affectional man, not on the physical, \nmortal flesh. The regeneration of the flesh is reserved \nfor the second resurrection \xe2\x80\x94 the general resurrection \nat the last day, when our bodies are to be fashioned \nlike unto His glorious body. The first is deliverance \n\n\n\n56 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nfrom sin, the second is final deliverance from the en- \ntailed effects of sin, and both together constitute com- \nplete redemption. \n\nThe Doctor says: "There is as little foundation for \nthe belief that the original sin of the infant has been \nblotted out before it was born as there is for the be- \nlief that the personal sins of the adult were blotted \nout before he was born." a The original sin of the \ninfant" is that which results to it, as an individual, \nfrom the sin of Adam, and of course was not " blot- \nted out before it was born; " but the guilt of original \nsin ivas " blotted out " or it would not have been born. \nThe guilt of "original sin" never descended to any \nchild of Adam. On page 123 the Doctor says: "All \nare born under the wrath of God, and liable to end- \nless hell." How a Methodist, and a man of thought, \ncould have penned such a sentence it is difficult to \nimagine. Does he believe it even possible for a single \ninfant, if it die without personal sin, to be sent to \nhell? No, he does not. He says: " Children dying in \ninfancy are relieved from sin and its penalty, and are \nnot damned in hell, but are saved in heaven." (Page \n100.) He evidently means all that die in infancy. \nAll "liable to endless hell," but none by any possi- \nbility can get there! Fearful liability! Does he \nmean that they are liable to live and develop into \ncapability of sin, and then will be liable to sin and \nincur the penalty of sin? This is the only sense in \nwhich infants are "liable to endless hell;" and "all \nare born " infants, but not "under the wrath of God." \nThey are born on the basis of the atonement, and \ncovered by the merits of the "second Adam," Jesus \nChrist; so that, if they never sin, they will never be \n\n\n\nTHE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 57 \n\nsinners and will never incur the displeasure o\xc2\xa3 their \nheavenly Father, never be "under the wrath of God," \nnor "liable to endless hell." \n\nThat they are born under the sentence of physical \ndeath, as the result of Adam\'s sin, having the seeds \nof mortal corruption in their physical nature, because \nborn of mortal parentage, will not be questioned. \nBut even this could not, in justice, have been allowed, \nif not compensated for in an unconditional resur- \nrection, provision for which is made by Jesus Christ, \nin whose resurrection we have a pledge and first \nfruits. In this mortality, with its attendant infirmi- \nties, which are inseparable from it, is found what is \ncalled depravity, original sin, inbred sin. They all \nmean? the same thing. There is no infirmity of the \nmind, moral or intellectual, that is not a result of its \ntenantry of a corrupt, mortal body. Idiocy and in- \nsanity, the extremes of mental depravity, no less \nthan moral deformites, are traceable to physical in- \nfirmities; but not all of either to "original sin" as \ntheir immediate cause. The intellectual is dependent \nupon the physical, and the moral upon the intellectual \nin man. A slight impairment of the physical organ- \nism about the brain will unhinge the mind so that in- \ntellectual responsibility is destroyed; and when in- \ntellectual responsibility is destroyed, moral responsi- \nbility is impossible. These facts are universally rec- \nognized. \n\nBefore the physical and intellectual are sufficiently \ndeveloped to produce moral responsibility, moral \ncharacter is impossible; and condemnation or liabil- \nity to punishment to an irresponsible moral being \nis irreconcilable with the idea of justice. To charge \n\n\n\n58 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nsuch administration of government upon the infinite \nGod is, it seems to me, but little, if at all, short of \nabsolute blasphemy. Of course it is not intended to \nintimate that anybody does this. But I do not hesi- \ntate to charge it as a necessary sequence of the posi- \ntion that "all are born under the wrath of God, and \nliable to endless hell." Not only is there no condem- \nnation to the infant as a moral being, and no liability \nto be "damned in hell" as an infant, because of \nAdam\'s sin; but, dying in infancy, it will certainly, \nabsolutely, and unconditionally be recovered from \ndeath and from all of entailed depravity necessary to \ndeath, and which is an inseparable accompaniment of \na mortal state of probation. "As in Adam all die, \neven so in Christ shall all be made alive." T^iis of \nthe body, the physical man. "If Christ died for all, \nthen were all dead" \xe2\x80\x94 in Christ and to sin; "for in \nthat he died, he died unto sin" \xe2\x80\x94 not his own, but \nman\'s, and for man. This of the Spirit; and it is as \nuniversal and unconditional as the other. "My soul \nis exceeding sorrowful, even unto death," said Jesus. \nHe drank the cup to its bitterest dregs, and, so far as \ncondemnation for original sin is concerned, revoked \nthe sentence completely and forever, except that \nwhich consigned man to the dust \xe2\x80\x94 the sentence of \nmortality \xe2\x80\x94 "dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou \nreturn;" so that no child of Adam was ever under \nsentence of moral guiltiness, except for his own per- \nsonal sins. "God was 111 Christ reconciling the world \nunto himself," and he did it. If any man [any hu- \nman being, young or old] be in Christ, he is a new \ncreature." Infants are in Christ or they are not. \nIf they are not, then are they indeed "under the wrath \n\n\n\nTHE "OLD AND THE NEW MAN." 59 \n\nof God, and liable to endless hell." Who can believe \nit? If they are not "in Christ," and die, of course \nthey cannot go to heaven; for there is nothing in \ndeath that can renew and fit a soul for heaven. To \nsay that, if they die in infancy, God will regenerate \nthem, but if they live they must continue unregen- \nerate and "under the wrath of God" until they repent \nof Adam\'s sin and exercise personal faith for its re- \nmoval, is to say what finds no support in reason, \ncommon sense, nor revelation. The truth is, they are \n"in Christ," and there is nothing that can get them \nout of him and expose them to the penalty of the law. \nexcept their own personal act in sinning; and the \ngrace of God prevents \xe2\x80\x94 that is, goes before \xe2\x80\x94 such act, \nin every case, sufficient to enable its avoidance, or it \nwould not be sin. \n\nBut for entailed depravity \xe2\x80\x94 the effects of the orig- \ninal sin upon and in the instrument with which it \nwas committed, the physical body \xe2\x80\x94 this preventing \ngrace would not be needed; for every one would then \nstand in the same relation to God that Adam did be- \nfore the fall, and there would be no provision for the \npardon of personal sins; for, if in the case of the \noriginal pair, God could not, without atonement, for- \ngive the sin and save the sinner, if atonement had \nplaced man just where he was before he sinned, the \nsame reason would have existed and the same rule \napplied; so that pardon of personal sins would still \nhave been impossible, without further atonement. \nThe wisdom and goodness of God, therefore, are \ndisplayed in the sentence of physical death, to be \neffected in each individual by means of entailed de- \npravity \xe2\x80\x94 the seeds of mortality planted in the phys- \n\n\n\n60 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nical nature of man \xe2\x80\x94 and leaving redemption to be \ncompleted in the final resurrection, when the proba- \ntion of all will have ended, and "the manifestations of \nthe sons of God" will discover them to all "fashioned \nlike unto his glorious body," through whom they \nhave attained to eternal life. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE VII. \n\nMan\'s Fall and Eecoveky. \n\nIn tlie conflict necessary to the conquest of our \nfleshly nature and the yielding of our "members in- \nstruments of righteousness unto God," and not "of \nunrighteousness unto sin," sufficient grace is supplied \nin Jesus Christ so that there is no excuse for sin. \n"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: \nthat as sin [the one sin of the \'one man,\' in whom \n\' all die \' because in him \' all have sinned] hath reigned \nunto death [death to all, physical death], even so \nmight grace reign through righteousness unto eternal \nlife by Jesus Christ our Lord.\'" (Eom. v.) The \nabounding and reigning of sin was "unto death," \ndeath to the whole man and death to "all men." \nGrace not only abounded to the recovery of man \xe2\x80\x94 the \nwhole of human nature \xe2\x80\x94 from the "offense of" the \n"one man," the "original sin" \xe2\x80\x94 the guilt and pen- \nalty of it \xe2\x80\x94 and from the immediate and necessary \neffects of it, but also to the pardon of personal sins, \non the condition of repentance on the part of offenders. \nIf death to the spirit was and is entailed, as well as to \nthe body, what did the atonement effect in the recov- \nery of man from the effects or consequences of \nAdam\'s sin upon the moral nature or character of his \ndescendants? Can anybody tell? If all of the con- \nsequences of the original sin to human nature, includ- \n\n(61) \n\n\n\n62 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ning the physical, intellectual, and moral man, are \nvisited upon each and every descendant of Adam, \nwhat are the benefits of atonement and in what does \nredemption consist? In other words, if absolute and \ntotal depravity of the whole man is entailed upon all, \nin what sense does " the Lamb of God take away the \nsin of the world?" The guilt of Adam\'s sin \xe2\x80\x94 in a \npunishable sense \xe2\x80\x94 he could not take away from any \nexcept the original pair; for the simple reason that \nthey were never guilty of it, and could not be. He \ncould not take that away, even in the sense of pre- \nventing it; for in the very nature of the case it could \nnever have existed, atonement or no atonement. The \nonly sense then in which he did take, or could have \ntaken, away the sin of the world (the human race) is \nthat he forgave the sin and provided against the \nentailment of its effects or, in the case of entailment, \nfor the final and unconditional recovery of all from \nits entailed effects. \n\nTo provide against entailment entirely, so that no \neffect of Adam\'s sin would reach his descendants, \nwould be, as we have seen, to place man just where he \nwas before he sinned \xe2\x80\x94 just where original creation \nplaced him \xe2\x80\x94 and to begin de novo. In that case par- \ndon of personal sins would have been impossible \nwithout special atonement in each case; or, if Adam \nhad sinned again before he had any progeny, redemp- \ntion w^ould have had to be repeated in order to people \nthe world through him. To allow all the effects of \nAdam\'s sin, the total corruption of the whole man, to \nbe entailed would be to necessitate disregard of the \nmoral law, which would be to render sin impossible; \nfor that which is necessitated cannot be sin. It would \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recovery. 63 \n\nbe to destroy man as a moral agent, and to make sal- \nvation at once unnecessary and impossible. \n\nThere was only one other way possible, and divine \nwisdom selected that \xe2\x80\x94 viz., to combine the two, tak- \ning all of neither, but a part of each. " We see \nJesus, who was made a little lower than the angels \nfor the suffering of death, crowned with glory and \nhonor, that he by the grace of God should taste death \nfor every man." He "died for all," and all died in \nhim \xe2\x80\x94 that is, because of his death, which was "unto \nsin," all for whom he died \xe2\x80\x94 every human being \xe2\x80\x94 are \ndead to sin and "alive unto God through Jesus \nChrist," in the spiritual man, and will remain so until \nspiritual death is superinduced by personal sin. This \nwas necessary in order that Adam should be spared \nto propagate his species; for God could not give per- \nsonal existence to moral beings under sentence of \nguilt for an act in which they took no part. \n\nOriginally man\'s moral,, spiritual life, for its con- \ntinuance, was conditioned upon obedience to the com- \nmandment touching the fruit of the "tree of knowl- \nedge of good and evil," which was in the midst of the \ngarden of Eden, of which he was forbidden to eat. \nHis physical life, the life of the body, for its continu- \nance, was evidently dependent upon the fruit of the \ntree of life, which also stood in the midst of the gar- \nden and to which he had free access until he forfeited \nthe favor of God by eating of the forbidden fruit; for \nthe Lord guarded the way to the tree of life, lest he \nshould eat thereof and live forever. Sentence of \nphysical death was passed upon man, and this was the \nmeans of executing it. \n\nSpiritual death was the necessary result of the dis- \n\n\n\n64 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nobedience which was the transgression of the law, \nand was visited upon the transgressor the very day \nthe penalty was incurred. Its perpetuation would \nhave been eternal death, which would have followed \nbut for Him who is " as a lamb slain from the foun- \ndation of the world," because given in promise as \n" the seed of the woman " which should bruise the \nserpent\'s head, and in whom, as to spiritual life, the \nhuman race seminally existed; as it existed in Adam \nin its physical and intellectual being. In this sense \nthe world, to reconcile which unto himself God was \nin Christ, was "created anew in Christ Jesus/\' so that \nevery human being born into the world is as certainly \nand as really a child of God, in and through Jesus \nChrist, as he is a child of Adam by natural genera- \ntion. It is for this reason, I doubt not, that Christ \nis called the second Adam. He did not take Adam\'s \nplace in such sense as that we are his descendants in \nour physical and mental being. In these we are the \nchildren of Adam. Adam was "the son of God," and \nif he had not forfeited the relation by sin his de- \nscendants w T ould have sustained the relation of child- \nship to God as well as to Adam. Christ in human \nnature is "the seed of the woman," "the seed of \nAbraham," and preeminently "the Son of man." \nBut he is also the Son of God, not only in his divine \nnature, but also in that which is human. The angel \nsaid to Mary: "The holy Ghost shall come upon \nthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow \nthee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be \nborn of thee shall be called the Son of God." It was \nthis human Son of God, by direct divine genesis \nthrough a human mother, that, as to spiritual life in \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recovery. 65 \n\nthe moral man or childship to God \xe2\x80\x94 they are the \nsame \xe2\x80\x94 was the second Adam. So that every descend- \nant of the first Adam, though inheriting from him the \ndepravity which ends in physical death, at the same \ntime, by virtue of relationship to Jesus Christ, the \nsecond Adam, is "of the kingdom of God" \xe2\x80\x94 a child \nof the kingdom \xe2\x80\x94 an " heir according to the promise." \nChildship to God the Father, since the fall, is \nthrough Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of \nman, both as to the spirit and the body. The first in \nthis life, the latter in the resurrection. The first by \ngeneration and by regeneration or adoption, the lat- \nter by adoption iD the final regeneration \xe2\x80\x94 " to wit, the \nredemption of our body." ifVgeneration, or adoption \n\xe2\x80\x94 the new birth \xe2\x80\x94 looking to childship to God in this \nlife, is never applied to infants, but only to those who \nhave personally sinned and forfeited the favor of God \nto their own disinheriting \xe2\x80\x94 those who are dead in their \ntrespasses and sins. To them it is said, "Ye must \nbe born again," and " except ye be converted, and \nbecome as little children [as ye were when little chil- \ndren], ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." \nWhen Jesus says, " Except ye repent, ye shall all like- \nwise perish," nobody thinks of applying his language \nto infants; but when he says, "Except a man be born \nagain, he cannot see the kingdom of God," it is at \nonce applied to infants as though they were more \ncapable of receiving the one than the other. The \nfirst does not apply to them, not only because they \nare incapable of understanding and complying with \nthe condition, repentance, but because they have \nnothing to repent of. For the same reasons the other \ndoes not and cannot apply to them. They no more \n5 \n\n\n\n66 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nneed to be born again than they need to repent, for \nthe necessity for both is found in the precise same \nthing \xe2\x80\x94 viz., personal sins, by which they apostatize \nfrom the favor of God and become children of the \ndevil. " He that committeth sin is of the devil," and \nnone other. \n\nThe regeneration of the body will take place in the \nfinal resurrection, and is secured by "Jesus Christ \nour Lord, which was made of the seed of David ac- \ncording to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of \nGod with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, \nby the resurrection from the dead." \n\nEntailed depravity, original sin \xe2\x80\x94 except in the case \nof Enoch, Elijah, and " we which are alive and remain \nunto the coming of the Lord," \xe2\x80\x94 ultimates to all in \nphysical death and the corruption which follows, and \nis never to be destroyed, except by the refining proc- \nesses of the resurrection. "The last enemy that \nshall be destroyed is death;" and death will not be \ndestroyed until the grave is robbed of its victory. \n"Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is \nwritten, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, \nwhere is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" \nIt is because of this tendency to death, and the sen- \nsual appetites that accompany it which, when in- \ndulged, hasten the consummation, that grace is needed \nto subdue and control the carnal nature, bringing it \ninto obedience to the will of and yielding its members \nas instruments of righteousness unto God. And it is \nbecause this depravity is an entailment, and not the \nresult of our own acts, that grace abounds in the offer \nof pardon of personal sins which, though not necessi- \ntated by it, were rendered easier of commission. \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recovery. 67 \n\nMan \xe2\x80\x94 the whole race \xe2\x80\x94 was " created anew in Christ \nJesus," as to his moral relationship to God the Father, \nand given a new probation with reference to eternity. \nNot as at first, all in one \xe2\x80\x94 seminally \xe2\x80\x94 to stand or \nfall; but, "as by the offense of one judgment came \nupon all men to condemnation [because all were semi- \nnally in that one]; even so by the righteousness of \none the free gift came upon all men unto justification \nof life," because in him (Jesus Christ), spiritually, \nthe life of all seminally existed. So that each and \nevery one, as a distinct personal existence in moral \nbeing, begins with moral, spiritual life \xe2\x80\x94 the Christ \nlife \xe2\x80\x94 in his soul. It would be as easy to conceive of \nGod as creating man originally a sinner, "dead in \ntrespasses and sins," as to conceive that in the new \ncreation he provided that all \xe2\x80\x94 that any \xe2\x80\x94 should be \nborn guilty and " under the wrath of God." In either \ncase, were either possible, the guilt would attach to \nthe creator, not to the creature. In the original cre- \nation Adam was made the fountain from which the \nlife stream should flow to all human beings, because \nall were to descend from him. If the fountain had \ncontinued pure, as God made it, each and every life \nstream that issued from it would have started as pure \nas the fountain from which it flowed. The fountain \nwas befouled, corrupted, and would have been dried \nup as a source of life but for the interposition of the \nredeeming love and wisdom of God. Infinite wisdom \nsaw that if streams of life {life is used here of self- \nactive existence on a moral basis) were allowed to \nflow from this fountain, the fountain must be cleansed, \npurified, or the streams would be foul from their \nsource and could never become pure. He therefore \n\n\n\n68 THE PBOBLEM SOLVED. \n\ndetermined to take away the befouling thing, original \nsin, and its defilement from the moral man, leaving \nonly its effect, mortality, upon the physical, material \nbody, and providing for enablement through grace \nfor its subordination to the divine will in this life \nand for its final recovery from death in the resurrec- \ntion which is to be accomplished by the "second \nAdam," who is made a quickening spirit. In order \nto this " that eternal life, which was with the Father, \n. . . was manifested unto us " in the person of the \nSon of man, that from him, as a newly created foun- \ntain, spiritual life should issue to and in every de- \nscendant of the first Adam. So that every streamlet \nof human life, from a moral standpoint, should start \nfree from defilement and with enablement through \ngrace to keep itself so. \n\nInfancy is not more absolutely helpless and de- \npendent than morally innocent. It is not only not \nguilty of "sin, but is not even capable of guiltiness. \nIf morally innocent, it cannot be morally corrupt or \ndepraved; for guilt is impossible except as a result of \nviolation of law, and is the only result of such viola- \ntion. Penalty is not a result of the act of trans- \ngression. If it were, the sinner would be his own \nexecutioner, and in the very act of sinning. Moral \ndepravity, therefore, is moral guiltiness; and as guilt \ncannot be entailed, inherited depravity cannot be \npredicated of the moral man as to its relation to mor- \nal law, and can only mean, when thus applied, the \nweakening of the moral power. Moral power inheres \nin and is dependent upon the intellectual in man, \nand can, therefore, be affected only through the \nmind. If the moral perceptivity be weakened, moral \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recovery. 69 \n\nresponsibility is correspondingly weakened; and if it \nbe wholly destroyed, moral character is thereby ren- \ndered impossible. So with the power to will. De- \nprived of these, or of either one of them^ man ceases \nto be a moral agent, and cannot be held morally re- \nsponsible. Such a one can never, as long as this \ninability continues, become morally corrupt; and, if \nhe has never existed without it, can never have been \nso. This, it seems to me, is axiomatic. Now it so \nhappens that every descendant of Adam begins life \nin this world with just that inability. Not one has \nmoral perceptivity to begin with, and not one, there- \nfore, is capable of being or of becoming morally \ncorrupt as to character: that is, as to personal rela- \ntion to moral law. \n\nMoral corruption cannot precede moral responsi- \nbility; and moral responcibility cannot precede moral \nperceptivity ; and moral perceptivity cannot exist until \nthe intellect is developed sufficiently to discern be- \ntween right and wrong from a moral standpoint; and \nthe development of the intellect is dependent upon \nthe growth of the physical organism. Thus it is \nseen that whatever of depravity is entailed upon man \nnecessarily inheres in the physical body, and affects \nthe spirit only in weakening its powers, and never \nwith moral defilement until the mind consents to the \ndefiling act, knowing that it is wrong. It is because \nof this fact, no doubt, that Paul characterizes the \nvarious sins which are committed by men as "the \nworks of the flesh," and declares that "to be carnally \nminded [to mind the flesh] is death; but to be spir- \nitually minded [to mind the Spirit] is life and peace," \nand assigns as the reason: " Because the carnal mind \n\n\n\n70 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\n[the mind that subordinates itself to the flesh] is en- \nmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of \nof God, neither indeed can be. So that they that are \nin the flesh [in voluntary subjection to the flesh] can- \nnot please God," The flesh is at once the source of \nsin, so far as it is traceable to Adam\'s transgression, \nand the instrument through which it finds expression; \nbut the tenant of the body, the conscious self, is al- \nways the agent to whom the guilt of sin attaches, \nand who must, therefore, perform the condition upon \nwhich the pardon of sin is offered, and receive the \nwitness of acceptance with God, and enjoy the peace \nwhich comes "through our Lord Jesus Christ." \n\nThere is no responsibility attaching to the flesh; \nfor whatever is done by the flesh is done by the con- \nscious self that tenants it, and by the flesh only as \nan instrument by means of which the deed is wrought. \nThe flesh is, therefore, never addressed in the word \nof God. It is never commanded to do or to forbear, \nand what it does is never catalogued as guilt, except \nwhen set down to the account of the spirit that is \nsaid to "walk after the flesh." It is nevertheless \ntrue that every sin against which we are warned in \nthe Bible is expressed through and by means of the \nflesh, and every virtue required to be practiced in- \nvolves antagonism to fleshly appetites and passions; \nalso that every temptation to sin finds its occasion in \npromised gratification of the fleshly nature of man. \nIn a word, the sum total of practical religion is the \nsubordination of the flesh, the physical organism, to \nthe will of God, which can be accomplished only by \n"bringing into captivity every thought to the obedi- \nence of Christ." Moral character is developed, in its \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recovery. 71 \n\nGodlikeness, by friction ; and the warfare is between \nthe flesh and the spirit, between death and life. Death \nreigns in the body, life in the spirit. The spirit is \nsuperior to the body, and in single combat the chances \nfor victory would favor the spirit, as the stronger \nparty; but Satan espouses the cause of the flesh, and \nbecomes the commander of its forces and leads into \ncaptivity to his will every one who does not fight \nunder the banner of the Cross, and strictly obey the \n"Captain of their salvation," who himself was made \n"perfect through suffering". Death entered the \nworld by sin, and Satan was the instigator of sin. \nIt is he "that had the power of death," and to de- \nstroy him, in his influence, is to destroy death. " For \nthis purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he \nmight destroy the works of the devil." The strife, \nthen, is between the Son of God, manifested as the \nSon of man, and Satan, the archfiend of darkness, \nand foe to God and man. Having succeeded in sedu- \ncing Adam, and by his agency introduced death into \nthe world, the devil follows up the seeming advantage \ngained, and tries through the flesh, in which the \nseeds of death are found, to capture his descendants, \nwho, redeemed by the death of Jesus Christ, are on a \npilgrimage to the land of eternal blessedness and life. \nEvery child born into the world is an object of in- \nterest to both parties, Christ and the devil; and is \ndestined, if he attain to personal responsibility in \nthis life, to become a party to the strife and fight \nunder one banner or the other. In his physical body \nhe is an heir of death, being a child of mortal parents, \nand as such a subject of his kingdom who "had the \npower of death," and who is its progenitor. In his \n\n\n\n72 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nspiritual being lie is an heir of life, being a cliild of \nGod through. Jesus Christ, and as such is "of the \nkingdom of heaven." If he fight in the ranks of the \nwicked, and under the flag of death, he must first de- \nsert the army of the Prince of life, and ally himself \nwith the enemy of all righteousness \xe2\x80\x94 must apostatize \nfrom the favor of God, and incur the penalty of per- \nsonal transgression. Whether he will do so or not, \nin each individual case depends largely, almost en* \ntirely, on the environment and teaching under which \nhe developes into a moral agent, and becomes per- \nsonally responsible for his actions. Hence the im- \nportance of the early and proper training of children, \nand of the means to this end. This importance is \nnot only recognized by Infinite Wisdom, but, in the \nrevelation which God has made of himself and of his \nplan for saving the world it is clearly set forth and \nemphasized for the instruction and encouragement of \nman, and the means provided by the use of which the \nend may be accomplished. \n\nOne of the main objects for which the Church with \nits sacraments and religious ceremonials was insti- \ntuted was that children should be trained up in the \nway they should go \xe2\x80\x94 nourished with the discipline \nand doctrine of the Lord. This is the tenor of Bible \nteaching, and is founded in philosophical principles. \nThe newborn infant is utterly helpless, not even hav- \ning the instincts of the lower order of animals, and \nmust be cared for and provided with whatever is nec- \nessary to the preservation of life and the promotion \nof its growth and development unto self-reliant and \nself-sustaining proportions in all that it takes to con- \nstitute a morally responsible being, as well as in its \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recovery. 73 \n\nmere animal, physical organism. The mind is no \nmore capable of self-preservation and development \nthan the body, and moral agency and moral character \nare dependent upon the capacity of the mind and its \ndevelopment. \n\nIn its moral relations the mind can be developed \nonly through and by means of the physical body, and \nby other minds with like physical environments, \nwhich have already been developed to a greater or \nless extent \xe2\x80\x94 sufficiently, at least, to be able to com- \nmunicate ideas. The more thoroughly the teacher is \neducated the better he is prepared to teach. This is \nas true in the sphere of morals and religion as in lit- \nerature and the arts and sciences. If there is a time \nwhen the student can dispense with the surroundings \nand stimulus of the schoolroom with its cooperative \nhelps and influences, it is not before he matriculates, \nbut after he has graduated. When he has acquired \nthe habit of and love for study, and has thoroughly \nacquainted himself by means of these helps with the \nprinciples underlying the practice to which he pro- \nposes to devote his life, he may dispense with the helps \nof the schoolroom; but not before. The Church is \nthe school of Christ, in which his disciples are to be \ntaught the science of salvation, the principles of mor- \nal government, and to be trained to the habit of \nobedience to the divine law \xe2\x80\x94 the law of love. If \nthere is a time when the restraints of this school and \nthe helps it affords can be dispensed with, it seems to \nme it must be after one has acquired a knowledge of \nChrist and his plans, and become habituated to obe- \ndience and learned to love his service; and not be- \nfore. \n\n\n\n74 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nThis is not only the teaching of reason, trat of the \nScriptures also. God appointed that the seal of the \ncovenant should be placed upon the little ones and \nthat they should be taught its significance and re- \nquired to observe the obligations of the covenant; \nand selected Abraham with whom and through whom \nto perpetuate the covenant and fulfill its promise, be- \ncause he knew him, that he would command his chil- \ndren and his household after him, that they should keep \nthe way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that \nthe Lord might bring upon Abraham that which he \nhad spoken of him. Under the provisions of this cov- \nenant and in fulfillment of its promise Jesus of Naz- \nareth was born and reared. He was born King of the \nJews; and, though not of the world, his kingdom was \n(and is) in the world. His was not a temporal but a \nspiritual kingdom; and " he is not a Jew which is one \noutwardly; neither is that circumcision which is out- \nward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one in- \nwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the \nSpirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of \nmen, but of God." His, then, was the kingdom of \nGod; and he says of the "little ones," " Of such is the \nkingdom of God," and teaches, through his apostles, \nthat they shall be nourished with the discipline and \ndoctrine of the Lord. \n\nIf it is true, as I think has been clearly shown, that \noriginal sin (entailed depravity) inheres in the flesh \n\xe2\x80\x94 the mortal body \xe2\x80\x94 and, through the infirmities con- \nsequent on and inseparable from a state of mortal \nprobation, affects the spirit, the moral and immortal \n\xc2\xbb part, the importance of proper early training cannot \nbe overestimated. And if to effect it, it becomes nee- \n\n\n\nman\'s fall and recoveky. 75 \n\nessary to exercise authority in the enforcement of \ndiscipline, to do so is not to infringe upon the rights \nof the child, but to maintain the right and discharge \nthe duty which God has secured to and laid upon the \nparent in the interest of the child. It would not be \nmore absurd to contend that it is wrong to shelter \nand protect an infant from threatened injuries of a \nphysical character of which it is unconscious, because \nit cannot understand the reasons for and appreciate \nthe kindness done, than to object to giving it the \nshelter aDd protection which membership in the \nChurch affords, because it is "an unconscious babe!" \n\n\n\nCHAPTEB VIII. \n\nMebct \xe2\x80\x94 Why Needed. \n\nMekcy is a need begotten of guilt; and when mercy \nis dispensed in pardon guilt is taken away, so that \nmercy is no longer needed and cannot be sought un- \ntil another transgression of law renews the guilt and \nbrings again the real and conscious need of pardon. \nThis proposition must commend itself to every \nthoughtful mind. Let the reader pause long enough \nto take in and duly consider what it expresses; for, if \nit is true, the theory of the "second blessing," as to \nwhat it does and what is necessary to its attainment, \ncannot possibly be true. To ask for pardon is to con- \nfess the need of it; and to confess the need of pardon \nis to confess the guilt of transgression. Now when a \nsinner penitently forsakes and seeks the pardon of his \nsins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, he receives, \nnot " the spirit of bondage again to fear, but . . . \nthe Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. \nThe Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that \nwe are the children of God. And if children, then \nheirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." \nUnless God can be supposed to adopt as his children \nunpardoned sinners, making them joint heirs with \nChrist, his Son, and attesting this fact to their con- \nsciousness by his Spirit, no child of God can be said \nto need pardon, unless he personally sin after his \nadoption. \n\nNor can it be supposed that God will pardon and \n(76) \n\n\n\nMEKCY \xe2\x80\x94 WHY NEEDED. 77 \n\nadopt as his child one whom, though pardoned, he \ndoes not cleanse from the defilement of sin and create \nanew in Christ Jesus. Now let the reader answer to \nhis own satisfaction this question: Can he be a new \ncreature in Christ Jesus who is still possessed of the \n"old man," "the body of sin," "inbred sin" \xe2\x80\x94 taking \nthese terms to mean something that was inherited \nfrom Adam and that unfits us for heaven, and that must \ntherefore be gotten rid of in this life ? If so, what does \nregeneration accomplish ? What is it to be " created \nin Christ Jesus?" to be "born again" \xe2\x80\x94 born of the \nSpirit? " According to the "second blessing" theory, \nthese terms only express the pardon of personal sins \nand the cleansing from their defilement, leaving orig- \ninal sin untouched, both as to its guilt and defilement. \nIn this it is right, if they who hold and teach it could \nbe made to see and accept the fact that neither the \nguilt nor defilement of original sin attaches to the \nmoral nature of any descendant of Adam \xe2\x80\x94 that it was \ntaken away, nailed to the cross. If regeneration \xe2\x80\x94 the \nnew birth \xe2\x80\x94 destroys only actual, personal sin and its \ndefilement, then infants do not need to be born again, \nfor they have not personally sinned. And yet the \n"second blessing" theorists, as far as I know, all be- \nlieve that infants need to be regenerated. Dr. Eos- \nser, in his reply to the "Problem of Methodism," \nsaid: "Then all infants, dying in infancy, need not \nregeneration." Assuming that they do need regener- \nation, he offers as an argument against Dr. Boland\'s \ntheory that it teaches that they do not. If he find \nthe necessity for the new birth in original sin \xe2\x80\x94 en- \ntailed depravity \xe2\x80\x94 then, by logical necessity, regener- \nation takes away original sin, and there is nothing \n\n\n\n78 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nleft for the second blessing to accomplish; for if the \nexistence of original sin in man makes regeneration a \nnecessity, they cannot coexist. If a man is regener- \nated, he does not need to be regenerated, and will nev- \ner need it again, unless that which makes it a neces- \nsity should again exist. But a man cannot inherit \ndepravity but once, unless he can " enter the second \ntime into his mother\'s womb, and be born." \n\nIf original sin is not that which renders regenera- \ntion necessary, then the necessity for the new birth \nmust be found in actual, personal sin; for there is \nnothing else to which it can be ascribed. But if per- \nsonal transgressions of the law make regeneration a \nnecessity, regeneration and justification are one and \nthe same thing, or regeneration must consist in the \nremoval of the effect of these personal sins \xe2\x80\x94 the defile- \nment which they produce. If justification is the par- \ndon of personal sins, and regeneration removes the \ndefilement thereof, then there is nothing left for the \n"second blessing" to do. Thus it is seen that the \nlogical and necessary result of these simple truisms \nis to utterly and forever overthow the " second bless- \ning" theory of sanctification. \n\nAgain: Infants either do or do not need to be \n"born again." If they do not, then entailed deprav- \nity does not render the new birth a necessity, or in- \nfants are not depraved. If they are not depraved, \nthen there is no such thing as entailed depravity. If \nthey are depraved and therefore need to be "born \nagain," " born of the Spirit," they are not the chil- \ndren of God, but the children of the devil; for they \nare spiritual and moral beings (I do not say moral \nagents) and as such hold relation to the spiritual \n\n\n\nMERCY \xe2\x80\x94 WHY NEEDED. 79 \n\nworld, and to one or the other of two families \xe2\x80\x94 God\'s \nand the devil\'s. The Saviour says of them: " Of such \nis the kingdom of God;" and "Except ye [adult sin- \nners who are not of the kingdom] be converted, and \nbecome as little children, ye cannot enter into the \nkingdom of heaven." Of course those of whom the \nkingdom is composed do not need to be converted in \norder to get into it. The simple, plain, and obvious \nmeaning of the Saviour is, the kingdom of God is \ncomposed of such as these \xe2\x80\x94 little children \xe2\x80\x94 and ex- \ncept ye, by conversion, become like them \xe2\x80\x94 as they \nare in their relation to God, the King \xe2\x80\x94 ye cannot en- \nter into the kingdom of God. God is no respecter or \npersons, and as all little children sustain the same \nmoral relation to him, and as every descendant of \nAdam begins life as a little child, it follows that every \nhuman being begins life in this world a citizen of the \nkingdom of God, and entitled to all the privileges \nand blessings accruing, through Jesus Christ, to the \nsubjects of his kingdom. \n\nThere are none, then, outside the kingdom, except \nthose who have gone out voluntarily, by personally \ntransgressing the law of God, by sinning; and if \nthey ever again enjoy the privilege of citizenship \ntherein they will have to voluntarily " return unto the \nLord, and he will have mercy upon them, and to our \nGod, for he will abundantly pardon." The only un- \nfitness for this citizenship that any possess is that \nwhich they have acquired by voluntary personal sin. \nWhen the sin is pardoned and they are cleansed from \nits defilement, as to moral relationship, they stand \nprecisely where they did before they sinned \xe2\x80\x94 have \nbecome "as little children." \n\n\n\n80 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nIn their physical and intellectual being they may \nhave grown out of babyhood, and even into mature \nmanhood; but in their moral they had ^generated, \nand hence had to be "born again" and, as moral be- \nings, begin life anew. They are therefore "babes in \nChrist;" and when they "ought to be teachers, have \nneed that one teach " them " again which be the first \nprinciples of the oracles of God; and are become such \nas have need of milk, and not of strong meat." If \nfrom their infancy they had been nourished with the \ndiscipline and doctrine of the Lord, and their moral \nand spiritual had kept pace with their physical \ngrowth, they would have developed into a moral man- \nhood capable of digesting "strong meat" and of en- \nduring "hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ;" \nwould have " come in the unity of the faith, and of \nthe knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, \nunto the measure of the stature of the fullness of \nChrist." A "babe in Christ," whether a little child \nw T ho has never personally apostatized or an adult \nwho, because of personal* apostasy, had to be "re- \nnewed in knowledge after the image of him that cre- \nated him," is " freed from sin," being a partaker of \nhis death who "died unto sin once," and "died for \nall;" and "if one died for all, then were all dead" \xe2\x80\x94 \n"dead to sin, and alive unto God through Jesus \nChrist." If an infant, and a babe in Christ, as all \ninfants are, he is free from personal sin and its defile- \nment because he has never sinned and has never been \nmorally defiled. If a pardoned and regenerated adult, \nhe is free from sin because he has by faith, having \nrepented of his sins, accepted the offer of life in Jesus \nChrist, and appropriated the merits of his death. He \n\n\n\nMERCY \xe2\x80\x94 WHY NEEDED. 81 \n\nis dead to sin in that he is " crucified with Christ," \nand the life that he now lives he lives by the faith of \nthe Son of God, by whom he is crucified unto the \nworld, and the world unto him. He is free from the \ndefilement of sin because saved " by the washing of \nregeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which \nhe shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our \nLord." He is therefore, as to moral defilement, just \nwhere he was when an infant, where he was before \nhe sinned. As to depravity, he still has all that he \ninherited and, in addition to this, all that he has ac- \nquired by personal transgression. But depravity is \nnot guiltiness, and is therefore neither punishable \nnor pardonable. It is the scar which, though the \nwound be healed, remains as a reminder of the un- \nwisdom by which it was inflicted; and will be de- \nstroyed when the new creation is completed and all \nthe effects of sin are removed \xe2\x80\x94 in the regeneration, \nwhen the Son of man shall appear the second time, \nwithout sin, unto salvation to every one that loves \nand looks for his appearing. This is the perfection, \nthe "second blessing," of which Paul speaks when he \nsays: "If by any means I might attain unto the res- \nurrection of the dead," and adds: "Not as though I \nhad already attained, either were already perfect" It \nis the perfection which is to be attained by faithful- \nness "unto death," and to be wrought by him "who \nshall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned \nlike unto his glorious body, according to the working \nwhereby he is able even to subdue all things unto \nhimself. \n6 \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE IX. \n\nThe Aek and Its Lesson. \n\nThe salvation of Noah and his family in the ark \nfitly types the salvation of the world \xe2\x80\x94 the human \nrace\xe2\x80\x94in Jesus Christ. But for this preservation the \nrace had been destroyed; and but for the ark \nthey had perished with the rest. To Noah in the \nark, therefore, may be traced and attributed the per- \npetuation of Adam\'s race upon the earth, \n\nSo, when Adam sinned and brought death into the \nworld, the race had perished from the earth in him but \nfor Christ, in whom, as our ark of safety, taking refuge \nby faith, he found deliverance from spiritual death \nfor himself, and, by consequence, for all his descend- \nants. For "as by the offense of one judgment came \nupon all men to condemnation, even so by the right- \neousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto \njustification of life." They were as certainly and as \nmuch in him when the free gift was offered and ac- \ncepted unto justification of life as when by his one of- \nfense judgment came to condemnation. The phys- \nical death of Adam was not a natural and necessary \nresult of sin; nor was it the penalty inflicted as a \npunishment for that sin. That it was not the first \nis seen in the fact that, to produce it, he was debarred \naccess to the tree of life. That it was not the latter \nis evidenced by the fact that, in dying for man, \nChrist did not exempt Adam nor his posterity from \n(82) \n\n\n\nTHE AKK AND ITS LESSON. 83 \n\nphysical death. In the sense in which he became \nman\'s substitute in (lying, man does not, cannot die, \nexcept as a result of his own personal sin. "And \nyou, being dead in your sins [not Adam\'s sin] and \nthe uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened \ntogether with him, having forgiven you all tres- \npasses." ( Col. ii. 13. ) Here we have " sins" and " tres- \npasses," in the plural; not the one offense, "original \nsin." In Ephesians ii. 1 we have the same expression: \n"who w T ere dead in trespasses and sins." The con- \ntext in both places shows that the apostle is speaking \nnot of original sin, but of personal transgressions of \nthe law as the sins in which they were dead; and \nfrom this death, produced by their own sins, they were \nsaid to be quickened. This fact is recognized through- \nout the Bible. " The soul that sinneth, it shall die " \nis the law ordained of God. The death of the soul, \nspiritual death, is the penalty incurred by the viola- \ntion of the moral law \xe2\x80\x94 by sin. \n\nPhysical death, while the occasion for its introduc- \ntion into the world was furnished by Adam\'s sin, did \nnot follow as a necessity; nor was it the penalty in- \ncurred by his transgression. It was a provision de- \nvised by infinite Wisdom in the reconditioning of \nman\'s relation to himself and his law, after man\'s \napostasy. As w r e have already seen, to have restored \nAdam completely and at once to his primeval condi^ \ntion w r ould have been, so far as Adam was concerned, \nto repeat the test to which he was at first put, and to \nhave left his descendants without remedy for any vio- \nlation of law of which any should be guilty. To have \nenforced the law, and executed the offender at once, \nwould have been to defeat the purpose of peopling \n\n\n\n84 THE PBOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthe earth, or to necessitate a new creation and anoth- \ner trial. To have delayed the execution, would have \nbeen to have delayed justice, which, of course, God \ncould not do. He must forgive the sin, or punish \nthe sinner by inflicting the penalty at once. He \ncould not do both. If the sin is pardoned, its penalty \ncannot be visited, even in part, upon the sinner. \nEither, then, the sin was not and is not pardoned, \nor physical death was not the penalty, nor any part of \nit, that was intended when God said, "In the day \nthou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" for Adam \ndid die physically. And not only he, but all his de- \nscendants; and all die in him \xe2\x80\x94 that is, all are par- \ntakers of mortality because all were in him when and \nafter he became mortal by the purpose and sentence \nof God. \n\nIf physical death is neither the natural and neces- \nsary effect of original sin, nor the penalty of the sin \nof Adam, how and in what sense is it the result to \nthe race of the original transgression? Answer. \nGod determined to forgive the sin and restore the \noriginal sinner to the life that was forfeited thereby \xe2\x80\x94 \nviz., spiritual life, soul life \xe2\x80\x94 through the merits of \nhis own Son, who undertook, in his own person, to \nbecome a sin offering to this end; and, in doing so, \nto arrange that his posterity should not only be gra- \nciously restored, in Adam and through Christ, to the \nbeing and spiritual life which they had in him, po- \ntentially, before he sinned, but also to provide for \ndispensing mercy to any who might, on account of \npersonal sins, need and would avail themselves of it \nas offered in the Redeemer of the world. In order \nto this, he subjected man to mortality, with its neces- \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 85 \n\nsary infirmities, and provided for Jiis resurrection \nand final glorification as a compensation for the brief \nperiod of suffering and sorrow through which, as a \nmortal being, he must necessarily pass; and, also, for \ngrace to sustain and the Spirit to comfort him in his \nafflictions, and to sanctify them to his good,\' and to \ncause them to work out for him "a far more exceed- \ning and eternal weight of glory." To accomplish \nthis, having "appointed unto man once to die," phys- \nically, the Son of God "took on him the seed of \nAbraham," with whom the promise was deposited \n(having been renewed to him) under seal of the \ncovenant to be developed through type and proph- \necy, and to be fulfilled in himself as the Son of man. \n"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of \nflesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of \nthe same; that through death he might destroy him \nthat had the power of death, that is, the devil; and \ndeliver them, who through fear of death were all \ntheir lifetime subject to bondage." In taking "on \nhim the seed of Abraham" he became "the seed of \nthe woman," of whom, to the serpent, it was said, \n"he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his \nheel." \n\nThis language, of course, is in a measure figurative; \nbut is intended to convey a lesson of vast importance \nto man. What is it? The general lesson, as all con- \ncede, is the redemption of the race through Jesus \nChrist. But what is intended by the expressions, \nput one over against the other : " He shall bruise thy \nhead, and thou shalt braise his heel?" The lesson is \na specific, as well as a general one. The "head" and \nthe "heel" are words that seem to have special \n\n\n\n86 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmeaning, and must apply to something specific and \ndefinite in the accomplishment of the work of re- \ndemption. What can it be ? "And I will pat en- \nmity between thee and the woman, and between thy \nseed and her seed." The serpent here addressed evi- \ndently represents the devil, whatever may be the \nspeculations as to whether it was an "orang-outang," \nor a real and literal serpent; and his "seed" must \nmean the wicked among men, as he has no literal \nprogeny; and, perhaps, the physical body of man \n(all men), which, because of his seduction of the \nfirst pair, has in it the seeds of death, which is em- \nphatically the work of the devil. \n\nBy "the woman," of course, is meant, not only \nthe one personally addressed, Eve, but also women \ngenerally \xe2\x80\x94 all her daughters; and "her seed" is Je- \nsus Christ, who is the seed of the ivoman, not of the man, \nbeing on the paternal side the Son of God. In an- \nother and broader sense, "her seed" means the hu- \nman family, the whole race; but as included in \nthe one seed, Jesus Christ, through w 7 hom they have \nbeen given a being in the world, and in whom they \nhave life, spiritual life. In this latter sense "the \n\xe2\x80\xa2woman" between whose "seed" and the "seed" of \nthe serpent the Lord said, "I will put enmity," rep- \nresents the Church \xe2\x80\x94 the "Jerusalem which is above" \nand "is free, which is the mother of us all.\'\' 9 The \nhead of the serpent and the heel of the seed of the \nwoman are to be bruised. The idea seems to be that \nthe head of the serpent is to be crushed under \nthe heel of the woman\'s seed, as by stamping; in doing \nwhich the heel is to be bruised. As applied to Satan, \nthe bruising cannot be taken literally, and must there- \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON, 87 \n\nfore have reference to his work as manifested in \nfallen man 3 If it refers to the work of redemption, \nthe recovery of man from the power of Satan, as all \nbelieve, this is a necessity. \n\nTaking this view of the subject, the bruising of \nthe serpent\'s head is the recovery of the spirit of \nman from his dominion \xe2\x80\x94 the crushing out of original \nsin as to its effect upon the moral man, its guilt. To \neffect this the Son of God took on him the seed of \nAbraham; was "made of a teaman, made under the \nlaw, to redeem them that were under the law, that we \nmight receive the adoption of sons." We have al- \nready seen that physical death to man was an appoint- \nment of God, not a natural and necessary result of Ad- \nam\'s sin nor the penalty inflicted therefor. It was rath- \ner a necessity to the redemption of man in such way as \nto recondition him in his relation to God, and pro- \nvide, in so doing, for the expression of divine mercy \nin the pardon of personal sins and the restoration of \nthe sinner to the gracious favor of him whose law is \ntransgressed in Finning. It is nevertheless true that \n"by man came death" and that "in Adam all die;" \nfor it was his sin that made it necessary to appoint \n"unto man once to die." But this appointment was \nmade on the basis of the atonement, and in order to \nthe reconditioning of which we have spoken, with \nthe understanding that, "as in Adam all die, even so \nin Christ shall all be made alive." \n\nHe might have exempted Adam from physical \ndeath, as well as quickened him into spiritual life ; \nbut, as we have seen, that would have been to begin \nde novo, with no provision for after sins, should any \nbe committed. He therefore subjected man to death \n\n\n\n88 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nand gave him a mortal probation, providing for grace \nto help him overcome the depravity necessarily en- \ntailed upon mortal probationers. And because " the \nchildren are partakers of flesh and blood, he also him- \nself likewise took part of the same; that through death \nhe might destroy him that had the power of death, \nthat is, the devil; and deliver them, who through fear \nof death w T ere all their lifetime subject to bondage." \nThus was the serpent permitted to bruise his heel. \n\nThe wound, so far as the body of Jesus was con- \ncerned, was soon healed. He had "suffered being \ntempted," was "a man of sorrows and acquainted \nwith grief. . . . But he was wounded for our \ntransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; " and \nhe triumphed over death and the grave; led captivity \ncaptive, and ascended to the glory which he had \nwith the Father before the world was. He, however, \nstill identifies himself with his people, and still bruises \nthe serpent\'s head in every one who crucifies "the \nflesh with the affections and lusts." Herein is found \nperpetuated the "enmity" that God said, "I will put \nbetween thy seed [the serpent] and her [the woman\'s] \nseed." Death is the devil\'s domain; and, except in so \nfar as recovered through the conquering cross of \nChrist, they who are found therein are his rightful \nproperty. Man, in his spiritual being, has been re- \ncovered from the death consequent upon original sin \nas its penalty, so that every child of Adam has his \nstart in being, as a personal entity, on the basis of \natonement a new creature in Christ Jesus, who is the \nlife, as well as "the light of the world." \n\n"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he \nis none of his," though spoken to and of adults, is \n\n\n\nTHE AEK AND ITS LESSON. 89 \n\nalso true of infants, the only difference being that in \nthe case of adults the indwelling of the Spirit is \nconditioned upon the faith of the individual in \nwhom he dwells; while infants, being incapable of \nsin, offer no bar to his indwelling, and he abides with \nthem until expelled by unbelief. That they are \nChrist\'s none will question; and if they are, then " the \nSpirit of God dwells in them." Hence it is that, \n" except ye be converted and become as little children \n[temples of the Holy Ghost], ye cannot enter into \nthe kingdom of God." "And if Christ be in you, \nthe body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life \nbecause of righteousness." Not that the body is re- \nally and literally dead, but only that it is yet mortal \nand destined to succumb to death and return to dust. \nRedemption is not completed when the spirit is re- \nnewed, but, being still in a mortal body, its business \nis to use its (the body\'s) " members as instruments of \nrighteousness unto God." Encouragement to this is \nfound in the assurance that, "if the Spirit of him that \nraised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that \nraised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken \nyour mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. \nTherefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, \nto live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, \nye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify \nthe deeds of the body, ye shall live." There is more \nimplied in "quicken your mortal bodies" than the \nsimple resurrection of the body, for the same apostle \ntell us " that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, \nboth of the just and unjust." Whether, therefore, \n"the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the \ndead dwell in you" or not, the body will be raised. \n\n\n\n90 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nBut the prophet Daniel tells us that they " that sleep \nin the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlast- \ning life, and some to shame and everlasting con- \ntempt." The idea of the apostle seems to be that, if \nthe Spirit of God dwell in you, the mortal body \nshall not only be raised, but also be made to partake of \nthe life that is in Jesus Christ \xe2\x80\x94 fashioned like unto \nhis glorious body. This is true of every one who is \n"alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord," \nwhether an infant who has never forfeited the life \nthat is in him or an adult who, though once " dead in \ntrespasses and sins," has been "quickened together \nwith him." "The body is dead because of sin," even \n"if Christ be in you," and must remain so until re- \nstored in the final resurrection; but the spirit is alive \nunto God through Jesus Christ. \n\nThe strife in this militant state is therefore between \nlife and death, and for life or death. If the Spirit, \nthrough the grace of God in Christ and by faith, cru- \ncifies the flesh with its affections and lusts and yields \nits members as instruments of righteousness unto \nGod, the body will be raised to " everlasting life " at \nlast; but if it yield obedience to the flesh and let "sin \nreign in" the "mortal body," it will die. So says the \napostle. "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: \nbut if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of \nthe body, ye shall live." The living, then, of the con- \nscious self, the inner and real man, in the highest and \ntruest sense of life, depends upon the control it main- \ntains over the mortal body in its pilgrimage to the \ngrave. This mastery can be effected only through \nthe grace of God in Jesus Christ, and is necessary to \n"the adoption" \xe2\x80\x94 to wit, "the redemption of our \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 91 \n\nbody" \xe2\x80\x94 for which the Christian waits in hope. Ke- \nnieniber, I do not say that it is necessary to the res- \nurrection of the body; but only that it is necessary \nto the "adoption" of the body, when raised, and its \n"manifestation" among "the sons of God." \n\nFor this idea I am indebted to the apostle Paul, \nand that he may have due credit therefore, I will \nagain call attention to his presentation of it and the \nargument by which he supports it. It is found in the \nseventh and eighth chapters of his letter to the Bo- \nmans. Having "before proved both Jews and Gen- \ntiles, that they are all under sin," and established the \nfact "that a man is justified by faith without the \ndeeds of the law;" also, that "where sin abounded, \ngrace did much more abound: that as sin hath \nreigned unto death, even so might grace reign \nthrough righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus \nChrist our Lord." He proceeds in the sixth chapter \nto guard against the danger of yielding obedience to \nthe flesh and becoming again the servants of sin: \n" Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, \nthat ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither \nyield ye your members as instruments of unright- \neousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as \nthose that are alive from the dead, and your members \nas instruments of righteousness unto God." Here \nthe apostle distinguishes between " yourselves . . . \nthat are alive from the dead" and "your mortal body," \nthe " members " of which are to be used as instru- \nments, either of righteousness or unrighteousness. \n\nIn the seven tlr chapter he speaks of the warfare be- \ntween the flesh and the Spirit, on the part of those \nwho, " being justified by faith, have peace with God \n\n\n\n92 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthrough our Lord Jesus Christ" \xe2\x80\x94 that is, the con- \nstant effort which the Christian finds it necessary to \nput forth, in the strength of grace, to keep the body \nunder and yield its members as instruments of right- \neousness unto God. I am aware that many think \nthat the apostle is here speaking of the awakened, \nbut unconverted sinner. Dr. Boland says: "In the \nseventh chapter he describes the condition of an \nawakened sinner as he struggles w x ith the \'old man,\' \nthe \' carnal mind,\' until he cries out: \'O wretched \nman that I am! who shall deliver me from the body \nof this death ? \' " ( " Problem of Methodism," p. 107. ) \nDr. West teaches the same thing. ("The Old and \nNew Man," p. 107.) So of many others, including \nDr. Clarke and Mr. Wesley. One who dissents from \nthe views of so many and such men should be pre- \npared with a good reason for his seeming presump- \ntion. Whether this dissenter has such the reader is \nat liberty to decide for himself when he has given it \na careful and candid perusal. \n\nThe apostle opens the chapter with a figure, and \nreasons by analogy. "Know ye not, brethren, (for I \nspeak to them that know the law) how that the law \nhath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For \nthe woman which hath a husband is bound by the law \nto her husband so long as he liveth; but if the hus- \nband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her hus- \nband." The idea plainly is, that the law reaches the \nwoman, as a wife, only through the husband, and \nthrough him only while he lives, but as long as he \nlives. "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be \nmarried to another man, she shall be called an adul- \nteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 93 \n\nthat law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be \nmarried to another man." Mark, the death of the \nhusband is necessary to the release of the wife so that \nshe may, without guilt, marry another man. It is not \nthe dead husband that is married again. Yet the \napostle adds: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are \nbecome dead to the law by the body of Christ; that \nye should be married to another, even to him who is \nraised from the dead." - Now where is the analogy. \nand what does the illustration illustrate, if the dead \nis to be married, and not he which is released from \nthe law by the death of another? The apostle was no \nbungling logician or rhetorician. He certainly was \nnot guilty of such folly as is ascribed to him by such \nan interpretation of his language and of the illustra- \ntion he used. What he means here by "ye also are \nbecome dead to the law " is expressed in the sixth \nverse thus: "But now we are delivered from the law, \nthat being dead wherein ice were held." The analo- \ngy is here brought out. There is that through which, \nwhile it lives, the law reaches those who are bound \nthereto, and which must therefore die in order that \nthey may be married " to him who is raised from the \ndead." \n\nAccept the double-self idea of the apostle, found \nin the "head" and "heel" of the original promise, \nand you will see the aptness of his illustration and \nthe force of his logic, and be prepared for the conclu- \nsion to which he conducts us. The thing that, "be- \ning dead," "we are delivered from" is original sin \n\xe2\x80\x94 the sin of Adam; which was, as to its guilt, taken \naway from man \xe2\x80\x94 the whole race \xe2\x80\x94 and forever, by Je- \nsus Christ, the second Adam, who " once in the end \n\n\n\n94 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nof the world hath appeared to put away sin by the \nsacrifice of himself." (Heb. ix. 26.) \n\nLet it be remembered that this sacrifice was as ef- \nficacious when the promise was first given as when \nand after it was literally made in the death of Jesus \non the Roman cross, for the bond of heaven, so to \nspeak, was then executed on man\'s behalf, and he re- \nleased from the penalty which he had incurred by the \ntransgression of the law. This seems to be the apos- \ntle\'s meaning in the passage jnst quoted, for he im- \nmediately adds: "And as it is appointed unto man \nonce to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ \nwas once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto \nthem that look for him shall he appear the second \ntime without sin unto salvation." Physical death \nwas not the natural and necessary result to man of the \noriginal sin nor the penalty inflicted for that sin. It \nwas "appointed" by God in the reconditioning of \nman\'s relation to the law through the atonement \nmade by Jesus Christ. Because of this appointment \nunto death giving man a mortal probation in which \nto develop moral character, by the help of grace, in \nthe effort necessary to control the appetites and pas- \nsions of the physical body \xe2\x80\x94 which, because of the in- \nfirmities which are inseparable from a state of mor- \ntality, tend to sinful and ruinous excesses \xe2\x80\x94 and yield \nits members as instruments of righteousness unto \nGod, "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of \nmany!\' He not only took away "the sin of the \nworld" \xe2\x80\x94 original sin \xe2\x80\x94 but, in compensation for the \nweaknesses accompanying the mortality to which men \nwere appointed and because of which they are more \nliable to personal transgressions, he provided also for \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 95 \n\nthe pardon of personal sins. " Surely lie hath borne \nour griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did es- \nteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. \nBut he was wounded for our transgressions, he was \nbruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our \npeace was upon him; and with his stripes we are \nhealed." \n\nContinuing the argument on the double-self idea, \nthe apostle says: "For that which I do, I allow not: \nfor what I would, that I do not; but what I hate, that \ndo I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent \nunto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more \nI that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Here "sin \nthat dwelleth in me " takes the place of, and explains, \nthe "I" that does the thing that "I allow not." Of \ncourse the "I" that "no more" does the forbidden \nthing is not guilty. That the "I" explained to be \n"sin that dwelleth in me" is the flesh, the physical \nbody, appears from the next verse: "For I know that \nin me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." \nTo emphasize the fact, he repeats (in verse 20) that \n" it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in \nme," and adds (verse 21): "I find then a law, that, \nwhen I would do good, evil is present with me." \nThis, I presume, is and has been the experience of \nevery man who, having given his heart, is striving to \ngive his life to God. He ivills to do good, which he \ncould not do if there were no evil to do; for willing to \ndo good implies a choice between that and doing evil. \n"Evil is present with me" implies a temptation to the \nwrong, but it certainly does not necessarily imply a \nyielding to the temptation and doing the wrong. \n* For I delight in the law of God after the inward \n\n\n\n96 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nman [" Blessed is the man . . . whose delight is \nin the law of the Lord. . . . The ungodly are not \nso."]: but I see another law in my members, warring \nagainst the law of my mind, and bringing me into \ncaptivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- \nbers." Not absolutely bringing one, as an individ- \nual, into captivity, but "warring" to that end, and \naccomplishing it in every case where the mind con- \nsents. When the capture is made, the warfare ceases. \nThe apostle is not simply relating his personal expe- \nrience, but is laying down general principles the truth \nof which is attested by the experience of all who are \nwarring for eternal life, of whom he is one. \n\nThe warfare is so intense and continuous that he \ncries oiit: " O wretched man that I am! who shall de- \nliver me from the body of this death?" Here, it is \ngenerally supposed, he alludes to the custom of bind- \ning a dead body \xe2\x80\x94 a literal corpse \xe2\x80\x94 to a living man. \nAllowing this to be true (of which we have never seen \nthe proof), what, with the usual interpretation of the \ntext, is the living and what the dead body? If it ap- \nplies to the unregenerate, it is the dead crying for de- \nliverance from the dead! for he is " dead in trespasses \nand in sins." But what is the dead body from which \nhe longs for deliverance? It cannot be sin; for, in \nthat case, sin seems terribly alive, and the life of sin \nis the death of the sinner. Paul says: " Sin revived, \nand I died." The " I," the " wretched man," who cries \nfor deliverance, is alive, but is liable to and fears \ndeath as a consequence of the presence and influence \nof the dead body to which he is bound. \n\nBut it may be asked: Is a Christian a "wretched \nman?" For answer, I refer the reader, supposing \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 97 \n\nhim to be a Christian, to his own experience, if he has \never been sorely tempted since his conversion. "Ev- \nery man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his \nown lust, and enticed." He does not desire to do \nwrong, to sin. It is his desire and purpose to do \nright, to worship and to serve God; but " the law of \nsin" which is in his "members" wars against the law \nof his mind, to bring it (the mind) into captivity to \nthe law of sin \xe2\x80\x94 that is, to get the consent of the mind \nto do the wrong, but desired thing; to walk after the \nflesh and become the bondslave of sin. And " when \nlust hath conceived [the purpose to obey the law in \nthe \' members\'], it bringeth forth sin [the overt \nact]; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth \ndeath." It is this struggle for the mastery over the \nflesh \xe2\x80\x94 the body of death \xe2\x80\x94 with conscious inability to \neffect it in his own strength, that extorts the cry and \ninquiry: " Who shall deliver me?" And it is his rec- \nognition of the source of his strength, and his faith \nin him through whom deliverance comes, that enables \nhim to answer his own question: "I thank God [it \ncomes] through Jesus Christ our Lord." This lan- \nguage is prophetic, and looks to final deliverance \nfrom the body of death through him by whose grace \nwe are enabled to resist temptation and "walk not \nafter the flesh, but after the Spirit." \n\n"So then with the mind I myself serve the law of \nGod; but with the flesh the law of sin." More cor- \nrectly: "I myself, the mind, serve the law of God; \nbut the flesh the law of sin." This accords with: "It \nis no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. \nFor I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth \nno good thing." It also accords with the conclusion \n7 \n\n\n\n98 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nreadied and announced: "There is therefore now no \ncondemnation to them which are in Christ." The re- \nceived rendering of this text makes it self-contradict- \nory and absurd, and makes the apostle declare an im- \npossible thing: the mind is the conscious and responsi- \nble self. What it does, therefore, with the flesh as an \ninstrument, it does and is responsible for. No man who \nserves "the law of sin" with the flesh can, in any real \nand true sense, be said to serve the law of God at the \nsame time. It would be to choose and do the evil and \nthe good at the same time, instead of choosing be- \ntween the two. If I choose and do the right in spite \nof the presence of the "law in my members, warring \nagainst the law of my mind," I do not do the wrong; \nand, however severe the temptation through which I \nhave passed, "there is therefore now no condemna- \ntion" to me, because I "walk not after the flesh, but \nafter the Spirit." In that case, "the law of the Spirit \nof life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the \nlaw of sin and death." But "the body of this death" \nis still upon me; for "if Christ be in you, the body \nis [still] dead because of sin; but the spirit is life \n[alive] because of righteousness," in walking after \nthe Spirit. The plain meaning of which is, the spirit \nwhich was dead in trespasses and sins, being alive to \nGod through faith in Jesus Christ, is not condemned \nwith and for the sin in the flesh (the depraved and \nvicious appetites and passions of the mortal body), \nwhile it does not consent and yield obedience to its \ndemands and thus use the members of the body as in- \nstruments of unrighteousness unto sin. On the other \nhand, "if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds \nof the body, ye shall live" \xe2\x80\x94 forever and as a whole, \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 99 \n\nspirit and body. "For as many as are led by the \nSpirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have \nnot received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but \nye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we \ncry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness \nwith our spirit, that we are the children of God: and \nif children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs \nwith Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that \nwe may be also glorified together. For I reckon that \nthe sufferings of this present time are not worthy to \nbe compared with the glory which shall be revealed \nin us." \n\nTo be a child is to be an heir; and to be a child of \nGod is to be a "joint heir with Christ." But we do \nnot enter upon the inheritance in this life; we only \nhave an earnest of it. This is the militant state. We \nare yet in the enemy\'s land. We must, therefore, \n"fight the good fight of faith," in order that we may \n"lay hold on eternal life" and receive "the crown of \nrighteousness, which," saith Paul, "the Lord, the \nrighteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to \nme only, but unto all them also that love his appear- \ning." In this fight we are called to "endure hard- \nness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." "The last \nenemy to be destroyed is death;" and faithfulness to \nGod sometimes gives the enemy a seeming advantage, \nin that it cuts off many days and leads to an early \ngrave. But he that is "faithful unto death" \xe2\x80\x94 that is, \nfaithful though it result in physical death \xe2\x80\x94 shall re- \nceive "a crown of life." Hence the apostle says, "if \nso be that we suffer with him, that we may be also \nglorified together;" and Jesus says, "Ye shall be \nhated of all nations for my name\'s sake. . . . But \n\n\n\n100 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nhe that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be \nsaved." \n\n"Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the \nLord delivereth him out of them all." Not, however, \nalways in this life. They are sometimes the result of \ndevotion and faithfulness to Christ; but in all such \ncases his grace sustains the sufferer and causes his \nafflictions to work out for him a far more exceeding \nand eternal weight of glory, to which "the sufferings \nof this present time are not worthy to be compared; " \n"for the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth \nfor the manifestation of the sons of God." By \n"creature " here is evidently meant what the apostle \nelsewhere calls the "natural body:" "It is sown a \nnatural body, it is raised a spiritual body." By \n"waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God" \nhe means, as is developed in the twenty-third verse, \n"waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of \nthe body." "For the creature [the physical body] \nwas made subject to vanity, not willingly [voluntarily], \nbut by reason of him who hath subjected the same in \nhope; because the creature [body] itself also shall be \ndelivered from the bondage of corruption into the glo- \nrious liberty of the children of God." \n\nWhat can be meant here by " the creature itself," \nbut the "mortal body," which is to be "delivered \nfrom the bondage of corruption [in the grave] into \nthe glorious liberty of the children of God?" In \nour spirits we " have [already] received the Spirit of \nadoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father;" and the \nSpirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we \nare [now] the children of God." But notwithstanding \nthis relation and the fact that Christ is in us the hope \n\n\n\nTHE ARK AND ITS LESSON. 101 \n\nof glory, "the body is [yet] dead [in the bondage of \ncorruption] because of sin." It is, however, destined \nto be delivered from this bondage and, if the Spirit \nof him that raised Christ from the dead dwell in us, \n"into the glorious liberty of the children of God. \nFor we know that the whole creation [creature] groan- \neth and travaileth in pain together until now. And \nnot only they [so], but ourselves [the conscious, spir- \nitual self] also, which have the first fruits of the \nSpirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, \nwaiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of \nour body" from death and the corruption of the \ngrave. \n\nThe sum of what we have said is this: Regenera- \ntion, adoption, quickening \xe2\x80\x94 all refer to the same \nchange, the result of which is childship to God; and \nall are applied to both the spirit and the body of man. \nIt takes both (spirit and body) to constitute man; \nand the adoption of both is necessary to constitute \ncompleted redemption in Christ Jesus \xe2\x80\x94 complete re- \ncovery from the results of Adam\'s sin to his posterity. \nTo the spirit it comes in this life, but only to those \nwho have alienated themselves from God, the Father, \nby personal transgression of his law and who are \ntherefore "dead in trespasses and sins;" for all are \nborn partakers of the life, as well as of the death, of \nJesus Christ, and cannot need to be quickened except \nthey first die, spiritually; cannot be adopted, except \nthey first forfeit the child relationship. To the body, \nwhich, in the reconditioning necessary to redemption, \nwas appointed to death, it will come in the final res- \nurrection, "in the regeneration when the Son of \nman shall sit in the throne of his glory." To the \n\n\n\n102 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nsinner, these constitute the first and second blessings, \nreceiving which he will be perfectly a child of God \nand a perfectly saved man. Between these two there \nis, ordinarily, room for an indefinite number of bless- \nings, and for growth, in the spiritual man, unto the \n\xe2\x96\xa0perfect stature of moral manhood. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE X. \n\nExtremes Meet. \n\nThere are some who teach that we cannot live \nwithout sin in this world, but that every man sins \nevery day of his natural life; and this they affirm of \nall Christians. And yet, strange to tell, they teach \nthat a soul cannot sin after it is converted \xe2\x80\x94 "born \nagain;" that the soul is converted, but the body is \nnot, and that the body, being " flesh even yet," must \ncontinue to sin as long as it lives, but that the spirit \nis in no way responsible and incurs no guilt for what \nthe body does! They deny the possibility of attain- \ning to " sinless perfection " in this life, and yet affirm \nand teach it as a fact accomplished in the case of ev- \nery sinner saved by the grace of God in Christ Jesus! \nThe physical body is as incapable of sin as is the \ndust of the earth from which it was made, and to \nwhich it is destined to return ; and if the spirit does \nnot, and cannot sin after it is regenerated, " sinless \nperfection" is the state into which the renewing, \nadopting Spirit introduces every one whom he consti- \ntutes a child of God. \n\nThis, however, could hardly be called Christian \nperfection, unless to become a perfect Christian is to \nbe robbed of moral agency and constituted a mere \nmachine, or a brute that is incapable of moral action. \nNor was the theory introduced here for the purpose \nof arguing against it. It is so monstrously absurd \n\n(103) \n\n\n\n104 TfllE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthat, to the mind that after deliberate and candid \nthought can hold and teach it, it would be a waste of \ntime to reason. The only use designed to be made \nof it in this connection is to call attention to the fact \nthat it licenses men to sin as long as they live, with \nthe hope that deliverance will come in the hour and \narticle of death; and to show that the "second bless- \ning\' \' theory of sanctification logically issues in the \nsame result. \n\nIf a man may be a child of God and yet, until he \nreceive the "second blessing," must, as Mr. Wesley \nsays, " be content to remain full of sin till death; and, \nif so, he must remain guilty till death, continually de- \nserving punishment," does it not follow that in death \nhe will be emptied of sin and acquitted of his guilt, \nin order to his entering upon the inheritance of eter- \nnal life ? And does it not also follow that, while holi- \nness is both a duty and a privilege, it is not necessary \nto becoming and continuing a child of God, and to \nthe faithfulness which has promise of "a crown of \nlife? " If a man is taught, and comes to believe, that \nhe may be a child of God and at the same time " full \nof sin" and "deserving punishment," but that when \nhe comes to die he will be sanctified and taken to \nheaven, he is more than likely to " be content to re- \nmain full of sin till death." The two theories are \npractically the same, though apparently very unlike. \n\nThey agree in the start and reach the same logical \nresult, and only differ in the directions in which they \ndiverge from the right line \xe2\x80\x94 the line of scriptural \ntruth \xe2\x80\x94 in their efforts to reach a desired and predes- \ntined goal. They, with a few exceptions, agree in be- \nlieving and teaching that entailed depravity is that \n\n\n\nEXTREMES MEET. 105 \n\nwhich renders the new birth a necessity, and that in- \nfants, if they die without personal sin, must and will \nbe regenerated in the article of death in order to fit \nthem for heaven. They practically agree as to the \neffect of regeneration upon the adult, in that they \nboth teach that regeneration leaves its subject "full \nof sin." \n\nThey differ in that one teaches that this sin must \nremain until death, that man cannot live without sin \nin this world; and the other that he may be freed \nfrom all sin, original and personal, and live without \nsin, but that if he does not he will be sanctified when \nhe comes to die \xe2\x80\x94 that is, cleansed from original or \n" inbred sin," and fitted for a home in heaven. They \nare alike inconsistent and self-contradictory in that \nthey teach that the thing which renders regeneration \nnecessary remains after the work of regeneration is \naccomplished! It ought to be self-evident to every \nthinking mind that, if the presence of original sin \nrenders regeneration necessary, to regenerate is to de- \nstroy, or take away, original sin; and equally so that, \nif destroyed in the new birth, no "second blessing" \nis required to destroy it. It is also undeniable that, \nif the necessity for the new birth is not found in \noriginal sin \xe2\x80\x94 entailed depravity \xe2\x80\x94 the necessity does \nnot exist except in case, and as the result, of personal \nsin; and that, therefore, infants do not need to be \n"born again." \n\nOn the other hand, if the necessity for the new \nbirth is the result of personal sin, and the sin is re- \npeated after regeneration, the same results will fol- \nlow, and the new birth will again be necessary. Ei- \nther, then, sinless perfection, after conversion, is a \n\n\n\n106 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nnecessity (a contradiction in terms, for that which is \nnecessitated has no moral quality), or the possibility \nof apostasy is a fact. Tea, more : If the necessity for \nthe new birth is the result of personal sin, it did not \nexist before the sin was committed; for an effect can- \nnot exist before its cause. And if the necessity did \nnot exist, it can only be because they (infants, who had \nnot sinned) were already "the children of God: and \nif children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs \nwith Christ. " Here we reach ultimate truth, Bible \ntruth; and if we have any respect for logic, the logic \nof facts, we are compelled to accept the conclusion \nthat the necessity for the new birth is the work of \napostasy, and exists only in cases of individuals who \nby personally sinning have apostatized from the di- \nvine favor. No moral being, in that which consti- \ntutes him such, needs or can ever need to be " born \nagain " until, acting as a moral agent, he creates the \nnecessity by " the transgression of the law," by per- \nsonal sinning. \n\nMany who oppose the baptizing of infants do so on \nthe ground that they are depraved, and that depravity \nmust not be taken into the Church. They must, \ntherefore, believe that regeneration destroys entailed \ndepravity; for otherwise the converted adult would \nbe as unfit for Church membership and baptism as \nthe infant, and their argument would be as fatal to \n"believer\'s baptism" as it is intended and thought to \nbe to pedobaptism. Certainly none will contend that \nthe believing adult is " born again," receives the Spir- \nit of adoption, and is made a joint heir with Christ \nwithout the pardon of his personal sins. And if \nboth original and personal sins and their defilements \n\n\n\nEXTREMES MEET. 107 \n\nare taken away in regeneration, the man who is born \nagain is freed from all sin; and, nnless to sin again be \na necessity (in which case it would not be sin), "sin- \nless perfection" thereafter is not only possible, but a \nduty and a privilege to every child of God. \n\nIf only personal sins and their defilements are re- \nmoved in justification and the new birth, then regen- \neration simply places its subject where he was before \nhe sinned; and if such a change is necessary, in the \ncase of a personal sinner, to make him a fit subject \nfor baptism and for membership in the Church, it \ncan be so only because by those sins he unfitted him- \nself for that to enjoy which he must have them par- \ndoned, taken away. And if he must be restored to \nthat condition from which he was taken by sin, in \norder to make him a fit subject for baptism, he must \nhave been a fit subject before he sinned. But this by \nthe way. Let us return to the subject under more \nimmediate consideration. \n\nThe relation of infants to Christ and the atonement \nis the subject of first consideration in studying the \nplan of salvation; and until this is properly under- \nstood it will be impossible to understand its practical \nworkings in the recovery of personal sinners to the \nfavor of God in this life, and the completion of re- \ndemption in the final crowning with eternal life in \nheaven. If infants are in a state of salvation \xe2\x80\x94 that \nis, in such relation to Christ as the Saviour of the \nworld that, dying in infancy, they are taken to heaven \xe2\x80\x94 \nthen none are in a lost condition except those who by \npersonal sin have forfeited the divine favor, who \nhave personally apostatized; those who have " fallen \nfrom grace." And if this be true, their salvation, so \n\n\n\n108 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nfar as it is completed in this life, is simply and only \nrestoration to the state and relation which they sus- \ntained before they sinned, minus the effect of their \nown sins upon the physical man in rendering the re- \nsistance of temptation more difficult. To do more \nthan this would be to place a premium upon sin, \nwhich, of course, God could not do. \n\nIf this restoration is accomplished by means of re- \ngeneration, or the new birth, then the necessity for \nthe new birth is not found in the existence of original \nsin \xe2\x80\x94 entailed depravity \xe2\x80\x94 and cannot be predicated of \ninfants; for to do so would be to affirm, either that \ninfants are not in a saved state, or that regeneration \nis necessary to those who are already saved; that is, \nthat the children of God need to be born again, born \nof the Spirit, in order to constitute them his children! \nIf entailed depravity does not furnish the necessity \nfor regeneration, then either infants do not need to be \nregenerated, or the necessity for regeneration is \nneither found in sin nor in the effects of sin, original \nor personal; for they have no personal sins to beget \nin them this necessity. \n\nIf regeneration is made necessary by anything in- \nherited from Adam, call it depravity or what you \nplease, it cannot be conditioned to man upon repent- \nance and faith, or upon any voluntary act or move- \nment upon the part of those who need it, whether \nbefore or after the commission of personal sins. To \ndo so would be an act of absolute injustice, of which \nit is impossible to suppose God capable. To say that, \nunless he comply with some arbitrarily required con- \ndition in order to the removal of what was inherited \nby the appointment of God, man \xe2\x80\x94 any man \xe2\x80\x94 will be \n\n\n\nEXTREMES MEET. 109 \n\ndamned, is to charge God with punishing his creatures \nfor being what he made them! It is difficult to con- \nceive how the idea that God gave being to his crea- \ntures in a state of condemnation ever entered the \nmind of a rational being. But that it has been per- \npetuated in all the Churches and is taught and de- \nfended by theologians of almost every school is mar- \nvelous beyond all power of expression. It is so con- \ntradictory of reason, so repulsive to our sense of jus- \ntice, and so destitute of support by the Scriptures \nthat, but for the stubborn fact of its presence, one \ncould hardly believe it possible of entertainment by \na thoughtful mind. It is because they begin by ac- \ncepting as true this unphilosophical and unscriptural \nidea, that the extremes of which w^e speak, however \ndivergent on their journey, meet at a common termi- \nnus and agree that in death the work of preparation \nfor heaven is completed; provided (according to one \nof them) it has not been done in a special "second \nblessing" subsequent to regeneration and previous to \nthe hour of death. Thus it is seen that they who \ndeny the possibility of being saved from all sin in \nthis life, and they who teach that only by a special \n" second blessing" after regeneration such deliver- \nance is possible, practically agree in that which, by \nthe force of irresistible logic, licenses Christians to \nsin as long as they live in this world! \n\n"Being justified by faith, we have peace with God \nthrough our Lord Jesus Christ" because all our sins \nare pardoned. The pardon of less than all of one\'s \nsins would not secure peace with God; nor is it true \nthat any one is "justified by faith" whose sins are \nnot all pardoned. If sin is not repeated, peace will \n\n\n\n110 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ncontinue and pardon will never again be necessary. \nTo say that one cannot live without sinning is to say \nthat he cannot sin; for no man is or can be responsi- \nble for what he cannot help, and if he cannot avoid \nsinning it can only be because he cannot will to do \nright in refusing to do wrong. \n\nAny theory, therefore, that teaches that man must \nsin after he has been pardoned and regenerated, either \nuntil released by death, or by a second special bless- \ning called sanctilication, necessarily proceeds upon \nthe idea that he cannot keep from sinning because he \ncannot sin \xe2\x80\x94 that is, because he is no longer a moral \nagent! If he can keep from sinning, and does not, he \nwill, of course, need a " second blessing," a second \npardoning, and must seek it as he did the first, by \nrepentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus \nChrist. If he does not sin; but, availing himself of \nthe grace of God proffered in Jesus Christ, resists \ntemptation to wrong, he not only remains in a state \nof peace with God, but is blessed w T ith an increase of \nfaith and love \xe2\x80\x94 grows " in grace, and in the knowl- \nedge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." \n\nThis of the spirit. The body, as we have seen, will \nbe regenerated in the final resurrection; and if by the \ngrace of God we use its members here as instruments \nof righteousness unto God, it will receive the adop- \ntion for which we wait, and be fashioned like unto \nhis glorious body who became the first fruits of them \nthat sleep. Sin dwells in the body only when, and \nbecause, it dwells in the spirit that tenants the body, \nand finds expression only through and by means of \nthe body. If it dwell in the spirit, though it may not \nfind occasion to express itself, it is the cause of con- \n\n\n\nEXTKEMES MEET. Ill \n\ndemnation: "\'Whosoever hateth his brother is a mur- \nderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal \nlife abiding in him." One may be guilty of murder, \nthen, without ever killing anybody; and so of every \nother sin that finds expression by means of the body, \nor any member of it. \n\nOn the other hand, no effect resulting from the \nmovements of a body not directed by a sane and re- \nsponsible spirit that tenants it can be catalogued as \nsin. For instance, the killing of a man by an idiot or \ninsane person is not characterized as murder; neither \nis the accidental and unintentional killing of another \nby a sane man. So of all other "works of the flesh." \nIt requires the controlling action of the responsible \ntenant of a human body to constitute its movements \nsinful; and the idea that a man can be innocent and \nacceptable to God in his spirit and at the same time \ncommitting sin with his body is contradictory of rea- \nson, common sense, consciousness, and the Bible. \n\nLife is a pilgrimage, and through an enemy\'s land. \nDeath is its terminus and the gateway into the Ce- \nlestial City, to those who escape captivity or who, \nhaving been captured, have accepted release and fol- \nlowed their Deliverer faithfully to the end. To the \nrest it is the end of probation and the door of en- \ntrance into wretchedness and hopeless despair. It is \na warfare, in which "the last enemy that shall be de- \nstroyed is death." This enemy is a terror to all, until \nhis sting is extracted. "The sting of death is sin; \nand the strength of sin is the law." "But sin is not \nimputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death \nreigned from Adam to Moses, who is the figure of \nhim that was to come, even over them that had not \n\n\n\n112 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nsinned after the similitude of Adam\'s transgression." * \nThat is, the sting of death affects only those who per- \nsonally transgress the law; and none can do that \nuntil capable of receiving and obeying the law. Death \nis already conquered for the infantile world, so that \nto them he has no sting; and can never have any \nuntil by personal sin they furnish it. \n\nThough robbed of his sting, death is not destroyed, \nand will not be until the grave is robbed of its victory \nand this mortal shall have put on immortality. De- \nliverance from sin and its effects upon the spiritual \nman (spiritual death) is, to the sinner, deliverance \nfrom the sting of death. This deliverance comes \nthrough faith in him who, because "the children are \npartakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise \ntook part of the same; that through death he might \ndestroy him that had the power of death, that is, the \ndevil; and deliver them, w T ho through fear of death \nwere all their lifetime subject to bondage." From \nthis bondage to the fear of death we are delivered \nwhen we receive " the Spirit of adoption, whereby we \ncry, Abba, Father," and "the Spirit itself beareth \nwitness with our spirit that we are the children of \nGod." But death itself \xe2\x80\x94 physical death \xe2\x80\x94 will not \nbe destroyed until "the creature itself [the body] \nalso shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- \ntion into the glorious liberty of the children of God." \n\nPhysical death is appointed by God to be the ter- \nminus of a probationary state wherein man, through \nthe grace of God in Jesus Christ, may prepare for a \nhome in heaven. Spiritual death is the effect of per- \n\n*I have transposed this text in order to give its meaning. \nMoses is the figure of him that was to come, not Adam. \n\n\n\nEXTREMES MEET. 113 \n\nsonal sin upon the spirit that commits it. " The soul \nthat sinneth, it shall die," is equivalent to, u i\xc2\xa3 ye live \nafter the flesh, ye shall die." " To be carnally minded \n[that is, to mind, to "live after, the flesh"] is \ndeath:" "but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the \ndeeds of the body, ye shall live." If depravity, " orig- \ninal sin," is not located in the body, why warn the \nregenerated, adopted Spirit against obedience to the \nflesh as the great danger to which it is exposed in this \nmortal probationary state? "Let not sin therefore \nreign in [or by] your mortal body, that ye should obey \nit in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your mem- \nbers as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but \nyield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive \nfrom the dead, and your members [of the body] as \ninstruments of righteousness unto God." It seems to \nbe the pressure of mortal corruption upon the im- \nmortal and renewed spirit that endangers the children \nof God who, though heirs, have not yet entered upon \ntheir inheritance, but are to suffer with Christ in \norder to be hereafter glorified with him. \n\nIf both spirit and body were renewed in what we \ncall regeneration, the new birth, there would be com- \nplete restoration to original perfection, and entailed \ndepravity would be an impossible thing. As the \nspirit only is quickened, it must, by the grace of God, \nmortify therefore the " members which are upon the \nearth" \xe2\x80\x94 crucify "the flesh with the affections and \nlusts." \n\nAn effect cannot precede its cause; nor can it be- \ncome the cause of that which produced it. Spiritual \ndeath, therefore, cannot precede the sinning act in \nthat which is the subject of it; nor can it ever become \n8 \n\n\n\n114 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthe cause of that act. It follows that, whatever of \ndepravity is entailed upon the children of men, it does \nnot constitute spiritual death, and cannot cause the \nact that produces it. To go to the root of the matter: \nDeath, whatever its producing cause, is a resultant \nstate to that which was once alive. It is impossible to \nconceive of a dead human body that was never alive. \nIt is equally impossible to conceive of a human spirit \nas "dead in trespasses and sins"\xe2\x80\x94 the only death \npredicable of a spirit capable of moral character \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat was not once without sin \xe2\x80\x94 that is, alive to God \nthrough Jesus Christ, and with the life that was in \nhim. That can never have died which never lived; \nand that which is dead cannot be restored to life, \nunless it was once alive and died. Infants cannot, \ntherefore, be dead in sin unless, as infants, they were \nonce spiritually alive; and this they never were, if \nthey inherit spiritual death. \n\nThus we see that, in the new creation, every human \nbeing begins his personal existence in a probationary \nstate and in a probationary relation to him who has \nplaced him on trial. It is impossible for us to know \nat what age the trial begins in any given case, or to \nlay down a rule which shall be general in its applica- \ntion. We know, however, that trial proper does not, \ncannot, begin in any case until development to the \npoint of moral responsibility in the exercise of moral \nagency is reached. Sin is impossible of commission \nexcept by a moral agent; and a sinner who has never \nsinned is an impossible conception. Infants are \nmoral beings, but must develop into moral agents \nbefore they can sin, and must commit sin before they \ncan be classed with sinners or be truthfully said to be \n\n\n\nEXTREMES MEET. 115 \n\n"dead in trespasses and sins." They are also spirit- \nual beings, or they could not be moral beings and \ndeveloped into moral agents. As spiritual beings \nthey are either dead or alive, for spiritual existence \nwithout either life or death is absolutely inconceiv- \nable. As they cannot be dead without having first \nbeen alive, and cannot have died without having for- \nfeited life, and cannot have forfeited life without \nsinning, and cannot have sinned without moral \nagency, and cannot have been moral agents without \nthe power of intelligent choice; it follows that no in- \nfant can be spiritually dead who has not developed \nsufficiently in intellect to be able to choose intelli- \ngently between good and evil, and who has not made \nchoice of the evil Thus it is demonstrated that infants \nare not dead in sin; and if not, they are "alive to \nGod through Jesus Christ our Lord." \n\nGod has placed man in this world as a probationer \nin view of promoting him to honor and wealth in his \nfamily above. He is on trial; and, if "faithful unto \ndeath," "when he is tried, he shall receive the crown \nof life which the Lord hath promised to them that \nlove him." Did the Lord place him here a child of \nthe devil? If a child at all, in its spiritual being, the \ninfant is either the child of God or the child of the \ndevil. Whose child is it? I answer: His who made \nit, who created it. If a creature of God, and a child, \nit is a child of God, unless God can be supposed to \ncreate children of the devil as such, the mere suppo- \nsition of which would be blasphemous. \n\nThat some of the creatures of God are children of \nthe devil is not denied or questioned, but they were \nnot created such. They have been seduced from vir- \n\n\n\n116 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ntue\'s paths, and through their own personal sins have \nforfeited their place in the family and kingdom of \nGod, and become the children of the devil. But as \nchildren of the devil they are not "such" as they were \nwhen Jesus said of them : # " Of such is the kingdom of \nheaven." They begin children of God in their spir- \nitual being, but subjects of mortality in their phys- \nical bodies. The contest, in the trial to which they \nare subjected in this pilgrimage, is between the flesh \nand the Spirit. "The body is dead because of sin; \nbut the Spirit is life [alive J because of righteous- \nness." If they live after the flesh, they shall die: \nbut if they through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of \nthe body, they shall live \xe2\x80\x94 that is, if they yield to the \ntemptations which assail them through the flesh and \nlive in the indulgence and gratification of the fleshly \nappetites and passions, the spirit will partake of the \ncorruption of the body and, like it, die; but if they \nthrough the Spirit of God subdue and control the \nmovements of the body and use its members as in- \nstruments of righteousness unto God, they shall live \nforever, and the body itself shall finally be " raised a \nspiritual body " and with the spirit be crowned with \neternal life in heaven. \n\nDoes the reader ask: "What has all this to do \nwith the \' second blessing\' theory of sanctification ? " \nI answer: Much every way, chiefly this: It de- \nstroys the very foundation on which it rests, and ren- \nders it impossible to begin an argument in its sup- \nport. If there is no sin in the infant, no inherited \ndepravity that acts as a bar to its acceptance with \nGod and which must be eradicated in case it should \ndie (but before it dies!), in order to fit it for heaven; \n\n\n\nEXTREMES MEET. 117 \n\nit cannot inherit such sin or depravity after it attains \nto personal responsibility. And if, as we are told \n(by Dr. Carradine, p. 26), "regeneration is a new \nbirth . . . the cleansing away of personal sins \nand the removal of that depravity that results from \npersonal transgressions," then there is no room for \nthe "second blessing" \xe2\x80\x94 nothing left to be accom- \nplished by it. \n\nNot only so, but it is equally fatal to the theory of \nthose who, opposing the " second blessing " theory, * \ncontend that entailed depravity furnishes the neces- \nsity for and is therefore removed by regeneration. \nRegeneration and the new birth are used by them of \nthe same thing; and their theory compels them either \nto deny that infants are children of God, or to affirm \nthat God\'s children " must be born again " to consti- \ntute them such! \n\nOn either hypothesis \xe2\x80\x94 that entailed depravity is de- \nstroyed in regeneration or by a second blessing there- \nafter-\xe2\x80\x94 there is a question of some importance, to \nMethodists at least, involved in the doctrine of the \npossibility of apostasy, which I am anxious should be \nanswered by those who hold these theories \xe2\x80\x94 viz. : How \ncan entailed depravity, when once destroyed, ever be \ngotten back? To apostatize is to relapse into the \nstate which necessitates the new birth; and, if so, it \nwill again be necessary. The question is : How does \nhe get back his inherited depravity if it was destroyed \nin regeneration? Or, if destroyed by a "second \nblessing," after regeneration, does the forfeiture of \n" sanctification " involve only the recovery of his lost \ninheritance \xe2\x80\x94 depravity \xe2\x80\x94 and leave him in a justified \nstate, still a child of God, though unfitted for heaven ! \n\n\n\n118 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nIn either case apostasy involves the idea of a second \ntime inheriting a depravity that can only be entailed \nby the natural, physical birth! Nicodemus\'s question \n(recorded in John iii. 4) would, it seems to me, be emi- \nnently in place just here; for there is no other imagi- \nnable way to get back that lost inheritance except \nthat suggested by him of being born again ! \n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL \n\nChristian Perfection. \n\nIf, as we have seen, regeneration is a quickening, \na resurrection; and resurrection is purification; so \nthat every redeemed spirit \xe2\x80\x94 every one that is born of \nGod\xe2\x80\x94 is cleansed, is purified \xe2\x80\x94 saved "by the washing \nof regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; " \nand every such one is sanctified, what is it to " go on \nto perfection?" Laying aside prejudice and pre- \nconceived ideas concerning this subject, let us exam- \nine it in the light of the Scriptures, in the fear of \nGod, and with an eye to his glory, " whose we are and \nwhom we serve." \n\nPerfection is a superlative term, and does not admit \nof comparison except by limitation. If a thing is \nperfect, it cannot be more perfect; for whatever is \nadded to the perfect thing detracts from the perfec- \ntion of that thing. Perfection is absolute, and the \nthing of which it is truthfully predicated can neither \nbe added to nor subtracted from, in that which con- \nstitutes its perfection, without destroying that per- \nfection. All that can be meant, therefore, by the \nterms "more" and "most " perfect is, more and most \nnearly perfect; and to use them otherwise is to limit \nthe meaning of the word " perfect" to something less \nthan perfection. \n\nTo be a Christian is to be like Christ, and to be a \nperfect Christian is to be perfectly like Christ. Of \n\n(119) \n\n\n\n120 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ncourse we mean in that which constitutes moral char- \nacter. To be a Christian, then, is to be morally good; \nand to be a perfect Christian is to be perfect in mor- \nal goodness. We therefore define Christian perfec- \ntion to be: The perfection of moral manhood after the \npattern furnished us in the person of Jesus Christ. \nThis perfection is attainable only through the grace \nof God in Jesus Christ. He is at once the model and \nthe medium of approach to it. "God was in Christ, \nreconciling the world unto himself," that Christ \nmight be in us " the hope of glory; " " which hope we \nhave as an anchor of the soul, both sure and. stead- \nfast, and which entereth into that within the vail; \nwhither the forerunner is foi; us entered, even Jesus, \nmade a high priest forever after the order of Mel- \nchisedec." \n\nTo be without God is to be without hope in the \nworld. Jesus Christ is the only medium of access \nwhich God has to man or man to God. To reject \nJesus Christ, therefore, is to reject God and banish \nall hope. This is the condition of every sinner in \nthe world, especially every one in a gospel-enlight- \nened land. He is "the true Light, which lighteth \nevery man that cometh into the world." "He that \nbelieveth on him is not condemned: but he that \nbelieveth not is condemned already, because he hath \nnot believed in the name of the only begotten Son of \nGod. And this is the condemnation, that light is \ncome into the world, and men loved darkness rather \nthan light, because their deeds were evil." The in- \ncarnation of the divine \xe2\x80\x94 that is, " God manifest in the \nflesh" \xe2\x80\x94 is the hope of the world; and the rejection of \nthis hope, through unbelief, is the condemnation of \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 121 \n\nthe unbeliever and mars the work of God wrought in \nthe new creation. The restoration of this hope to \nand in man is the work of God in the regeneration of \nthe sinner, and the attainment of the thing hoped for \nwill be the finishing of the work of redemption in \nthe final recovery of the saved from the consequences \nof the original transgression. This attainment is the \nperfection to which we are mainly urged throughout \n\xe2\x80\xa2 the Scriptures. Having this hope to which we are \nbegotten of God " by the resurrection of Jesus Christ \nfrom the dead," whose resurrection is a pledge and \n"first fruit "of the final harvest, we are to cultivate \nand encourage it by growing "in grace, and in the \nknowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ," "unto a per- \nfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the full- \nness of Christ." \n\nChristian perfection is one thing, and the perfec- \ntion of redeemed humanity, to be consummated in \nthe final resurrection, is quite another. Ignoring \nthis fact, and using the scriptures which apply to the \nlatter in support of a theory touching the former, has \nresulted in much confusion and unnecessary, if not \nhurtful, disputation concerning the doctrine of per- \nfect love. \n\nFreedom from sin does not constitute Christian \nperfection; for, as Mr. Wesley says, "even babes \nin Christ are so far perfect as not to commit sin." \nAgain he says: "A Christian is so far perfect as not \nto commit sin. This is the glorious privilege of \nevery Christian; yea, though he be but a babe in \nChrist." And a greater than Wesley has said: \n" Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." \nOf course every " babe in Christ" is "born of God." \n\n\n\n122 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nThe difference between a babe, a newly adopted child \nof God, and one who has attained to perfection in \nlove is not, then, to be found in the fact that one sins \nand the other does not. Neither does it consist in \nthe removal of " original sin " or entailed depravity. \nFor, as has been, I think, abundantly proved, that \nis never removed in this life. The guilt of original \nsin was never entailed, and could not be. Even if \notherwise it could have been, it was rendered impos- \nsible by the atonement made by Jesus Christ, "who \nhis own self bore our sins in his own body on the \ntree." All the depravity inherited from Adam is \nthat which inheres in the physical body, and which \nis inseparable from a state of morality. How this \naffects the moral and immortal man has already been \nshown. That we are not delivered from this entail- \nment, in this life, is also clearly taught by Mr. Wes- \nley. He says: " We secondly believe that there is no \nsuch perfection in this life as implies an entire de- \nliverance, either from ignorance or mistake, in things \nnot essential to salvation, or from manifold tempta- \ntions, or from numberless infirmities, wherewith the \ncorruptible body more or less presses down the soul." \nHe also says: "Now mistakes, and whatever infirmi- \nties necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the \nbody, are no way contrary to love; nor therefore, in \nthe Scripture sense, sin." \n\n"Original sin" in the descendants of Adam \xe2\x80\x94 that \nis, entailed depravity \xe2\x80\x94 is neither punishable nor par- \ndonable: nor is any personal violation of law which \nis necessitated by such depravity, for such violations \nof law are not sins. Here again I am happy to have \nthe indorsement of Mr. Wesley: "Not only sin, \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 123 \n\nproperly so called [that is, a voluntary transgres- \nsion of a known law], but sin improperly so called \n[that is, an involuntary transgression of divine \nlaw, known or unknown], needs atoning blood." \n(" Plain Account," as published by J. H. Padgett \n& Co., 1889, page 223.) It is certainly proper to \ncall that sin which is sin; and if anything is " im- \nproperly so called, it is not sin. If the thing "im- \nproperly " called sin "needs atoning blood," the need \nis already supplied, and the supply is not contingent \nupon anything to be done by us. Now if "even \nbabes in Christ are so far perfect as not to commit \nsin," and we are not, as Wesley says, "to be freed \nfrom actual mistakes, till this mortal puts on im- \nmortality (p. 221), what is left in a regenerated \nperson \xe2\x80\x94 a child of God \xe2\x80\x94 to be taken out or destroyed \nby a special "second blessing?" Can any one tell? \nIt is not "sin, properly so called" \xe2\x80\x94 the "actual mis- \ntakes" "and whatever infirmities necessarily form \nthe corruptible state of the body" \xe2\x80\x94 is not to be \ngotten rid of "till this mortal puts on immortality." \nIs there something in man which is neither sin, mis- \ntakes, nor infirmities, to destroy which a " second \' \nspecial " blessing " is necessary, after one is regener- \nated and has the Spirit itself bearing witness with \nhis spirit that he is a child of God? If so, what is \nit, and whence did it come? \n\nMr. Wesley, in his sermons "On Sin in Be- \nlievers" and the "Repentance of Believers," not \nonly assumed that there is, but made an earnest and \nlabored effort to prove that there is, and to define \nwhat it is. If he failed, it was only because he at- \ntempted the impossible. That he did fail can, I \n\n\n\n124 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthink, be easily made appear. He says: "We allow \nthat the state of a justified person is inexpressibly \ngreat and glorious. He is born again, not of blood, \nnor of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God! He \nis a child of God, a member of Christ, and heir of \nthe kingdom of heaven. The peace of God, which \npasseth all understanding, keepeth his heart and \nmind in Christ Jesus. His very body is a \'temple \nof the Holy Ghost,\' and a \' habitation of God through \nthe Spirit\' He is washed, he is sanctified. His \nheart is purified by faith; he is cleansed \'from the \ncorruption that is in the world;\' \'the love of God is \nshed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost which is \ngiven unto him.\' And so long as he walketh in love \n(which he may always do) he worships God in spirit \nand in truth. He keepeth the commandments of \nGod, and doeth those things that are pleasing in his \nsight; so exercising himself as to \' have a conscience \nvoid of offense, toward God and toward man; \' and he \nhas power both over outward and inward sin, even \nfrom the moment he is justified." \n\nLet the reader closely study that paragraph and; \nadmitting its truth, answer candidly and to his own \nsatisfaction this question: What is there in the per- \nson or character there described of which guilt can \nbe predicated, which is "continually deserving pun- \nishment," and which must be repented of in order to \nits removal? Can it be truthfully said of a person \nanswering to the character there described that he is \n"full of sin," that there is "guiltiness or desert of \npunishment whereof " he is "still conscious?" And \nyet this, all this, is precisely what must be affirmed, \nand proved to be true, in order to sustain the "sec- \n\n\n\nCHKISTIAN PERFECTION. 125 \n\nond blessing" theory, in advocacy of which the two \nsermons referred to were written. \n\nOf course the " sin " of which he is " full " and the \n" guiltiness" " whereof " he is "still conscious" can- \nnot refer to the sin and guiltiness from which he was \ndelivered when he was justified and regenerated. It \nwill be well therefore, in this connection, first to in- \nquire: What sin was it from which he was justified, \nand from the defilement of which he was purified \nwhen he was regenerated \xe2\x80\x94 when he was "washed?" To \nanswer this question correctly we have only to ascer- \ntain what it is that renders regeneration necessary; \nfor, as we have before seen, whatever it is the exis- \ntence of which makes regeneration necessary, that it \nis that is removed or destroyed in and by regenera- \ntion. If, as Mr. Wesley teaches (sermon on the " New \nBirth"), "the foundation of the new birth" \xe2\x80\x94 that \nwhich renders it necessary is " the entire corruption \nof our nature," as a consequence of Adam\'s sin \xe2\x80\x94 that \nis, because "in Adam all died " all need to be " born \nagain;" then, the new birth destroys that corruption, \nand the " second blessing " is not only unnecessary, \nbut, absolutely impossible, unless the corruption is \nagain entailed. If the necessity for the new birth is \nnot found in the existence of "original sin," entailed \ndepravity, then it must be found in the effects of \npersonal sins; and, if so, infants do not need to be \n"born again." This I verily believe to be true and \nscriptural, as to the spirit. The body will have to be \nrenewed, but that will be done in the resurrection at \nthe last day, when this corruptible shall put on incor- \nruption. \n\nJustification removes the guilt of sin, and regener- \n\n\n\n126 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nation removes its effects: the defilement consequent on \nsin. Hence we say, the necessity for the new birth \nis found in the effects of personal sins. Let it. be re- \nmembered, however, that it is the spirit, not the body, \nthat is regenerated in this life; and that the body is \nin no way affected by it, except that, as an instru- \nment, it is to be used differently and for a different \npurpose. The unregenerate spirit uses the mem- \nbers of the body " as instruments of unrighteousness \nunto sin; " the regenerated spirit must, if it retains its \nregenerated state, use them as " instruments of right- \neousness unto God." The body itself is neither better \nnor worse, morally; but being better used will be less \nliable to disease and accidents, and therefore longer \nexempted from the ravages of death. Godliness has \n"promise of the life that now is," as well as of "that \nwhich is to come," but only on the principle here \nstated (as to the length of days), observing which we \nbecome coworkers with God in preserving health and \nprolonging life. \n\nBeing " born of the Spirit " does not heal the \nmaladies of the physical body. It neither gives sight \nto the blind nor hearing to the deaf; neither cures \nthe consumptive nor restores lost limbs to the \nmaimed; it is not, in a word, the regeneration of the \nbody, but of the spirit. When, therefore, we say \nthat the necessity for regeneration is found in the \neffects of personal sins and that it removes these \neffects, we must not be understood as referring to \nphysical, but to moral effects. The effects upon the \nbody will be removed "in the regeneration" at the \nlast day, when "the creature itself [the body] also \nshall be delivered from the bondage of corruption \ninto the glorious liberty of the children of God." \n\n\n\nCHEISTIAN PERFECTION. 127 \n\nIf justification removes the guilt, and regeneration \nthe defilement, of personal sins; and if neither the \nguilt nor the defilement of " original sin " can by any \npossibility attach, as an inheritance, to the moral \nman, which we have seen to be true; then there is \nnothing left in the child of God for a specific " second \nblessing" to do, to fit him for the inheritance to \nwhich he became an heir when he " received the \nSpirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." \nHis heirship is inseparable from his childship; so that \nif he should die the next moment after his adoption \nhe would enter upon the inheritance of eternal life. \nDeath would only release him from his "earthly \nhouse," that he might go to the "house not made \nwith hands, eternal in the heavens." \n\nChristian perfection does not consist in nor imply \nthe elimination of "original sin," or entailed de- \npravity. This, as we have seen, is an inseparable \naccompaniment of a mortal state of probation, and \nwill never be eliminated until " this mortal shall put \non immortality." Even if it could be proved (which \nit is impossible to do) that u entire sanctification," \ncoming as a "second blessing," eliminates what is \ncalled "inbred sin," or inherited depravity, that is \nnot Christian perfection, even according to the teach- \ning of those who hold that theory. It is true, they \ngenerally confound the two and argue that to oppose \nthe "second blessing" theory of sanctification is to \noppose the doctrine of Christian perfection; but the \nlogic of their position is against them. For, if from \nregeneration to " sanctification " the change must be \ninstantaneous, there is no room for growth between \nthe two; and if that "second blessing" is Christian \n\n\n\n128 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nperfection there is no appropriate place for the ex- \nhortation, "let us go on to perfection;" for in that \ncase, growth in grace is impossible until perfect holi- \nness has been attained, and it is impossible to go on \nto a place or state that has already been reached. \n\nThey tell us that we cannot grow into it, but that \nit must be sought as a blessing to be bestowed by \nGod, and instantaneously. Indeed, Mr. Wesley says: j \n" If there be no such second change, if there be no \ninstantaneous deliverance after justification, if there \nbe none but a gradual work of God (that there is a \ngradual work none denies), then we \'must be content, \nas well as we can, to remain full of sin till death; and, \nif so, we must remain guilty till death, continually \ndeserving punishment. For it is impossible that the \nguilt, or desert of punishment, should be removed \nfrom us as long as all this sin remains in our heart \nand cleaves to our words and actions." (Sermon on \nthe "Repentance of Believers.") \n\nRemember, he is here speaking of the character \ndescribed in the quotation already made, who has " a \nconscience void of offense, toward God and toward \nman," and that he says: "And a conviction of all this \nsin remaining in their hearts, is the repentance which \nbelongs to them that are justified!" Now if, when \njustified and regenerated, one is pardoned of all per- \nsonal sins and cleansed from the defilement thereof, \nso that nothing remains except the entailed depravity \nwhich he calls "inbred sin," out of which grow the \nsins enumerated by him and which, he tells us, "by \nall the grace given at justification, we cannot extir- \npate it." It is certain that growth is impossible until \nthis impediment to growth is removed. " Though we \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 129 \n\nwatcli and pray ever so much, we cannot wholly \nchange either our hearts or our hands. Most surely \nwe cannot till it shall pleate our Lord to speak to \nour hearts again, to speak the second time, " Be clean;" \nand then only the leprosy is cleansed. Then only the \nevil root, the carnal mind, is destroyed; and inbred \nsin subsists no more." Here it is plainly taught \nthat without this " second blessing " we cannot avoid \nsinning, neither inwardly nor outwardly; "cannot \nwholly cleanse either our hearts or hands." Does \nany Methodist believe it? No. Nor did Mr. Wesley; \nhe was only caught napping. \n\nA man cannot grow into the grace of God; neither \ncan he grow in grace until he is graciously accepted \nof God. Growth is enlargement; and a thing must \nexist before it can grow. To grow is to increase in size, \nnot to change in kind. If a sinner grows, he grows \ninto a bigger sinner. As a sinner he cannot grow into \nbeing a child of God, a Christian. In order to this re- \nlation he must be "be born again," "born of the Spirit." \nWhen "born of the Spirit," he is a child of God; and \nif, as a child of God, he grows, he must grow into a \nbigger child of God, and on until he reach the " per- \nfect stature " of manhood in that relation. Mr. Wes- \nley says: "This is undeniably true of sanctification; \nbut of regeneration, the new birth, it is not true." \n(Sermon on the "New Birth.") \n\nWhoever will take the pains to compare the sermon \n(Wesley\'s) on the "Repentance of Believers" with \nthe sermon on the "Wilderness State " will find that \nwhat is treated in the first as something left in the \nbeliever, when he is justified and regenerated, of \nwhich he is afterward to repent, and to remote which \n9 \n\n\n\n130 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\na " second blessing" is necessary, in the latter is \ntreated as a state " into which so many fail after they \nhave believed; " and that "it properly consists in the \nloss of that faith, which God once wrought in their \nheart." This latter being true, as I doubt not it is, \nthe necessity for the " second blessing " is found in \nthe fact of second sinning. If, therefore, it "please \nour Lord to speak to our hearts again, to speak the \nsecond time, \'Be clean/" it is because we " the second \ntime " need to be cleansed, have the second time de- \nfiled ourselves with sin. \n\nWhen the man who was " full of leprosy . . . be- \nsought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make \nme clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched \nhim, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately \nthe leprosy departed from him." He did not need \n"to speak the second time, \'Be clean,\'" in order to \ncleanse the man from his leprosy, that fit type of sin. \nNeither is the second speaking necessary to cleanse \nthe sinner, if only he will "go, and sin no more." \nThere is not a single instance where, during the \npersonal ministry of Jesus, a person cleansed from \nleprosy or healed of any disease ever returned for \na "second blessing" to complete the cure; nor of one \nwhose sins were pardoned, for a more thorough \ncleansing. \n\nThere is a very great difference between an "in- \ncrease " of faith and a reexercise of faith. The one \nimplies a growth in grace, and is inseparable from \nit; the other implies the loss of faith and the presence \nof unbelief, which is sin, and the consequent need of \na "second blessing," a second pardon and renewal. \nIn his sermon on the " New Birth," Mr. Wesley says: \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 131 \n\n"When we are born again, then our sanctification, \nour inward and outward holiness, begins; and thence- \nforward we are gradually to \' grow up in him who is \nour head.\' This expression of the apostle admirably \nillustrates the difference between one and the other, \nand further points out the exact analogy there is be- \ntween natural and spiritual things. A child is bom \nof a woman in a moment, or at least in a very short \ntime; afterward he gradually and slowly grows, till \nhe attains to the stature of a man. In like manner, \na child is born of God in a short time, if not in a \nmoment. But it is by slow degrees that he after- \nward grows up to the measure of the full stature of \nChrist. The same relation, therefore, which there is \nbetween our natural birth and our growth, there is \nalso between our new birth and our sanctification." \n\nHere he as distinctly and as emphatically teaches \nthat sanctification is attained by growth "by slow \ndegrees," as in the paragraph before quoted he de- \nclares that " if there be no instantaneous deliverance \nafter justification" then we are "to remain full of sin \ntill death." The two statements cannot both be true; \nfor they are contradictory, the one of the other. If \n"by slow degrees," it cannot be "instantaneous." If \nit be said that he does not say entire sanctification, I \nanswer that if one has grown " up to the measure of \nthe full stature of Christ," he cannot still be "full of \nsin" and "continually deserving punishment." To \nreach that " measure " is, I verily believe, to attain to \nChristian perfection. And if you will substitute \n"Christian perfection" for "sanctification," in the \nparagraph quoted, you w T ill have the correct idea of \nthat scriptural doctrine clearly and forcibly expressed. \n\n\n\n132 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nSanctification, on the human side \xe2\x80\x94 as a work \neffected by man \xe2\x80\x94 is a state of consecration to God, \nof being set apart to and for holy purposes \xe2\x80\x94 for the \ndivine use and service; and on the divine side\xe2\x80\x94 as \nthe work of God \xe2\x80\x94 it is a state of gracious acceptance \nand qualification for the use and service to and for \nwhich the person is set apart. It takes both the \nhuman and the divine of sanctification to constitute \none a Christian, a child of God, and of course they \nare both embraced in regeneration. God sanctifies \nall who sanctify themselves, and at once; so that \nsanctification may be said to be an instantaneous \nwork. Not so with Christian perfection. It is at- \ntained by growth. We are to " go on to perfection; " \nto "perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord." To \nthis end is the gospel preached, as saith Paul: \n" Whom we preach, warning every man, and teach- \ning every man in all wisdom; that we may present \nevery man perfect in Christ Jesus: whereunto I also \nlabor, striving according to his working, which work- \neth in me mightily." (Col. i. 28, 29.) We are to \nsanctify ourselves that we may be sanctified of God. \nHaving done the one and received the other, we are \nto "go on to perfection," to "grow in grace, and in \nthe knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ;" in order \nto which, we are to keep ourselves "unspotted from \nthe world;" so that, "when Christ, who is our life, \nshall appear, then shall ye [we] also appear with him \nin glory." \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE XII. \n" Unmethodistic Methodism." \n\nSuch is the title of a tractate of forty pages, by \nJoshua H. Harrison. It is written in the interest of \nMethodism, and is intended to show that the "second \nblessing" theory of sanctification is unmethodistic, \neven when taught by Mr. Wesley himself. It con- \ntains some good things; but, like every other effort \nto overthrow the " second blessing " theory which \nhas fallen under my notice, contradicts and destroys \nitself as effectually as it does the theory assailed, and \nby the very same logic. He succeeds in scuttling the \ncraft assailed; but, unfortunately, having boarded it \nto do so, and provided no boat in which to escape, \ngoes down with the crew whose craft he has scuttled. \n\nThe introductory argument, on "the testimony of \nconsciousness in experience," is so presented as to \neffect the works of a boomerang in unskillful hands. \nIt is true that "the testimony of consciousness in ex- \nperience gives no statement of doctrine whatsoever; " \nbut it does not follow, nor is it true, that " the testi- \nmony of consciousness in experience furnishes no \ntrustworthy evidence of the truth of the doctrine \nunder which such experiences arises." The whole \nsystem of salvation through the mediation of Jesus \nChrist, as revealed in the Bible, is supported by " the \ntestimony of consciousness in experience," and would \nbe absolutely worthless as a source of comfort in this \n\n(133) \n\n\n\n134 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nlife without it. Is the evidence of the truth of the \ngreat doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ, \nfound in the experience of holy men and martyrs \nand recorded in the history of the Church, to be ac- \ncounted as " untrustworthy," as adding absolutely \nnothing to the evidence by which the doctrines of \nChristianity are supported? " The testimony of con- \nsciousness in the experience" of the man who was \nborn blind and to whom Jesus gave sight gave "no \nstatement of doctrine;" but that it furnished "no \ntrustworthy evidence of the truth" that Jesus was \nthe Christ we are not ready to concede. To his re- \nvilers the man said: "Why herein is a marvelous \nthing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet \nhe hath opened mine eyes." Discard "the testimony \nof consciousness in experience," and you destroy the \nvital principle of Christianity, that which distin- \nguishes it from and elevates it above every other sys- \ntem of religion the world has ever known. Tes, you \nrender it impossible to support by satisfactory and \nconvincing evidence, even to the intellect, the funda- \nmental facts and doctrines which make it a vitalizing \npower in the world. \n\nOur author says: "The testimony of consciousness \nis infallibly accordant with the honest convictions \nunder which it exists." A self-evident proposition; \nfor it can only mean that the consciousness of honest \nconvictions is concordant with itself! Man is con- \nscious of convictions; and these convictions are often \nthe result of a conscious experience in something \nelse. Of course they are accordant. The man whose \neyes were opened was conscious of a conviction \ntouching the character of Jesus; and this conviction \n\n\n\n"UXMETHODISTIC METHODISM." 135 \n\nwas the result of a conscious experience in the \nmatter of seeing. "The testimony of conscious- \nness" is ultimate and incontrovertible as to that of \nwhich it bears direct testimony and to him to whom it \ntestifies \xe2\x80\x94 to whom it comes as an "experience." \nIts indirect testimony is of a logical nature, and \nof course depends upon the reasoning powers of \nhim to whom it becomes evidence. This indirect \ntestimony may be classed as circumstantial evi- \ndence, but cannot be set aside as wholly untrust- \nworthy. The testimony of consciousness in the \nexperience of the blind man, when restored to \nsight, was, to him, direct and incontrovertible as to \nthe fact that he could now see. Of this there was no \nroom for doubt, and he boldly declared: "One thing \nI know, that whereas I was blind, now I see." From \nthis fact, established beyond question by the testi- \nmony of consciousness in experience, he reasoned to- \nward and finally reached another conclusion \xe2\x80\x94 viz., \nthat Jesus was "the Son of God." "And he wor- \nshiped him" as such. He could not be conscious \nthat Jesus was divine as well as human, neither did \nhis consciousness in the experience of seeing give \nstatement of such a fact or doctrine; but it did fur- \nnish data reasoning from which the acceptance of \nsuch fact, when stated, was natural, if not inevitable. \nHence, when the Jews reviled him and said: "We \nknow not from whence he [Jesus] is, the man an- \nswered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvel- \nous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and \nyet he hath opened mine eyes." So now, the testi- \nmony of consciousness in the experience of justifica- \ntion, regeneration, and adoption does not give state- \n\n\n\n136 THE PliOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nment of any doctrine; but it does furnish "trustwor- \nthy evidence of the truth of the doctrine under which \nsuch experiences arise." It is because of this fact \nand upon this principle that Jesus declares: "If any \nman will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, f \nwhether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." \nThe testimony of consciousness, however, is im- \npossible, except in things that are experienced and \nsuch as have logical connection with them as experi- \nenced. Neither of which can be predicated of a mere \ntheory touching any doctrine or fact, whether of na- \nture or of revelation. Consciousness attests the fact \nthat we are sinners, but only when we are personally \nguilty. Freedom from guilt is the work of pardon, \nand the evidence of that freedom is the consciousness \nof it wrought in us by the witnessing Spirit of God. \nThe testimony of consciousness as to deliverance \nfrom moral evil is necessarily limited by the con- \nsciousness of its need, which went before and incited \nto its seeking. Unless, therefore, we can be con- \nsciously guilty of something we never did, we can \nnever be consciously delivered from "original sin," \nneither by a "second blessing" nor any other. \nBrother Harrison says: "I assert that a man may be \nas readily convicted of inbred as of personal sin." \n(Page 11.) This assertion needs to be explained or \nproved, or both. When we say a man is convicted of \npersonal sin, we mean that he is consciously guilty; \nand he who asserts " that a man may be as readily \nconvicted of inbred as of personal sin " should explain \nwhat he means by " convicted," for the assertion in- \nvolves the denial of conscious guiltiness upon the \npart of personal sinners, or the affirmation that one \n\n\n\n"UNMETHODISTIC METHODISM." 137 \n\nmay be consciously guilty of what has been entailed \nupon him; and to do either is to antagonize both \nthe teachings of the Bible and the experience of the \nbest people of every age of the world. \n\nAgain, he says: "There is no warrant in the \nScriptures for the doctrine that conviction of sin ex- \ntends only to personal \xc2\xa3in, and that regeneration de- \nlivers from personal sin only, so that there must be \nanother deliverance accomplished after knowledge of \nother sin has been acquired." Here he seems to ad- \nmit \xe2\x80\x94 rather to affirm \xe2\x80\x94 and I presume intends to do \nso, that the Scriptures teach that there must be con- \nviction of and deliverance from some sin other than \npersonal; and only to deny that it is done after re- \ngeneration. Every such admission is as fatal to the \ntheory of those who deny as of them who teach sanc- \ntification as a specific second blessing. For if origi- \nnal or "inbred," sin is something inherited from \nAdam, and that must be eradicated in this life, it is \nevident, and will be admitted by all, that it is done in \nregeneration or some time thereafter. If not in \nregeneration, another, if not a "second," blessing is \na necessity, if it is ever removed. But whether in \nregeneration or by a second special blessing there- \nafter, if it is destroyed or eradicated, the entailment \nis effectually stopped on that line. It can descend \nno farther; for the very simple but all sufficient \nreason that it is not there to descend. \n\nIf original or "inbred" sin is not to be forgiven or \ntaken out of the individual, for what purpose is he \n"convicted of" its existence?" And if it is taken \nout or destroyed, whether in regeneration or "sanc- \ntification," it cannot be further propagated. "Un- \n\n\n\n138 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmethodistic Methodism " seems a little confused and, \nat times, self-contradictory. But this is not to be \nwondered at, as only Methodistic Methodism is self- \nconsistent. The author says: "Now I submit that \nif he [Adam] and Eve had been regenerated before \nthe generation of their children, they could not have \ncommunicated any depravity to their offspring; for \nregeneration would have saved them from all the \neffects of sin for which he was responsible. And \nthis would have estopped the descent of depravity \nfrom Adam." (Page 36.) Now I submit that the \nlogic of what is here assumed and affirmed charges \nGod with an act of absolute injustice to the whole \nliuman race. If lie could have regenerated Adam, \nand thus saved his posterity from the effects of his \nsin, and would not do it, it was cruel to the innocent \noffspring not to do it. If he could not because of \nAdam\'s resistance, or his refusal to accept it, in- \njustice to his posterity was the result of delay in \nmeeting merited punishment to the father; and that, \ntoo, when mercy, blood-bought mercy, had been \nproffered instead of merited death, the penalty in- \ncurred by his first sin! \n\nBut the assumption that they were not "regener- \nated before the generation of children" is purely \ngratuitous. It is also contradictory of the soundest \nphilosophy and of the tenor of gospel teaching. If \nAdam had not been pardoned, he would have been \nexecuted; so that regeneration of and in him was \nnecessary in order to generation by him. There was \nput enmity between the woman and the serpent, as \nwell as between her seed and its seed; and this en- \nmity, it is fair to presume, began at once. Besides, \n\n\n\n"UNMETHODISTIC METHODISM." 139 \n\nif regeneration would have destroyed depravity in \nthem, who were personally responsible for its exis- \ntence, reason asserts and justice demands that ic \nwould more effectually and with greater certainty re- \nmove it from them who have no responsibility in the \nmatter, but are only unfortunate in having it entailed \nupon them. Not only so, but if regeneration would \nremove it from them, it must be because its existence \nin them rendered regeneration necessary. And if \nso, and it was entailed because the needed regenera- \ntion was not effected, it was the need of regeneration \nthat was entailed; and as regeneration and that which \nmakes it a necessity cannot coexist, entailed depravity \nis destroyed in every regenerated child of Adam, and \nits further entailment, along that line forever es- \ntopped. Thus it is seen that the logic used against \nthe residue and second blessing theory is as effectual \nin the destruction of his own theory as of that he op- \nposes. They must therefore be equally erroneous \nand unscriptural. \n\nLike Brother Harrison, " I can see no ground upon \nwhich I may grant that sin in Adam was different \nessentially from sin in us." Adam\'s sin was personal, \nit was his sin; and his depravity was the result of his \nown sinning. His personal guiltiness was the ground \nof his need of pardon, and the effect of his guilty act \nupon the moral man, its defilement or pollution, \nrendered regeneration a necessity. Such, precisely, \nis the case with us. We never needed pardon until \nwe were personally guilty, until we personally sinned; \nnor did we need regeneration, in our spiritual, moral \nbeing, until the defilement of our personal sins made \nit a necessity. \n\n\n\n140 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nThe entailment of moral guiltiness, or of moral de- \nfilement, is a moral impossibility; because it involves \nthe character of Jehovah in the matter of justice in \ndealing with moral beings \xe2\x80\x94 charges him with injustice \nin dealing with his creatures. The redemption of the \nhuman family is equivalent to a new creation ; is, in fact, \nthe recreation of the race in Christ Jesus, the second \nAdam, and by means of the first Adam as the instru- \nment of propagation through whom personal being \nwas secured to all his descendants. As is the fountain \nso is the stream. Every child of man is a descendant \nfrom Adam, and as such is, in the beginning of his \npilgrimage through this world, a partaker of the life \nimparted through Jesus Christ in the new creation. \nHe is a descendant by natural generation, but through \nthe grace of God in Jesus Christ, who is the life of \nthe world; and is therefore at once a child of God \nand a child of Adam; inheriting spiritual life from \nGod the Father through Jesus Christ his Son, and \nphysical death \xe2\x80\x94 mortality \xe2\x80\x94 by the appointment of \nGod, from Adam. \n\nResurrection and regeneration are the same. Not \nthat the words are synonymous, but that they desig- \nnate the same work. One means, literally, a rising \nagain, and the other a reproducing; but, as applied \nto the recovery of man from the effects of sin \xe2\x80\x94 to \nhis salvation \xe2\x80\x94 they both imply a purifying, or \ncleansing. The work of death is corruption, whether \nof body or Spirit; and to be quickened, raised from \nthe dead, is to be purified from the corruption which \nit works. Of Lazarus it was said, " by this time he \nstinketh." This was evidence of corruption, from \nwhich he was purified in and by his resurrection; but \n\n\n\n141 \n\nonly to the normal state of a mortal body. In the final \nresurrection we will be delivered even from mortality \n\xe2\x80\x94 the tendency to death. So in the quickening of \nthe spirit, or regeneration, it is purified from the cor- \nruption or defilement of spiritual death, a death \nwrought by personal sinning, as that comes upon \nnone except as the result of their own sin: "You \nhath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and \nsins;" "and you being dead in your sins . . . \nhath he quickened together with him, having forgiven \nyou all trespasses." \n\nHuman nature was quickened, regenerated, in its \nspiritual, moral being through him who is "the life" \nof the world, and who is the "gift of God" to uni- \nversal humanity; and death, spiritual death, comes to \nnone except as " the wages of sin " to each individual \nsinner. Physical death, as we have already seen, is \nof God\'s appointing; and the infirmities which are \nthe necessary attendants of a mortal state of proba- \ntion are the expression and evidence of the depravity \nconsequent, by the appointment of God, upon the \napostasy of the first created pair. From this de- \npravity, or corruption of the physical man, we are to \nbe delivered in the day when that which "is sown \nin corruption" shall be "raised in incorruption " \xe2\x80\x94 \nwhen " this corruptible must put on incorruption, \nand this mortal must put on immortality." That re- \ngeneration will purify the body from all mortal cor- \nruption; for it will be raised a spiritual body and \nfashioned like uuto his glorious body who is "the \nresurrection and the life." Then will redemption be \ncomplete, and God\'s children will have attained to the \nperfection to which they are now exhorted to go on. \n\n\n\n142 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nThey are to be perfect here in order to go on to per- \nfection there. They are to be " made conformable \nunto his death " here, that they may " attain unto the \nresurrection of the dead " hereafter among those who \n"shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption \nunto the glorious liberty of the children of God." \nThey are to "let this mind be in" them "which was \nalso in Christ Jesus" \xe2\x80\x94 "walk not after the flesh, but \nafter the Spirit " \xe2\x80\x94 and " forgetting those things \nwhich are behind, and reaching forth unto those \nthings which are before, press toward the mark for \nthe prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." \n("The prize" is at the end of the race.) "Not as \nthough" they "had already attained, either were al- \nready perfect; " and yet " as many as be perfect " are \nto "be thus minded," and to "walk by the same \nrule," "mind the same thing," following the example \nof those whose "conversation is in heaven; from \nwhence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus \nChrist: who shall change our vile body [as he has \nchanged our spirit], that it may be fashioned like \nunto his glorious body, according to the working \nwhereby he is able even to subdue all things unto \nhimself." (See Phil. ii. and iii. ) \n\nAccept the apostle\'s idea of two adoptions (one of the \nspirit and in this life, and the other of the body and \nin the final resurrection), and the fact that it takes \nboth to constitute completed salvation (remembering \nthat the first is necessary only to those who by per- \nsonal transgression have apostatized from the divine \nfavor, and is therefore conditioned upon the personal \nfaith of such subject), and you can consistently reject \nthe second blessing theory of sanctification. Other- \nwise you cannot. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE XIIL \n\n"Sanctification^ by Rev. B. Caeeadixe, D.D." \n\nHaying briefly reviewed the reviewer of this pam- \nphlet, I deem it proper to devote a few pages to the \nconsideration of the treatment which the subject of \nsanctification receives at the hands of its author. Let \nit be distinctly understood, however, in the beginning, \nthat I have no fault to find with the experience of \nDr. Carradine. On the other hand, I believe in as \nhigh attainments in Christian experience as he or \nany other man, in proportion to capacity for believ- \ning. I accept heartily the fact that " the blood of Je- \nsus Christ . . . cleanseth fron all sin;"\' and the \nfurther fact that one " may be able to coin- \nprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and \ndepth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, \nwhich passeth knowledge that you [we] might be \nfilled with all the fullness of God." I do not doubt \nthat many (it may be nearly all) Christians live far \nbelow their privileges as the children of God; and I \nam always rejoiced to learn that one has. like our be- \nloved Doctor, attained to a stronger faith and greater \nfullness of love than are experienced by the great \nmass of professed believers in Christ. I do not ques- \ntion his experience, even in thought; nor do I object \nto the doctrine of sanctification or of Christian perfec- \ntion. I believe that both are taught in the Scrip- \ntures. I also accept all that can be logically and \n\n(143) \n\n\n\n144 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nscripturally deduced from the highest possible expe- \nrience of conscious fellowship with Jesus Christ as a \npersonal Saviour. \n\nI accept not only the possibility, but the fact in \nmany cases, of perfect deliverance from all sin and an \nabiding peace with God through our Lord Jesus \nChrist; so that we may " rejoice evermore, pray with- \nout ceasing, and in everything give thanks." All this \nI steadfastly believe. But the theory of the "second \nblessing " and what it accomplishes, as set forth by \nthe doctor in his treatise, is neither sustained by rea- \nson, experience, nor the Scriptures. \n\nReason cannot proceed \xe2\x80\x94 cannot begin \xe2\x80\x94 without \ndata. It must have some real or assumed facts or \ntruths with which to begin and from which to deduce \nan argument. If the basal facts are only assumed, \nthe conclusion reached in the argument can never be \nmore certain than is the truth of the assumption. If, \nfor instance, it be assumed that there is in man \xe2\x80\x94 all \nmen \xe2\x80\x94 as an entailment from Adam, such a corruption \nof the moral nature as effectually bars his entrance \ninto heaven unless it be eradicated in this life; and \nthat in the case of infants, and of adults who are only \nregenerated, it will be removed in case of and in the \narticle of death; but that it may be, and in the sancti- \nfied is removed by a special "second blessing" sub- \nsequent to regeneration and any length of time before \ndeath; no conclusion reached by argumentation from \nthese assumptions can be more reliable than the as- \nsumptions themselves. If such a state of things ex- \nist, it is impossible to know it except by revelation. \n\nExperience can never prove it; for the simple rea- \nson that it was never given, and can never be experi- \n\n\n\n" SANCTIFICATION, BY KEV. B. CABEADINE, D.D." 145 \n\nenced, and that it lies beyond the reach of logic based \nupon any experience possible to man. It is that of \nwhich man was never and can never be made con- \nscious, even though it were true. In order to such an \nexperience man must be intellectually and intelligent- \nly cognizant of the consciousness with which he en- \ntered the world, and that consciousness must have \nbeen of his physical descent from and moral relation- \nship to Adam! As well talk about being conscious \nof having inherited sick headache from Adam, or \ndyspepsia, or rheumatism, or any other of the many \nailments of the body incident to this life! \n\nThat man inherited from Adam that which makes \nhim liable to these sufferings I do not question; but \nof this he can never be conscious, he can never expe- \nrience it. His moral consciousness begins at a later \nperiod than his physical, and is therefore at a great- \ner remove from Adam and of possible experience in \nthe matter of relationship to him. A man may expe- \nrience a relish for strong drink and be conscious of a \nlonging for it; but he cannot be conscious that he in- \nherited the appetite from Adam, or even from his im- \nmediate progenitors. Neither could he learn the fact \nfrom experience, though it were true. What is true \nof a conscious liking for ardent spirits and a conse- \nquent bias to drunkenness is equally true of a con- \nscious predisposition to any and everything the doing \nof which is sin. Experience can never teach us that \nit is inherited from Adam. Indeed, whoever will con- \nsult his own consciousness and study the experiences \nof his past life will find that their testimony is all on \nthe other side. He will find that the appetence to \nwrong is mainly to that for which a relish has been \n10 \n\n\n\n146 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nacquired, and that the oftener lie lias indulged the \nstronger is the temptation to repeat, and the harder \nit is to resist. \n\nAs a rule, it is easy for a man to resist solicita- \ntion to do a recognized wrong of which he has nev- \ner been guilty, especially if he has had the advantage \nof early religious instruction. The children of re- \nligious parents who have been consistently pious and \nhave taught them both by precept and example to \nfear God and eschew evil, if they have acquired evil \nhabits, will generally remember that they took their \nfirst wrong step under protest and through the in- \nfluence of personal solicitation by professed friends, \nand not as the result of an innate bias to wrong. \nThose who have been under no religious restraints, \nbut have been addicted to habits of vice from their \nearliest recollection, do not in their conscious experi- \nence attribute their conduct to an inherited depravity \nwhich compelled th^m to their course, but rather to \ntheir early environment and training. They feel that \nif they had been blessed with pious parents and ear- \nly religious instruction their course would have been \ndifferent, and this is universally conceded to be true. \nNot only so, but the children of vicious parents whose \npersonal and acquired depravity has unfitted them for \nsocial enjoyment in, and for which they have been os- \ntracised from, the better circles of society, if taken in \nearly infancy and reared in the midst of refinement \nand under proper religious influence, may be devel- \noped into a moral and intellectual manhood such as \nwill ornament society and minister good to the world. \n\nThe theory of an entailed moral guiltiness or cor- \nruption is not, then, the fruit of experience nor the \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CAREADINE, D.D." 147 \n\nlogical outcome of reason; neither does it find su re- \nport in the one or the other, nor in both together. \nUnless, therefore, it is a matter of revelation and is \nsupported by the word of God, it must be regarded \nas an exotic, transplanted by the power of an abnor- \nmal imagination from the land of Utopia only to per- \nish at the touch of the real. It is assumed by the \nDoctor, as it is by all who advocate the " second bless- \ning" theory, that what he calls "inbred sin" "origi- \nnal sin," "depravity," etc., is a moral defilement en- \ntailed by Adam upon all the race, and that it is to be \ndestroyed, cleansed away, eradicated in this life or in \nthe hour and article of death ; that it is not done in \nregeneration, but that a second and distinct blessing \ncalled sanctification does the work, and that this " sec- \nond blessing" is necessary to fit man for heaven. It \nis assumed, I say, but has never been proved. \n\nHe tells us that " original sin refers to the sin of \nAdam, and \'actual sin\' to our own personal transgres- \nsions;" that "in justification, which means pardon, \nmy own actual or personal sins are forgiven, but not \noriginal sin," and asks: "How can I be pardoned for \nwhat I did not commit?" (Page 13.) Now in this \nwe agree; but "original sin " must, in some sense, be- \ncome ours, if it is that which renders sanctification a \nnecessity and which must, by means of sanctification, \nbe eradicated in this life in order to our fitness for \nheaven; especially if its removal is conditioned upon \nour repentance and faith. The importance of sancti- \nfication, in this view of it, can be determined and \nmeasured only by what it does; and we must deter- \nmine in what sense and to what extent original sin \nbecomes ours\xe2\x80\x94 how and to what extent it affects us \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n148 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nin order to know what is the work effected by sancti- \nfication. That we " did not commit " original sin the \nDoctor admits and affirms. That it cannot be " for- \ngiven " us he also declares, and correctly. This is in \naccord with our Seventh Article, which declares that \n" original sin standeth not in the following of Adam" \n\xe2\x80\x94 that is, in repeating and being guilty of the sin he \ncommitted. To do that, we would have to be situated \nas he was and under the same law, a thing impossible \nin the very nature of the case, unless Adam\'s redemp- \ntion had been accomplished by some other means \nthan the death of the Son of man and we had been \nborn in the Garden of Eden and of parents in the \nprimeval state. \n\nWhat, then, is original sin, as applied to the de- \nscendants of Adam \xe2\x80\x94 to us? Our Article says, "it is \nthe corruption of the nature of every man, that natu- \nrally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, where- \nby man is very far gone from original righteousness, \nand of his own nature inclined to evil, and that con- \ntinually." What is here meant by "corruption" and \n"inclined to evil," is defined in Article VIIL, which \ndescribes "the condition of man after the fall of \nAdam" to be "such, that he cannot turn and prepare \nhimself, by his own natural strength and works, to \nfaith, and calling upon God: wherefore we have no \npower to do good works, pleasing and acceptable to \nGod, without the grace of God by Christ prevent- \ning us, that we may have a good will, and work- \ning with us, when we have that good will." All \nthat can be meant by these two Articles is that all \nthe good in man, since the fall of Adam, is due to \nthe grace of God in Jesus Christ; that, supposing \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY EEV. B. CARBADINE, D.D." 149 \n\nhim to exist after the fall without redemption, he \nwould do only evil, and that continually, having no \npower to do good works; and that the grace of God \nby Christ brings \xe2\x80\x94 has brought \xe2\x80\x94 enablement, so that \nwe can, by that grace, do all that is required or that \nis necessary to the attainment of eternal life. \n\nWhat is said of man\'s corruption, inclination to \nevil, and utter helplessness, after the fall of- Adam, in \ndefining "original sin," is only an attempt to tell \nwhat he would have been without recovering and ena- \nbling grace. And if we had an Article on original \ngrace, setting forth its countervailing influences in \nand on behalf of man, it might serve as a safeguard \nagainst the error into which so many have thought- \nlessly fallen. \n\nThe Article might be expressed in some such \nwords as these: "Therefore, as by the offense of one \n[Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemna- \ntion; even so by the righteousness of one [Jesus \nChrist] the free gift came upon all men unto justifi- \ncation of life. For as by one man\'s disobedience \nmany were made sinners, so by the obedience of one \nshall many be made righteous. Moreover the law \nentered, that the offense might abound. But where \nsin abounded, grace did much more abound. That \nas sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace \nreign through righteousness unto eternal life by \nJesus Christ our Lord." The acceptance of such an \nArticle as this, it seems to me, would serve to define \nand set proper limits to the meaning of our Seventh. \nHere we "learn that original grace, in the "second \nAdam," countervails "original sin" by the first Adam, \nand to all descendants of theirs* because they are all as \n\n\n\n150 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nevidently and as really the descendants of the Second, \nthough in a different sense. Just so far as "original \nsin" affects the descendants of Adam without any \nagency on their part, just so far does original grace, \nin Jesus Christ, affect the same descendants, and un- \nconditionally, in their deliverance from the effects of \noriginal sin. \n\nNot only so; but " where sin abounded, grace did \nmuch more abound." Grace not only abounded in the \ndestruction of original sin, so far as its immediate \nand direct effects upon the moral man are concerned, \nbut it also abounded (and abounds) in the pardon of \npersonal sins, to which, by the entailment of deprav- \nity, man is made more liable. Original grace effectu- \nally and unconditionally delivers from original sin; \nand special grace to personal sinners, when accepted \nby personal faith in Jesus Christ, delivers from act- \nual, personal sin and its effects; from sin by means \nof pardon, and from its effects by regeneration. \n\nAll entailed depravity is in and of the body, and \nmoral depravity comes to each individual through \nhis own volition; so that, if "we are sanctified by the \nremoval or destruction of depravity," as says Dr. \nCarradine (and .he means entailed depravity, or orig- \ninal sin), sanctification can mean no less than the \ndestruction of the seeds of death \xe2\x80\x94 of mortality \xe2\x80\x94 and \nthe rendering man immortal in his body ; and in this \nlife. Some such idea as this seems to have pressed \nitself upon the Doctor\'s notice, for he says: "When \nI am born again, I stand a regenerated creature in \nthe presence of wayward tendencies of the flesh, and \nthis dark element called original sin," etc. He then \nasks, "Why is it there is a regenerated life?" and \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CABRAD1NE, D.D." 151 \n\nanswers, "Because there is no new birth or renovation \nfor original sin." (Page 13.) Certainly not; nor for \nany other sin, but only for the sinner; and if that fact \naccounts for the presence of original sin in a "regen- \nerated" man, it equally accounts for the presence of \nactual personal sins in the same "regenerated" person. \nIf he means to say that where only original sin exists \n"there is no new birth or resurrection" needed, he \ndestroys his whole theory of sanctification, and con- \ntradicts himself when he teaches that sanctification \nremoves original sin! If he means neither the one \nnor the other (which, I verily believe, is the case), \nthen he would have conveyed quite as mucli meaning \nby leaving the space blank. \n\nBut he immediately adds: "The carnal mind is \nenmity against God: for it is not subject to the law \nof God, neither indeed can he. 77 (Rom. viii. 7.) This \nquotation he evidently intends his reader to take as \nan inspired definition of original sin, or entailed de- \npravity! Supposing it to be such (which it most \ncertainly is not), is there "no new birth or renova- \ntion" for such a mind? To such the apostle Paul \nwould say: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of \nyour mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and \nacceptable, and perfect will of God." It is the car- \nnality of the mind that renders a renovation neces- \nsary. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to \nbe spiritually minded is life and peace." The reason \nassigned by the apostle for the fact that "to be car- \nnally minded is death" is, "because the carnal mind \nis enmity against God," and "not subject to the law \nof God." In regeneration this carnality is destroyed \n\xe2\x80\x94 not the mind, but its carnality. Neither the mind \n\n\n\n152 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nnor the flesh is destroyed, but the mind is renewed \xe2\x80\x94 \n"renovated" \xe2\x80\x94 delivered from the dominion of the \nflesh and brought under the dominion of the Spirit. \nIt no longer walks "after the flesh, but after the \nSpirit;" and "there is therefore now no condemna- \ntion to" it, however severe the temptation to obey the \nbody "in the lusts thereof." \n\nWe are told that "justification evidently cannot \nreach original sin," which is certainly true; for justi- \nfication is pardon, and pardon implies guilt, and none \nhave been guilty of original sin since Adam. " In re- \ngeneration," says the Doctor, "the soul is born again, \nmade new, entered upon a spiritual life." This also \nis true; and if he had added that "in the regenera- \ntion " at the last day (the resurrection) the body will \nbe "born again, made new, entered upon a spiritual \nlife," he would have presented the "second blessing" \ntheory of the apostle Paul; for "that personal de- \npravity, which arises from one\'s own actual sin, is \ncorrected by regeneration; but original sin, or inher- \nited depravity, remains untouched," and will until \n" the adoption " for which we are waiting \xe2\x80\x94 to wit, \n"the redemption of the body." Then "the creature \nitself [the body] also shall be delivered from the bond- \nage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the chil- \ndren of God." \n\nAfter telling us that "personal depravity which \narises from one\'s own actual sin is corrected by re- \ngeneration," he says: "Various propensities of the \nbody, which regeneration . . . could not eradi- \ncate, are instantly . . . extirpated" by sanctifi- \ncation; that "the craving of habit is ended," etc. \nNow if there are any "propensities of the body," in- \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CAKBADINE, D.D." 153 \n\ndependent of the mind, they have, and can have no \nmoral quality whatever, and cannot need to be " ex- \ntirpated " in order to the perfection of moral charac- \nter. It is only the propensity of the mind, the spirit, \nto do forbidden things with the body, as an instru- \nment, that has moral quality and needs to be correct- \n. ed. As to habit, that, it seems to me, if sinful, is per- \nsonal depravity, " which arises from one\'s own actual \nsin." It certainly cannot be " original sin, or inherit- \ned depravity," which " remains untouched " by regen- \neration. "Habit" was certainly not inherited from \nAdam, but is the result of personal sins, persisted in \nand repeated until the habit was formed. " The crav- \ning" is the result of " habit," and "habit " is formed \nby repeated personal action. The craving of " habit," \ntherefore, is "personal depravity ; r; and according to \nthe Doctor, must be "corrected by regeneration." \n\nHe tells us that " the crowning proof that holiness \nis not growth in grace appears from the word of \nGod;" and here it is as he presents it: "For when \nthe Bible speaks of the duty of growth, it turns to \nman and says: \'Grow in grace;\' but when it speaks \nof sanctification, it looks to God and says : \' Faithful \nis he that calleth you, who also will do it/ " I know \nof no one who teaches that "holiness" is "growth in \ngrace;" though some teach that " sanctification " \n(with the Doctor they are the same) is attained by \ngrowth, and some that it is necessary in order to \ngrowth. Whether either is right depends on the \nsense in which the word is used. It may be that both \nare right. If by it is meant the Christian perfection \nto which we hope to attain and after which we pro- \nfess to be "groaning," it is attained by growth \xe2\x80\x94 we \n\n\n\n154 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nare " going on to perfection." If used in the sense of \nconsecration \xe2\x80\x94 a setting apart to the service of God \xe2\x80\x94 \nof course this must be done before and in order to \ngrowth in grace. Be this as it may, the Scriptures \nquoted do not sustain nor favor the idea of sanctifica- \ntion as a second special blessing to be sought after \nregeneration. \n\nOf the first I would ask: Does "the Bible"\' \nspeak to the ^msanctified or to the sanctified man, \nwhen it says: "Grow in grace?" He is not to grow \ninto grace, but in grace. He is to enlarge and \nstrengthen, by growth, in the state wherein he is. Is \nit a sanctified or an unsanctified state? Is he exhort- \ned to grow in unholiness or in holiness? Bead the \nconnection and see. (2 Pet. iii. ) Then turn to 1 \nThessalonians v. and read it carefully, and learn \nwhat it is that the Lord "also ivill do" "What is it? \nWhy, he will preserve " blameless unto the coming of \nour Lord Jesus Christ " those who do the things pre- \nscribed in verses 15-22, and whom the Lord will, \ntherefore, sanctify. Not the remotest reference to a \n"second blessing," in the sense taught by Dr. Carra- \ncline. In both the passages referred to the thing em- \nphasized is not a second blessing, but perseverance \nin holy living, in view of the second " coming of our \nLord Jesus Christ " that we " may be found of him in \npeace, without spot and blameless." \n\n"What It Is." i \n\nThe doctor has two chapters under this head, to a \n\nfew things in which I wish to call attention. \n\n"Samtificalion is a doctrine." Yes; but it is not \n\nsomething to be sought, as a distinct and separate \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. OAERADINE, D.D." 155 \n\nblessing, after regeneration. Justification, and regen- \neration are doctrines, but we do not therefore teach \nthat justification is first to be sought and obtained, \nwith the Spirit\'s witness to it, and afterward regenera- \ntion must be sought and additional evidence \xe2\x80\x94 another \ndistinct witnessing of the Spirit \xe2\x80\x94 given to the fact of \nits possession! \n\nu Sanctification is the work of God." If the expres- \nsions quoted under this head apply only to sanctifica- \ntion, then a man may be a child of God \xe2\x80\x94 regenerated \n\xe2\x80\x94 and yet be unclean, unholy, unanointed, unsealed, \nand unrenewed! He tells us that "the Bible says: \n\' The blood cleanseth,\' \' the altar [ Christ] makes holy.\' \n. . . In still other places the expressions used in \ndescription of the blessing of holiness are: \' The bap- \ntism of the Holy Ghost,\' \' the anointing and sealing \nof the Holy Ghost,\' and \'the renewing of the Holy \nGhost.\' \' By " the blessing of holiness," "in descrip- \ntion of " which the terms quoted are used, he evident- \nly means sanctification as a specific "second bless- \ning," to be sought after regeneration; and if so, they \ndo not describe nor define the work done in regenera- \ntion. For things equal to the same thing are equal \nto one another;* and if the same words define regener- \nation that define sanctification, then they are equal, \nif wot the same. \n\nOn page 26 he tells us that "regeneration is a new \nbirth, a change of masters, the implanting of a new \nlife and love, the cleansing away of personal sins, and \nthe removal of that depravity that results from per- \nsonal transgressions, so that the man is a new creat- \nure, and can say: \'Old things have passed away \xe2\x80\x94 all \nthings have become new.\' " Here, then, is a descrip- \n\n\n\n156 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ntion of a man who needs to be " sanctified," and wlio \nmust yet be sanctified in order to get to heaven. He \nis "born of the Spirit," is a servant of God, is \ncleansed from all personal sins and all depravity re- \nsulting therefrom, "is a new creature" (in Christ Je- \nsus, of course), and from him " old things have passed \naway \xe2\x80\x94 [and] all things become new." Surely such \na man has "put off . . . the old man, which is \ncorrupt according to the deceitful lusts;" has been \n"renewed in the spirit of [his] mind;" and has "put \non the new man, which after God is created in right- \neousness and true holiness." And yet this man, ac- \ncording to Dr. Carradine, has "in the heart" "the \nbody of sin," "the law of sin and death," "the flesh," \n"the carnal mind," "the old man, and proneness to \nsin;" each (and all) of which means, according to \nthe Doctor, " inbred sin or inherited depravity." And \nthese are only "some of the names given to describe \nthe dark principles of evil that rule in an unconvert- \ned life, and the struggles for mastery in the heart of \nthe regenerated Christian," and "that is destroyed in \nsanctification." \n\nOn page 34 he tells us that sanctification " only de- \nstroys sin." Of course he means inherited sin; for \n"regeneration," he tells us, takes away all personal \nsin and its effects. What, I ask, is the difference be- \ntween actual personal sin and inherited sin? Just \nexactly the difference there is between guilt and in- \nnocence; no more and no less. Of the one the man is \nguilty; of the other he is not, and cannot be. Just the \ndifference there is between sin and no sin; " for sin is \nthe transgression of the law" and that was never in- \nherited by any. Just the difference there is between \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CABRADINE, D.D." 157 \n\nlife and death; for lie who is not dead in " his " tres- \npasses and sins " is " alive to God through Jesus \nChrist our Lord." Just the difference there is be- \ntween an appointment of God and a morally wrong act \nof a personally responsible moral creature; for, as has \nbeen elsewhere shown, all the depravity that man in- \nherits from Adam is that which pertains to the body \nand is necessary to and inseparable from a mortal \nstate of probation, to which man was appointed in \nthe reconditioning which God saw was necessary in \nredeeming the race. Indeed, it is mortality itself, \nwith its attendant infirmities, recovery from which \nwill be effected "in the regeneration when the Son \nof man shall sit in the throne of his glory; " " when \nthis corruptible must put on incorruption, and this \nmortal must put on immortality." "Then shall be \nbrought to pass the saying that is written, Death is \nswallowed up in victory." \n\nThat "original sin," entailed depravity, is not de- \nstroyed or "eradicated" in this life is, as I have \nmore than once repeated, evidenced in the fact that \nit continues to be entailed, even by sanctified parents. \nA pure fountain can no more send forth a corrupt \nstream than a corrupt fountain can send forth pure \nwater. But a man in whom sin is not destroyed is a \nsinner; and "whosoever is born of God doth not \ncommit sin." It follows, therefore, that if sin is not \ndestroyed in any but the sanctified, every one who is \n"born of God" is also sanctified. \n\n" Sanctification is a divine work wrought instanta- \nneously." As proof of this we are asked, on page 40: \n"If God can take a perfect giant in sin and make \nhim a babe in Christ in a moment, can he not take \n\n\n\n158 THE PROBLEM SOLYED. \n\na babe m Christ and make hiro. a perfect man in \nChrist Jesus in a moment? " I do not question that \nGod could take a babe, physically, and make a man of \nit in a moment; but that is not his way of doing. If \nany one thinks it is, he must produce the proof. Of \ncourse the Bible teaches holiness of heart and life, \nand as a present duty and precious privilege; but \nthat it teaches that it is the duty of sinners to seek \nregeneration now, and sanctification after awhile, is a \nvery different thing, and the thing that is here de- \nnied. If it be said that nobody contends for such \nteaching, I answer, it is a logical necessity if the \ntheory of the " second blessing," as taught by Dr. \nCarradine, is true. But it is neither scriptural nor \ntrue. It would be just as scriptural, and just as rea- \nsonable, to teach that the sinner must seek (1) justi- \nfication and the evidence of it; then (2) regeneration \nand its evidence; then (3) adoption and the witness \nof the Spirit that he is a child of God; and then (4) \nseek sanctification and the Spirit\'s witness to it as an \naccomplished fact. It is true, this would make sanc- \ntification the fourth, instead of the second blessing; \nbut it wT>uld be quite as reasonable and scriptural as \nthe theory of the second, and its advocates could, at \nleast, claim the honor of discovering and teaching \nsomething new in theology; that is, if I had not first \nsuggested it! I doubt not that they would soon find \nearnest and zealous followers, whose experience would \nbe proclaimed as irrefutable evidence of the truth of \ntheir theory. \n\n" Where It Is Symbolically Taught in the Bible." \nUnder this head, beginning on page 48, we are pre- \n\n\n\n"SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CABBADINE, D.D." 159 \n\nsented with some of the rarest specimens of analog- \nical reasoning, from what he is pleased to call sym- \nbolical teaching, that can b e found in all the range of \ntheological discussions. If I did not have the evi- \ndence before me, I could hardly believe it possible \nfor a sane and thoughtful mind to practice such de- \nception upon itself as to offer to others such substi- \ntute for argument. \n\nFirst. He finds the "two experiences of regen- \neration and sanctification " taught in the "division \nof the tabernacle and temple into the holy and most \nholy places," and says: "A veil separated the two \nplaces, just as a veil hides the sanctified life from \nthe regenerated man to-day! " He asks: "What did \nGod design to teach, if not the two experiences," by \n"this division? " An answer to his question may be \nfound in the ninth chapter of Hebrews, which I hope \nthe reader will turn to and carefully read. He will \nfind there that " into the second went the high priest \nalone" and he only "once every year." Verily, sanc- \ntification\xe2\x80\x94 the "second blessing" \xe2\x80\x94 was a "rarity" in \nthose days! Only the high priest could obtain it, \nand he only at long intervals! As he was a type of \nour great High Priest, Jesus Christ, who "entered \nin once into the holy place, having obtained eternal \nredemption," the conclusion, from analogy, is that \nhe obtained the "second blessing" on entering into \nheaven! By the way, what significance is there in \nthe fact that the high priest had to seek this " second \nblessing" "once every year;" that he did not abide \nin the Holy of Holies, but only went in and came out \n"once every year?" \n\nSecond. He finds it also "in the second cleansing \n\n\n\n160 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nof the temple;" and could as readily find it in the \nsecond crowing of the cock. \n\n" Third. The second blessing, or sanctification, is \nseen in the second touch laid upon the eyes of the \nblind man." This on page 49. Now turn to page 14 \nand read: " Sanctification is not a second touch upon \nthe same blind eyes, but it is a second touch of the \nHoly Ghost laid upon something else altogether" The j \nspirit of man is touched by the quickening Spirit of \nGod in regeneration. What is the "something else \naltogether" that is touched in the second blessing \xe2\x80\x94 \nsanctification? Is it the body? Then he must ac- \ncept the doctrine of the apostle Paul, that the second \nadoption is to take place at the resurrection, in " the \nredemption of the body." \n\n"Fourth. The second blessing, or sanctification, is \nseen in the two baptisms of the Bible: the one of \nthe water, and. the other of the Holy Ghost." Then \nwater baptism is regeneration, and Spirit baptism is \nsanctification \xe2\x80\x94 that is, man, by means of water, re- \ngenerates his fellow, and then God sanctifies him! I \nhave thought, and have not yet changed my mind, \nthat water baptism is only a ceremonial and symbolic \npurification, intended to direct the mind to the real \nbaptism, or purification, effected by the Holy Spirit \nin applying the blood of Jesus that cleanses from all \nsin. I have heard and seen many attempted exposi- \ntions of Jesus\' s words to Nicodemus: "Except a man \nbe born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter \ninto the kingdom of God;" but that he meant except \na man get the first and second blessing \xe2\x80\x94 regeneration \nand sanctification \xe2\x80\x94 is certainly the latest, if not the \nbest! If this is Wesleyan Methodism, I confess that \n\n\n\n" SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CARRADINE, D.D." 161 \n\nI have not so learned it. However it may be with \nothers, I am free to confess that it w T ill take some- \nthing more than the bare assertion of Dr. Carradine \nto convince me that "the Saviour recognized and al- \nluded to the two blessings or works in his words to \nNicodemus," in John iii. 5. \n\n"Fifth. The second blessing, or sanctifi cation, is \nseen in the two washings mentioned in the Old Tes- \ntament. The first is in Isaiah i. 18: \'Come . . . \nthough your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white \nas snow.\' Here is regeneration." The second, he \ntells us, is in Psalm li. 7: " \' Wash me, and I shall be \nwhiter than snow.\' Here is sanctification." He says: \n"The first baptism makes you \'white as snow;\' the \nsecond baptism, or washing of fire, makes you c whiter \nthan snow.\' " The first, of course, is water baptism; \nfor he says: "It is seen in the two baptisms of the \nBible: the one of water and the other of fire and the \nHoly Ghost." Any theory of a doctrine to maintain \nwhich it is necessary to contradict oneself and per- \nvert the Scriptures must be false. The distinguish- \ning feature of Christ\'s coming was that he should \nbaptize " with fire and the Holy Ghost." This " distin- \nguishing feature " is " the second blessing, or sancti- \nfication." And yet "Isaiah was inviting to recogni- \ntion; David was praying for sanctification." David \nought to have known better, especially as he is pre- \nsumed to have prayed and written under the inspira- \ntion of the Holy Spirit. He was premature. Not \nonly so; but he was mistaken as to the nature of \nthe blessings he was praying for. He thought it \nw r as deliverance from the guilt and depravity of his \nown personal sins that he needed, and hence he said: \n11 \n\n\n\n162 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\n" Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and \ncleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my \ntransgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against \nthee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in \nthy sight." It is true he says, " Behold, I was shapen \nin iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me; " \nbut he only prays for deliverance from his own sins: \n\' \'Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine in- \niquities." "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, \nthou God of my salvation : and my tongue shall sing \naloud of thy righteousness." This does not look or \nsound like the prayer of one who has " peace with \n"God through conscious forgiveness of all his per- \nsonal sins, and was only seeking deliverance from \n" original sin " or entailed depravity. \n\nI wonder that the brother did not find the "two \nwashings " in the seventh verse of this Psalm, without \nhaving to go to Isaiah for one. " Purge me with hys- \nsop, and I shall be clean," might be made to mean \nregeneration; and "wash me, and I shall be whiter \nthan snow," to mean sanctification, or the second \nblessing. It might be seen, too, in the second verse: \n"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquities, and \ncleanse me from my sin." The "wash" might be \ncalled regeneration, and the "cleanse" sanctification; \nthe " iniquity " being personal and the " sin " inherit- \ned. And the third verse might be read: "For I ac- \nknowledge my [personal] transgressions: and my \n[inherited] sin is ever before me!" To some this \nmight have the appearance of trifling with the word \nof God; but it is as legitimate as anything presented \nby the Doctor in the chapter under consideration. \nHe finds it "in the highway and w T ay " of Isaiah \n\n\n\n" SANCTIFICATION, BY RET. B. CARRADINE, D.D." 163 \n\nxxxv. 8; "in the lives of the two sisters," Mary and \nMartha; "in the two parables of the hidden treasure \nand the purchased pearl of great price;" in the two \nanointings of the leper; " and " in the crossings made \nby the children of Israel \xe2\x80\x94 one over the Red 8ea 5 and \nthe other over the river Jordan." A pretty fair \nspecimen of the strain necessary to get the " second \nblessing" out of these scriptures is presented in the \ncase of the leper, whose " cleansing was effected, not \nby one, but two anointings; " one with blood and the \nother with oil. " The oil was put upon the blood, not \ninstantaneously, but afterward." Here it is plainly \ntaught (though, I presume, not intended) that the \nblood of Jesus Christ does not cleanse from all sin! \n"It is always the oil on the blood. That is the sec- \nond blessing! " That is, after the blood has been ap- \nplied and has done all that it can do, there must be \nan application of oil (the Holy Ghost) in order to \nperfect cleansing! I have always thought that the \nHoly Spirit is the agent, and not the mere instru- \nment of cleansing; that it is He who applies the \nblood and by it cleanses from all sin. But we are \nmoving, if not progressing. \nNow let us turn to \n\n"TVhere It Is Specially Taught in the Bible." \n\nAnd note a few examples there. It would be an \neasy matter to show that no passage quoted under \nthis head has any reference to sanctification as a \nspecial second blessing, but it would require a long \nchapter to do so. I shall therefore notice only a few. \nMatthew i. 21: "And she shall bring forth a son, and \nthou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his \n\n\n\n1C4 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\npeople from their sins." The reader will notice that \nChrist here promised to save his people from their \nsins, not sinners! " His people" are "not sinners," \nand yet they are to be saved from their sins! "His \npeople" are regenerated, and regeneration is the \ncleansing away of personal sins," etc. (See p. 26.) \n" Their sins " must have been personal. Sanctifica- \ntion, according to the Doctor, takes away "original \nsin;" and the text he quotes to prove it says, "He \nshall save his people from their sins," and not a word \nabout "original sin." His interpretation leaves \n" sinners " \xe2\x80\x94 the only persons who need salvation \xe2\x80\x94 \nwithout a Saviour! Whereas the apostle Paul says: \n" Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." \n\nTake another example: Ephesians v. 26: "That he \nmight sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of \nwater by the word." The apostle is speaking of the \nChurch, he tells us, and, referring the reader to the \n"Revised Version," which reads, "That he might \nsanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water \nwith the word," he adds: "Here is sanctification \npromised to those cleansed by regeneration." Then \nsanctification is not a cleansing, but only something \nto be done "to those cleansed by regeneration!" \nPurity is the result of cleansing. That which is \npure has been cleansed, if it was ever impure. On \npage 32 sanctification is defined to be " an experience \nof purity as clearly distinct from the experience of \npardon as one individual life is different from an- \nother." "The experience of pardon," I take it, is \nthe same thing as regeneration, that by which we are \n"cleansed." Then sanctification is "an experience \nof purity as clearly distinct from the experience of" \n\n\n\n" SANCTIFICATION, BY REV. B. CARRADINE, D.D." 165 \n\nbeing "cleansed" " as one individual life is different \nfrom another! " \n\nLet one more suffice. Hebrew ix. 28: "So Christ \nwas once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto \nthem that look for him shall he appear the second \ntime without sin unto salvation." The argument (?) \nis based on the clause "unto them that look for him! " \n"We are asked, " Will we not appear to all on that \nday ? " the day of judgment. To which it is sufficient \nto reply: Certainly; but not to all "unto salvation," \nbut only to " them that look for him." \n\nIn another chapter, p. 97, we have this (John viii. \n36) : " \' If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free \nindeed.\' This was a promise made not to sinners, \nbut to Christians." This in support of sanctification \nas a "second blessing." Now let the reader turn to \nthe passage and read the context, especially the next \ntwo verses: "I know that ye are Abraham\'s seed; \nbut ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no \nplace in you. I speak that which I have seen with \nmy Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with \nyour Father." In the forty-fourth verse he explains \nwho their Father is: "Ye are of your father the \ndevil." And yet we are told that "this was a promise \nmade not to sinners, but to Christians! " Who then, \nI ask, are sinners, if the children of the devil are \nnot? \n\nIt would be matter of wonder that anybody should \nso pervert the plain and unmistakable teaching of \nGod\'s word; but that a Christian minister and \nscholar, with the plain letter of the word before his \neyes, should, in support of a theory based upon an \nexperience of closer and more intimate acquaintance \n\n\n\n166 THE PEOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nwith the Saviour than the common herd of his breth- \nren, contradict the plain word of his Master is more \nthan wonderful. It is absolutely unaccountable. \n\nI do not believe that Dr. Carradine would purpose- \nly or knowingly misapply and pervert the Scriptures; \nbut certainly one who, assuming to expound and \nteach the word of truth, will quote and explain a \nsentence without any reference to its connection, \ncannot be considered a safe leader in matters of faith \ntouching the oracles of God. And no theory the \nsupport of which requires such treatment of these \noracles can be true. \n\nSanctification is a Bible doctrine, and " without \nholiness no man can see the Lord; " but the " second \nblessing " theory, as taught by Dr. Carradine and \nothers, is not supported by a single passage of \nScripture, but is contradictory of the foundation \nfacts and principles of Christianity and of the gen- \neral tenor of Bible teaching. Better take the expe- \nrience, and let the theory alone. \n\n\n\nCHAPTEE XIV. \n\nConclusion. \n\nChristian perfection is not a monotonous experi- \nence of joy and ceaseless shouting which, beginning \nwith an instantaneous and conscious deliverance from \noriginal sin (inherited depravity), flows on in unva- \nrying strains of hallelujahs and praise-the-Lords; nor \nis it a state of grace in which the limit of possible \ngrowth is reached, and beyond which there is nothing \nattainable in this life. It is rather the confirmation \nof that faith which, working by love, purifies the heart \nfor the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and of the \nhabit of holy living which was proposed when self \nwas sanctified to the service of God\xe2\x80\x94 consecrated, set \napart to and for his use and service. In other words, \nit is the confirmed habit of faith and holiness \xe2\x80\x94 of \nholy living \xe2\x80\x94 which has been established, by the help \nof God, through perseverance in prayer and watch- \nfulness against sin, in which the perfect love that \ncasteth out all fear is an abiding guest, not simply an \noccasional visitor. \n\n" Entire sanctification," in the Bible sense of the \nword " sanctify " is necessary to the beginning of that \ngrowth through which Christian perfection is reached. \nIt is only by practice that perfection can be attained \nto in anything that is done by voluntary action. \nThat which is passive in its fashioning may be wade \nperfect and, if the maker is competent to the task, \n\n(167) \n\n\n\n168 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmay be perfected in a moment \xe2\x80\x94 instantaneously; but \ndevelopment, in anything, when accomplished by the \naction of finite beings, or when dependent upon their \ncooperation for accomplishment, is necessarily the \nwork of growth and requires time. \n\nIn creation, it is presumable, God made all things \nthat were to be perpetuated by succession through \ngeneration perfect as to size, as well as in their nature; \nbut ordained that afterward that perfection should \nbe reached by growth. It is hardly supposable that, \nin creating the birds, he first made the eggs, and then \nput them through the process of incubation to pro- \nduce the birds; that, in creating trees, he first made \nthe seed \xe2\x80\x94 the acorn, for instance \xe2\x80\x94 and then produced \nthe oak by the slow process of germination and \ngrowth. We do not presume that Adam was made a \nbabe and that he reached mature manhood by growth, \nfrom infancy through the different stages of child- \nhood, youth, and young manhood, as all his children \nhave done and do; nor that Eve was given to him a \nwee, tiny babe to be nursed, nourished, and devel- \noped into mature womanhood in order to become a \nsuitable companion and helpmate for him. But we \nknow that now, and ever since God rested from the \nwork of creation (as to this world), he perfects his \nwork in these things, as to size \xe2\x80\x94 maturity \xe2\x80\x94 by means \nof growth. \n\nChristian perfection is no exception to this rule. \nEven Jesus, the Christ, though the " Second Adam," \nin assuming human nature that he might redeem it, \nwas not made a man at once, as was the first Adam, \nbut was born a babe in Bethlehem and reached man- \nhood by growth and development, as do all the de- \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 169 \n\nscendants of the original Adam. He " increased in \nwisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." \nAs "the Captain of" our " salvation" he was made \n"perfect through suffering;" not instantaneously, \nbut by patient endurance unto the end. And we are \nmade partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of \nour confidence steadfast unto the end." \n\nChristianity is preeminently a practical thing, and \nto be a Christian is to practice the precepts of Christ \nand imitate the example he set in holy living. To do \nthis requires unceasing activity, and the daily repeti- \ntion of holy and righteous deeds, both on the negative \nand positive sides: "For the grace of God that \nbringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching \nus that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we \nshould live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this \npresent world: looking for that blessed hope, and \nthe glorious appearing of the great God and our \nSaviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that \nhe might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify \nunto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good \nworks." It is by this practice of self-denial and of \nactive engagement in positive duty\xe2\x80\x94 holy living \xe2\x80\x94 \nthat perfection in Christian character is to be reached \nand established. This is the only possible way to \n"grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord \nand Saviour Jesus Christ;" and that any can do so \nwho are " full of sin and deserving punishment " is \nsimply absurd. \n\nThe one thing emphasized throughout the Bible to \nand for those who are " justified by faith " is practical \ngodliness \xe2\x80\x94 perseverance in holy living; and this in \n\nview of the second coming of our Lord Jesus that we \n11* \n\n\n\n170 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nmay "be found of him in peace, without spot, and \nblameless." " Being justified by faith, we have peace \nwith God through our Lord Jesus Christ; " and if we \ndo not sin again, that peace will abide with us to the \nend. For, in the divine "purpose," " whom he justi- \nfied, them he also glorified." Glorification follows \njustification as certainly as that justification is not \nforfeited by sin and condemnation reincurred. Jus- \ntification, as applied to one who has personally sinned \nand brought condemnation upon himself, is readjust- \nment into right relationship to God and the rule of \nright \xe2\x80\x94 the law of God; and the justified man is re- \nquired and expected to move thenceforth on the plain \nof exact correspondence w T ith that law \xe2\x80\x94 the law of \nlove \xe2\x80\x94 until he reach the "glory which shall be re- \nvealed in us," "if so be that we suffer with him, that \nwe may be also glorified together." \n\nGod desires and designs that man shall be glorified \nthrough and with his Son, and has ordained means to \nthis end. Our "peace with God" is "through our \nLord Jesus Christ" because through him "we have \nhad our access by faith into this grace [of justifica- \ntion] wherein we stand; " now "let us rejoice in hope \nof the glory of God (see R. V.), and forgetting those \nthings which, are behind, and reaching forth unto \nthose things which are before," let us "press toward \nthe mark for the prize of the high calling of God in \nChrist Jesus." \n\nPeter, writing to the "elect according to the fore- \nknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification \nof the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the \nblood of Jesus Christ," says: "Grace unto you, and \npeace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 171 \n\nof our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his \nabundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively \nhope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the \ndead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, \nand that f adeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, \nwho are kept by the power of God through faith unto \nsalvation ready to be revealed in the last time. \nWherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, \nif need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold \ntemptations: that the trial of your faith, being much \nmore precious than of gold that perishetb, though it \nbe tried with fire, might be found unto praise and \nhonor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: \nwhom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though \nnow ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy \nunspeakable and full of glory : receiving the end of \nyour faith, even the salvation of your souls." \n\nCan any one believe that these elect persons, with \n"a lively hope" looking to the heavenly inherit- \nance, even the " salvation ready to be revealed in the \nlast time;" whose faith enables them to rejoice even \nwhile "in heaviness through manifold temptations;" \nwho, loving him whom they have not seen, "yet be- \nlieving rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of \nglory;" whose election was through sanctifi cation \nof the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the \nblood of Jesus Christ," were yet ^^sanctified? \nWere they still "full of sin, and deserving punish- \nment?" Surely not. And yet the apostle says to \nthem: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, \nbe sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to \nbe brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ: \nas obedient children, not fashioning yourselves ac~ \n\n\n\n172 THE PKORLEM SOLVED. \n\ncording to the former lusts in your ignorance: but \nas he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in \nall manner of conversation; because it is written, Be \nye holy; for I am holy." Here was a good place for \nthe apostle Peter to emphasize the need of a " second \nblessing" and exhort the "elect" brethren to seek it, \nif he believed, as do our modern theorists, that it is \nnecessary to a holy life and to fitness for heaven. \nBut, instead of that, he simply exhorts them to be \nholy, not to seek holiness as an instantaneous gift \nfrom God. \n\nHe recognizes the fact that, if they would main- \ntain their place among the "elect," and perpetuate \nin themselves the "joy unspeakable and full of \nglory," which began when they received "the end of \ntheir faith, even the salvation of their souls," they \nmust "walk by faith" "as obedient children," must \nbe " holy in all manner of conversation " \xe2\x80\x94 that is, be \nholy in their lives. That this is what he means, and \nnot that they were to seek purification by means of \n" sanctification " as a " second blessing," is made \nclear by the twenty-second verse: "Seeing ye have \npurified your souls in obeying the truth through the \nSpirit unto unfeigned love of the brethern, see that \nye love one another with a pure heart fervently." \n" Love is the fulfilling of the law," but only when it \nfinds expression in shaping the life in accordance \nwith the law, both in its negative and positive re- \nquirements. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: \ntherefore love is the fullfilling of the law." He who \npractically recognizes the debt of love will "owe no \nman anything" else, if he can possibly avoid it. \nLove pays his debts, and so fulfills the law. \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 173 \n\n"Out of the heart are the issues of life." A cor- \nrupt fountain cannot send forth a pure stream. See- \ning that the heart (soul), the fountain, has been \npurified by the Spirit in your acceptance of the truth, \nsee that from that pure heart you send out, in holy \nacts, a stream of love that shall meet each others\' \nwants in a practical and helpful way, and so "be ye \nholy." \n\nStill speaking to these " elect " brethren, who were \nsuch "through sanctification of the Spirit," he says: \n" Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and \nhypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as \nnewborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, \nthat ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted \nthat the Lord is gracious." How different this from \nthe exhortations of our modern "second blessing" \ntheorists. They would exhort such to seek sanctifica- \ntion, as a special second blessing, as a preparation \nfor growth in grace, and yet contend that this second \nblessing is Christian perfection! The logical out- \ncome of this theory is that Christian perfection must \nbe sought and obtained, as an instantaneous gift from \nGod, before one can begin to "grow in grace" and \nto "go on to perfection!" Whereas Peter tells them \nthat, " as lively stones," they " are built up a spiritual \nhouse, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri- \nfices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ," and ex- \nhorts them to " abstain from fleshly lusts, which war \nagainst the soul;" but says not a word about their \nseeking the " second blessing." \n\nIn his Second Epistle he calls himself " a servant \nand an apostle of Jesus Christ," and writes "to them \nthat have obtained like precious faith with us through \n\n\n\n174 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nthe righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus \nChrist." Either Peter had not "obtained" the faith \nof the "second blessing" or this Epistle is addressed \nto them who had obtained it; for he says it is "to \nthem that have obtained like precious faith with" \nhimself and others. If he had not, then the pente- \ncostal baptism was not distinctively and distinguish- \ningly a "second blessing," sent only upon the chil-* \ndren of God in order to perfect them in holiness, and \nwhich was and is necessary to every one who has been \n(and is) "born of the Spirit," in order to his cleans- \ning " from all unrighteousness." If he had, and they \nto whom he wrote had "obtained like precious \nfaith," then the "second blessing," or "entire sancti- \nfication," is not Christian perfection, but only the \nfoundation on which it is built \xe2\x80\x94 the beginning of \nthat state, or relation, in which perfection is to be at- \ntained unto or accomplished by growth or addition. \nFor he says: "And besides this, giving all diligence, \nadd to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; \nand to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, \npatience; and to patience, godliness; and to godli- \nness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, \ncharity." Now if these had received the "second \nblessing," "entire sanctification," then it follows that \nthey who have received only the " second blessing " \nare without virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, \ngodliness, brotherly kindness, and charity, and have \nonly justifying faith; for to their faith all the others \nwere to be added. \n\nThis diligence in adding is to be given by those \nwho have "escaped the corruption that is in the world \nthrough lust," in order that they shall "neither be \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 175 \n\nbarren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord \nJesus Christ," but that they "might be partakers of \nthe divine nature; " " for so an entrance shall be min- \nistered unto you abundantly into the everlasting \nkingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." \nPaul says: "For we are made partakers of Christ, \nif we hold the beginning of our confidence stead- \nfast unto the end." (Heb. iii. 14.) And Peter \nseems to present the same idea \xe2\x80\x94 viz., that "having \nescaped the corruption that is in the world through \nlust," there " are given unto us exceeding great and \nprecious promises; that by these ye might be par- \ntakers of the divine nature," provided ye "give dil- \nigence to make your calling and election sure: for \nif ye do these things, ye shall never fall." "But \nhe that lacketh these things [fails to be diligent and \nadd] is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath for- \ngotten that he was purged from his old sins," and \nneeds to seek a "second blessing," a second cleans- \ning, because of his second sinning. "For if after \nthey have escaped the pollutions of the world through \nthe knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, \nthey are again entangled therein, and overcome, the \nlatter end is worse with them than the beginning. \nFor it had been better for them not to have known \nthe way of righteousness, than, after they have known \nit, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto \nthem. But it is happened unto them according to \nthe true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit \nagain; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing \nin the mire." \n\n"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know T these \nthings before, beware lest ye also, being led away \n\n\n\n176 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\nwith the error of the wicked, fall from your own \nsteadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowl- \nedge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him \nbe glory now and forever. Amen." \n\nSt. Paul\'s idea that justification, if not forfeited \nby personal sin, ultimates in glorification, and that \nwithout any intervening and special "second bless- \ning," runs through the whole of the New Testament,\' \nas also the Old Testament. But to maintain this re- \nlation it is necessary to "grow in grace," to "go on \nto perfection." It is either go on or go back. If we \ndo not grow, we dwarf and die. There is no stopping \nplace this side the final inheritance, the perfection \nwhich we will "attain unto [in] the resurrection of \nthe dead." This is the end had in view by the \napostle when he says: " Let us go on unto perfection." \n(Heb. vi. 1.) Hence he says (verses 11, 12): "And \nwe desire that every one of you do show the same \ndiligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end; \nthat ye be not slothful, but followers of them who \nthrough faith and patience inherit the promises." \n\nIt*is thought by some that John teaches the " sec- \nond blessing" theory when he says: "If we confess \nour sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, \nand to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." ( 1 John \ni. 9.) But a little thoughtful attention will suffice to \nshow that no such idea was in his mind. All that is \nin the text \xe2\x80\x94 pardon and cleansing \xe2\x80\x94 is conditioned on \nconfessing u our sins," not Adam\'s; and there is no \nintimation that, after "our sins" are forgiven, there \nis to be another confession (of original sin) and seek- \ning for cleansing. "All unrighteousness is sin," saith \nJohn. And he further says: "We know that who- \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 177 \n\nsoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is be- \ngotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one \ntoucheth him not." (1 John v. 17, 18.) He, then \nwho is born of God is cleansed " from all unright- \neousness," and needs only to heed the injunction of \nJude, when he says: "But ye, beloved, building up \nyourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the \nHoly Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, \nlooking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto \neternal life." \n\nWhoever will read the whole Epistle of John, con- \nnectedly and with close attention, will, I dare say, find \nthat the idea of the "second blessing" had never \nentered his mind. Like Paul and Peter, he teaches \nthat childship and the final inheritance are insepara- \nble; that a child of God has only to continue in that \nrelation to the end of his probation in order to enter \nupon the final inheritance and be crowned with eter- \nnal life. \n\nHe writes to "fathers," "young men," and "little \nchildren;" and whether he be understood to apply \nthese terms literally, to old men, young men, and \nchildren; or spiritually, as expressive of different \nstages of development in the spiritual life, there is \nno intimation of an "instantaneous" change from \none to another. The "little children" are not ex- \nhorted to seek, by means of a "second blessing," to \nbecome "young men" in an instant; nor the "young \nmen," by the same means and instantaneously, to be- \ncome "fathers." It would require not only the \n"second" but the third "blessing" to accomplish \nboth. \n\nIf the "little children" are not taught the need of \n\n\n\n178 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED: \n\na " second blessing," of course the "young men " and \n\'\'fathers" are not; and to them he says: "And now, \nlittle children, abide in him; that, when he shall ap- \npear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed \nbefore him at his coming." To them all he says: \n"Behold what manner of love the Father hath be- \nstowed upon us, that w T e should be called the sons of \nGod"\xe2\x80\x94 "us," and "we," whether "little children," \n"young men," or "fathers." "Beloved, now are we \nthe sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we \nshall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, \nwe shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." \nIt cannot be doubted that this applies to all who are \nchildren of God, and not simply to a favored few who \nhave sought and obtained something higher and bet- \nter than childship, in a special " second blessing." \nEvery child of God hopes to see and be like his Sav- \niour "when he shall appear." "And every man that \nhath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is \npare." \n\nIt is not said that "every man that hath this hope \nin him" may, if he will seek it as a special "second \nblessing," be made pure, but that he "purifieth him- \nself n \xe2\x80\x94 does it now and continuously. For " whosoever \ncommitteth sin transgresseth also the law [though he \nmay have been before pardoned]: for sin is the \ntransgression of the law." And "whosoever abideth \nin him sinneth not," does not transgress the law, \neither in its positive or negative requirements \xe2\x80\x94 that \nis, he neither does forbidden things nor refuses to do \nwhat is required. " Little children, let no man de- \nceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, \neven as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 179 \n\n[a child] of the devil." "Whosoever is born of God \ndoth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: \nand he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In \nthis the children of God are manifest, and the chil- \ndren of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness \nis not [a child] of God, neither he that loveth not his \nbrother." \n\nEvery child of God is an heir of God, and a joint heir \nwith Christ; and the only difference between the chil- \ndren of God and the children of the devil is that one sins \nand the other does not. If any who are now the children \nof God have been children of the devil, it is because \nthey personally sinned and apostatized from the divine \nfavor; and they are now the children of God because \nthey confessed their sins and were forgiven and \ncleansed "from all unrighteousness." As saith the \napostle Paul: "And such were some of you: but ye \nare washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified \nin the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of \nour God." (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Here washed and sancti- \nfied are predicated of those who have only been \n"justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the \nSpirit of our God." This is the cleansing which is \nwrought by the Holy Spirit, through the blood of \nJesus Christ, in the heart of every penitent, when he \nis pardoned and "begotten again unto a lively hope \nby the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." \nAnd "every man that hath [not has had] this hope \nin him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" \xe2\x80\x94 that \nis, he "visits the fatherless and the widows in their \nafflictions and keeps himself unspotted from the \nworld." For this is u fiire religion and undefiled be- \nfore God and the Father," in its outgiving to the world. \n\n\n\n180 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\n" Out of the heart are the issues of life ; " and if, when \none\'s heart is purified " by faith," he does not purify \nhimself in his practical, everyday life, he will soon \ncorrupt the fountain again, and destroy the hope of \nseeing him as he is" and being " like him." So that \nit is philosophically, as well as scripturally, true that \n"every man that hath [that is, retains] this hope in \nhim purifieth himself, even as he is pure;" for, as \nnothing impure can enter heaven, when he defiles the \nheart he destroys the hope. \n\nThere is not the slightest intimation in the Epistles \nof John that a " second blessing" is necessary to \npurify the heart or life of a child of God; but per- \nseverance in faith and holy living are necessary to the \nretention of that purity which is wrought " by the \nwashing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy \nGhost: which he shed on us abundantly through \nJesus Christ our Saviour," when, "according to his \nmercy he saved us;" "that being justified by his \ngrace, we should be made heirs according to the hope \nof eternal life." For we then a received the Spirit of \nadoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father;" since \nwhen "the Spirit itself beareth witness with our \nspirit, that we are the children of God. And if \nchildren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs \nwith Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we \nmay be also glorified together." To be "joint heirs \nwith Christ" is to heir all things; for "God, who at \nsundry times and in divers manners spake in times \npast unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these \nlast days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath \nappointed heir of all things" This Son is the \n"Christ Jesus" who "came into the world to save \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 181 \n\nsinners," and "who was made a little lower than the \nangels for the suffering of death, [and] crowned with \nglory and honor; that he by the grace of God should \ntaste death for every man. For it became him, for \nwhom are all things, and by whom are all things, in \nbringing many souls unto glory, to make the captain \nof their salvation perfect through s ufferings . . . For \nin that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is \nable to succor them that are tempted." Temptation, \nthen, was a part of the suffering endured by the Cap- \ntain of our salvation in order that he might bring us \nto glory, and that he might be made perfect to this \nend; and we "joint heirs with him; if so be that we \nsuffer with him [he is with us to succor us, and to \nsuffer with us, in our temptations], that we may be \nalso glorified together" with him. We should there- \nfore " count it all joy when we fall into divers temp- \ntations; knowing this, that the trying of your faith \nworketh patience. But [we should] let patience have \nher perfect work, that we may be perfect and entire, \nwanting nothing." \n\n"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for \nwhen he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, \nwhich the Lord hath promised to them that love \nhim." Therefore, "Take heed, brethren, lest there \nbe in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in depart- \ning from the living God. But exhort one another \ndaily, while it is called to-day; lest any of you be \nhardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we \nare made partakers of Christ, if we hold the begin- \nning of our confidence steadfast unto the end! 7 \n\nEvery child of God is exhorted, throughout the \nBible, to persevere to the end of his natural, physical \n\n\n\n182 THE PKOBLEM SOLVED. \n\nlife, as a condition necessary to receiving the crown \nwhich is at the end of the race; but not once is he \nexhorted to seek a "second blessing," as a necessary \npreparation for wearing the crown \xe2\x80\x94 nor at all, as \nsuch. " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give \nthee a crown of life,\'"\' though written to the Church \nat Smyrna, is appropriate to and may be appropriated \nby every child of God, and to the end of the world. \n\nIn cod elusion: Let it not be said that this writer is \nopposed to holiness, nor that he has written a word \nagainst entire sanctification. He believes in and has \nwritten in the interest of both; and if he has erred \nin any position he has taken with regard to either, no \none will be gladder than he to have that error pointed \nout and corrected. He believes, and has taught in \nforegoing pages, that a first and second blessing are \nnecessary to the complete recovery of every sinner \nfrom sin and its consequences \xe2\x80\x94 including in the \nmeaning of the word sin both "original sin" and \npersonal transgressions of the law. \n\nHe believes and has taught that the first blessing, \nincluding justification and regeneration, removes the \nguilt and the defilement of man\'s personal sins, and \nthat he ought thenceforward "keep himself unspot- \nted from the world;" and that the second will re- \ncover him perfectly from "original sin," or entailed \ndepravity. But he does not believe that this second \nblessing is attained or attainable in this life; but \nthat it will be accomplished in the resurrection of the \nbody at the last day. \n\nTo the hope of this second blessing we are "be- \ngotten again" "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ \nfrom the dead," when we, "who were dead in tres- \n\n\n\nCONCLUSION. 183 \n\npasses and sins," are "quickened together with him," \nlie " having forgiven all our trespasses." Whether it \nbe called regeneration, a quickening (resurrection), \nadoption or the new birth ( " born again " ), the change \nimplied in the use of these terms is applicable to both \nspirit and body, as is evidenced by their use in the \nScriptures. To the spirit this change comes, if at \nall, in this life, and is the first blessing. . To the body \nit will come when, and only when, this mortal shall \nput on immortality; and then, as an adoption, only to \nthem which sleep in Jesus" and them who shall be \n" alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." \nThis is the second blessing, in which the hope to \nwhich they are begotten in the first will be consum- \nmated and "the creature itself [the body] also shall \nbe delivered from the bondage of corruption into the \nglorious liberty of the children of God." \n\n"With this scriptural view of the " second bless- \ning," we can adopt the sentiment and language of the \nPsalmist, when he says: "As for me, I will behold thy \nface in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I \nawake, with thy likeness." \n\nLet no one, however, deceive himself with the idea \nthat in regeneration or adoption he has received and \nattained to all that is attainable in this life. He can \nattain to no higher relation, it is true; but there are \nheights and depths unmeasurable, attainable in the \nexperiences of the children of God, to which every \none is exhorted to go on, and this in order that he \nmay retain the relation and, by the all-sufficient grace \nof God, vanquish every foe, come into closer fellow- \nship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, \nattain to greater fullness cf his love, and in the end \n\n\n\n184 THE PROBLEM SOLVED. \n\ncome off more than conqueror and wear forever in \nthe sunbright clime the crown of life which the Lord \nwill give to the " faithful unto death!" \n\nAnd now, dear reader, " the God of peace, that \nbrought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that \ngreat Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of \nthe everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every \ngood work to do his will, working in you that which \nis well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; \nto whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." \n\n\'"For this cause [to this end] I bow my knees \nunto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom \nthe whole family in heaven and earth is named, \nthat he would grant you, according to the riches of \nhis glory, to be strengthened with might by his \nSpirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in \nyour hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and \ngrounded in love, may be able to comprehend with \nall saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, \nand height; and to know the love of Christ, which \npasseth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all \nthe fullness of God. Now unto him that is able to \ndo exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or \nthink, according to the power that worketh in us, \nunto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus \nthroughout all ages, world without end. Amen." \n\n\n\nTHE PROBLEM SOLVED; \n\n\n\nOR, \n\n\n\nTHE SECOND MM AND HIS WORK: \n\n\n\nBeing a Review of the " Second Blessing \xc2\xbb Theory \nof Sanctification, and of Its Reviewers. \n\n\n\nBY G. H. MAYES, D.D., \n\nAuthor of u Children in Christ." \n\n\n\n" Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (St. Paul.) \n\n\n\nNashville, Tenn. : \n\nPublishing House of the M. E. Church, South. \n\nBarbee & Smith, Agents. \n\n1892. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process. \nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \nTreatment Date: August 2005 \n\nPreservationTechnologies \n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township, PA 16066 \n(724) 779-21 1 1 \n\n\n\n_ \n\n\n\n'