IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

&
^

1.0

I.I

1.25

!f IM IIIIIM

It lig 1 2.0

1.8

1.4

1.6

O;^

Photograpliic

Sdences

Corporation

^<b

'^W

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

(/a

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Instltut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagie

□ Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurie et/ou peiliculAe

□ Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque

□ Coloured maps/
Cartes g6ographiques en couleur

Coloured Ink (I.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

□ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

□

Bound with other material/
Relii avec d'autres documents

\~yf Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion

I I along interior margin/

Lareilure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int6rieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted *rom filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte.
mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film6es.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires;

L'lnstitu2 a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6ti possible de &e procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont indiquAs ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurdes et/ou pelllcul6es

Pages discoloured, stained or foxei
Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Quality indgale de I'impresslon

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire

I — j Pages damaged/

I I Pages restored and/or laminated/

I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

I I Pages detached/

r~U Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

r 1 Includes supplementary material/

D
D

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partieiiement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure.
etc., ont 6X6 filmdes A nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

1
1

12X

16X

2D\

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks
to the generosity of:

Metropolitan Toronto Library
Social Sciences Department

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce A la
gAnirositA de:

Metropolitan Toronto Library
Social Sciences Department

The images appearing here are the bost quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or Illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprim6e sont fiim6s en commen^ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont fiimis en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — ^- signifse "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN ".

IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre
film6s i des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6. ii est fiimd d partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite.
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la methods.

32X

5f-

METROPOLITAN
•TORONTO .
LIBRARY. . , .

« "f* " ' »

789
YONGE
TORONTO ■
M4W 2G8

SA^

I/ATE PROF]

;•

ii '•■

PUBLISHEl

VIEWS

iV,

. kr

(1F

SANCTIFICATION.

By rev. C. G. FINNEY,

LATB3 PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY IN THE OBRRLTN COLLEGIATE

INSTITUTE.

*\/

TORONTO:
Published by Toronto Willard Tract Depository.

1877.

rally,

, now

rality

onto,

n the

^ord,

: our

i the

r the

ower

this

ither

" any

jsues

the

)oks,

/ the

r the

pply.

s on

and

they

&c.,

ap-

nce-

r in

-I

i< >

6^^^0C

TORONTO :

PRINTED BY HILL AND WKIR,
13 VICTOBIA STREET.

• ■ •

^' i-^^id

1 1

TORONTO WTLLARD TRACT DKPOSITORV,
SHAFTESBURY HALL.

ESTABLISHED 1875.

For the information qi' Christians generally,
it may be briefly statecf tTiat this Institution, now
in full operation, owes its origin to the liberality
of a Christian gentleman, a resident of Toronto,
who has invested a portion of his means in the
enterprise, as a freewill offering to the Lord,
with the view of scattering broadcast over our
land Tracts, Books, &c., &c., which unfold the
exalted privileges of believers, and treat of the
" Life of Faith" or Trust, and of the Power
and Peace of Holiness.

Special notice is called to the fact that this
is no denominational institution. It is neither
connected with, nor under the patronage of any
particular church. All the publications it issues
will be strictly evangelical, and will meet the
wants of all Christians. Largely the Books,
Tracts, &c., &c.. will be those published by the
Willard Tract Repository of Boston, under the
care of the well known Dr. Cullis.

But this willnot, by any means, limit the supply.
The stock will be enriched b)^ publications on
Scriptural Holiness, and other religious and
Gospel literature, from whatever source they
can be obtained, (including books, tracts, &c.,
published by ourselves), and that may be ap-
proved of by the Committee.

We would say here that since the commence-
ment of this work, a- good Christian brother in

IV.

England, Mr. Arthur Burson, 31 Piccadilly,
M.uichester, has kindly offered his services
(which have been accepted) as our representa-
tive in the old land, and will send out regular
supplies of the latest and best Tracts and Books,
&c., published from time to time.

All Profits that mny be made will be devoted
to the establishment of di fund for gratuitous dis-
tribtition of the tracts and books, to persons and
places where they are needed, as may be directed
by the Committee. We beg also to say that
this fund for free distribution is open for dona-
tions to all who may desire to help in this v/ork
of God.

We ask all who may desire to promote the
higher spiritual life of the churches, and to help
in winning souls for Christ, to co-operate with
us by circulating sound religious literature
throughout the land.

References for further information may be
made to the following brethren (and others who
may be added), who will act as a Committee for
selection and distribution.

Rev. John Potts, Methodist.

Canon Innes, Episcopal.

R. Wallace, Presbyterian.

T. GuTTERY, Primitive Methodist.

R. Cameron, Baptist.

J. A. R. Dickson, Congregationalist.

J. Douglas, Presbyterian.
Mr. G. Hague, Congregationalist.

R. W. Laird, Baptist.

W. T. Mason, Methodist.

CoL. Burton, Christian.

((

Mr. W. A. Parlane, Episcopal.

" T. J. WiLKiE, Congregationalist.
It is with much thankfuhiess to our heavenly

Father that we are able to state that since the
opening of the Depository, in October last, the
sales have steadily increased ; so much so, that
at the last meeting of the Committee they felt
pleased to recommend the removal of the
Depository into larger apartments as early as
possible.

Our hearts have been rejoiced from time to
time by the receipt of many testimonies, and the
manifest appreciation of this work by members
of all evangelical denominations, all of which
are gratefully acknov/ledged.

Toronto, y^w^ 6th, 1876.

Since the above date we have acted in ac-
cordance with the recommendation of Committee
(as above) and have moved therefore to Large
Store on the Ground Floor of Shaftesbury
Hall, and are thankful to report that the busi-
ness has increased so as to exceed our most
sanguine expectations. Complete catalogues sent
free on application.

S. R. BRIGGS,

May 27th, 1877.

Manager,

VI.

Notice by the Rev. J. Potts.

I have read with interest and profit "Finney,
on Sanctification," and can most snicerely advise,
and rejoice, in its re-pnbhcation in Canada. It
cannot be expected that every idea and phrase
would receive my endorsation, but as a treatise on
the great theme of full salvation, 1 wish it a career
of extraordinary success in the fulhlme.U of its
benign mission to the pe(3ple of God.

The doctrine of Holiness is presented in all
the clearness and force of Scripture language.

The blessedness of heart-purity is unfolded
in its many and attractive aspects, leading the
reader to desire, with a growing interest, the ex-
perimental possession of such an heritage of
grace. The obligation of its attainment is en-
forced with a power of argument and an aptness
of Bible quotation which are absolutely convinc-
ing to all earnest seekers of the great salvation.

Difficulties are met and disposed of with
singular ability, until the pilgrims of the wilder-
ness of doubts and fears see their Divine Joshua
ready to lead them into the victorious possession
of the Canaan of perfect love.

There is no sign of the times so full of hope
for the future of the Redeemer's Kingdom as the
manifest hungering and thirsting of God's people
for " Holiness unto the Lord/' The special litera-
ture of this subject is sought for and appreciated
in a most encouraging degree.

Next to the prayerful and believing study of
the infallible Text Book of Holiness, books de-
signed to illustrate the sacred theme should b(?

vn.

earnes<^'y read. There is no doctrine of revelation
more prominently put before the Church in the
Scriptures than the subject of holiness. Holiness
is conspicuous in the ritual of the Old Testament
economy. It is proclaimed in the language of
prophecy, as to its c(Miimonness in trie Gospel
day — " In that day there shall be written upon the
bells of the horses holiness unto the Lord." It is
subject of direct command : " Be ye holy, for I am
holy." It shines in the promisesof God : "Having
therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us
cleanse ourselves from all hlthiness of the flesh
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
It was the subject of prayers offered by Christ
and His apostles : — Jesus prayeduntothe Father:
" Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy word is
truth. ' Paul prayed that this great blessing
might be enjoyed by the churches in Ephesus
and Thessalonica. — Eph. iii. 16-19. i Thess. v. 23.
Believing as I do thatholinessisthe Church's
need and the Church's power to accomplish her
mighty mission of saving the world, I commend
this little book to all who are desiring to " bear
fruit unto holiness."

" What is our calling's glorious liope
But inward holiness?
P'or this to Jesus 1 look up,
I calmly wait for this.

'* I wait till He shall touch me clean,
Shall life and power impart ;
Give me the faith that casts out sin,
And purifies the I -art."

Toronto, April, 1877.

JOHN POTTS.

VUl.

Notice by the Rev. J. A. R. Dickson.

Havinf( examined with some measure of care
the following little treatise of Prot. Finney, on
Sanctification, 1 most heartily believe that it is a
work calculated to do good in a very high degree.
Prof. Finney did not write to silit the views of
any theological school, he read and studied and
interpreted the ]:Jible for himself as one account-
able to God under the law and light of the Bible,
and this is the result of his investigations and
thoughts on this important doctrine, this essential
doctrine of the Sacred Scripture. He has, like
every other writer, his own way of expressing his
thoughts, and I confess that often I would have
preferred a different statement, yet his extremest
views are all justified by that utterance of our
Lord, ** Be ye perfect, even as your Father which
is in heaven is perfect." I would caution any
reader against prejudging the author by iso-
lated sentences or paragraphs: the book must be
taken as one deliverance on the subject, and
therefore his full-orbed conception must be obtain-
ed e'er any judgment can be reached. When that
is done I am confident there will be fewdissentients,
and many admiring and praising hearts. The
book is marked by all the literary excellencies of
the author. He is original in thought, and there-
fore striking ; simple in style, and therefore clear;
logical in presentation, and therefore convincing;
concise in statement, and therefore comprehensi-
ble. In his life, which was altogether a remarkable
one, he was honored in doing a great work for
God : great as an evangelist, great as a professor,

IX.

great as a writer, and, above all, great as a living
exemplification of the truth ; and now that he
has gone to his reward, I joy to think that his
spirit, embalmed in his book will work for the
glory of Christ still. My prayer is that this little
treatise may lift many of God's dear children into
the clear light, and lead them to walk in paths of
righteousness for His name sake.

JAMES A. R. DICKSON.

Toronto, May, 1877.

PREFACE.

The substance of this treatise has formerly ap-
peared in the OberHn Evangelist, in the form of
a course of lectures. Its publication in a more
permanent form is thought by many to be impor-
tant, and in preparing it for the press, 1 have
been obliged, for want of time, to suffer it to re-
main very nearly in the same form in v^Iiich it at
first appeared, with only a few such additions as
I have been able to make under the pressure of
other and multiplied engagements. These lec-
tures were originally prepared in great haste,
amid the labors and responsibilities of a powerful
revival of religion, in which I was at the time
employed by the Great Head of the Church.
They ^vere sent to the press from a rough draft,
as \^ n jb entirel}^ out of my power to re- write and
thn w them into a more acceptable form.

i 'iiP treatise contains but a skeleton view of
the subject, to which very extensive additions
might be made, and perhaps profitably made, had
I time to bestow upon such a labor.

I have hoped to receive such suggestions con-
cerning the lectures as they appeared in the Evan-
gelist, either from those who oppose or maintain
the doctrine advocated in them, as would enable
me, should they be called for in a book form, to
make such explanations, answer such objections,
and make such additions or subtractions, as the
interests of truth might deniand. As, however,

XI.

I have been able to gain no additional light upon
the subject from any of these sources, and have
heard or seen but very few things worthy of no-
tice in respect to them, I give them to the public,
as I have said, almost entirely as they were at
first written.

As I am not at all interested in their sale, and
have nothing to hope or fear in respect to loss or
gain in the event of their pubhcation, in a pecu-
niary point of view, it matters nothing to me
whether they are read or not, any farther than the
cause of truth is concerned. For the sake of
truth alone, I at first wrote them. For the sake
of what I regard to be truth alone, I have con-
sented to their publication in this form.

1 commit the little treatise to the Great Head
of the Church. And if these thoughts can be
made instrumental in promoting His glory, and
the interests of His kingdom, I shall feel myself
happ}' to have had the honor of communicating
thoughts which are owned and blessed of Him.

THE AUTHOR.

SANCTIFICATIOK

*• And the very (iod of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I
]iray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faith-
ful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." — i T/tess. v.
23. 24.

In discussing the subject of Sanctification, 1
design to pursue the following order :

I. Define the meaning of the term Sanc-
tification.

II. What I understand by entire Sancti-
fication.

III. Notice the distinction between en-
tire AND permanent SaNCTIFICATION.

IV. Show what is not implied in entire
Sanctification.

V. What is implied in entire Sanctifica-
tion.

VI. Show that a state of entire and per-
manent Sanctification is attainable in this

LIFE.

VII. Answer some objections.
VIIL Show when it is attainable.
IX. How it 'is attainable.

It will be seen at once, that this outline is suf-
ficiently extensive to fill a large volume, should
I protract the discussion as I easily and perhaps
profitably might. My design is to condense what

SANXTIFICATION.

I have to sa}^ as nuicli as jx^ssible, and yet pre-
serve sufficient perspicuii} . i shall encle.i\ eir nul
to be tedious. And yet I hope to be understood,
and to be able to " commend myself to every
man's conscience in the sight of God." I will,

I. Define the term SauctiJication._

Here let me remark, that a definition of terms
in all discussions is of prime importance. Espe-
cially is this true of this subject. I have observ-
ed that almost without an exception, those who
have written on this subject dissenting from the
views entertained here, do so upon the ground
that they understand and define the terms, Sanc-
tification, and Christian Perfection, differently
from what we do. Ever}^ one gives his own
definition, varying materiall}' from others and
from what we understand by the terms. And
then they go on professedly opposing the doctrine
as inculcated here. Now this is not only utterly
unfair, but palpably absurd. If I oppose a doc-
trine inculcated by another man, I am bound to
oppose what he really holds. If I misrepresent
his sentiments, ** I fight as one that beateth the
air." I have been amazed at the diversity of
definitions that have been given to the terms
Christian Perfection, Sanctification, &c.; and to
witness the diversity of opinion as to what is,
and what is not, implied in these terms. One
objects wholly to the use of the term Christian
Perfection, because in his estimation it implies
this and that and the other thing, which I do not
suppose are at all implied in it. Another objects
to our using the term Sanctification, because that

1 !

vii'.ws or

«: I

ifiiplies, acconlin*^ to liis niKlerstaiiflinj^ of it,
certain tilings tlial render its use iin])roper. Now
It is no part of my design to dispute about the
use of words. I must however use some terms ;
and 1 ought to be allowed to use Bible language,
in its Scriptural sense as 1 understand it. And
if I should sufficiently explain my meaning and
define the sense in which I use the terms, this
ought to suffice. And 1 beg that nothing more
nor less may be understood by the language I use
than 1 profess to mean by it. Others may, if
they please, use the same terms and give a dif-
ferent definition of them. But I have a right to
hope and expect, if they feel called upon to op-
pose what I say, that they will bear in mind my
definition of the terms, and not pretend, as some
have done, to oppose my views, while they have
only differed from me in their definition of the
terms used, giving their own definition varying
materially and I might say infinitely from the
sense in which I use the same terms, and then
arraying their arguments to prove that according
to their definition of it, Sanctification is not really
attainable in this life, when no one here or any
where else, that I ever heard of, pretended that
in their sense of the term, it ever was or ever
will be attainable in this life, and I might add, or
in that which is to come.

Sanctification is a term of frequent use in the
Bible. Its simple and primary meaning is a state
of consecration to God. To sanctify is to set
apart to a holy use — to consecrate a thing to the
service of God. A state of sanctification is a
state of consecration, or a being set apart to the

i I

SANL riiicA rioN.

service of God. Tliis is ])lainly both the Old
and the New Testament use of the term.

II. WJiat is entire Sanctification.

By entire sanctification, I understand the con-
secration of the whole being to God. In other
words it is that state of devotedness to God and
His service, required by the moral law. The law
is perfect. It requires just what is right, all that
is right, and nothing more. Nothing more or
less can possibly be Perfection or entire Sanctifi-
cation, than obedience to the law. Obedience to
the law of God in an infant, a man, an angel,
and in God himself, is perfection in each of them.
And nothing can possibly be perfection in any
being short of this, nor can there possibly be any
thing above it.

III. The distinction hei>-ween entire and per-
manent Sanctification.

That a thing or a person may be for the time
being wholly consecrated to God, and afterwards
desecrated or diverted from that service, is cer-
tain. That Adam and *' the angels who kept not
their first estate" were entirel}^ sanctified and yet
not permanently so, is also certain.

By permanent sanctification, I understand then
a state not only of entire but of perpetual, un-
ending consecration to God.

IV. What is not implied in entire Sanctification.

As the law of God is the standard and the only
standard by which the question in regard to
what is not, and what is implied in entire Sanc-

VIEWS OF

tification, is to be decided, it is of fundamental
importance that we understand wliat is and what
is not implied in entire obedience to this law. It
must be apparent to all that this inquiry is of
prime importance. And to settle this question is
one of the main things to be attended to in this
discussion. The doctrine of the entire sanctifi-
cation of believers in this life, can never be
satisfactorily settled until it is understood. And
it cannot be understood unt.l it is known what
is and what is not implied in it. Our judgment
of our own state or of the state of others, can
never be relied upon till these inquiries are
settled. Nothing is more clear than that in the
present vague unsettled views of the Church
upon this question, no individual could set up
a claim to having attained this state without
being a stumbling block to the Church. Christ
was perfect, and yet so erroneous were the notions
of the Jews in regard to what constituted perfec-
tion, that they thought Him possessed with a
devil instead of being holy as He claimed to be.
It certainly is impossible that a person should
profess this state without being a stumbling
block to himself and to others unless he and they
clearly understand what is not and what is im-
plied in it. I will state then wdiat is not implied
in a state of entire sanctification, as I understand
the law of God. The law as epitomized by Christ,
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength,
and thy neighbor as thyself," I understand to lay
down the whole duty of man to God and to his
fellow-breatures. Now the questions are, what

SANCTIFICATION.

is not, and what is implied in perfect obedience
to this law. Vague notions in regard to these
questions seem to me to have been the origin of
much error on the subject of entire sanctification.
To settle this question it is indispensable that
we have distinctly before our minds just rules of
legal interpretation. I will therefore lay down
some first principles in regard to the interpreta-
tion of law, in the light of which, I think we may
safely proceed to settle these questions.

Rule I. Whatever is inconsistent with natural
justice is not and cannot be law.

2. Whatever is inconsistent with the nature
and relations of moral beings, is contrary to
natural justice and therefore cannot be law.

3. That which requires more than man has
natural ability to perform, is inconsistent with
his nature and relations and therefore is incon-
sistent with natural justice, and of course is not
law.

4. Law then must always be so understood
and interpreted as to consist with the nature of
the subjects, and with their relations to each
other and to the lawgiver. Any interpretation
that makes the law to require more or less than
is consistent with the nature and relations of
moral beings, is a virtual setting aside of law, or
the same as to declare that it is not law. No
authority in heaven or on earth can make that
law, or obligatory upon moral agents, which is
inconsistent with their nature and relations.

5. Law must always be so interpreted as to
cover the whole ground of natural right or justice.
It must be so understood and explained as to

ViliWb VI-

require all that is W/,'-/// /;/ itsel/y and therefore
inimutahly and u u alt cr ably right. Whatever pro-
fesses to be law and will not bear this construc-
tion, is not and cannot be law.

6. Law must be so interpreted as not to require
any thing more than is consistent with natural
justice or with the nature and relations of moral
beings. Whatever will not bear such a construc-
tion is not law.

7. Of course laws are never to be so interpre-
ted as to imply tne possession of any attributes
or strength and perfection of attributes which
the subject does not possess. Take for illustra-
tion the second commandment, *' Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself." The simple meaning
of this commandment seems to be that we are to
regard and treat every person and interest ac-
cording to its relative value. Now we are not
to understand this commandment as expressly
or impliedly requiring us to know in all cases the
exact relative value of every person and thing in
the universe: for this would imply the possession
of the attribute of omniscience by us. No mind
short of an omniscient one can have this know-
ledge. The commandment then must be so
understood as only to require us to judge with
candor of the relative value of different interests,
and treat them according to their value so far as
we understand it. 1 repeat the rule therefore.
Laws are never to be so interpreted as to imply
the possession of any attribute or strength and
perfection of attributes which the subject does
not possess.

8. Law is never to be so interpreted as to

SANirriFirATioN.

require that which is naturally impossible on

The first

account oi our circumstances,
commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, &c." is not to be so in-
terpreted as to require us to make God the con-
stant and sole object of attention, thought, and
affection, for this would not only be plainly
impossible in our circumstances but manifestly
contrary to our duty.

9. Law is never to be so interpreted as to
make one requirement inconsistent with another;
e. g. if the first commandment be so interpreted
that we are required to make God the only object
of thought, attention, and affection, then we
cannot obey the second commandment, which
requires us to love our neighbor. And if the
first commandment is to be so understood that
every faculty and power is to be directed solely
and exclusively to the contemplation and love of
God, then love to all other beings is prohibited
and the second commandment is set aside. I
repeat the rule therefore: Laws are not to be so
interpreted as to conflict with each other.

10. A law requiring perpetual benevolence
must be so construed as to consist with, and
require all the appropriate and essential modifica-
tions of this principle under every circumstance;
such as justice, mercy, anger at sin and sinners,
and a special and complacent regard to those
who are virt'ious.

11. Law must be so interpreted as that its
claims shall always be restricted to the voluntary
powers. To attempt to legislate over the invol-
untary powers, would be inconsistent with

VIEWS OF

i:|

natural justice, ^'oii may as well attempt to
legislate over the bcaUiigs of the heart as o\er
any involuntary mental actions.

12. In morals, actual knowledpje is indispen-
sable to obligation. The maxim " ignorantia legis
non excusat " — ignorance of the law excuses no
one, applies in morals to but a very limited ex-
tent. That actual knowledge is indispensable
to moral obligation, will appear.

(i.) From the following Scriptures:

James iv. 17 : ** Therefore to him that knoweth
to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."
Luke xii. 47, 48 : " And that servant which
knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself,
neither did according to his will, shall be beaten
with many stripes. Bu«t he that knew not, and
did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be
beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever
much is given, of him shall much be required ;
and to whom men have committed much, of him
they will ask the more." John ix. 11: "Jesus
said unto them, if ye were blind, ye should have
no sin : but now ye say, we see ; therefore 5^our
sin remaineth." In the first and second chapters
of Romans, the Apostle reasons at large on this
subject. He convicts the heathen of sin, upon
the ground that they violate their own conscience,
and do not live according to the light they have.

(2.) The principle is everywhere recognized
in the Bible, that an increase of knowledge in-
creases obligation. This impliedly, but plainly
recognizes the principle that knowledge is indis-
pensable to, and commensurate with obligation.
In sins of ignorance, the sin lies in the ignorance

SANCTIFICATION.

»»

itself, but not in the nep^lect of what is unknown.
A man may be guilty of present or past neglect
to ascertain the truth. Here his ignorance is
sin. The heathen are culpable for not living up to
the light of nature, but are under no obligation
to embrace Christianity until they have the op-
portunity to do so.

13. Moral laws are to be so interpreted as to
be consistent with physical laws. In other words,
the application of the moral law to human beings,
must recognize man as he is, as both a physical
and intellectual being; and must be so interpreted
as that obedience to it shall not violate the laws
of the physical constitution, and prove the pre-
mature destruction of the boc.y.

14. Law is to be so interpreted as to recognize
all the attributes and circumstances of both body
and soul. In the application of the law of God
to human beings, we are to regard their powers
and attributes as they really are, and not as they
are not.

15. Law is to be so interpreted as to restrict its
obligation to the actions, and not to extend it to
the nature or constitution of moral beings. Law
must not be understood as extending its legisla-
tion to the nature, or requiring a man to possess
certain attributes, but as prescribing a rule of
action. It is not the existence or possession of
certain attributes which the law requires, or that
these attributes should be in a certain state of
perfection ; but the right use of all these attri-
butes as they are, is what the law is to be inter-
preted as requiring.

16. It should be always understood that the

^-1!

vir.wf; OF

obedience of the heart to any law, implies, and
includes, j^^eneral faith or confidence in the law-
giver. Hut no law should be so construed as to
require faith in what the intellect does not per-
ceive. A man may be under oblijjjation to per-
ceive what he does not ; \. e., it may be his duty
to incpiire after, and ascertain the truth. But
obligation to believe with the heart, does not
attach until the intellect obtains a perception of
the things to be believed.

Now, in the light of these rules, let us proceed
to inquire,

1. H^Jidl is not, and,

2. What is implied in perfect obedience to the
law of (iod, or in entire sanctification.

1. Entire sanctification does not imply any
change in the substance of the soul or body, for
this the 'aw does not require, and it would not be
obligato/y if it did, because the requirement
would be inconsistent with natural justice. En-
tire sanctification is the entire consecration of
the powers, as they are, to God. It does not im-
ply any change in the powers themselves, but
simply the right use of them.

2. It does not imply any annihilation of con-
stitutional traits of character, such as constitu-
tional ardor or impetuosity. There is nothing,
certainly, in the law of God that requires such
constitutional traits to be annihilated, but simply
that they should be rightly directed in their ex-
ercise.

3. It does not imply the annihilation of any of
the constitutional appetites, or susceptibilities.
It seems to be supposed by some, that the con-

SANCTIMCATION.

stitutional appetites and susceptibilities, are in
themselves sinful, and that a state ot entire sanc-
tification would retpiire their total annihilation.
And 1 have often been astonished at the fact that
those who array themselves against the doctrine
of entire sanctification in this life, assunu the
sinfulnessof the constitution of men. And I have
not been a little surprised to find that some per-
sons who I had supposed were far enough from
embracing the doctrine of physical depravity,
were, after all, resorting to this assumption to
set aside the doctrine of entire sanctification in
this life. Hut let us appeal to the law. Does
the law anywhere, expressly or impliedly, con-
demn the constitution of man, or recjuire the
annihilation of anything that is properly a part
of tlie constitution itself? Does it require the
annihilation of the appetite for food, or is it
satisfied merely with regulating its indulgence ?
In short, does the law of God anywhere require
anything more than the consecration of all the
appetites and susceptibilities of the body and
mind, to the service of God ?

In conversing with me on this subject not
long since, a brother insisted that a man might
perpetually obey the law of God, and be guilty
of no actual transgression, and yet not be entirely
sanctified : for he insisted that there might be
that in him which would lay the foundation for
his sinning at a future time. When questioned
in regard to what that something in him was,
he replied, " that which first led him to sin at
the beginning of his moral exister 3." I an-
swered that that which first led him to sin, was

VIEWS OF

h u>

ll!>

his innocent constitution, just as it was the inno-
cent constitution of Adam, to which the tempta-
tion was addressed, that led him into sin. Adam's
innocent constitutional appetites, when excited
by the presence of objects fitted to excite them,
were a sufficient temptation to- lead him to con-
sent to prohibited indulgence, which constituted
his sin. Now just so it certainly is with every
human being. This constitution, the substance
of his body and soul, cannot certainly have any
moral character. But when these appetites,
which are essential to his nature and have no
moral character in themselves, are excited, they
lead to prohibited indulgence, and in this way
every human being is led into sin. Now if a
man cannot be entirely sanctified until that is
annihilated which first occasioned his sin, it does
not appear that he ever can be entirely sanctified
while he possesses either body or soul. I insist
upon it, therefore, that entire sanctification does
not imply the annihilation of any constitutional
appetite or susceptibility, but only the entire
consecration of the whole constitution as it is, to
the service of God.

4. Entire sanctification does not imply the an-
nihilation of natural affection or resentment. By
this I mean that certain persons ma}^ be naturally
pleasing to us. Christ appears to have had a
natural affection for John. By natural resent-
ment I mean, that, from the laws of our jeing,
we must resent or feel opposed to injustice or ill
treatment. Not that a disposition to retaliate or
revenge ourselves is consistent with the law of
God. But perfect obedience to the law of God,

^^1

SANCTIFICATION.

does not imply that we should have no sense of
injury and injustice when we are abused. God
has this, and ought to have it, and so does every
moral being. To love your neighbor as yourself
does not imply that if he injure you, you feel no
sense of the injury or injustice, but that you love
him and would do him good, notwithstanding his
injurious treatment.

5. It does not imply any unhealthy degree of
excitement of mind. Rule thirteenth lays down
the principle that moral law is to be so interpreted
as to be consistent with physical law. God's
laws certainly do not clash with each other. And
the moral law cannot require such a state of con-
stant mental excitement as will destroy the physi-
cal constitution. It cannot require any more
mental excitement and action than is consistent
with all the laws, attributes, and circumstances
of both soul and body, as stated in rule fourteenth.

6. It does not imply than any organ or faculty
is to be at all times exerted to its full strength.
This would soon exhaust ::nd destroy any and
every organ of the body. Whatever may be true
of the mind when separated from the body, it is
certain, while it acts through a material* organ,
that a constant state of excitement is impossible.
\Vhen the mind is strongly excited, there is of
necessity, a great determination of blood to the
brain. A high degree of excitement cannot long
continue, certainly, without producing inflamma-
tion of the brain, and consequent insanity. And
the law of God does not require any degree of
emotion, or mental excitement, that is inconsist-
ent with life and health. Our Lord Jesus Christ

nr^

VIEWS OF

" ii

does not appear to have been in a state of contin-
ual excitement. When He and H's disciples had
been in a great excitement, for a time, they would
turn aside, " and rest awhile."

Who, that has ever philosophized on this sub-
ject, does not know that the high degree of ex-
citement which is sometimes witnessed in revi-
vals of religion, must necessarily be short, or that
the people must become deranged. It seems
sometimes to be indispensable that a high degree
of excitement should prevail for a time, to arrest
public and individual attention , and to draw people
off from other pursuits to attend to the concerns
of their souls. But if any suppose that this high
degree of excitement is either necessary, or de-
sirable, or possible to be long continued, they
have not well considered the matter. And here
is one grand mistake ol the Church. They have
supposed that the revival consists mostly in this
state of excited emotion, rather than in conformi-
ty of the human will to the will of God. Hence,
when the reasons for much excitement have ceas-
ed, and the public mind begins to grow more
calm, they begin immediately to say that the re-
vival is on the decline ; when, in fact, with much
less excited emotion, there may be vastly more
real religion in the community.

Excitement is often important and indispensa-
ble. But the vigorous actings of the will are in-
finitely more important. And this state of mind
may exist in the absence of highly excited emo-
tions.

7. Nor does it imply that the same degree of
emotion, volition, or intellectual effort, is at all

SANCTIFICATION.

times required. All volitions do not need the
same strength. They cannot have equal strength,
because they are not produced by equally power-
ful reasons. Should a man put forth as strong a
volition to pick up an apple, as to extinguish the
flames of a burning house ? Should a mother,
watching over her sleeping nursling, when all is
quiet and secure, put forth as powerful volitions,
as might be required to snatch it from the devour-
ing flames ? Now, suppose that she was equally
devoted to God, in watching her sleeping babe,
and in rescuing it from the jaws of death. Her
holiness would not consist in the fact that she ex-
ercised equally strong volitions in both cases ; but,
that in both cases, the volition was equal to the
accomplishment of the thing required to be done.
So that persons may be entirely holy, and yet
continually varying in the strength of their af-
fections, according to their circumstances — the
state of their physical system — and the business
in which they are engaged.

All the powers of body and mind are to be held
at the service and disposal of God. Just so much
of physical, intellectual, and moral energy are to
be expended in the performance of dut}^ as the
nature and the circumstances of the case require.
And nothing is farther from the truth, than that
the law of God requires a constant, intense state
of emotion and mental action on any and every
subject alike.

8. Entire sanctification does not imply, as I
have said, that God is to be at all times the direct
object of attention and affection. This is not only
impossible in the nature of the case, but would

mma

III

'«!!

• ■ m

VIEWS OF

render it impossible for us to think of, or love our
neighbor or ourselves : Rule g.

Upon this subject I have formerly used the
following language : The law of God requires
the supreme love of the heart. By this is meant,
that the mind's supreme preference should be of
God — that God should be the great object of its
supreme love and delight. But this state of mind
is perfectly consistent with our engaging in any
of the necessary business of life — giving to that
business that attention — and exercising about it
all those affections and emotions which its nature
and importance demand.

If a man love God supremely, and engage in
any business for the promotion of His glory, if
his eye be single, his affections and conduct are
entirely holy, when necessarily engaged in the
right transaction of his business, although for the
time being, neither his thoughts, or affection, are
upon God.

Just as a man who is supremely devoted to his
%mily may be acting consistently with his su-
preme affection, and rendering them the most im-
portant and perfect service, while he does not
think of them at all. As I have endeavored to
show in my sermon on the text, "Make to your-
selves a new heart, and a new spirit," I consider
the moral heart to be the mind's supreme prefer-
ence. As I there stated, the natural, or fleshy
heart is the seat of animal life, and propels the
blood through all the physical system. Now
there is a striking analogy between this and the
moral heart. And the analogy consists in this,
that as the natural heart, by its pulsations, diffu-

SANCTIFICATION.

his
su-

ses life through the physical system; so the
moral heart, or the supreme governing preference
of the mind, is that which gives life and character
to man's moral actions. E. g., suppose that I am
engaged in teaching mathematics, and that the
supreme desire of my mind is to glorify God in
this particular calling. Now in demonstrating
some of its intricate propositions, 1 am obliged,
for hours together, to give the entire attention of
my mind to that object. Now, while my mind
is thus intensely employed in this particular
business, it is impossible that I should have any
thoughts directly about God, or should exercise
any direct affections, or emotions, or volitions
towards Him. Yet if, in this particular calling,
all selfishness is excluded, and my supreme
design is to glorify God, my mind is in a sancti-
fied state, even though, for the time being, I do
not think of God.

It should be understood that while the supreme
preference of the mind has such efficiency as to
exclude all selfishness, and to call forth just that
strength of volition, thought, affection, and
emotfon, that is requisite to the right discharge
of any duty to which the mind may be called,
the heart is in a sanctified state. By a suitable
degree of thought and feeling, to the right dis-
charge of duty, I mean just that intensity of
thought, and energy of action, that the nature
and importance of the particular duty to which
for the time bemg I am called, demand.

In this statemient, I take it for granted, that
the brain, together with all the circumstances of
the constitution, is such, that the requisite

VIEWS Ol"

amount of thought, feeling, &c., is possible. If
the physical constitution be in such a state of
exhaustion as to be unable to put forth that
amount of exertion which the nature of the
subject might otherwise demand, even in this
case, the languid efforts, though far below the
importance of the subject, would be all that the
law of God requires. Whoever, therefore, sup-
poses that a state of entire sanctihcatibn implies
a state of entire abstraction of mind from every
thing but God, labors under a grievous mistake.
Such a state of mind is as inconsistent with duty,
as it is impossible while we are in the iiesh.

The fact is that the language and spirit of the
law have been and generally are grossly misun-
derstood, and interpreted to mean what they
never did, or can mean consistently with natural
justice. Many a mind has been thrown open to
the assaults of Satan, and kept in a state of
continual bondage and condemnation, because
God was not, at all times, the direct object of
thought, affection, and emotion ; and because
the mind was not kept in a state of most perfect
tension, and excited to the utmost at every mo-
ment.

g. Nor does it imply a state of continual calm-
ness of mind. Christ was not in a state of con-
tinual calmness. The deep peace of his mind
was never broken up, but the surface or emotions
of his mind were often in a state of great excite-
ment, and at other times in a state of great calm-
ness. And here let me refer to Christ, as we
have His history in the Bible, in illustration of
th.e positions I have already taken. Christ had

t;AS:r'rirlr ATioM.

all the constitutional api)etites and susce])tihil-
ities of human nature. Had it been otherwise,
lie could not have been " temy)ted in all points
like as we are;" nor could He have been tempted
in any ])oint as we are, any further than He pos-
sessed a constitution similar to our own. Christ
also manifested natural affection for His mother,
and for other friends. He showed that He had a
sense of injury and injustice, and exercised a
suitable resentment when He was injured and per-
secuted. He was not always in a state of great
excitement. He appears to have had His seasons
of excitement and of calm, — of labor and rest, —
of joy and sorrow^ like other good men. Some
persons have spoken of entire sanctification as
implying a state of uniform and imiversal calm-
ness, and as if every kind and degree of excited
feeling, except as the feelings of love to God are
excited, were inconsistent with this state. But
Christ often manife^sted a'^reat degree of excite-
ment when reproving the enemies of God. In
short, His history w^ould lead to the conclusion
that His calmness and excitement were various,
according to the circumstances of the case. And
although He was sometimes so pointed and se-
vere in His reproof, as to be accused of being
possessed of a devil, yet His emotions and feel-
ings w^ere only those that were called for and
suited to the occasions.

10. Nor does it imply a state of continual sweet-
ness of mind without any indignation or holy
anger at sin or sinners. Anger at sin is only a
modification of love. A feeling of justice, or a
desire to have the wicked punished for the benefit

VIEWS OF

of the ^foverrinient, is only another of the modifi-
cations of love. And sncli feelings are essential
to the existence of love, where the circumstances
call for their exercise. It is said of Christ that
He was angry. He often manifested anger and
lioly indignation. " God is angry with the
wicked every day." And holiness, or a state of
sanctification, instead of being inconsistent with,
always implies the existence of anger, whenever
circumstances occur, which demand its exercise :
Rule lo.

11. It does not imply a state of mind that is all
compassion, and no feeling of justice. Compassion
is only one of the modifications of love. Justice,
or a desire for the execution of law, and the
punishment of sin is another of its modifications.
God, and Christ, and all holy beings, exercise all
those affections and emotions that constitute the
different modifications of love, under every possible
circumstance.

12. It does not imply that we should love or
hate all men alike, irrespective of their valae,
circumstances and relations. One being may
have a greater capacity for happiness, and be of
much more importance to the universe than
another. Impartiality and the law of love re-
quire us not to regard all beings and things alike ;
but all beings and things according to their
nature, relations and circumstances.

13. Nor does it imply a perfect knowledge of
all our relations : Rule 7. Now" such an inter-
pretation of the law, as would make it necessary,
in order to yield obedience, for us to understand
all our relations, would imply in us the possession

SANCTlFICAriON,

of the attribute of omniscience ; for certainty
tliere is not a thinj^^ in the universe to which we
do not sustain some relation. And a knowledge
of all these relations, plainly implies infinite know-
ledge. It is plain that the law of God cannot
require any such thing as this ; and that entire
sanctification or entire obedience to the law of
God therefore implies no such thing.

14. Nor does it imply perfect knowledge on
any subject. Perfect knowledge on any subject,
implies a perfect knowledge of its nature, rela-
tions, bearings, and tendencies. Now as every
single thing in the universe, sustains some rela-
tion to, and has some bearing upon every other
thing, there can be no such thing as perfect
knowledge on any one subjecf, that does not em-
brace universal or infinite knowledge.

15. Nor does it imply freedom from mistake
on any subject whatever. It is maintained by
some that the grace of the gospel pledges to
every man perfect knowledge, or at least such
knowledge as to exempt him from any mistake.
I cannot stop here to debate this question, but
would merely say the law does not expressly or
impliedly require infallibility of judgment in us.
It only requires us to make the best use of all
the light we have.

16. Nor does entire sanctification imply the
knowledge of the exact relative value of differ-
ent interests. I have already said, in illustrating
Rule 7, that the second commandment, **Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," does not im-
ply that we should, in every instance, understand
exactly the relative value and importance of every

11 =

esme^snmmmf

, I

VIKWS OF

interest. This plainly cannot be required, unless
it be assumed that we are omniscient.

17. It does not imply the same degree of
knowledge that we might have possessed, had
we always improved our time in its acquisition.
The law cannot require us to love God or man
as well as we might have been able to love them,
had we always improved all our time in obtain-
ing all the knowledge we could, in regard to
their nature, character, and interests. If this
were implied in the requisition of the law, there
is not a saint on earth or m heaven that is or ever
can be perfect. What is lost in this respect is
lost, and past neglect can never be so atoned for
as that we shall ever be able to make up in our
acquisitions of kn4)wledge, what we have lost.
It will no doubt be true to all eternity, that we
shall have less knowledge than we might have
possessed, had we filled up all our time in its ac-
quisition. We do not, cannot, nor shall we ever
be able to love God as well as we might have
loved him, had we always Applied our minds to
the acquisition of knowledge respecting him.
And if entire sanctification is to be understood as
implying that we love God as much as we should,
had we all the knowledge we might have had,
then I repeat it, there is not a saint on earth or in
heaven, nor ever will be, that is entirely sancti-
fied.

18. It does not imply the same amount of ser-
vice that we might have rendered, had we never
sinned. The law of God does not imply or sup-
pose that our powers are in a perfect state ; that
our strength of body or mind is what it would

SANrTn-ir\TH»\.

, unless

^ree

of
id, had
lisition.
or man
e them,
obtain-
^ard to
If this
V, there
or ever
ipect is
►ned for
) in our
ve lost,
hat we
It have
its ac-
^^e ever
It have
inds to
g him.
tood as
should,
^e had,
:h or in
sancti-

of ser-
2 never
or sup-
;; that

would

-1

have been, had we never sinned. But it simply
requires us to use what strength we have. The
very wcrding of the law is proof conclusive, that
it extends its demands only to the full amount of
what strength we have. And this is true of every
moral being, however great or small.

19. It does not recpiire the same degree of love
that we might have rendered, but for our igno-
rance. We certainly know much less of Ood,
and therefore are much less capable of loving
him, i. e. we are capable of loving him with a
less amount, and to a less degree, than if we knew
more of him, which we might have done but for
our sins. And as I have before said, this will
be tnie to all eternity; for we can never make
amends by any future obedience or diligence, for
this any more than for other sins. And to all
eternity, it will remain true, that we know less
of God, and love him less than we might and
should have done, had we always done our duty.
If entire sanctification therefore, implies the same
degree of love or service that might have been
rendered, had we always developed our powers
by a perfect use of them, then there is not a saint
on earth or in heaven that is or ever will be in
that state. The most perfect development and
improvement of our powers, must depend upon
the most perfect use of them. And every depar-
ture from their perfect use, is a diminishing of
their highest development, and a curtailing of
their capabilities to serve God in the highest and
best manner. All sin then does just so much
towards crippling and curtailing the powers of
body and mind, and rendering them, by just so

. 1

1 >

i -

3^>

VU'WS OF

much, inrapable of pcMloriniiifij the service tliey
ini^lit otherwise have reiidered.

'lo this view of" the subject it has been objected
that ('hrist taught an opposite doctrine, in the
case ot the woman who washed his feet with her
tears, when he said, "To whom much is forgiven,
the same loveth much." But can it be that
(Christ intended to be understood as teaching, that
the more we sin the greater will be our love and
our ultimate virtue? If this be so I do not see
why it does not follow that the more sin in this
life, the better, if so be that we are forgiven. If
our virtue is really to be improved by our sins, I
see not why it would not be good economy both
for God and man, to sin as much as we can
while in this world. Certainly Christ meant to
lay down no such principle as this. He undoubt-
edly meant to teach, that a person who was truly
sensible of the greatness of his sins, would exer-
cise more of the love of gratitude j than would
be exercised by one who had a less affecting sense
of ill-desert.

20. Entire sanctification does not imply the
same degree of faith that might have been exer-
cised but for our ignorance and past sin.

We cannot believe any thing about God of
which we have no evidence or kn(?wledge. Our
faith must therefore be limited by our intellectual
perceptions of truth. The heathen are not under
obligation to believe in Christ, and thousands of
other things of which they have no knowledge.
Perfection in a heathen would imply much less
faith than in a Christian. Perfection in an adult
would imply much more and greater faith than

SANC riFlCAllON.

ce they

ibjected
in the
/ith her
)rgiven,
)G that
iig, that
've and
not see
in this
en. If
• sins, I
ly both
we can
eant to
uloubt-
LS truly
d exer-
would
^ sense

ly the
|i exer-

od of
Our
ectuai
under
nds of
ledge,
h less
adult
I than

in an infant. And jxiitcction in iu\ angel would
imply much greater faith than in a man, just in
proportion as he knows more of God tiian man.
Let it be always understood that entire sanctilica-
tion never implies that which is naturally impos-

bl(

SIDU

lly

IS certainly naturally impossn)Je tor us

ible f(

to bohe\e that ot which we have no knowledge.
Kntirc sanctification implies in this respect noth-
ing more than the hearts faith or confidence in
all the truth that is perceived by the intellect.

21. Nor does it im})ly the conversion of all
men in answer to our prayers. It lias been main-
tained by scjine that a state of entire sanctifica-
tion implies the offering of prevailing prayer for
the conversion of all men. To this I reply :

(I.) Then Christ was not sanctiliecl; for he
offered no such prayer.

(2.) The law of God makes no such demand
either expressly or impliedly.

(3.) We have no right to believe that all men
will be converted in answer to our })rayers, un-
less we have an express promise to that effect.

(4.) As therefore there is no such promise, we
are under no obligation to (jffer such prayer.
Nor does the non-conversion of the world, imply
that there are no sanctiiied saints in the world.

22. It does not imply the conversion of any
one for whom there is not an express or implied
promise in the word of God. The fact that
Christ did not pray in faith for the conversion of
Judas, and that Judas w.'».s not converted in an-
swer to his prayers, does not prove that Christ
was not in a state of entire sanctification.

23. Nor does it imply that all those things
which are expressly or impliedly promised, will

1 .'I]
ii ii

3«

VIEWS OF

I-

be granted in answer to our prayers, or in other
words, that we should pray in faith for them, if
we are ignorant of the existence or appHcation of
those promises. A state of perfect love implies
the discharge of all known duty. And nothing
strictly speaking can be duty of which the mind
has no knowledge. It cannot therefore be our
duty to believe a promise of which we are entire-
ly ignorant, or the application of which to any
specific object we do not understand.

If there is sin in such a case as this, it lies in
the ignorance itself. And here no doubt, there
often is sin, because there is present neglect
to know the truth. But it should always be
understood that the sin lies in the ignorance, and
not in the neglect of that of which we have no
knowledge. A state of sanctification is inconsis-
tent with any present neglect to know the truth ;
for such neglect is sin. But it is not inconsistent
with our failing to do that of which we have no
knowledge. James says: ''He that knoweth to
do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." " If
ye were blind," says Christ, "ye should have
no sin, br.t because ye say we see, therefore your
sin ren:iaineth."

24. Entire sanctification does not imply the
impossibility of future sin. Entire and permanent
sanctification does imply the fact, that the sancti-
fied soul will not sin. But the only reason why
he will not, is to be ascribed entirely to the
sovereign grace of God. Sanctification does not
imply, as I have already said, any such change
in the nat^) :e of the subject, as to render it impos-
sible or i.nprobable that he will again sin. Nay,

SANCTlFlCATiON.

I do not suppose there is a man upon earth, or
perhaps in heaven, who would not fall into ^in
but for the supporting grace of God. -^

25. It does not imply that watchfulness, and
prayer, and effort, are no longer needed. It is
the height of absurdity to suppose that, either in
this or any other state of being, there will be no
faith called for, or watchfulness against tempta-
tion. Just so long as the susceptibilities of our
soul exist, temptation in some sense and to some
extent must exist, in whatever world we are.
Christ manifestly struggled hard with temptation.
He found wa< chfulness, and the most powerful
opposition to temptation, indispensable to his per-
severance in holiness. " Is the servant above
his master, or the disciple above his Lord ?"

26. Nor does it imply that we are no longer
dependent on the grace of Christ, but the exact
opposite is implied. A state of entire and per-
manent sanctilication implies the most constant
and perfect reliance upon the grace and strength
of an indwelling Christ. It seems to have been
supposed by some that entire sanctification im-
plies that something has been done which has
so changed the nature of the sanctified soul,
that ever after he will persevere in holiness in
his own strength. I suppose this to be as far as
possible from the truth, and that no change
whatever has occurred in the nature of the
individual, but simply that he has learned to
confide in Christ at every step. He has so re-
ceived Christ's strength as to lean constantly
upon his supporting grace.

27. Nor does it imply that the Christian war-

H,>

VIEWS OF

. i

i I

1 ; 1

; 'I

■

ii ■

1 '

fare is ended. I understand the Christian war-
fare to consist in the mind's conflict with tempta-
tion. This certainly will never end in this life.

28. Nor does it imply that there is no more
growth in grace. Many persons seem to under-
stand the command "Grow in grace," as imply-
ing the gradual giving up of sin. They suppose
that when persons have done smning, there is no
more room for growth in grace. Now it is said
of Christ that he grew in grace, where the same
original word is used as in the command. "He
increased in stature, and in wisdom, and in favor
{chat'iti grace) with God and man." If growth
in grace implies the gradual giving up of sin,
then God has commanded men not to give up
their sins at once. They must give them up
gradually. The truth is that growth in grace
implies the relinquishment of sin to begin with.
To grow in grace is to grow in the favor of God.
And what would the Apostle have said, had he
supposed that the requirement to grow in grace,
would have been understood by an orthodox
Church to require only the gradual relinquish-
ment of their sins ? I suppose that saints will
continue to grow in grace to all eternity, and in
the knowledge of God. But this does not imply
that they are not entirely holy, when they enter
heaven, or before.

29. Nor does it imply that others will recog-
nize it to be real sanctification. With the present
views of the church in regard to what is implied
in entire sanctification, it is impossible that a
really sanctified soul should be acknowledged
by the Church as such. And with these views

SANCTIFICATION.

of the Church, there is no doubt but sanctified
beHevers would be set at naught, and denounced
by the great mass of Christians as possessing any
other than a sanctified spirit.

It was insisted, and positively beheved by the
Jews, that Jesus Christ was possessed of a wick-
ed, instead of a holy spirit. Such were their no-
tions of holiness, that they no doubt supposed
him to be actuated by any other than the Spirit
of God. They especially supposed so on ac-
count of his opposition to the current orthodoxy,
and the ungodliness of the religious teachers of
the day. Now, who'does not see that when the
Cimrch is in a great measure conformed to the
world, that a spirit of lioliness ^.n any man would
certainly lead him to aim the sharpest rebukes at
the spirit and life of those in this state, whether
in high or low places. And who does not see
that this would naturally result in his being ac-
cused of possessing a wicked spirit ?

The most violent opposition that I have ever
seen manifested to any persons in my life, has
been manifested by members of the Church, and
even by some ministers of the gospel, towards
those who 1 believe were among the most holy
persons I ever knew. I have been shocked, and
wounded beyond expression, at the almost fiend-
ish opposition to such persons, that I have wit-
nessed.

I have several times of late observed that wri-
ters in newspapers were calling for examples of
Christian Perfection or entire sanctification. Now
I would humbly inquire, of what use it is to
point the Church to examples so long as they do

VIEWS OF

not know what is, and what is not implied in a
state of entire sanctification ? I would ask, are
the Church agreed among themselves in regard
to what constitutes this state ? Are any consid-
erable number of ministers agreed among them-
selves as to what is implied in a state of entire
sanctification ? Does not every body know that
the Church and the ministry are in a great meas-
ure in the dark upon this subject ? Why then
call for examples? No man can profess to have
attained this state without being sure to be set at
naught as a hypocrite, and a self-deceiver.

30. It is not implied in this state that the sanc-
tified soul will himself, always and at all times,
be sure that his feelings and conduct are perfectly
right. Cases may occur in which he may be in
doubt in regard to the rule of duty ; and be at a
loss, without examination, reflection, and prayer,
to know whether in a particular case he has done
and felt exactly right. If he were sure that he
understood the exact application of the law of
God to that particular case, his consciousness
would invariably inform him whether or not he
was conformed to that rule. But in any and every
case where he has not a clear apprehension of
the rule, it may require time and. thought, and
prayer, and diligent inquiry to satisfy his mind
in regard to the exact moral quality of any par-
ticular act or state of feeling ; for example, a man
may feel himself exercised with strong indigna-
tion in view of sin. And he may be brought
into doubt whether the indignation, in kind or
degree, was not sinful. It may therefore require
self-examination and deep searching of heart to

MMi

SANCTIFICATION.

decide this question. That all indignation is not
sinful is certain. And that a certain kind and de-
gree of indignation at sin is a duty, is also cer-
tain. But our most holy exercises may lay us
open to^the assaults of Satan. And he may so
turn our accuser as for a time to render it difficult
for us to decide in regard to the real state of our
hearts. And thus a sanctified soul may be *' in
heaviness through manifold temptations."

31. Nor does it imply the same strength of holy
affection that Adam may have exercised before
he fell, and his powers were debilitated by sin.
It should never be forgotten that the mind in this
state of existence, is wholly dependent upon the
brain and physical system for its development.
In Adam, and in any of his posteritj^ any viola-
tion of the physical laws of the body, resulting
in the debility and imperfection of any organ or
system of organs, must necessarily impair the
vigor of the mind, and prevent its developing it-
self as it otherwise might have done. It is there-
fore entirely erroneous to say that mankind are
or can be, in this state of existence, perfect in as
high a sense as they might have been had sin
never entered the world, and had there been no
such thing as a violation of the laws of the physi-
cal constitution. The law of God requires only
the entire consecration of such powers as we
have. As these powers improve, our obligation
is enlarged, and will continue to be to all eternity.
For myself, I have very little doubt that the human
constitution is capable of being very nearly, if
not entirely renovated or recovered from the
evils of intemperance, by a right understanding

! ii:

■11
■•■il

VIEWS OF

f i£r

of, and an adherence to the laws of life and health.
So that aiter a few generations the human body
would be nearly if not entirely restored to its
primitive physical perfection. If this is so, the
time may come when obedience to the law of
God, will imply as great a strength and constancy
of affection as Adam was capable of exercising
before the fall. But if on the other hand, it be
true that any injury of the physical constitution
can never by wholly repaired — that the evils of
intemperance in respect to its effect upon the
body, are, in some measure at least, to descend
with men to the end of time, then no such thing
is implied in a state of entire sanctification, as
the same strength and permanency of holy affec-
tion in us that Adam might have exercised before
the fall.

To this it is objected, that the Son of God re-
quires of us now, all that strength and perfection
of service which we might have rendered, had
we never sinned. It is said that, although man
has, by his own, or by Adam's act, lost the power
or ability to render the same degree of service
which he might have rendered had he never sin-
ned, yet God's right to require this now impos-
sible service, is not eff cted by this inabilit}' —
that although man has rendered himself unable
to do all that he might have done but for his sin,
yet God has not lost the right to require this ser-
vice, notwithstanding this inability. If this is not
so, it is said that if man were utterly to annihila te
his ability, his obligation would cease. So that
a man by sinning, might annihilate his obligation
to obedience. To this I reply :

Had this objection come from that class

i3r

SANCTIFICATIUN.

of divines who deny the natural abihty of men
to obey the law of God, and who maintain that
no ability whatever is implied in obligation, it
had not been so surprising. But coming as it
does from those who maintain the natural ability
ofmen to comply with all the requirements of God,
and that natural ability is indispensable to obliga-
tion, and who hold the attainableness of entire
sanctification on the ground of natural ability, this
objection is truly wonderful. What consistency,
I beg leave to ask, is there in maintaining the
natural ability of sinners to do their whole duty,
and the instantaneous attainableness of a state
of entire sanctification on the ground of natural
ability, and at the same time, asserting that
although man has lost the power to render that
degree of service to God which he might have
rendered but for sin, yet the law holds him
bound to render all that service, notwithstanding.
Now what is this but both affirming and denying
natural ability at the same breath ? It cannot
be pretended with the least shadow of truth,
that man is able to render to God, as high and
perfect a service at the present time, as if he
had never sinned — as if he had never neglected
to know all that might be known of God — as if
he had fully developed his powers by universal
and perfect obedience. And if he is under obli-
gation to do so, notwithstanding this inability,
then to maintain the doctrine of natural ability,
or that men are naturally able to comply with all
the requirements of God, is absurd and a contra-
diction. For certainly man is naturally able to
do that only which, under the circumstances, is

VIEWS OF

possible. And nothing is possible to him which
he cannot accomplish by willing and honestly
endeavoring to do it. But who will maintain,
that, by willing, a drunkard can so restore his
shattered constitution, as in a moment to have all
those bodily energies, upon which the mind is
naturally dependent, restored to perfect health,
so as to render it possible for him to exercise the
same degree of mental vigor that he might have
exercised, but for his intemperance. Or who
will say that by willing, he can instantaneously
possess himself of all that degree of knowledge
of God, and of divine things which he might
have had, but for his past neglect. Who will
say, that by willing, he can instantaneously put
forth as fresh, and vigorous, and powerful, and
constant exercise of holy aftection^, as if his
powers had been fully developed b)' universal,
and perfect obedience, ever since he has had a
being? Certainly no man will take it upon him
to affirm this. Then, as a matter of fact, man is
unable to render to God what he might have done
but for his past sin.

And now the inquiry is, is he under obligation
to render the same service in degree as if his
powers were in that state of perfection in which
they would have been, had he never sinned ?
That this question should be answered in the
affirmative, by those who maintain the natural
ability of sinners, perfectly to obey God, is pass-
ing strange.

But it seems, they feel themselves called upon
to take this ground, to escape the necessity of
adopting what they conceive to be a wholly un-

SA\rTli-ir\TinN-,

•I

tenable position, viz., that if a man's impairinpj
his abiHty, does commensurately annihilate obli-
gation, then it follows, that should he utterly
destroy his ability to obey, his ability to sin would
cease. But here let me inquire, if this is not
really the fact. Cases often occur, in which men
destroy, for the time being, their own moral
agency, by rendering themselves insane ? Now
is it not universally admitted that a person in a
state of mental derangement, is as incapable of
moral action as a brute ? Is a man in a state of
insanity, a moral agent ? I answer, no. Can
he sin ? No. Was it ever maintained by any
moralist, that he could ? No. Nor does it mat-
ter, by what means he became deranged, if so
be that his insanity is real. It is true that courts
of law hold insane persons, under certain cir-
cumstances, as civilly amenable for their conduct.
When, for example, a man commits a crime in a
fit of intoxication, although at the time, it should
be manifest that he was deranged, yet they
will punish him for the deed, as if he had com-
mitted it in the sober exercise of his reason.
But the principle upon which they proceed in
this case, is that that act, by which he became
insane, viz., his becoming drunk, involves the
guilt of the crime which was committed during
the fit of intoxication. Not that courts of law
ever maintain, that, in such cases, the criminal
was a moral agent at the time of his insanity.
But they hold him civilly responsible for his con-
duct, or rather punish him for drinking himself
drunk. This they consider as the real thing
in which his criminality consists, although in

4«

VIF.WS OI"

•i.

form he is condemned for the crime of wliich it
was the cause.

Now just so in the case of sinners under the
government of God, when by their own act, they
abridge their capabiHty to render to God, as high
and perfect a service as they might have" done,
their sin lies in that act which abridged their
ability. This act involves in it the whole guilt
of all the default of which it is the cause. Hut
their guilt does not lie at all in their neglect to
do what, after this inability has occurred, they are
utterly unable to do. When their powers of
moral agency are either destroyed or impaired,
by Adam's act — by their parents' act — or by their
own act, they are not, and cannot, by any possi-
bility, be under any obligation to use powers
which they do not possess. And God has no
right to require it of them. But he has a right
to hold them responsible, and punish them to all
eternity for the act, or neglect that impaired or
annihilated their ability. And except they repent
and are forgiven, for this abuse of their constitu-
tion, it is certain that he will punish them for-
ever.

Now this view of the subject is not at all akin
to that which sets aside the claims of the law, by
introducing, through Christ, another rule of duty,
less opposed to the sinful inclinations of man,
than is the law of God. This sentiment, my
soul abhors. The law of God, no doubt is, and
always must remain the only rule of duty to
moral agents, in whatever world, or under what-
ever circumstances they may exist.

But the question which we are all along debating

SANc rii'iCA rioN'.

is, does the law of God lev^el its claims to the exact
measure of the natural ability of every moral
agent? — does it come to him as he is, and re-
quire the perfect use of his faculties as they are,
in his service ? — or does it require him to possess
other faculties, and to possess them in a different
state from what they really are ? This would be
plainly to require impossibilities. God might
as well command a man to undo all his sins
instead of repenting of them — to recall past time,
now to perform those duties to those sinners who
have long been dead, which might and ought to
have been performed while they were living.
Could God justly require this ? I answer : No,
no more than he could require a dead corpse to
raise itself from the dead. To perform that
which is naturally impossible, God never re-
quires. To affirm that he does, is a slander, and
a libel upon his character. When a sin has been
committed, a duty neglected, and the opportunity
and possibility of now performing it, has ceased,
the only requirement in respect to that is, that
we repent. And he no longer possesses the right
to require of us the performance of that which
has become naturally impossible, nor does he in
any instance claim or attempt tr exercise any
such authority as this.

32. Nor does it imply the formation of such
holy habits as shall secure obedience. Some
have said that it was absurd to profess a state of
entire sanctification, on the ground that it implies
not only obedience to the law of God, but such
a formation and perfection of holy habits as to
render it certain that we shall never again sin.

't 1

VIKWS ()K

And that a man can no more tell when he is en-
tirely sanctified, than he can tell how many holy
acts it will take to form holy habits ot such
strength that he will never again sin. To this I
answer:

(I.) The law of God has nothing to do with
requiring this formation of holy habits. It is
satisfied with present obedience. It only de-
mands at the present moment the full devotion of
all our powers to God. It never in any instance,
complains that we have not formed such holy
habits as to render it certain that we shall sin no
more.

(2.) If it be true that a man is never wholly
sanct'fied, until his holy habits are so fixed as to
render it certain that he will never sin again, then
Adam was not in a state of entire sanctification
previously to the fall, nor were the angels in
this state before their, fall.

(3,) If this sentiment be true, there is qpt a
saint nor an angel in heaven so far as we can
know, that can with the least propriety profess
entire sanctification ; for how do they know that
they have performed so many holy acts as to
have created such habits of holiness, as to render
it certain that they will never sin ?

(4.) Entire sanctification does not consist in
the formation of holy habits, nor at all depend
upon this. Both entire and permanent sanctifi-
cation are based alone upon the grace of God in
Jesus Christ. And perseverance in holiness is
to be ascribed alone to the influence of the in-
dwelling Spirit of Christ, instead oi being secured

SANCTIMCATION.

by any liabits of holiness which we have or ever
shall have formed.

33. Nor does it imply exemption from sorrow
or mental snffering;.

It was not so with Christ. Nor is it inconsist-
ent with our sorrowing tor our past sins, nor
sorrowing that we have not now the health and
vigor, and knowledge, and love, th.it we might
have had if we had sinned less; or sorrowing for
those around us — sorrowing in view of human
sinfulness, or suffering. These are all consistent
with a state of entire sanctification, and indeed
are the natural results of it.

34. Nor is it inconsistent with our living in
human society — with mingling in the scenes, and
engaging in the affairs of this world. Some have
supposed that t .) be holy, we must withdraw
from the world. Hence the absurd and ridicu-
lous practices of papists in retiring to monasteries,
and convents-^in taking the veil, and as they
say, retiring to a life of devotion. Now I sup-
pose this state of voluntary exclusion from hu-
man society, to be utterly inconsistent with any
degree of holiness, and a manifest violation of
the law of love to our neighbor.

35. Nor does it imply moroseness of temper
and manners. Nothing is farther from the truth
than this. It is said of Xavier, than whom, per-
haps, few holier men have ever lived, that " he
was so cheerful as often to be accused of being
gay." Cheerfulness is certainly the result of
holy affections. And sanctification no more im-
plies moroseness in this world than it does in
heaven.

>i-

A a;

1' K

r *

\ I

VIEWS OF

Before I proceed to the next head of my dis-
course, (having said these things, and given these
rules oi interpretation so that you can apply the
principle to many things I have not time to no-
tice) I wish to make the following remark :

In all the discussions I have seen upon this
subject, while it seems to be admitted that the
law of God is the standard of perfection, yet in
defining what constitutes Christian Perfection or
entire sanctification, men entirely lost; sight of
this standard, and seldom or never raise the
distinct inquiry, what does obedience to this law
imply, and what does it not imply. Instead of
bringinc;; every thing to this test, they seem to
lose sight of it. On the one hand they bring in
things that never were required by the law of
God, of man in his present state. Thus they lay
a stumbling block and a snare for the saints, to
keep them in perpetual bv.'>:dage, supposing that
this is the way to keep them humble, to place
the standard entirely above their reach. Or, on
the other hand, they really abrogate the law, so
as to m? ke it no longer binding. Or they so frit-
ter away what is realh/ implied in it, as to leave
nothing in its re^arements, but a kind of sickly,
whimsical, inefficient sentimentalism, or perfect-
ionism, which in its manifestations and results,
appears to me to be any thing else than that
which the law of Go^ requires.

IV. What is implied in entire Sanctification.

Under this head, I shall refer to and repeat
some things (as I have alre«idy done) which I

SANCTIFICATIUN.

Since

said a number of montj
the law of God.

Love is the sum ^f all that is implied in
entire sanctification. But I may and should be
asked what is the kind of love required ? I shall
consider.

I. Tlie kind of love to he exercised towards God,

(i.) It is to be love of the heart, and not a
mere emotion. B}^ the heart I mean the will.
Emotions, or what are generally termed feelings,
are always involuntary states of mind, and no
further than they are indirectly under the control
of the will, have they any character; i. e. they
are not choices or volitions, and of course do not
govern the conduct. Love, in the form of an
emotion, may exist in opposition to the will;
e. g. we may exercise emotions of love contrary
to our conscience and judgment, and in opposi-
tion to our- will. Thus the sexes often exercise
emotions of love towards those to whom a.U the
voluntary powers of the mind feel opposed, and
with whom they will not associate. So sinners
often desire to be Christians, and are exercised
wuth strong emotions on the subject of their sal-
vation, w^hile their will is entirely opposed to
God. And hypocrites are often exercised with
deep emotions of love to God, sorrow for sin,
and many other classes of emotions, v/hile their
will remains purely selfish, and wholly opposed
to God. It is true, that, in most cases, the emo-
tions are with the will. But they are sometimes
nay often opposed to it.

Now, it is a voluntary state of mind that the
law of God requires ; i, e. it lays its claims upon

m-^2

VIEWS OF

the will. The will controls the conduct. And
it is, therefore, of course, the love of (he heart
or will that God requires.

(2.) Benevolence is one of the modifications of
love which we are to exercise towards God. Be-
nevolence is good-willing. And certainly we are
bound to exercise this kind of love co God. It
is a dictate of reason, of conscience, of common
sense, and of immutable justice, that we should
exercise good and not ill-will to God. It matters
not whether he needs our good-will, or whether
our good or ill-will can in any way affect him.
The question does not respect his necessities , but
deserts.

GodV: well-being is certainly an infinite good
in itself, and consequentlv, we are bound to de-
sire it — to will it — to rejoice in it ; and to will it
and rejoice in it, in proportion to its intrinsic
importance. And as his well-being is certainly
a matter of infinite importance, we are under in-
finite obligation to will it with all our hearts.

(3.) Another modification of this love, is com-
placency or esteem. God's character is infinitely
good. We are therefore bound, not merely to
love him. with the love of benevolence ; but to
exercise the highest degree of complacency in
his character. To say that God is good and
lovely, is merely to say that he deserves to be
loved. If he deserves to be loved on account of
his goodness and love, then he deserves to be
loved in proportion to his goodness and loveli-
ness. Our obligation, therefore, is infinitely
great to exercise towards him the highest degree
pf the love of complacency of which we arq ca^

SANCTIFICATION.

And
; heart

ions of
. Be-
we are
»d. It
mm on
should
atters
lether
: him.
'5, but

good
to de-
ivill it
r in sic
:ainl3^
er in-
s.

cofn-
litely

ly to

It to

y in

and

tit of

v^eH-

tely

^ree
ca^

)

pable. These remarks are confirmed by the
Bible, by reason, by conscience, and by common
sense.

(4.) Another modification of this love is grati-
tude. As every moral being is constantly receiv-
ing favors from God, it is self-evident, that love
in the form of gratitude, or the exercise of perfect
gratitude, is universally obligatory.

(5.) Another peculiarity of this love which
must, by no means, be overlooked, is that it is
disinterested; i. e. that we do not love him for
selfish reasons, but that we love him for what he
is — with benevolence ; because his well-being is
an infinite good — with complacenc}^ because his
character is infinitely excellent — with the heart ;
because all virtue belongs to the heart. It is
plain, that nothing short of disinterested love, is
virtue. The Savior recognizes and settles this
truth, in Luke vi. 32 — 34: "For if ye love them
who love you, what thank have ye ? for sinners
also love those that love them. And if ye do
good to them who do good to you, what thank
have ye ? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to re-
ceive, what thank hav^e ye ? for sinners also lend
to sinners, to receive as much again." These
words epitomize the whole doctrine of the Bible
on this subject, and lay down the broad principle,
that to love God, or any one else, for selfish rea-
sons, is not virtue.

(6.) Another peculiarity of this love is that in
every instance it must he supreme. Any thing less
than supreme love to God, implies an idolatrous

Hit

^^ilii

,.. .(

VIEWS OF

state of mind. If any thing else is loved more
than God, that is our God.

I have been surprised to learn that some un-
derstand the term supreme, in a comparative,
and not in a superlative sense. The}^ suppose
that the law of God requires more than supreme
love. Webster's definition of supreme and su-
premely is " in the highest degree," " to the ut-
most extent." I understand the law to require
as high a state of devotion to God, of love and
actual service as the powers of body and mind
are capable of sustaining.

Observe, that God lays great stress upon the
degree of love. So that the degree is essential
to the kind of love. If it be not supreme in de-
gree it is wholly defective and in no sense accep-
table to God.

2. I will now consider the kind of love to be ex-
ercised towari'-i ur fellow men.

(i.) Itmu5< • < the love of the //^ar^, and not
mere desire or emotion. It is very natural to de-
sire the good o\ others — to pity the distressed —
and to feel strong emotions of compassion to-
wards those who are afflicted. But these emo-
tions are not virtue. Unless weivill there good,
as well as desire it, it is of no avail. James ii.
15, 16: *' If a brother or a sister be naked, and
destitute of daily food. And one of you say unto
them, Depart in peace, be you warmed and filled;
notwithstandir.g ye give them not those things
which are needful to the body ; what doth it
profit ?"

Here the Apostle fully recognizes the princi-
ple, that mere desire for the good of others,

SANCTIFICATION.

♦ which of

ici-
irs,

word

will satisfy itself with good

s in

course
stead of good deeds, is not virtue. If it

were good ivilling, nistead of good desiring^ it
would produce corresponding action ; and unless
it is good willing, there is no holiness in it.

(2.) Benevolence to men is a prime modifica-
tion of holy love. This is included in what 1
have said above, but needs to be expressly stated
and explained. It is plain dictate of reason, of
conscience, of common sense, and immutable
justice, that we should exercise good will towards
our fellow men — that we should will their good
in proportion to its relative importance — that we
should rejoice in their happiness, and endea-
vor to promote it, according to their relative value
in the scale of being.

(3.) Complacency towards those that are vir-
tuous, is another modification of holy love to
mqn. I say towards those that are virtuous^
because while we exercise benevolence towards
all, irrespective of their character, we have a
right to exercise complacency towards those only
who are holy. To exercise complacency to-
wards the wicked, is to be as wicked as they are.
But to exercise entire complacency in those that
are holy, is to be ourselves holy.

(4.) This love is to be in every instance equal.
By equal I do not mean that degree of love which
selfish beings have for themselves ; for this is
supreme. There is a grand distinction between
self-love and selfishness. Sell-love is that desire
of happiness and dread of misery which is found-
ed in the constitution of our nature. Selfishness
is the excess of self-love — it is making our own

!-!''iS

;|.W

VIEWS OF

happiness the supreme object of pursuit, because
it is our own. And not attaching that import-
ance to others' interests, and the happiness of
other beings, which their relative vahie demands.
A selfish mind is therefore in the exercise of the
supreme love of self.

Now the law of God does not require or per-
mit us to love our neighbor with this degree of
love, for that would be idolatry. But the com-
mand, " to love our neighbor as ourselves," im-
plies,

a. That we should love ourselves less than su-
premely, and attach no more importance to our
own interests and happiness than their relative
value demands; so that the first thing implied in
this command, is that we love ourselves less than
supremely, and that we love our neighbor with
the sai iC degree of love which it is lawful for us
to exercise towards ourselves.

b. Equal love does not imply, that we should
neglect our own appropriate concerns, and attend
to the affairs of others. God has appointed to
every man a particular sphere in which to act,
and particular affairs to which he must attend.
And this business, whatever it is, must be trans-
acted for God and not for ourselves. For a man,
therefore, to neglect his particular calling, under
the pretence of attending to the business of others,
is neither required or permitted by this law.

c. Nor are we to neglect our own families, and
the nature and education of our children, to at-
tend to that of others. " But if any provide not
for his own, especially for those of his own house,
he hath denied the faith, and is wor^e than aii

inl-

and

at-

not

|use,

SANCTIFiCATlO:^.

infidel." To these duties we are to attend for
God. And no man or woman is required or per-
mitted to neglect the children God has given
them, under the pretence of attending to the
families of others.

d. Nor does this law require or permit us to
squander our possessions upon the intemperate,
and dissolute, and improvident. Not that the
absolute necessities of such persons are in no
case to be relieved by us, but it is always to be
done in such a manner as not to encourage, but
to rebuke their evil courses.

e. Nor does this law require or permit us to
suffer others to live by sponging out of our pos-
ses5=ions, while they themselves are not engaged
in promoting the good of men.

/. Nor does it require or permit us to lend
money to speculators, or for speculating purposes,
or in any way to encourage selfishness.

g. But by equal love is meant, as I have said,
the same love in kind and degree, which it is
lawful for us to exercise towards ourselves. It
is lawful, nay, it is our duty to exercise a suita-
ble regard to our own happiness. The same
degree, we are required to exercise to all our
fellow men.

(5.) Another feature of holy love is that it is
impartial; that is, it extends to enemies as well as
friends. Else it is selfish love, and comes under
the reprobation of the Savior, in the passage
before quoted, Luke vi. 32 — 34: "For if ye love
them who love you what thank have ye ? for
sinners also do even the same," &c.

Now observe that this test must always be ap-

r 4

J »»W ili Bj >i>«»l<Mli l <» l l M t >IH illiliii i jx Kf

VIEWS Op

plied to the kind of love we exercise to our fellow
men, in order to understand its genrine'iess.
God's love is love to enemies. U was for his
eneniies that he gave his Son. Our love must
bt' th' -n ^e in kind — it must extend to enemies,
as well as friends. And il it does not, it is partial
and selfish.

2. Entire Sanctification implies, entire con-
formity of heart and life to all the known will ot
God, however it may be made known —to both
physical and moral law so far as they are known.

3. It implies such a perfect confidence in him
as to be willing that all events should be at his
sovereign disposal — such a confidence as to pre-
clude all carefulness and undue anxiety about
ourselves or our friends, our temporal or eternal
interest, the interests of the Churcn or of the
world. Let me be understood. I am as far as
possible from supposing a state of entire Siancti-
fication inconsistent with the greatest desire, and
most earnest and prevailing wrestlings with God
for blessings both spiritual and temporal upon
ourselves and the world. But I suppose that a
soul in a state of entire conformity to the v/ill of
God, will never so distrust his provid'^nce and
grace as to be thrown into a state of feverish
anxiety about any event. It will, on all occasions,
most sweetly acquiesce and rejoice in the will of
God, in whatever way that will is revealed.

4. Entire Sanctification implies a supreme dis-
position to glorify and serve God --that this is
the ruling principle of our life — that we live for
no lower or other end thar Ihis — that all other
things that we desire are esteemed as a means to

dis-
Ls is
for
:her
Is to

SanctikicaTIon.

this end — that life and health, and food and
raiment, and houses and furniture, and every
thing else that we possess are regarded by us as
a means to this one great absorbing end, the
Glory ol God.

5. It implies such a degree of energy in the
principle of love, as directly or indirectly to con*
trol every design and every voluntary action.

6. It implies an abiding sense of the presence
of God. From what I have already said, you
will understand me of course not to mean that
God is to be at all times the direct object of
thought, attention, and affection, but that there
should be such a sense of his presence at all
times as to have an important and efficient bear-
ing upon our whole lives. Every one kncws by
his own experience, what it is to have a kind of
sense, or consciousness, or felt conviction of the
prese ice of a person, who is not at the time, the
direct object of our thoughts. A man in the
presence of an earthly pirince, or of an august
court, or under the eye of a human judge, would
be continually awed, and restrained, and affected
with a kind of sense of where he was, and in
whose presence, and under whose eye he was
acting, although his mind might be so intensely
employed in the transaction of business as not
at all to make the judge or prince the object of
direct thought, attention or affection. In this
sense, I suppose a sauctifie.d soui will have an
abiding sense at all times and places, of the pres-
ence of God. And when the mind is withdrawn
from necessary pursuits, it will naturally return
to God, and be sensible of his presence in a vastly

j^<j

(vl

VIKWS OF

higher sense than this. It will be so impressed,
and melted, and affected by a sense of his pres-
ence as can never be expressed in words, but as
a matter of experience is familiar to all those
who walk with God.

7. It implies deep and uninterrupted com-
munion with God. But here let me correct a
mistake into which, as I think, some have fallen.
Many seem to recognize nothing as communion
with God except that sweet peace and joy, and
flowing and glowing love that the soul often ex-
periences in seasons of communion. But God
no doubt often has seasons of intercourse and
communion with the soul and with the sanctified
soul, in which he reminds it of past sins and fol-
lies. And in order to keep it in a sanctified state
he gives it such a view of its past history as to
fill it with unutterable shame, and self-abhor-
rence, and self-contempt. Now persons are apt
to conceive of this state of mind as a state of
darkness, and to conceive of themselves as being
under the hidings of God's countenance, when in
fact they are never perhaps more thoroughly in
the light than at such seasons. They are never
perhaps nearer to God than on such occasions.
To be sure their thoughts are not occupied with
those sweet and heavenly visions that fill the
mind with joy. Yet they are occupied with
considerations of no less importance, and no less
indispensable to continuing them in a state of
holiness, than those sweet truths which at other
times so greatly rejoice them.

8. It implies a greater dread of offending God
than of any other evil. This is implied in su-

SANCTl I'lLATloN.

f'3

preme love. It is a contradiction to say that we
love Ciod supremely, and yet do not dread offend-
ing Him so much as we dread some other evil.
If we love Him more than any earthly friend,
we shall dread to offend Him morethan to offend
that friend. 11 we love Him more than we do
ourselves, we shall dread offending Him more
than we do that evil should befall ourselves. If
he is dearer to us than our own souls we shall
dread remaining in sin more than we dread the
loss oi' our souls.

9. It implies the subjugation of all our appe-
tites and passions to the will of God. I have al-
ready said that the sin of Adam consisted in pre-
ferring the gratification of his appetites to doing
the will of God. This is the sin of all men.
This is the substance and the history of selfish-
ness. Now entire obedience to the law of God
does not imply that no appetite or susceptibility
of body or mind shall be gratified in opposition
to the known will of God. But on the other
hand, that "the whole body, soul, and spirit"
shall be held in a state of entire consecration to
God.

10. It implies the strictest employment of our
time in the acquisition of knowledge, and a con-
secration of what we already know to the service
of God.

I have before said that the legal maxim, " Ig-
norance of the law excuses no one," is true in
morals to but a limited extent, and that actual
knowledge is indispensable to obligation under
the government of God. This I think was suffi-
ciently proved by a reference to scripture testi-

VIKVVS OF

mony. I also said that in sins of ij^norance, the
sin consists in the ignorance itself, and not in
non-performance of that of which the mind has
no knowledge.

Now to avoid mistake, it is important to re-
mark here, that ignorance of our duty is always
a sin where we possess the means and opportu-
nities of information. In such cases, the guilt
of the ignorance is equal to all the default of
which it is the occasion. Strictly speaking, the
duty to do a thing does not and cannot attach un-
til the mind has a knowledge of that thing. Yet
if the means of knowledge are within reach of
the mind, the guilt is just as great as all the de-
fault of which this ignorance is the occasion. So
that courts of law do not inflict injustice in hold-
ing all the subjects of a government responsible
for not knowing the law, where the means of
knowledge are within their reach. Although they
are not in form pronounced guilty for their ignor-
ance, and punished for ;^hat specific offence, but
on the contrary are held responsible for breaches
of those laws of which they had no knowledge,
yet in fact no injustice is done them, as their
ignorance in such cases really deserves the pun-
ishment inflicted.

To this it maybe objected that God, under the
old dispensation, treated sins of ignorance as in-
volving less guilt than sins committed against
knowledge. To this I reply,

He did so. And the reason is very obvious.
The people possessed but very limited means of
information. Copies of the law were very scarce
and utterly inaccessible to the great mass of the

»» « ' »>«* !■ i i i *4i .ti. i | <,. r ,j i i wi

^-^~^^-' fH ii T'^ la i - Mit'i 1... £:-

SANCTIFICATION.

people. So that while he held them sufficiently
responsible to engage their memories to retain a
knowledge of their duty, and to search it out
with all diligence, yet it is plain that he held them
responsible in a vastly lower sense than he does
those who have higher means of information.
The responsibility of the heathen was less than
that of the Jews — that of the Jews less than that
of Christians — and that of Christians in the early
ages of the Church, before the canon of scripture
was full and copies multiplied, much less than
that of Christians at the present day.

II. It implies the complete annihilation of self-
ishness under all its forms, and a practical and
hearty recognition of the rights and interests of
our neighbor. Let me point out by a few speci-
fications, what the law of God prohibits and
what it requires in these particulars as 1 have
stated elsewhere.

(i.) It prohibits all supreme self-love, or self-
ishness. The command, " Love thy neighbor as .
thyself," implies, not that we should love our
neighbor supremely, as selfish men love them-
selves ; but that we should . ve ourselves, in the
first place, and pursue our happiness, only ac-
cording to our relative value in the scale of be-
ing. But I need not dwell upon this ; as it will
not probably be doubted that this precept pro-
hibits supreme self-love.

(2.) It prohibits all excessive self-love: (i.e.)
every degree of love, that is disproportioned to
the relative value of our own happiness.

(3.) It prohibits the laying any practical stress
upon any interest, because it is our own,

4 M

VIEWS OF

(4.) It prohibits, of course, every degree of
ill-willy and ail those feelings that are necessarily
connected with selfishness.

(5.) It prohibits apathy and indifference in
regard to the well being of our fellow men. But,

(6.) It requires the practical recognition of the
fact, that all men are brethren — that God is the
great Parent — the great Father of the universe —
that all moral agents every where are his children
— and that he is interested in the happiness of
every individual, according to its relative impor-
tance. He is no respecter of persons. But so
far as the love of bene volence is concerned, he
loves all moral beings in proportion to their capa-
city of receiving and doing good.

Now the law of God evidently takes all this
for granted, and that " God hath made of one
blood all nations of men, to dwell on all the face
of the earth."

(7.) It requires that every being and interest
should be regarded and treated by us according
to its relative value ; that is — that we should re-
cognize God's relation to the universe, and our
relation to each other, and treat all men as our
brethren — as having an inalienable title to our
good will as citizens of the same government,
and members of the great family of God.

(8.) It requires us to exercise as tender a re-
gard to our neighbor's reputation^ interest, and
lif ell-being y in all respects, as to our own — to be
as unwilling to mention his faults, as to have our
own mentioned — to hear him slandered as to be
slandered ourselves. In short, he is to be es-
teemed by us, as our brother.

SANCTIFICATION.

gree of
essarily

ence in
1. But,
n of the
1 is the
verse —
hildren
ness of
impor-
But so
ed, he
r capa-

ill this
of one
le face

iterest
ording
Lild re-
d our
as our
o our
iment,

r a re-
f, and
-to be
veour
to be
)e es-

(9.) It justly reprobates any violation of the
great principle of equal love, as rebellion against
the whole universe. It is rebellion against God,
because it is a rejection of his authority — and
selfishness, under any form, is a setting up of our
own interests in opposition to the interests of the
universe of God.

12. Entire sanctification implies a willingness
to exercise self-denial, even unto death, for the
glory of God and good of man, did they require
it. The Apostle teaches us that *' we ought to
be willing to lay down our lives for the brethren,"
as Christ laid dowr '^is.

We have now arrived at a very important point
in the discussion of this subject, and I beg your
patient attention. Having shown,

1 . What I mean by the term sanctification ;

2. What entire sanctification is ;

3. The difference between entire^ and permanent
sanctification ;

4. What is not implied, and

5. What is implied in entire sanctification ;

I am next, according to my plan, to show,

VI. That entire and permanent sanctification is
attainable in this life,

I. It is self-evident that entire obedience to
God's law is possible on the ground of natural
ability. To deny this, is to deny that a man is
able to do as well as he can. The very language
of the law is such as to level its claims to the
capacit}^ of the subject, however great or small

I01

■ m

VIEWS OF

that capacity may be. " Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy
soul, with all thy mind and with all thy strength."
Here then it is plain, that all the law demands,
is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in
the service of God. Now, as entire sanctifica-
tion consists in perfect obedience to the law of
God, and as the law requires nothing more than
the right use of whatever st^'ength we have, it is
of course forever settled that a state of entire and
permanent sanctification is attainable in this life
on the ground of natural ability.

This is generally admitted by those who are
called New School divines. Or perhaps I should
say, it generally has been admitted by them,
though at present some of them seem inclined to
give up the doctrine of natural ability, and take
refuge in physical depravity, rather than admit
the attainableness of a state of entire sanctifica-
tion in this life. But let men take refuge where
they will, they can never escape from the plain
letter and spirit and meaning of the law of God.
Mark with what solemn emphasis it says, Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
with all thy soul, with all thy mind and with all
thy strength. This is its solemn injunction,
whether it be given to an angel, a man or a
child. An angel is bound to exercise an angel's
strength ; a man, the strength of a man ; and
a child the strength of a child. It comes to
every moral being in the universe just as he
is, and where he is, and requires, not that he
should create new powers, or possess other
powers than he has, but that such as his powers

\ M

..!<

pve the

all thy
Jngth."
nands,
lave, in
:tifica-
iaw of
e than
e, it is
eand
is life

are
hould
them,
ed to

take
idmit
ifica-
'^here
plain
God.
^hou
eart,

1 all
ion,
3r a
rel's
and

; to

he
her
ers

SANCTIFICATION.

are, they should all be used with the utmost
perfection and constancy for God. And to use
the language of a respected brother, '* If we
could conceive of a moral pigmy, the law levels
its claims to his capacities, and says to him,
" Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy strength.'" And should a man
by his ov>rn fault render himself unable to use one
of his hands, one eye, one foot, or any power of
body or mind, the law does not say to him in such
case, use all the powers and all the strength you
might have had, but only use what powers and
what strength remain. It holds him guilty and
condemns him for that act or neglect which di-
minished his ability, and pronounces upon him
a sentence commensurate with all the guilt of all
the default of which that act was the cause. But
it no longer in any instance requires the use of
that power of body or mind which has been de-
stroyed by that act.

2. The provisions of grace are such as to ren-
der its actual attainment in this life, the object
of reasonable pursuit. It is admitted that the
entire and permanent sanctificationof the Church
is to be accomplished. It is also admitted that
this work is to be accomplished ** through the
sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the
truth." It is also universally agreed that this
work must be begun here ; and also that it must
be completed before the soul can enter heaven.
This then is the inquiry :

Is this state attainable as a matter of fact before
death ; and if so^ when, in this life, may we ex-
pect to attain it ?

It is easy to see that this question can be set-

^■.

III

VIEWS OF

tied only by a reference to the Word of God.
And here it is of fundamental importance that
we understand the rules by which Scripture de-
clarations and promises are to be interpreted. 1
have already given several rules in the light of
which we have endeavored to interpret the mean-
ing of the law. I will now state several plain
common-sense rules by which the promises are
to be interpreted. The question in regard to
the rules of Biblical interpretation, is funda-
mental to all religious inquiry. Until the Church
are agreed to interpret the Scriptures in accord-
ance with certain fixed and undeniable prin-
ciples, they can never be agreed in regard to
what the Bible teaches. I have often been
amazed at the total disregard of all sober rules
of Biblical interpretation. On the one hand
the threatenings, and on the other the promises,
are either thrown away, or made to mean some-
thirjg entirely different from that which was in-
tended by the Spirit of God. I have much to
sa}' on this subject, and design, the Lord willing,
to make the rules of Biblical interpretation the
subject of distinct inquiry at another time. At
present I will only mention a few plain common-
sense and self-evident rules for the interpretation
of the promises. In the light of these we may
be able to settle the inquiry before us, viz. :
whether the provisions of grace are such as to
render entire and permanent sanctification, in
this life, an object of reasonable pursuit.

(i.) The language of a promise is to be inter-
preted by a reference to the known character of
him who promises, where this character is re-

SANCTIFICATION.

vealed and made known in other ways than by
the promise itself; e. g.

a. If the promiser is known to be of a very
bountiful disposition, or the opposite of this,
these considerations should be taken into the
account in interpreting the language of his pro-
mise. If he is of a very bountiful disposition, he
may be expected to mean all that he seems to
mean in the language of his promise, and a very
liberal construction should be put upon his
language. But if his character is known to be
the opposite of bountifulness, and it is known
that whatever he promised would be given with
great reluctance, his language should be con-
strued strictly.

b. His character for hyperbole and extrava-
gance in the use of language should be taken into
the account in interpreting his promises. If it
be well understood that the promiser is in the
habit of using extravagant language- — of saying
much more than he means — this circumstance
should, in all justice, be taken into the account
in the interpretation of the langi^ges of his pro-
mises. But on the other hand, if he be known
to be an individual of great candor, and to use
language with great circumspection and pro-
priety, we may freely understand him to mean
what he says. His promise may be in figurative
language and not to be understood literally, but
in this case even, he must be understood to mean
what the figure naturally and fully implies.

c. The fact should be taken into the account,
whether the promise was made deliberately or in
circumstances of great but temporary excitement.

'H".

^ '

VIEWS OF

If the promise was made deliberately, it should
be interpreted to mean what it says. But if it
were made under great but temporary excitement,
much allowance is to be made for the state of
mind which led to the use of such strong lan-
guage.

(2.) The relation of the parties to each other
should be duly considered in the interpretation of
the language of a promise ; for example, the
promise of a father to a son admits of a more
liberal and full construction than if the promise
were made to a stranger, as the father may be
supposed to cherish a more liberal and bountiful
disposition towards a son than towards a person
in whom he has no particular interest.

(3.) The design of the promiser in relation to
the necessities of the promisee or person to
whom the promise is made, should be taken into
J.he account. If it be manifest that the design
of the promiser was to meet the necessities of
the promisee, then his promise must be so under-
stood as to meet these necessities.

(4.) If it be* manifest that the design of the
promiser was to meet the necessities of the prom-
isee, then the extent of these necessities should
be taken into the account in the interpretation
of the promise.

(5.) The interest of the promiser in the accom-
plishment of his design, or in fully meeting and
relieving the necessities of the promisee, should
be taken into the account. If there is the most
satisfactory proof, aside from that which is con-
tained in the promise itself, that the promiser
feels the highest interest in the promisee and in

SANCTIFICATION.

fully meeting and relieving his necessities, then
his promise must be understood accordingly.

(6.) If it is known that the promiser has exer-
cised the greatest self-denial and made the great-
est sacrifice for the promisee, in order to render
it proper or possible for him to make and fulfil
his promises, in relation to the relieving h's ne-
cessities, the state of mind implied in this con-
duct, should be fully recognized in interpreting
the language of the promise. It would be utter-
ly unreasonable. and absurd in such a case to re-
strict and pare down the language of his promise
so as to make it fall entirely short of what might
reasonably be expected of the promiser, from
those developments of his character, feelings, and
designs, which were made by the great self-denial
he has exercised and the sacrifices he has made.

(7.) The bearing of the promise upon the in-
terests of the promiser should also be taken into
the account. It is a general and correct rule of
interpretation, that when the thing promised has
an injurious bearing upon the interest of the
promiser, and is something which he cannot well
afford to do, and might therefore be supposed to
promise with reluctance, the langiiage in such a
case is to be strictly construed. No more is to
be understood by it than the strictest construction
will demand.

(8.) But if on the other hand the thing prom-
ised will not impoverish, or in any way be mim-
ical to the interests of the promiser, no such con-
struction is to be resorted to.

(9.) Where the thmg promised is that which
the promiser has the greatest delight in doing or

1 %m

•n

■ I

lil

VIEWS OF

bestowing; and where he a:coi "*'-k it 'more
blessed to give than to receive;" ai- i Wii re it is
well known by other revelations ot' hi: vjharn/'ter,
and by his own express and often repeated dec-
larations, that he has the highest satisfaction and
finds his own happiness in bestowing favors npon
the promisee, in this case the most liberal con-
struction should be put upon the promise, and he
is to be understood to mean all that he says.

(lo.) The resources and ability of the prom-
iser to meet the necessities of th&promisee with-
out injury to himself, are to be considered. If a
physician should promise to restore a patient to
perfect health, it might be unfair to undej:stand
him as meaning ail that he says. If he so far
restored the patient as that he recovered in a
great measure from his di-^ease, it might be rea-
sonable to suppose that this was all he really in-
tended, as the known inability of a physician to
restore an individual to perfect health might
reasonably modify our understanding of the
language of his promise. But when there can
be no doubt as to the ability, resources, and
willingness of the physician to restore his patient
to perfect health, then we are, in all reason and
justice, required to believe he means all that he
says. If God should promise to restore a man
io perfect health who was diseased, there can be
no doubt that his promise should be understood
to mean what its language imports.

(ii.) When commands and prohiises are given
by one person to another, in the same language,
in both cases it is to be understood alike, unless
there be some manifest reason to the contrary.

^ !

H •/

SANCTIFIC.N'^ION.

7»

SS
V.

(i2.) If neither the language, connection, nor
circumstances, demand a diverse interpretation,
we are bound to understand the same language
alike in both cases.

(13.) I have said we are to interpret the lan-
guage of law so as to consist with natural justice.
I now say, that we are to interpret the language
of the promises so as to consist with the known
greatness, re* ources, goodness, bountifulness, re-
lations, design, happiness, and glory of the
promiser.

(14.) If his bountifulness is equal to his justice,
his promises of grace must be understood to
mean as much as the requirements of his jiistice.

(15.) If he delights in giving as much as in
receiving, his promises must mean as much as
the language of his requirements.

(16.) If he is as merciful as he is just, his
promises of mercy must be as liberally construed
as the requirements of his justice.

(17.) If *'he delighteth in mercy," if himself
says "judgment is his strange work," and mercy
is that in which he has peculiar satisfaction, his
promises of grace and mercy are to be construed
even more liberally than the commands and
threatenings of his justice. The language in this
case is to be understood as meaning quite as
much as the same language would in any suppo-
sable circumstances.

(18.) Another rule of interpreting and apply-
ing the promises, which has been extensively
overlooked, is this, that the promises are all
** yea and amen in Christ Jesus." They are all
founded upon and expressivr of great and im-

VIEWS OF

mutable principles of God's government. God
is no respecter of persons. He knows nothing
of favoritism. But when he makes a promise,
He reveals a principle of universal application
to all persons in like circumstances. Therefore
the promises are not restricted in their applica-
tion to the individual or individuals to whom
they were first given, but may be claimed by all
persons in similiar circumstances. And what
God is at on :, time, He always is. What he has
promised at one time or to one person, He pro-
mises at all times to all persons under similar
circumstances. That this is a correct view of
the subject is manifest from the manner in which
the New Testament wi iters understood and ap-
plied the promises of the Old Testament. Let
any person, with a reference Bible, read the New
Testament with a design to understand how its
writers applied the promises of the Old Testa-
ment, and he will see this principle brought out
in all its fulness. The piomises made to Adam,
Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs, and to the in-
spired men of every age, together with the pro*
mises made to the Church, and indeed all the
promises of spiritual blessings — it is true of them
all, that what God has said and promised once,
He always says and promises, to all persons and
at all times, and in all places, where the circum-
stances are similar.

Having stated these rule^, in the light of which
we are to interpret the language of the promises,
I will say a few words in regard to the question
when a promise becomes due, and on what con-
ditions we may realize itsfulfiin^ent. I have said

SANCTIFICATION.

some of the same things in the first vohmie of
the EvangeHst. But I wish to repeat them in
this connection, and add something more.

(i.) All the promises of sanctification in the
Bible, from their very nature, necessarily imply
the exercise of our own agency in receiving the
thing promised. As sanctification consists in
the right exercise of our own agency, or in obe-
dience to the law of God, a promise of sanctifi-
cation must necessarily be conditioned upon the
exercise of faith in the promise. And its fulfil-
ment implies the exercise of our own powers in
receiving it.

(2.) It consequently follows^ that a promise of
sanctification, to be of any avail to us, must be
due at some certain time, expressed or implied
in the promise : That is, the time must be so
fixed, either expressly or impliedly, a^ to put
us into the attitude of waiting for its fulfil,
ment, with daily or hourly expectation of receiv-
ing the blessing ; for if the fulfilment of the
promise implies the exercise of our own agency,
the promise is a mere nullity to us, unless we are
able to understand when it becomes due, or at
what time we are to expect and plead its fulfil-
ment. The promise of Christ to the Apostles
concerning the outpouring of the Spirit on the
da)' of Pentecost, may illustrate my meaning.
He had promised that they should receive the
baptism of the Holy Spirit not many days hence,
This was sufficiently definite to b/ing t^em into
an attitude of continual waiting upon the Lord,
with the daily and hourly expectation of receiv-
ing the promise. And as the baptism of the Holy

^m^.

VIEWS OF

Spirit, involved the exercise of their own agency,
it is easy to see that this expectation was indis-
pensible to their receiving the blessing. But
had they understood Christ to promise this bless-
ing at a time so indefinitely future as to leave
them without the daily expectation of receiving
it, they might, and doubtless would, have gone
about their business until some further intimation
on his part that he was about to bestow it, had
brought them into an attitude of waiting for its
fulfilment.

(3.) A promise in the present tense is on de-
mand. In other words, it is always due, and its
fulfilment may be plead and claimed by the pro-
misee at any time.

(4.) A promise due at a future specified time,
is after that time on demand, and may at any
time thereafter be plead as a promise in the
present tense.

(5.) A great many of the Old Testament pro-
mises became due at the advent of Christ.
Since that time they are to be considered and
used as promises in the present tense. The Old
Testament saints could not plead their fulfil-
ment to them ; because they were either express-
ly or impliedly informed, that they were not to
be fulfilled until the coming of Christ. All that
class of promises, therefore, that became due
*'in the last days," *' at the end of the world,"
that is, the Jewish dispensation, are to be re-
garded as now due or as promises in the present
tense. ^

(6.) Notwithstanding these promises are now
due, yet they are expressly or impliedly condi'

SANCTIFICATION.

ency,
iiidis-
But
jJess-
leave

tinned upon the exercise of faith, and the right
use of the appropriate m6ans, by us, to receive
their fulfilment.

(7.) When a promise is due, we may expect
the fulfilment of it at once or gradually, accord-
ing to the nature of the blessing. The promise
that the world shall be converted in the latter
day, does not imply that we are to expect the
world to be converted at any one moment ot
time ; but that the Lord will commence it at
once, and hasten it in its time, according to the
faith and efforts of the Church. On the other
hand, when the thing promised may in its nature
be fulfilled at once, and when the nature of the
case makes it necessary that it sljould be, then
its fulfilment may be expected whenever we
exercise faith.

(8.) There is a plain distinction between pro-
mises of grace and of glory. Promises of glory
are of course not to be fulfilled until we arrive
at heaven. Promises of gra^e, unless there be
some express or implied reason to the contrary,
are to be understood as applicable to this life.

(9.) A promise also may be unconditional in
one sense, and conditional in another ; for ex-
ample, promises made to the Church as a body
may be absolute and their fulfiln\ent be secure
and certain, sooner or later, while their fulfil-
ment to any generation of the Church, or to any
particular individuals of the Church, may be and
must be conditional upon their faith and the ap-
propriate use of means. Thus the promise of
God, that the Church should possess the land
of Canaan was absolute and unconditional in

i ;/

if ij

VIEWS OF

such a sense as that the Church, at some period,
would, and certainly must, take possession of
that la!id. But the promise was conditional in
the ~ense that the entering into possession, by
any generation, depended entirely upon their
own faith and the appropriate use of means.
So the promise of the world's conversion, and
the sanctification of the Church under the reign
of Christ, is unconditional in the sense, that it
is certain that those events will at some time
occur, but when thev will occur — what genera-
tion of individuals shall receive this blessing, is
necessarily conditioned upon their faith. This
principle is plainly recognized by Paul in Heb.
iv. 6, II : "Seeing therefore it remaineth that
some must enter therein, and they to whom it
was first preached entered not in because of un-
belief;" "Let us labor therefore to. enter into
that rest, lest any man fall after the same ex-
ample of unbelief."

I come now^ to consider the question directly,
and wholly as a Bible question, whether entire
and permanent sanctification is in such a sense
attainable in this life as to make its attainment
an object of rational pursuit.

Let me first, however, reccll your attention to
what this blessing is. Simple obedience to the
law oi God is what I understand to be present,
and its continuance to be permanent sanctifica-
tion. The law is and forever must be the only
standard. Whatever departs from this law on
either side, must be false. Whatever requires
more or less than the law of God, I reject as
having nothing to do with the question.

It will not be my design to examine a great

SANCTIFICATION.

number of scripture promises, but rather to show
that those which I do examine, fully sustain the
position I have taken. One is sufficient, if it be
full and its application just, to settle this question
forever. T might occupy many pages in the ex-
amination of the promises, for they are exceed-
ingly numerous, and full, and in point. But as
I have already given several lectures on the
promises, my design is now to examine only a
lew of them, more critically than I did before.
This will enable you to apply the same princi-
ples to the ^examination of the scripture promises
generally.

I. I begin by referring you to the law of God,
as given in Deut. x. 12 : "And now, Israel, what
doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to
fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways,
and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul." Upon
this passage I remark :

(i.) It professedly sums up the whole duty of
man to God — to fear and love Him with all the
heart, and all the soul.

(2.) Although this is said of Israel, yet it is
equally true of all men. It is equally binding
upon all, and is all that God requires of any man
in rega*-d to himself.

(3.) Obedience to this requirement is entire
,sanctification.

See Deut. xxx. 6: ''And the Lord thy God
will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine
heart, aud with all thy soul, that thou mayest
live." Here wt have a promivse couched in tlie

ill

VIEWS OF

same language as the command just quoted. Upon
this passage I remark:

(i.) It promises just what the law requires. It
promises all that the first and great command-
ment any where requires.

(2.) Obedience to the first commandment al-
ways implies obedience to the second. It is
plainly impossible that we should "love God,
whom we have not seen," and "not love our
neighbor whom we have se-n."

(3.) This promise, on its very face, appears to
mean just what the law means — to promise just
what the law requires.

(4.) If the law requires a state of entire sancti-
fication, or if that which the law requires is a
state of entire sanctification, then this is a pro-
mise of entire sanctification.

(5.) As the command is universally binding
upon all and applicable to all, so this/promise is
universally applicable to all who will lay hold
upon it.

(6.) Faith is an indispensible condition to the
fulfilment of this promise. It is entirely impos-
sible that we should love God with all the heart,
without confidence in Him. God begets love in
man in no other way than by so revealing Him-
self as to inspire confidence, — that confidence
which works by love. In Rules 10 and 11, for
the interpretation of the promises, it is said, that
" Where a command and a promise are given in
the same language, we are bound to interpret the
language alike in both cases, unless there be sonr^e
manifest reason for a ifferent interpretation.''
Now here, there is n^ perceivable reason why

«L_

SANCTIFICATION.

we should not understand the language of the
promise as meaning as much as the language of
the command. This promise appears to have
been designed to cover the whole ground of the
requirement.

(7.) Suppose the language in this promise to
be used in a command, or suppose that the form
of this promise were changed into that of a com-
mand. Suppose God should say as He does
elsewhere, *' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all th}^ heart and with all thy soul;" who
would doubt that God designed to require a state
of entire sanctification or consecration to Him-
self. How, then, are we to understand it when
used in the form of a promise? See Rules 14 and
15: " If His bountifulness equal His justice. His
promises of grace must be understood to mean
as much as the requirements of His justice." "If
He delights in givmg as much as in receiving,
His promises must mean as much as the language
of His requirements."

(8.) This promise is designed to be fulfilled in
this life. The language and connection imply
this: " I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart
of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul."

(9.) This promise, as it respects the church, at
some day, must be absolute and certain. So that
God will undoubtedly, at some period, beget this
state of mind in the Church. But to what par-
ticular individuals and generation this promise
will be fulfilled must depend upon their faith in
the promise.

2, See Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34; "Behold, Che days

i>i

l!ln

;

VIEWS OF

come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Judah ; not according to the covenant
that I made with their fathers, ii the day that I
took them by the hand, to bring Ihem out of the
land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake,
although I was a husband unto them, saith the
Lord ;) but this shall, be the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel ; After those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward
parls, and write it in their hearts ; and will be
their God, and they shall be my people. And
they shall teach no more every man his neighbor
and every man his brother, saying, know the
Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least
of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord :
for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remem-
ber their sin no more." Upon this passage, I
remark :

(i.) It vv^as to become due, or the time its ful-
filment might be claimed and expected, w^as at
the advent of Christ. This is unequivocally
settled in Heb. viii. 8 — 12, where this passage is
quoted at length as being applicable to the gos-
pel day.

{2.) This is unden'.:*!.!}^ ?.. promise of entire
sanctification. It is a pn>u;ise that the <'law
shall be written in the heart ' It n^eans that the
very temper and spiri: leqiiire^^ by tite law shall
be begotten in the soul. 1\ ow \i the law requires
entire sanctification 01 pef'evt boliress, this is
certainly a promise of it ; for jJ- is a promise of
all that the law requires, f • r-.irj that this is not
a promise of entire sanctification, is the same ab-

SANCTIFICATION.

new
the.
ant
lat I

the
ke,
the
viJl

surdity as to say, that perfect obedience to the
law is not entire sanctification ; and this last is
the same absurdity as to say that something
more is our duty than what the law requires ;
and this again is to say that the law is imperfect
and unjust.

(3.) A permanent state of sanctification is
plainly implied in this promise.

a. The reason for setting aside the first cove-
nant was, that it was broken : " Which my cove-
nant they brake." Onegraad design of the New
Covenant is, that it shall not be broken, for then
it will be no better than the first.

b. Permanency is implied in the fact, that it is
to be engraven in the heart.

e. Permanency is plainly implied in the asser-
tion, that God will remember their sins no more.
In Jer. xxxii. 39-40, where the same promise is
in substance repeated, you will find it expressly
stated that the covenant is to be '' everlasting ; "
and that he will so " put His fear in their hearts
that they shall not depart from Him." Here per-
manency is as expressly promised as it can be.

d. Suppose the language of this promise to be
thrown into the form of a command. Suppose
God to say, " Let my law be within your hearts,
and let it be in your inward parts, and let my fear
be so within your hearts that you shall not de-
part from me. Let your covenant with me be
everlasting." If this language were found in a
command, would any man in his senses doubt
that it meant perfect and permanent sanctifica-
tion ? If not, by what rule of sober interpreta-
tion doQS he make it mean anything else when

■jl

VIEWS OF

found in a promise ? It appears to be profane
trifling, when such language is found in a pro-
mise, to make it mean less than it does when
found in a command. See Rule 17.

(4.) This promise as it respects the Church, at
some period of its history, is unconditional, and
its fulfilment certain. But in respect to any par-
ticular individuals or generations of the Church,
its fulfilment is necessarily conditioned upon
their faith.

(5.) The Church as a body, have certainly
never received this new covenant. Yet doubt-
less multitudes, in every age of the Christian
dispensation, have received it. And God will
hasten the time when it shall be so fully accom-
plished, that there shall be no need for one man
to say to his brother, " Know ye the Lord, for
all shall know Him from the least to the greatest."

(6.) It should be understood that this promise
was made to the Christian Church and not at all
to the Jewish Church. The saints, under the old
dispensation, had no reason to expect the fulfil-
ment of this and kindred promises to themselves,
because their fulfilment was expressly deferred
until the commencement of the Christian dispen-
sation.

(7.) It has been said that nothing more is pro-
mised than regeneration. But were not the Old
Testament saints regenerated ? Yet it is expressly
said that they received not the promises. Heb.
xi. 13, 39, 40. "These all died in faith, not
having received the promises, but having seen
them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and
embraced them, and confessed that they were

SANCTIFICATION.

«7

strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "And these
all, having obtained a good report through faith,
received not the promise; God having provided
some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be made perfect." Here we see that
these promises were not received by Old Testa-
ment saints. Yet they were regenerated.

(8.) It has also been said that the promise
implies no more than the final perseverance of
the saints. But I would inquire, did not the Old
Testament saints persevere.'* And yet we have
just seen that the Old Testament saints did not
receive these promises in their fulfilment.

3. I will next examine the promise in Ezek.
xxxvi. 25-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your
iilthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse
you. A new heart also will I give you, and a
new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will
give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do
them." Upon this I remark:

(i.) It was written within nineteen years after
that which we have just examined in Jeremiah.
It plainly refers to the same time, and is a pro-
mise of the same blessing.

(2.) It seems to be admitted, nor can it be
denied, that this is a promise of entire sanctifi-
cation. The language is very definite and full.
" Then," referring to some future time when it
should become due, "will I sprinkle clean water
upon you and ye shall be clean." Mark the first

VIEWS OF

i it

I'
I

promise is, '*ye shall be clean.*' If to be "clean "
does not mean entire sanctification, what does it
mean ?

The second promise is, *' from all your filthi-
ness and from all your idols will I cleanse you."
If to be cleansed "from all filthmess and all
idols," be not a state of entire sanctification,
what is?

The third nromise is, "a new heart will I give
yoU: "ml 1 iiuvv spirit will 1 put within you; 1
will take away the &. ny heart out of your flesh
and will give you a heart of flesh." If to have a
"clean heart," a "new heart," a " heart of flesh,"
in opposition to«a "heart of s ^ne," be not entire
sanctification, what is?

The fourth promise is, " I will put my Spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes,
and ye shall keep my judgments to do them."

(3.) Let us turn the language of these promises
into that of command; and understand God as
saying, " Make you a clean heart, a new heart,
and a new spirit; put away all your iniquities,
all your filthiness, and all your idols ; walk in
my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do
them." Now, what man in the sober exercise of
his reason would doubt whether God meant to
require a state of entire sanctification in such

* commands as these? The rules of legal inter-
pretation would demand that we should so
understand Him. Rule 5: "The interest of the
promiser in the accomplishment of His design or
in fully meeting and relieving the necessities of

♦ the promisee, should also be taken into the ac-
count. If there is the most satisfactory proof,

■

SANCTIFICATION.

aside from that which is contained ir* the promise
itself, that the promiser feels the highest interest
in the promisee, and in fully meeting and relieving
his necessities, then His promise must be under-
stood accordingly. -

If this is so, what is the fair and proper
construction of this language when found in a
promise? I do not hesitate to say that to me it
is amazing that any doubt should be left on the
mind of any man, whether, in these promises,
God means as much as in His commands, couched
in the same language ; for example, see Ezekiel
xviii. 30-31 : •' Repent, and turn yourselves from
all your transgressions ; so iniquity shall not be
your ruin. Cast away from you all your trans-
gressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and
make you a new heart ard a new spirit; for why
will you die, O house of Israel?" Now that the
language in the promise under consideration
should mean as much as the language of this
command, is demanded by every sober rule of
interpretation. .And who ever dreamed that
when He required His people to put away all
their iniquities. He only meant that they should
put away a part of them.

{^.) This promise respects the Church, and it
cannot be pretended that it has ever been fulfilled
according to its proper import, in any past age
of the Church.

(5.) As it regards the Church at a future period
of its history, this promise is absolute, in the
sense that it certainly will be fulfilled.

(6.) It was manifestly designed to apply to
Christians under the new dispensation, rather

I 1 1

'■5-|

VIEWS OF

than to tlie Jews uncier the old dispensation.
The sprinkHnf; of clean water and the out-pour-
ing of the Spirit, seem plainlv to indicate that
the promise belonged more particularly to the
Christian dispensation. It undeniably belongs
to the same class of promises with that in Jer.
xxxi. 31 — 34, Joel ii. 28, and many others, that
manifestly 1<^ok forward to the gospel day as the
time when they shall become due. As these
promises have never been fulfdled, in their extent
and meaning, their complete fulfilment remains
to be realized by the Church as a body. And
those individuals and that generation will take
possession of the blessing, who understand and
believe and appropriate them to their own case.

4. I will next examine the promise in the text,
which stands at the head of this discourse: i
Thess v. 23, 24: "And the very God of peace
sanctify you wholly : and I pray God your whole
spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blame-
less unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do
it." Upon this I remark :

(i.) That according to Prof. Robinson's Lexi-
con, the languge used here is the strongest form
of expressing perfect or entire sanctification.

(2.) It is admitted, that this is a prayer for and
a promise of entire sanctification.

(3.) The very language shows, that both the
prayer and the promise refer to this life, as it is
a prayer for the sanctification of the body as w^ell
as the soul ; also that they might be preserved^
not after ^ hut unto the coming of our Lord ^esus
Christ.

(4.) This is a prayer of inspiration, to which is

ca
wi

to
an

SANCTIFICATION.

annexed an express promise that God will do it.

(5.) Its fulfilinciit is, from the nature r)f the
case, conditioned upon our faith, as sanctification
without faith is naturally impossible.

(6.) Now if this promise, with those that have
already been examined, does not, honestly inter-
preted, fully settle the question of the attainabili-
ty of entire sanctification in this life, it is difficult
to understand how any thing can be settled by
an appeal to scripture.

There are great multitudes of promises to the
same import, to which I might refer you, and
which if examined in the light of the foregoing
rules of interpretation, would be seen to heap up
demonstration upon demonstration, that this is a
doctrine of the Bible. Only examine them in
the light of these plain, self-evident principles, and
it seems to me, that they cannot fail to produce
conviction.

I will not longer occupy your time in the ex-
amination of the promises, but having examined
a few of them in proof of the position, that a
state of entire sanctification is attainable in this
life, I will now proceed to mention other con-
siderations in support of this doctrine.

5. Christ prayed for the entire sanctification of
saints in this life. "I pray not," he says, "that
thou shouldest take them out of the world, but
that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."
He did not pray that they should be kept from
persecution or from natural death, but he mani-
festly prayed, that they should be kept from sin.
Suppose Christ had commanded them to keep
themselves from the evil of the world ; what

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)

1.0

l.i

1.25

1.4

2.0

1.6

^>.

•<^W nZ^i >>•

Hiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

VIEWS OF

should we understand him to mean by such a
command r

6. Christ has taught us to pray for entire
sanctification in this life; *' Thy will be done on
earth as it is done in heaven." Now, if there is
entire sanctification in heaven, Christ requires
us to pray for its existence on earth. Ana is it
probable that He has taught us to pray for that
which He knows never can be or will be granted ?

7. The Apostles evidently expected Christians
to attain this state in this life. — See Col. iv. 12:
**Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of
Christ, saluteth you, always laboring fervently
for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and
complete in all the will of God." Upon this
passage I remark:

(i.) It was the object of the efforts of Epaph-
ras, and a thinr; which he expected to effect, to
be instrumental in causing those Christians to be
'* perfect and complete in all the will of God."

(2.) If this language does not describe a state
of entire sanctification, I know of none that
would. Ii *' to be perfect and complete in all
the will of God" be not Christian Perfection,
what is ?

(3.) Paul knew that Epaphras was laboring to
this end, and with this expectation ; and he in-
formed the Church of it in a manner that
evidently showed his approbation of the views
and conduct of Epaphras.

8. That the Apostles expected Christians to
attain this state is farther manifest, from 2 Cor.
vii. I : " Having therefore these jiromises, dearly
beloved, let us cleanse ourselves irom all filthi-

SANTCTIFICATION.

such a

entire
ne on
ere is
quires
1 is it
: that
inted ?
stians
V. 12:
mt of
vently
ct and
•n this

paph-
ct, to
5 to be
)d."
state
i that
in all
ction,

ing to
le in-
that
views

ns to
: Cor.
early
filthi-

ness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness,
in the fear of God." ,

Now, does not the Apostle speak in this
passage as if he really expected those to whom he
wrote "to perfect holiness in the fear of God ? "
Observe how strong and full the language is,
" Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of
the flesh and spirit." If "to cleanse ourselves
from a// filthiness of the ^^5/1, and all filthiness
of the spirit, and to perfect holiness" be not
entire sanctification, what is? That he expected
this to take place in this life is evident from the
fact that he requires them to be cleansed from all
filthiness oi the Jiesh as well as of the spirit.

9. All the intermediate steps can be taken.
Therefore the end can be reached. There is
certainly no point in our progress towards entire
sanctification, where it can be said we can go no
farther. To this it has been objected, that
though all the intermediate steps can be taken,
yet the goal can never be reached in this life,
just as five may be divided by three, ad infinitum,
without exhausting the fraction. Now, this
illustration deceives the mind that uses it, as
it may the minds of those who listen to it. It is
true that you can never exhaust the fraction in
dividing five by three, for the plain reason that
the division may be carried on, ad infinitum.
There is no end. You cannot in this case take
all the intermediate steps, because they are in-
finite. But in the case of entire sanctification,
all the intermediate steps can be taken ; for there
is an end, or state of entire sanctification, and
that, too, at a point infinitely short of infinite.

ii 1-i

VIEWS OF

10. That this state maybe attained in this life,
I argue from the fact that provision is made
against all the occasions of sin. Men sin only
when they are tempted, either by tne world, the
flesh or the devil. And it is expressly asserted
that in every temptation, provision is made for
our escape. Certainly if it is possible for us to
escape without sin, under every temptation, then
a state of entire and permanent sanctification is
attainable.

11. Full provision is made for overcoming the
three great enemies of our souls, the world, the
flesh, and the devil.

(i.) The world — " This is the victory that over-
cometh the world, even your faith." *' Who is he
that overcometh the world, but he that believeth
that Jesus is the Christ."

(2.) The flesh — ** If ye walk in the Spirit, ye
shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh."

(3.) Satan — "The shield of faith shall quench
all the fiery darts of the wicked." "And God
shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly."

Now all sober rules of Biblical criticism re-
quire us to understand the passages I have quoted,
in the sense I have quoted them.

12. It is evident from the fact, expressly stated,
that abundant means are provided for the accom-
plishment of this end. Eph. iv. 9 — 16: "^e
that descended is the same also that ascended up
far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ;
and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and
teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints for the

.work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body

SANCTIFICATION.

of Christ ; till we all come in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ: that we hence-
forth be no more children tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the
sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby
they lie in wait to deceive ; but speaking the
truth in love, may grow up into him in all things,
which is the head even Christ : from whom the
whole body fitly joined together and compacted
by that which every joint supplieth, according
to the effectual working in the measure of every
part, maketh increase of the body, unto the
edifying of itself in love." Upon this passage I
remark :

(i.) That what is here spoken of is plainly ap-
plicable only to this life. It is in this life that
the apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers
exercise their ministry. These means, therefore,
are applicable, and so far as we know, only appli-
cable to this life.

(2.) The Apostle here manifestly teaches that
these means are designed, and adequate to per-
fecting the whole Church as the body of Christ,
"till we all come in the unity of the faith and
of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."
Now observe :

a. These means are for the perfecting of the
saints, till the whole Church, as a perfect man,
*'has come to the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ." If this is not entire sanctifi-
cation, what is? That this is to take place in

VIEWS OF

this world, is evident from what follows. For
the Apostle adds, "That we henceforth be no
more tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men
and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait
to deceive,"

(3.) It should be observed that this is a very
strong passage in support of the doctrine, inas-
much as it asserts that abundant means are
provided for the sanctification of the Church in
this life. And as the whole includes all its parts,
there must be sufficient provision for the sancti-
fication of each individual.

(4.) If the work is ever to be effected, it is by
these means. But these means are used only in
this life. Entire sanctification, then, must take
place in this life.

(5.) If this passage does not teach a state of
entire sanctification, such a state is no where
mentioned in the Bible. And if believers are not
here said to be wholly sanctified by these means,
and, of course, in this life. I know not that it is
any where taught that they shall be sanctified at
all.

(6.) But suppose this passage to be put in the
language of a command, how should we under-
stand it? Suppose the saints commanded to be
perfect, and to *'grow up to the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ," could any thing
less than entire sanctification be understood by
such requisitions ? Then, by what rule of sober
criticism, I would inquire, can this language,
used in this connection, mean anything less than
I have supposed it to mean ?

13. God is able to perform this work in and

'U.

SANCTIFICATION.

for us. Eph iii. 14 — 19 : *' For this cause 1 bow
my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and
earth is named, that He would grant you accord-
ing to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened
with liiight by His Spirit in the inner man ; that
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith : that
ye, being rooted and grounded jn love, may be
able to comprehend with all saints what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and height ; and
to know the love of Christ, which passeth know-
ledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness
of God." Upon this passage I remark :

(i.) Paul evidently prays here for the entire
sanctification of believers in this life. It is im-
plied in our being '* rooted and grounded in love,"
and being *' filled with all the fulness of God,"
to be as perfect in our measure and according to
our capacity, ?s He is. If to be filled with the
fulness of God, does not imply a state of entire
sanctification, what does ?

(2.)That Paul did not see any difficulty in the
way of God's accomplishing this work, is mani-
fest from what he says in the twentieth verse —
*' Now unto him that is able to do exceeding
abundantly above all that we ask or think,
according to the power that worketh in us," &c.

14. The Bible no where represents death as
the termination of sin in the saints, which it could
not fail to do, were it true that they cease not to
sin until death. It has been the custom of the
Church, for a long time, to console individuals,
in view of death, by the consideration, that it
would be the termination of all their sin. And

i^i

. *.

^:1

.j8

VIEWS OF

how almost universal has been the custom hi con-
sohng the friends of deceased saints, to mention
this as a most important fact, that now they had
ceased from sin. Now if death is the termina-
tion of sin in the saints, and if they never cease
to sin until they pass into eternity, too much
stress never has been or can be laid upon that
circumstance ; ^nd it seems utterly incredible
that no inspired writer 'should ever have noticed
the fact. The representations of Scripture are
all right over against this idea. It is said '* Bless-
ed are the dead who die in the Lord, for they
rest from their labors, and their works do follow
them." Here it is not int^^^iated that they rest
from their sins, but from their good works in
this life ; such works as shall follow, not to curse
but to bless them. The representations of scrip-
ture are that death is the termination of the
saint's suffering and labors of love in this worlds
for the good of men and the glory of God. But
no where in the Bible is it intimated that the
death of a saint is the termination of his serving
the devil.

But if it be true that Christians continue to sin
till they die, and death is the termination, and
the only termination of their sin, it seems to me
impossible that the scripture representations on
the subject should be what they are.

15. The Bible representations of death are ut-
terly inconsistent with its being an indispensable
means of sanctification. Death is represented
as an enemy in the Bible. But if death is the
only condition upon which men are brought into
a stale of entire sanctification, his agency is as

SANCTIFICATION.

n con-
ention
3y had
rmina-
cease
much
•n that
edible
oticed
ire are
Bless-
r they
follow
y rest
rks in
' curse
scrip-
)f the
worldy
But
It the
irving

to sin
1, and
to me
►ns on

re ut-
sable
ented
is the
t into
is as

important and as indispensable as the iuihience
ol the Holy Ghost. When death is represented
in the Bible as any thing else than an enemy, it is
because he cuts short the sufferings of the saints,
and introduces them into a state of eternal glory
— not because he breaks them off from com-
munion with the devil ! How striking is the
contrast between the language of the Church and
that of inspiration on this subject ! The Church
is consoling the Christian in view of death, that
it will be the termination of his sins — that he will
then cease to serve the devil and his own lusts.
The language of inspiration, on the other hand,
is, that he will cease, not from wicked but from
good works, and labors, and sufferings for God
in this world. The language of the Church is,
that then he will enter upon a life of unalterable
holiness — that then, and not till then, he shall be
entirely sanctified. The language of inspiration
is, that because he is sanctified, death shall be an
entrance into a state of eternal glory.

1 6. Ministers are certainly bound to set up
some definite standard, to which as the ministers
of God, they are bound to insist upon complete
conformity. And now I would ask, what other
standard can they and dare they set up than
this ? To insist upon anything less than this, is
to turn pope and grant an indulgence to sin.
But to set up this standard, and then inculcate
that conformity to it is not, as a matter of fact,
attainable in this life, is as absolutely to take the
part of sin against God, as it would be to insist
upon repentance in theory, and then avow that
in practice it was not attainable.

o**

®'

i i

: • ; .

^..

■«

"T*.*

100

VIKWS OF

' 4

And here let me ask Christians what they
expect ministers to preach ? Do you think they
have a right to connive at any sin in you, or to
insist upon any thing else as a practicable fact
than that you should abandon every iniquity?
It is sometiL es said, that with us entire sanctifi-
cation is a hobby. But I would humbly ask
what else can we preach ? Is not every minister
bound to insist in every sermon that men shall
wholly obey God ? And because they will not
compromise with any degree or form of sin, are
they to be reproached for making the subject of
entire obedience a hobby ? I ask, by what
authority can a minister preach any thing less ?
And how shall any minister dare to inculcate the
duty as a theory, and yet not insist upon it as a
practical matter, as something to be expected of
every subject of God*s kingdom?

17. A denial of this doctrine has the natural
tendency to beget the very apathy witnessed in
the Church. Professors of religion go on in sin,
without much conviction of its wickedness. Sin
unblushingly stalks abroad even in the Chur*.h
of God, and does not fill Christians with horror,
because they expect its existence as a thing of
course. Tell a young convert that he must
expect to backslide, and he will do so of course,
and with comparatively little remorse, because
h^ looks upon it as a kind of necessity. And,
D^ng led to expect it, you find him in a few
ths after his conversion, away from God, and
t all horrified with his state. Just so, inculcate
"ea among Christians that they are not ex-
to abandon all sin, and they will of course

or,
of
ust
se,
use
nd,
ew
nd
ate
ex-
rse

(

SAWCTIFICATION.

110

go on ii. sin with comparative indifference. Re-
prove them for their sins, and they will say:
*' O, we are imperfect creatures ; we do not
pretend to be perfect, nor do we expect we ever
shall be in this world." Many such answers as
these will show you at once the God-dishonoring
and soul-ruining tendency of a denial of this
doctrine.

1 8. A denial of this doctrine prepares the
minds of ministers to temporize and wink at
great iniquity in their churches. Feeling as
they certainly must, if they disbelieve this doc-
trine, that a great amount of sin in all believers
is to be expected as a thing of course^ their
whole preaching, and spirit, and demeanor, will
be such as to beget a great degree of apathy
among Christians m regard to their abominable
sins.

19. If this doctrine is not true, how profane
and blasphemous is the covenant of every church
of every evangelical denomination. Every church
requires its members to make a solemn covenant
with God and with the church, in the presence
of God and angels, and with their hands upon the
emblems of the broken body and shed blood of
the blessed Jesus, "to abstain from all ungodli-
ness, and every worldly lust, to live soberly and
righteously in this present world." Now, if the
doctrine of the attainability of entire sanctifica- .
tion in this life is not true, what profane mockery
is this covenant ! It is a covenant to live in a •
state of entire sanctification, made under the
most solemn circumstances, enforced by the^- ^
most awful sanctions, and insisted upon by the

I02

VIEWS OF

minister of God standing at the altar. Now,
what right has any minister on earth to recjuire
less than this ?

And again, what right has any minister on
earth to require this, unless it is a practicable
thing?

Suppose when this covenant was proposed to
a convert about to unite with the church, he
should take it to his closet, and spread it before
the Lord, and inquire whether it was right for
him to make such a covenant — and whether the
grace of the gospel can enable him to fulfil it.

Do you suppose the Lord Jesus would reply,
that if he made that covenant, he certainly would,
and must as a matter of course live in the habit-
ual violation of it as long as he lives, and that
his grace was not sufficient to enable him to keep
it ? Would he in such a case have any right to
take upon himself this covenant ? No, no more
than he would have a right to lie.

20. It has long been maintained by orthodox
divines, that a person is not a Christian who does
not aim at living without sin — that unless he
aims at perfection, he manifestly consents to live
in sin; and is therefore certainly impenitent.
It has been, and I think truly, said, that if a man
does not in the fixed purpose of his heaVt, aim
at total abstinence from sin, and at being wholly
conformed to the will of God, he is not yet re-
generated, and does not so much as mean to
cease from abusing God.

Now if this is so, and I believe it certainly is,
I would ask how a person can aim at, and intend
to do what he knows to be impossible. Is it not

odox
does
>s he
:> live
tent,
man
aim
lolly
t re-
n to

ly is,
tend
t not

RANCTIFICATION.

103

a contradiction to say that a man can intend to
do what he knows he cannot do ? To this it has
been objected, that if true, it proves too much —
that it would prove that no man ever was a
Christian who did not beHeve in this doctrine.
To this I repl«' :

(i.) A ma. I may beheve in what is really a
state of entire sanctification, and aim at attain-
ing it, although he may not call it by that name.
This I believe to be the real fact with Christians;
and they would much more frequently attain
what they aim at, did they know how to appro-
priate the grace of Christ to their own circum-
stance. Mrs. President Edwards, for example,
firmly believed that she could attain a state of
entire consecration. She aimed at and manifestly
attained it, and yet, such were her views of
physical depravity, that she did not call her
state one of entire sanctification. It has been
common for Christians to suppose that a state
of entire consecration was attainable ; but while
they believe in physical depravity, they would
not of course, call even entire consecration, entire
sanctification. Mrs. Edwards believed in, aimed
at, and attained, entire consecration. She aimed
at what she believed to be attainable, and she
could aim at nothing more. She attained what
she aimed at, and nothing more. She called it
by the same name with her husband who was
opposed to the doctrine of Christian perfection as
held by the Wesleyan Methodists ; manifestly
on the ground of his notions of physical depravity.
I care not what this state is called, if the thing
be fidly explained and insisted upon, together

li' i

, *

104

VIEWS OF

with the means of attaining it. Call it what you
please, Christian perfection, heavenly minded-
ness, or a state of entire consecration ; by all
these I understand the same thing. And it is
certain, tha+ by whatever name it is called, the
thing must be aimed at to be attained. The
practicability of its attainment must be admitted,
or it cannot be aimed at.

And now I would humbly inquire whether to
preach any thing short of this is not to give coun-
tenance to sin ?

21. Another argument in favor of this doctrine
is that the gospel as a matter of tact, has often,
not only temporarily, but permanently and per-
fectly overcome every form of sin, in different
individuals. Who has not seen the most beastly
lusts, drunkenness, lasciviousness, and every
kind of abomination, long indulged and fully
ripe, entirelv and forever slain by the power of
the grace of God ? Now how was this done ?
Oi'ly by bringing this sin fully into the light of
the, gospel, and showing the individual the rela-
tion the death of Christ sustained to that sin.

Isothing is wanting to slay any and every sin,
but for the mind to be fully baptized into the
death of Christ, and to see the bearings of one's
own sins upon the sufferings and agonies and
death of the blessed Jesus. Let me state a fact
to illustrate my meaning. A habitual and most
inveterate smoker of tobacco, of my acquaintance,
after having been plied with almost every argu-
ment to induce him to break the power of the
habit and relinquish its use, in vain, on a certain
occasion lighted his pipe, and was about to put

sin,
the

SANCTIFICATION.

105

it to his mouth, when the inquiry was started,
did Christ die to purchase this vile indulgence
for me ? He hesitated, but the inquiry pressed
him, Did Christ die to purchase this vile indul-
gence for me ? The perceived relation of the
death of Christ to this sin instantly broke the
power of the habit, and from that day he has
been free.

I could relate many other facts more striking
than this, where a similar view of the relation of
a particular sin to the atonement of Christ, has
in a moment, not only broken the power of the
habit, but destroyed entirely and forever, the ap-
petite for similar indulgences.

If the most inveterate habits of sin, and even
those that involve physical consequences, and
have deeply debased the physical constitution,
and rendered it a source of overpowering tempta-
tion to the mind, can be, and often have been ut-
terly broken up, and forever slain by the grace
of God, why should it be doubted that by the
same grace, a man can triumph over all sin, and
that for ever.

22. If this doctrine is not true, what is true
upon the subject ? It is certainly of great impor-
tance that ministers should be definite in their
instructions, and if Christians are not expected
to be wholly conformed to the will of God in this
life, how much is expected of them ? Who can
say, hitherto canst thou, must thou come, but no
farther ? It is certainly absurd, net to say ridic-
ulous, for ministers to be forever pressing Chris-
tians up to higher and higher attainments, saying
Ht every step you can and must go higher, an4

j 1

■ ' 1

■

^'1 1

io6

VIEWS OF

li ;

yet all along informing them that they are ex-
pected to fall short of their whole duty — that they
can as a matter of fact, be better than they are,
far better, indefinitely better ; but still it is not
expected that they will do their whole duty. I
have often been pained to hear men preach who
are afraid to commit themselves in favor of the
whole truth ; and who are yet evidently afraid
of falling short, in their instructions of insisting
that men shall stand ** perfect and complete in
all the will of God." They are evidently sadly
perplexed to be consistent, and well they may
be, for in truth there is no consistency in their
views and teachings. If they do not inculcate
as a matter of fact, that men ought to do and are
expected to do their whole duty, they are s?dly
at a loss to know what to inculcate. They have
evidently man)'^ misgivings about insisting upon
less than this, and still they fear to go to the full
extent of apostolic teaching on this subject. And
in their attempts to throw in qualifying terms
and caveats, to avoid the impression that they
believe in the doctrine of entire sanctification,
tbey place themselves in a truly awkward position.
Cases have occurred in which ministers have
been asked, how far we may go, must go, and
are expected to go, in depending upon the grace
of Christ, and how holy men may be, and are ex-
pected to be, and must be, in this life ? They
could give no other answer to this, than that
they can be a great deal better than they are.
Now this indefiniteness is a great stumbling
block to the Church. It cannot be according to
the teachings of the Holy Ghost,

SANCTIFICATION.

107

23. The tendency of a denial of this doctrine
is, to my mind, conclusive proof that the doctrine
itself must be true. Many developments in the
recent history of the Church throw light upon
this subject. Who does not see that the facts
developed in the temperance reformation, have a
direct and powerful bearing upon this question ?
It has been ascertained that there is no possi-
bility of completing the temperance reformation,
except by adopting the principle of total absti-
nence from all intoxicating drinks. Let a tem-
perance lecturer go forth, as an Evangelist to
promote revivals on the subject of temperance —
let him inveigh against drunkenness, while he ad-
mits and defends the moderate use of alcohol, or
insinuates, at least, that total abstinence is not
expected or practicable. In this stage of tem-
peranc'e reformation every one can see that such
a man could make no progress ; that he would
be employed like a child bn.ilding dams of sand
to obstruct the rushing of mighty waters. It is as
certain as that causes produce their effects, that
no permanent reformation could be effected with-
out adopting and insisting on the total abstinence
principle.

And now if this is true as it respects the tem-
perance reformation, how much more so when
applied to the subjects of holiness and sin. A
man might, by some possibility, even in his own
strength, overcome his habit of drunkenness, and
retain what might be called the temperate use of
alcohol. But no such thing is possible in a re-
formation frorn^ sin. Sin is never overcome by
any man in his own strength. If he admits into

»'■■

i§

Ir I

.Mi

1 08

VIEWS OF

H I

his creed the necessity of any degree of sin, or if
he allows in practice any degree of sin, he be-
comes impenitent — consents to live in sin — and
is of course abandoned by the Holy Spirit, the
certain result of which is, a relapsing into a state
of legal bondage to sin. And this is probably a
true history of ninety-nine one hundredths of the
Church. It is just what might be expected from
the views and practice of the Church upon this
subject.

The secret of backsliding is that reformations
are not carried deep enough. Christians are not
set with all their hearts to aim at a speedy deliv-
erance from all sin. But on the contrary are left
and in many instances taught to indulge the ex-
pectation that they shall sin as long as they live.
I probably never shall forget the effect produced
on my mind by reading, when a young convert,
in the diary of David Brainerd, that he never ex-
pected to make any considerable attainments in
holiness in this life. I can now easily see that
this was a natural inference from the theory of
physical depravity which he held. But not per-
ceiving this at the time, I doubt not that this ex-
pression of his views had a very injurious effect
upon me for many years. It led me to reason
thus : If such a man as David Brainerd did not
expect to make much advancement in holiness in
this life, it is vain for me to expect such a thing.

The fact is, if there be anything that is impor-
tant to high attainments in holiness, and to the
progress of the work of sanctification in this life,
it is the adoption of the principle of total absti-
nence from sin. Total abstinence from sin, must

SANCTIFICATION'.

109

be every man's motto, or sin will certainly sweep
him away as with a flood. That cannot possibly
be a true principle in temperance, that leaves the
causes which produce drunkenness to operate in
their full strength. Nor can that be true in re-
gard to holiness which leaves the root unex-
tracted, and the certain causes of spiritual decline
and backsliding at work in the very heart of the
Church ? And I am fully convinced that until
Evangelists and Pastors adopt and carry out in
principle and practice, the principle of total ab-
stinence from all sin, they will as certainly find
themselves every few months, called to do their
work over again, as a temperance lecturer would
who should admit the moderate use of alcohol.
24. Again, the tendency of the opposite view
of this subject, shows that that cannot be true.
Who does not know, that to call upon sinners to
repent, and at the same time to inform them that
they will not, and cannot, and are not expected
to repent, would forever prevent their repentance.
Suppose you say to a sinner, you are naturally
able to repent ; but it is certain that you never
will repent in this life, either with or without the
Holy Ghost. Who does not see that such teach-
ing would as surely prevent his repentance as he
believed it ? So, say to a professor of religion,
you are naturally able to be wholly conformed to
God ; but it is certain that you never will be in this
life, either in your own strength or by the grace
of God. If this teaching be believed, it will just
as certainly prevent his sanctification as the
other teaching would the repentance of the sin-
ner. I can speak from experience on this sub-

M f-

. »

.s«

I TO

VIEWS OF

ject. While I inculcated the common views, I
was often instrumental in bringing Christians
under great conviction, and into a state of tem-
porary repentance and faith. But falling short
of urging them up to a point where they would
become so acquainted with Christ, as to abide in
Him, they would of course soon relapse again
into their former stale. I never saw, and can
now understand that I had no reason to expect
to see, under the instructions which I then
gave, such a state of religious feeling, such
steady and confirmed walking with God among
Christians, as I have seen since the change in
my views and instructions.

I might urge a great many other considera-
tions, and as I have said, fill a book with scrip-
tures, and arguments, and demonstrations, of the
attainability of entire sanctification in this life.

But I forbear, and at present will present only
one more consideration, a consideration which
lias great weight in some minds. It is a question
of great importance, at least, in some minds,
whether any actually ever did attain this state.
Some, who believe it attainable, do not consider
it of much importance to show that it has actually
been attained. Now I freely admit that it may
be attainable, although it never has been attained.
Yet it appears to me that as a matter of encour-
agement to the Church, it is of great importance
whether, as a matter of fact, a state of entire and
continued holiness has been attained in this life.
This question covers much ground. But for the
sake of brevity, I design to examine but one case,
and see whether there is not reason to believe

sanctifk:atu)N.

1 1 1

that in one instance, at least, it has been attained.
The case to which I allude is that ol the Apostle
Paul. And I propose to take up and examine
the passages that I speak of for the purpose
of ascertaining whether there is evidence that
he ever attained to this state in this life.

And here let me say that to my own mind it
seems plain, that Paul and John, to say nothing
of the other Apostles, designed and expected the
Church to understand them as speaking from ex-
perience, and as having received of that fulness
which they taught to be in Christ and in his
gospel.

And I wish to say again and more expressly,
that I do not rest the practicability of attaining
a state of entire and continued holiness at all
upon the question, whether any ever have attain-
ed it any more than I would rest the question,
whether the world ever will be converted, upon
the fact whether it ever has been converted. I
have been surprised, when the fact that a state
of entire holiness has been attained, is urged as
one argument among a great many, to prove its
attainability, and that, too, merely as an en-
couragement to Christians to lay hold upon this
blessing — that objectors and reviewers fasten
upon this as the doctrine of sanctification, as if
by calling this particular question in doubt, they
could overthrow all the other proof of its attain-
ability. Now this is utterly absurd. When,
then, I examine the character of Paul with this
object in view, if it should not appear clear to
3^ou that he did attain this state, you are not to
overlook the fact, that its attainability is settled

! •

■'•' t

112

VIKWS OF

by other arguments, on grounds entirely indepeu-
dent of the question whether it has been attained
or not ; and tliat I merely use this as an argu-
ment, simply because to me it appears forcible,
and fitted to afford great encouragement to
Christians to press after this state.

I will first make some remarks in regard to the
manner in which the language of Paul, when
speaking of himself, should be understood ; and
then proceed to an examinat'on of the passages
which speak of his Christian character.

1. His revealed character demands that we
should understand him to mean all that he says,
when speaking in his own favor.

2. The spirit of inspiration would guard him
against speaking too highly of himself.

3. No man ever seemed to possess greater
modesty, and to feel more unwilling to exalt his
own attainments.

4. If he considered himself as not having at-
tained a state of entire sanctification, and as often
if not in all things, falling short of his duty, we
may expect to find him acknowledging this in
the deepest self-abasement.

5. If he is charged with living in sin, and with
being wicked in any thing, we may expect him,
when speaking under inspiration, not to justify,
but unequivocally condemn himself in those
things if he was really guilty.

Now in view of these facts, let us examine
those scriptures in which he speaks of himself,
and is spoken of by others.

• (i.) I Thess. ii. 10: "Ye are witnesses, and
God also, how holily, and justly, and unblama-

SANCTIFICATION.

113

depeu-
ttained
argu-
•rcible,
ent to

to the
when

!; and
Bsages

at we
says,

I him

eater
t his

g at-
^ften
S we
s in

with
lim,
tify,
lose

line
>elf,

ind
na-

bly, we behaved ourselves among you that be-
lieve." Upon this text I remark :

a. Here he unqualifiedly ass rts his own holi-
ness. This language is very strong, *' How ho-
lily, justly, and unblamably." If to be holy,
just, and unblamable, be not entire sanctification
what is ?

b. He appeals to the heart-searching God for
the truth of what he says, and to their own ob-
servation ; calling on God and on them also to
bear witners, that he had been holy and without
blame.

c. Here we have the testimony of an inspired
Apostle, in the most unqualified language, assert-
ing his own entire sanctification. Was he de-
ceived ? Can it be that he knew himself all the
time to have been living in sin ? If such language
as this does not amount to an unqualified asser-
tion that he had lived among them without sin,
what can be known by the use of human lan-
guage ?

(2.) 2 Cor. vi. 3 — 7: "Giving no offence m
any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: but
in all things approving ourselves as the min'sters
of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in neces-
sities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments,
in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings ;
by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by
kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
by the word of truth, by the power of God, by
the armor of righteousness on the r.ght hand and
on the left." Upon these verses I remark :

a. Paul asserts that he gave no offence in any
thing, but in all things approved himself as a,

1 ■'•:

■;|

VlliWS OF

minister of God. Among other things he did
this, "by pureness," **by the Holy Ghost, by
love unfeigned," and **by the armor of righteous-
ness on the right hand and on the left." How
could so modest a man as Paul sp^^ak of himself
in this manner, unless he knew himself to be in
a state of entire sanctification, and thought it
of great importance that the Church should
know it ?

(3.) 2 Cor. i. 12: '*For our rejoicing is this,
the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity
and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom,
but by the grace of God, we have had our con-
versation in the world, and more abundantly to
you-ward." This passage plainly implies the
same thing, and was manifestly said for the same
purpose — to declare the greatness of the grace of
God as manifested in himself.

(4.) Acts xxiv. 16: "And herein do I exercise
myself to have always a conscience void of of-
fence toward God, and toward men," Paul
doubtless at this time had an enlightened con-
science. If an inspired Apostle could affirm, that
he "exercised himself to have always a con-
science void of offence toward God and toward
men," must he not have been in a state of entire
sanctification ?

(5.) 2 Tim. i. 3: " I thank God, whom I serve
from my forefathers with a pure conscience, that
without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in
my prayers night and day." Here again he
affirms that he serves God with a pure con-
science, Could this be, if he was often, and per'

■MM

MMM

SANCTIFICATION.

115

haps every day, as some suppoF'^;, violating his
conscience?

(6.) Gal. ii. 20: "I am crucified with Christ :
nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh,
I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved
me, and gave himself for me." This does not
assert, but strongly implies that he lived without
sin.

(7.) Gal. vi. 14: " But God forbid that I should
glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I
unto the world." This text also affords the same
inference as above.

(8.) Phil. i. 21: "For to me to live is Christ,
and to die is gain." Hr^e the Apostle affirms
that for him to live was as if Christ lived in the
Church. How could he say this, unless his ex-
ample, and doctrine, and spirit, were those of
Christ ?

(9.) Acts XX. 26: *' Wherefore I take you to
record this day, that I am pure from the blood
of all men." Upon this I remark :

a. This passage, taken in its connection, shows
clearly, the impression that Paul desired to make
upon the minds of those to whom he spake.

b. It is certain that he could in no pioper sense
be " pure from the blood of all men," unless he
had done his whole duty. If he had been sin-
fully lacking in any grace, or virtue, or labor,
could he have said this ? Certainly not.

(10.) I Cor. iv. 16, 17: "Wherefore, I beseech
you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have
I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved

116

b' i

J ■"

I I
I I

VJI \VS OF

Y^/'^t, as I teach every wh^ '^''>'" ^'"^h he in
i remark : ^'^'"^>' where m every church "

" Je were living i„ S"? ""^ ^°'"'' ''« <Jo thfs"
"lemor/esln re ''"rn'^".'' '""'«'" *" refresh th.-
'"jn«elf practiced. '^"«^''' '" «very church, he

- "df l^f /V^ cLr^tJ.^ ^£w- of me.

(i2 ) puj] "• '^idine.,

IZgrther of me;-a'/d mark .t""""^"' f'- ^'lowers

for ?he'U" ^""^«"' fro7w•henceV"^'='^"^«'•
agaii'pS •calls*'" "-""^ Jesus ChTL'^^o look

, K^3') Fhil iv. o • u 'TL

With you.- ' 'tL' Phln" ^"'^ °'' peace shah'h'
^^'■^-----tWeATd^^^

RANCTIFlCATIoN.

!T7

received, and skj'.n in Him." And then he adds,
that if they •* do those things, the God of peace
shall be with them." Now can it be that he
meant that thev shiHild understand any thinpf
less, than that iw. had lived without sin amonj^
them ?

I will next examine those passages which are
supposed by some, to imply that Paul was not in
a state of entire sanrtification.

(14.) Act XV. 3O — 40 : " And some days after,
Paul said unto Uarnabas, let us go again and
visit our brethren in every city where we have
preached the word of the Lord, and see how they
do. And Barnabas determined to take with
them John, whose surname was Mark. But
Paul thought not good to take him with them,
who departed from them from Pamphylia, and
went not with them to the work. And the con-
tention was so sharp between them, that they
departed asunder one from the other ; and so
Barnabas took Mark, and sailed to Cyprus : and
Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recom-
mended by the brethren, unto the grace of God."

Upon this passage I remark :

a. This contention between Paul and Barnabas
was founded upon the fact, that John, who was
a nephew of Barnabas, had once abruptly left
them in their travels, it would seen, without any
justifiable reason, and had returned home.

b. It appears that the confidence of Barnabas
in his nephew was restored.

c. That Paul was not as yet satisfied of the
stability of his character, and thought it danger-
ous to trust him as a travelling companion '\nd

1 f

ii8

VIEWS OF

'. Si

■ \

fellow laborer. It is not intimated, nor can it be
fairly inferred that either of them sinned in this
contention.

d. It sufficiently accounts for what occurred,
that they disagreed in their views of the expedi-
ency of taking John with them.

e. Being men of principle, neither of them felt
it to be his duty to yield to the opinion of the
other.

/. If either was to be blamed, it seems that
Barnabas was in fault, rather than Paul, inasmuch
as he determined to take John with him without
having consulted Paul. And he persisted in this
determination until he met with such firm resist-
ance on the part of Paul, that he took John and
sailed abruptly for Cyprus ; while Paul choosing
Silas as his companion, was recommended by the
brethren to the grace of God, and departed.
Now certainly there is nothing in this transac-
tion, that Paul or any good man, or an angel,
under the circumvStances, need to have been
ashamed of, that we can discover. It does not
appear, that Paul ever acted more from a regard
to the glory of God and the good of religion, than
in this transaction. And I would humbly in-
quire what spirit is that which finds sufficient
evidence in this case to charge an inspired
Apostle with rebellion against God ? But even
admitting that he did sin in this case, where is
the evidence that he was not afterwards sancti-
fied when he wrote the epistles ? — for this was
before the writing of any of his epist' 3s.

(15.) Acts xxiii. 1-5. "And Paul, earnestly
beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I

ki_

it be
this

SANCTIFICATION.

119

have lived in all good conscience before God
until this day. And the high priest Ananias
commanded them that stood by him to smite him
on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God
shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest
thou to judge me after the law, and commandest
me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they
that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high
priest ? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that
he was the high priest: for it is written. Thou
shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
In this case, sinful anger has been imp.uted to
Paul; but, so far as I can see, without any just
reason. To my mind it seems plain that the
contrary is to be inferred. It appears that Paul
was not personally acquainted with the then
officiating high priest. And he manifested the
utmost regard to the authority of God in quoting
from the Old Testament, "Thou shalt not speak
evil of the ruler of thy people " — implying, that
notwithstanding the abuse he had received, he
should not have made the reply, had he known
him to be the high priest.

(16.) Rom. vii., from the fourteenth to the
twenty-fifth verse, has by many been supposed
to be an epitome of Paul's experience at the time
he wrote the epistle. Upon this I remark :

a. The connection and drift of Paul's reason-
ing show that the case of which he was speaking,
whether his own or the case of some one else,
was adduced by him to illustrate the influence of
the law upon the carnal mind.

b. This is a case in which sin had th^ entire

■ •«'

.fi

I 20

VIEWS Oh

8 v';

!' !

dominion, and overcame all his resolutions of
obedience.

c. That his use of the singular pronoun and in
the first person, proves nothing in regard to
whether or not he was speaking of himself, for
this is common with him, and with other writers,
when using illustrations.

d. He keeps up the personal pronoun, and
passes into the eighth chapter ; at the beginning
of which he represents himself or the person of
whom he is speaking, as being not only in a
different, but in an exactly opposite state of
mind. Now, if the seventh chapter contains
Paul's experience, whose experience is this in the
eighth chapter? Are we to understand them
both as the experience of Paul? If so, we must
understand him as first speaking of his experience
before and then after he was sanctified. He
begins the eighth chapter by saying, ** There is
now no condemnation to them who are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but alter the
Spirit;" and assigns as a reason, that "The law
of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death." The law
of sin and death was that law in his members, or
the influence of the flesh, of which he had so
bitterly complained in the seventh chapter. But
now it appears that he has passed into a state in
which he is made free from this influence of the
flesh — is emancipated and dead to the world, and
to the flesh, and in a state in which "there is no
condemnation." Now, if there was no condem-
nation in the state in which he was, it must have
been, either because he did not sin; or, if he did

SANCTIFICATION.

121

and

ining

sin, because the law did not condemn him; or,
because the law of God was repealed or abro-
gated. Now, if the penalty of the law was so
set aside in his case, that he could sin without
condemnation, this is a real abrogation of the
law. For a law without a penalty is no law, and
if the law is set aside, there is no longer any
standard, and he was neither sinful nor holy.
But as the law was not and cannot be set aside,
its penalty was not and cannot be so abrogated
as not to condemn every sin. If Paul lived
without condemnation, it must be because he
lived without sin.

To me it does not appear as if Paul speaks of
his own experience in the seventh chapter of
Romans, but that he merely supposes a case by
way of illustration, and speaks in the first person
and in the present tense, simply because it was
convenient and suitable to his purpose. His ob-
ject manifestly was, in this and in the begmning
of the eighth chapter, to contrast the influence of
the law and of the gospel — to describe in the
seventh chaoter the state of a man who was liv-
ing in sin, and every day condemned by the law,
convicted and constantly struggling with his own
corruptions, but continually overcome, — and in
the eighth chapter to exhibit a person in the en-
joyment of gospel liberty, where the righteous-
ness of the law was fulfilled in the heart by the
grace of Christ. The seventh chapter may well
apply either to a person in a backslidden state,
or to a convicted person who had never been
converted. The eighth chapter can clearly be

.1^

122

VIEWS OF

i ■;
il

applicable to none but to those who are in a state
of entire sanctification.

I have already said that the seventh chapter
contains the history of one over whom sin has
dominion. Now to suppose that this was the
experience of Paul when he wrote the epistle, or
of any one who was in the liberty of the gospel,
is absurd and contrary to the experience of every
person who ever enjoyed gospel liberty. And
farther, this is as expressly contradicted in the
sixth chapter as it can be. As I said, the seventh
chapter exhibits one over whom sin has domin-
ion ; but God says, in the sixth chapter and
fourteenth verse, " For sin shall not have do-
minion over you : for ye are not under the law.
but under grace."

I remark finally upon this passage, that if
Paul was speaking of himself in the seventh
chapter of Romans, and really giving a history
of his own experience, it proves nothing at all
in regard to his subsequent sanctification ; for,

a. If this was his experience at the time he
wrote the epistle, it would prove nothing in re-
regard to what afterwards occurred in his own
experience.

b. The eighth chapter shows conclusively, that
it was not his experience at the time he wrote
the epistle. The fact that the 7th and 8th chap-
ters have been separated since the translation
was made as I have before said, has led to much
error in the understanding of this passage. Noth-
ing is more certain than that the two chapters
were designed to describe not only different ex-
periences, but experiences opposite to each other.

Uj_i.

SANCTIFICATION.

123

And that both these experiences should belong
to the same person at the same time, is manifestly
impossible. If, therefore Paul is speaking in
this connection of his own experience, we are
bound to understand the eighth chapter as de-
scribing his experience at the time he wrote the
epistle; and the seventh chapter as descriptive
of a former experience.

Now, therefore, if any one understands the
seventh chapter as describing a Christian experi-
ence, he must understand it as giving the exer-
cises of one in a very imperfect state ; and the
eighth chapter as descriptive of a soul in a state
of entire sanctification. So that this epistle,
instead of militating against the idea of Paul's
entire sanctification, upon the supposition that
he was speaking of himself, fully establishes the
fact that he was in that state. What do those
brethren mean who take the latter part of the
seventh chapter as entirely disconnected with
what precedes and follows it, and make it tell a
sad story on the subject of the legal and sinful
bondage of an inspired Apostle? What can not
be proved from the Bible in this way ? Is it not
a sound and indispensable rule of Biblical inter-
pretation, that a passage is to be taken in its
connection, and that the scope and leading in-
tention of the writer is to be continually borne
in mind in deciding upon the meaning of any
passage? Why then, I pray, are the verses that
precede, and those that immediately follow in the
eighth chapter, entirely overlooked in the ex-
amination of this important passage ?

(17.) Phil. iii. 10-15: *'That I may know him,

^tll

124

VIEWS OF

and the power of his resurrection, and the fellow-
ship of his sufferings, being made conformable
unto his death ; if by any means I might attain
unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though
I had already attained, either were already per-
fect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend
that for which also I am apprehended of Christ
Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have
apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting
those things which are behind, and reaching
forth unto those things which are before, I press
toward the mark for the prize of the high calling
of God in Christ Jesus. Let us, therefore, as
many as be perfect, be thus minded : and if in
any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall
reveal even this unto you." Upon this passage
I remark:

a. Here is a plain allusion to the Olympic
games, in which men ran for a prize, and were
not crowned until the end of the race, however
well they might run.

b, Paul speaks of two kinds of perfection here,
one of which he claims to havd attained, and the
other he had not. The perfection which he had
not attained was that which he did not expect to
attain until the end of his race, nor indeed until
he had attained the resurrection from the dead.
Until then, he was not and did not expect to be
perfect, in the sense that he should "apprehend
all that for which he was apprehended of Christ
Jesus." But all this does not imply that he was
not living without sin, any more than it implies
that Christ was living in sin when he said, ** I
must walk to-day and to-morrow, aud the third

SANCTiriCATION,

125

day I shall be perfected." Here Christ speaks
of a perfection which he had not attained.

Now it is manifest that it was the glorified
state to which Paul had not attained, and which
perfection he was pressing after. But in the fif-
teenth verse, he speaks of another kind of per-
fection which he professed to have attained.
*' Let us therefore," he says, " as many as be
perfect, be thus minded ;" that is, let us be press-
ing after this high state of perfection in glory,
" if by any means we way attain unto the resur-
rection of the dead." The figure of the games
should be kept continually in mind in the interpre-
tation of this passage. The prize in those races
was the crown. This was given only at the end
of the race. And besides, a man was "not
crowned except he run lawfully," that is, accord-
ing to rule. Paul was running for the prize, that
is, the crown, not as some suppose, for entire
sanctification, but for a crown of glory. This
he did not expect until he had completed his
race. He exhorts those who were perfect, that
is, those who were running lawfully or according
to rule, to forget the things that were behind,
and press to the mark, that is, the goal, for the
prize, or the crown of glory which the Lord, the
righteous judge, who was witnessing his race to
award the crown to the victor, would give him
at that day.

Now it jfe manifest to my mind, that Paul does
not in this passage, teach expressly or impliedly
that he was living in sin, but the direct opposite
— that he meant to say as he had said in many
other places, that he was unblamable in respect

126

VIEWS OF

but that h(

was aspiring after higher at-
tainments, and meant to be satisfied with nothing
short of eternal glory.

In relation to the character of Paul, let me say :

a. If Paul was not sinless, he was an extrava-
gant boaster, and such language used by any
minister in these days would be considered as
the language of an extravagant boaster.

b. This setting himself up as an example, so
frequently and fully, without any caution or
qualification, was highly dangerous to the inter-
ests of the Church, if he were not in a state of
entire sanctification.

c. It was as wicked as it was dangerous.

d. His language in appealing to God, that in
his life and heart he was blameless, was blasphe-
mous, unless he was really what he professed to
be ; and if he was what he professed to be, he
was in a state of entire sanctification.

e. There is no reason for doubting his having
attained this state.

/. It is doing dishonor to God, to .naintain,
under these circumstances, that Paul had not at-
tained the blessing of entire sanctification.

g. He no where confesses sin after he became
an Apostle, but invariably justifies himself, ap-
pealing to man and to God, for his entire integri-
ty and blamelessness of heart and life.

h. To accuse him of sin in these circumstances,
without evidence, is not only highly injurious to
huiiy but disgraceful to the cause of religion.

i. To charge him with sin, when he claims to
have been blameless, is either to accuse him of
falsehood or delusion.

SAN(:TlI'irATlON.

1^7

k. To maintain the sinfulness of this Apostle,
is to deTiy the grace of the gospel, and charge
God foolishly. And I cannot but inquire, why
is this great effort in the Church to maintain, that
Paul lived in sin, and was never wholly sancti- *
fied till death ?

Two things have appeared wonderful to me :

1. That so many professed Christians should
seem to think themselves highly honoring God
in extending the claims of the law, and yet cur-
tailing and denying that the grace of the gospel
is equalito the demands of the law.

2. That so many persons seem to have an en-
tirely self-righteous view of the subject of sanc-
tification. With respect to the first of these
opinions, much pains have been taken to extend
to the utmost the claims of the law of God.
Much has been said of its exceeding and infinite
strictness, and the great length, and breadth, and
height, and depth of its claims. Multitudes are
engaged in defending the claims of the law, as
if they greatly feared that the purity of the law
would be defiled — its strictness and spirituality
overlooked — and its high and holy claims set
aside, or frittered down somehow to the level of
human passion and selfishness. And while en-
gaged in their zeal to defend the law, they talk,
and preach, and write, as if they supposed it in-
dispensable in order to sustain the high claims
of the law, to deny the grace and power of the
gospel, and its sufficiency to enable human beings
to comply with the requisitions of the law. Thus
they seem to me, unwittingly, to enter the lists
against the grace of Christ, and with the utmost

vi il

.SI

.f i

I'2«

VIF.WS OF

I \

earnestness and even vehemence, to deny that
the grace of Christ is sufficient to overcome sin,
and to fulfil in us the righteousness of the law.
And in their zeal for the law, they appear to me
* either to overlook, or flatly to deny the grace
of the gospel.

Now, let the law be exalted. Let it be mag-
nified and made honorable. Let it be shown to
be strict, and pure, an5 perfect, as its Author —
spread its claims over the whole field of human
and angeHc accountability — carry it like a blaze
of fire to the deersst recess of every human
heart. Exalt it as high as heaven. And thunder
its authority and claims to the depths of hell.
Stretch out its line upon the universe of mind.
And let it, as it well may, and as it ought, thun-
der death and terrible damnation against every
kind and degree of iniquity. Yet, let it be re-
membered forever, that the grace of the gospel,
is co-extensive, with the claims of the law. Let
no man, therefore, in his strife to maintain the
authority of the law, insult the Saviour, exercise
unbelief himself, or fritter away and drown the
faith of the Church, by holding out the profane
idea, that the glorious gospel of the blessed God
— sent home and rendered powerful by the effi-
cacious application of the Holy Spirit, is not
sufficient to fulfil in us **the righteousness of
the law," and cause us **to stand perfect and
complete in all the will of God."

With respect to the second thing which ap-
pears wonderful to me, viz., that so many seem
to have an entirely self-righteous view of the
doctrine of sanctification, let me say, that they

SANCrii'lCATlON'.

129

that

seem afraid to admit that any are entirely and
perfectly sanctihed in this life, lest they shonld
flatter hnman pride, seeming to take it for
granted that if any are entirely sanctified, they
have whereof to glory, as if they had done some-
thing, and were in themselves better than others.
Whereas, the doctrine of entire sanctification
utterly abhors the idea of human merit, disclaims
and repudiates it as altogether an abomination
to God and to the sanctified soul. This doc-
trine as taught in the Bible, and as I understand
it, is as far as possible from conniving in the
least degree at the idea of any thing naturally
good in saints or sinners. It ascribes the whole
of salvation and sanctification from first to last,
not only till the soul is sanctified, but at every
moment while it remains in that state, to the
indwelling Spirit, and influence, and grace of
Christ.

Further objections answered :

3. I will next consider those passages of scrip-
ture which are by some supposed to contradict
the doctrine we have been considering.

I. Kings viii. 46: "If they sin against thee,
(for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou
be angry with them, and deliver them to the
enemy, so that they carry them away captives
unto the land of the enemy, far or near," &c. On
this passage, I remark, —

(i.) That this sentiment in nearly the same
language, is repeated in 2 Chron. vi. 26, and in
Eccl. vii. 20, where the same original v/ord in the
same form is used.

I I

.r^

VIEWS UF

I !■

(2.) These are the strongest passages I know
of in the Old Testament, and the same remarks
are apphcable to the three.

(3.) I will quote, for the satisfaction of the
reader, the note of Dr. Adam Clarke upon this
passage, and also that of Barclay, the celebrated
and highly spiritual author of "An Apology for
the True Christian Divinity." And let me say,
that they appear to me to be satisfactory answers
to the objection founded upon these passages.

Clarke: '**If they sin against thee.' — This
must refer to some general defection from truth ;
to some species of false worship, idolatry, or cor-
ruption of the truth and ordinances of the Most
High ; as for it, they are here stated to be delivered
into the hands of their enemies, and carried away
captive, which was the general punishment of
idolatry ; and what is called, [verse 47,] acting
perversely and committing wickedness.

*' * If they sin against thee, for there is no man
that sinneth not.' The second clause, as it is
here translated, renders the supposition in the
first clause, entirely nugatory ; for, if there be no
man that sinneth not, it is useless to say, if they
sin; butgthis contradiction, is taken away, by refer-
ence to the original ki yechetau lak, which should
be translated, if they shall sin against thee ; or
should they sin against thee, ki ein adam asher lo
yecheta; 'for there is no man that may not sin;'
that is, there is no man impeccabUy none infallible;
none that is not liable to trangress. This is the

L.'^-

^-«i—

SANCTiriCArioN.

•3'

5 I know
remarks

of the
pon this
iebrated
logy for
me say,
answers
ages.

.' — This
truth ;
, orcor-
le Most
ilivered
id away
nent of
acting

lo man
IS it is

in the
3 be no

fthey
r refer-
should

e ; or
sher lo

t sin;*

Ulible;

is the

true nicaninj; of the phrase in various parts of
the Bible, and so ourtrimshitors have understood
the original, for even in the thirty-first verse of
this chapter, they have translated yecheta, if a
man trespass ; which certainly implies he mi^ht
or mi^ht not do it; and in this way they have
translated the sauie W(jrd, if a soul sin in Lev. v.
I, and vi. 2: i Sam. ii. 25; 2 Chron. iv. 22 ; and
in several other places. The truth is, the Hebrew
has no mood to express words in the permissive
or optative way, but to express this sense it uses
the future tense of the conjugation kal.

*' This l(;xt has been a wonderful strong-hold
for all who believe that there is no redemption
from sin in this life ; that liO man can live with-
out committing sin ; and that we cannot be en-
tirely freed from it till we die.

1. The text speaks no such doctrine, it only
speaks of the possibility of every man's sinning ;
and this must be true of a state of probation.

2. There is not another text in the Divine re-
cords that is more to the purpose than this.

3. The doctrine is flatly in opposition to the
design of the gospel ; for Jesus came to save His
people from their sins, and to destroy the works
of the devil.

4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine,
and should be blotted out of every Christian's
creed. There are too many who are seeking to
excuse their crimes by all means in their power ;
and we need not embody their excuses in a creed,
to complete their deception, by stating that their
sins are unavoidable.

•rii;

132

VIEWS OF

i I

I 1

i ,1

Barclay: " Seconclly — Another objection is
from two })assages of scripture, much of one
signification. The one is i Kings viii. 46: For
there is no man that sinneth not. The other is
P^ccl. vii. 20: For there is not a just man upon
earthy that doeth good, and sinnetJi not.

*' I answer: i. These affirm nothing of a daily
and continual sinning, so as never to be redeemed
from it ; but only that all have sinned, or that
there is none that doth not sin, though not
always, so as never to cease to sin ; and in this
lies the question. Yea, in that place of the
Kings he speaks within two verses of the return-
ing of such with all their souls and hearts ; which
implies a possibility of leaving of sin. 2. There
is a respect to be had to the seasons and dispen-
sations ; for if it should be granted that in Sol-
omon's time there were none that sinned not, it
will not follow that there are none such now, or
that it is a thing not now attainable by the grace
of God under the gospel. 3. And lastly, This
whole objection hangs upon a false interpreta-
tion ; for the original Hebrew word may be read
in the Potential Mood, thus, There is 710 man who
may not sin, as well as in the Indicative : so both
the old Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, and Vata-
blus, have it ; and the same word is so used.
Psalm cxix. 1 1 : Thy word have I hid in my heart,
that I might not sin against thee, in the Potential
Mood, and not in the Indicative ; which being
more answerable to the universal scope of the
scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the
sense of almost all interpreters, doubtless ought

SANCTIFICATION.

133

to be so understood, and the other interpretation
rejected as spurious.''

(4.) Whatever may be thought of the views of
these authors, to me, it is a plain and satisfac-
tory answer to the objection founded upon these
passages, that the objection might be strictly
true under the Old Testament dispensation, and
prove nothing in regard to the attainability of a
state of entire sanctification under the New.
What, does the New Testament dispensation
differ nothing from the Old in its advantages for
the acquisition of holiness ? If it be true that no
one under the comparatively dark dispensation
of Judaism, attained a state of entire and perma-
nent sanctification, d^^es that prove such a state
unattainable under the gospel ? It is expressly
stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that " the
Old Covenant made nothing perfect, but the
bringing in of a better hope did." Under the
Old Covenant, God expressly promised that He
would make a new one with the House oi Israel
in *' writing the law in their hearts," and in " en-
graving it in their inward parts." And this New
Covenant was to be made with the house of
Israel, under the Christian dispensation. What
then do all such passages in the Old Testament
prove in relation to the privileges and holiness of
Christians under the New dispensation ?

(5.) Whether any of the Old Testament saints
did so far receive the New Covenant by way of
anticipation, as to enter upon a state of entire
and permanent sanctification, it is not my present
purpose to inquire. Nor will I inquire, whether^

t I

«r if

•r^a.

134

VIEWS OF

admitting that Solomon said in his day, that
"there was not a just man upon the earth that
liveth and sinneth not," the same could with
equal truth have been assorted of every genera-
tion under the Jewish dispe.isation?

(6.) It is expressly assertiid of Abraham and
multitudes of the Old Testament saints, that they
" died in faith, not having received the promises."
Now, what can this mean? It cannot be that
they did not know the promises, for to them the
promises were made. It cannot mean that they
did not. receive Christ, lor the Bible expressl)'^
asserts that they did, — that "Abraham rejoiced
to see Christ's day," — that Moses, and indeed all
the Old Testament saints, had so much know-
ledge of Christ, as a Saviour to be revealed, as
to bring them into a state of salvation. But still
they did not receive the promise of the Spirit as
it is poured out under the Christian dispensation.
This was the great thing all along promised, first
to Abraham, or to his seed, which is Christ. Gal.
iii. 14-16: "That the blessing of Abraham might
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith." "Now, to Abraham and his seed were
the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds,
as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which
is Christ." And afterwards to the Christian
Church, by all the prophets. Acts ii. 16-21 : "But
this is that which was spoken by the prophet
Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days,
(saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,

1 i

SANCTIFICATION.

^35

and your old men shall dream dreams : and on
my servants and on my handmaidens 1 will pour
out in those days of my Spirit ; and they shall
prophesy: and I will show wonders in heaven
above, and signs in the earth beneath ; blood,
and fire, and vapor of smoke : tlie sun shall be
turned into darkness, and the moon into blood,
before that great and notable day of the Lord
come: and it shall come to pass that whosoever
shall call on the name * f the Lord shall be saved."
Acts ii. 38-39: "Then Peter said unto them.
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your chil-
dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many
as the Lord our God shall call." Acts iii. 24-26:
'* Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and
those that follow after, as many as have spoken,
have likewise foretold of these days." "Unto
you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus,
sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one
of you from his iniquities." And lastly by Christ
himself, which He expressly styles the promise of
the Father. Acts i. 4-5: "And being assembled
together with them, commanded them that they
should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for
the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye
have heard of Me. For John truly baptized with
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost not many days hence." They did not
receive the light and the glory of the Christian
dispensation, nor the fulness of the Holy Spirit.
And it is asserted in the Bible that " they with-

III

I •;

4i>i '

i !

' 1

'36

VIEWS OF

■, (' . 1

out US," that is, without our privileges, '* could
not be made perfect."

2. The next objection is founded upon the
Lord's Prayer. In this, Christ has taught us to
pray, '' Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
those who trespass against us." Here it is ob-
jected that if a person should become entirely
sanctified, he could no longer use this clause of
this prayer, which it is said, was manifestly de-
signed to be used by the Church to the end of
time. Upon this prayer I remark :

(i.) Christ has taught us to pray for entire and
permanent sanctification. "Thy will be done on
earth as it is done in heaven."

(2.) He designed that we should expect this
prayer to be answered, or that we should mock
God by asking what we do not believe is agree-
able to his will, and that too which we know
could not consistently be granted ; and that we
are to repeat this insult to God as often as we
pray.

(3.) The petition for forgiveness of our tres-
passes it is plain, must apply to past sins, and
not to sins we are committing at the time we
make the prayer; for it would be absurd and
abominable to pray for the forgiveness of a sin
which we were then in the act of comnnitting.

(4.) This prayer cannot properly be made in
respect to any sin of which we have not repented ;
for it would be highly abominable in the sight of
God, to pray for the forgiveness of a sin of which
we did not repent.

(5.) If there be any hour or day in which a

**^

SANCTIFICATION.

^37

man has committed no actual sin, lie could not
consistently make this prayer in reference to that
hour or that day.

(6.) But at that very time, it would be highly
proper for him to make this prayer in relation to
all his past sins, and that too although he may
have repented of and confessed them and prayed
for their forgiveness, a thousand times before.

(7.) And although his sins may be forgiven, he
ought still to feel penitent in view of them — to
repent of them both in this world and in the
world to come as often as he remembers them.
And it is perfectlv suitable, so long as he lives in
the world, to say the least, to repent and repeat
the request for forgiveness. For myself, I am
unable to see why this passage should be made a
stumbhng block ; for if it be improper to pray
for the forgiveness of past sins of which we have
repented, then it is improper to pray for forgive-
ness at all. And if this prayer cannot be used
with propriety in reference to past sins of which
we have already repented, it cannot properly be
used at all, except upon the absurd supposition,
that we are to pray for the forgiveness of sins
which we are now committing, and of which we
have not repented. And if it be improper to use
this form of prayer in reference to all past sins
of which we have repented, it is just as improper
to use it in reference to sins committed to-day or
yesterday, of which we have repented.

3. Another objection is founded on James iii.
1,2: *' My brethren, be not many masters, know-
ing that we shall receive the greater condemna-

'■' ' 'I

n n \

^ii

. (

mfJi

I '

138

VIEWS OF

tion. For in many things we offend all. If any
man offend not in word, the same is a perfect
man, and able also to bridle the whole body."
Upon this passage I remark:

(i.) The term rendered masters here, may be
rendered teachers, critics, or censors, and be un-
derstood either in a good or bad sense. The
Apostle exhorts the brethren not to be many mas-
ters, because if they are so they will incur the
greater condemnation ; "for," says he, "in many
thmgs we offend all." The fact that we all
offend is here urged as a reason why we should
not be many masters ; which shows that the term
masters is here used in a bad sense. "Be not
many masters," for if we are masters, "we shall
receive the greater condemnation," because we
are all great offenders. Now I understand this
to be the simple meaning of this passage j do not
many [or any] of you become censors, or critics,
and set yourselves up to j udge and condemn others.
For in as unich as you have all sinned yourselves,
and we are all great offenders, we shall receive
the greater condemnation, if we set ourselves up
as censors. "For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again."

(2.) It does not appear to me that the Apostle
designs to affix m any thing at all of the present
character of himself or of those to whom he
wrote ; nor to have had the remotest allusion to
the doctrine of entire sanctification, but simply
to affirm a well established truth in its applica-
tion to a particular sin ; that if they became
censors, and injuriously condemned others, inas-

SANXTIFICATION.

139

much as they had all committed many sins, they
should receive the greater condemnation.

(3.) That the Apostle did not design to deny
the doctrine of Christian perfection or entire
sanctification, as maintained in this treatise,
seems evident from the fact that he immediately
subjoins, "If any man offend not in word, the
same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the
whole body."

4. Another objection is founded upon i John
i. 8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us " Upon this
I remark:

(i.) Those who make this passage an objection
to the doctrine of entire sanctification in this
life assume that the Apostle is here speaking of
sanctification instead of justification, whereas an
honest examination of the passage, if I mistake
not, will render it evident that the Apostle makes
no allusion here to sanctification, but is speaking
solely of justification. A little attention to the
connection in which this verse stands, will I think
render this evident. But before I proceed to
state what I understand to be the meaning of
this passage, let us consider it in the connection
in which it stands, in the sense in which they
understand it who quote it for the purpose of
opposing the sentiment advocated in this dis-
course. They understand the Apostle as affirm-
ing that if we say we are in a state of entire
sanctification and do not sin, we deceive ourselves
and the truth is not in us. Now if this were the
Apostle's meaning, he involves himself in this
gonnection in two flat contradictions.

140

VIEWS OF

*m±i

(2.) This verse is immediately preceded by the
assertion that " the blood of Jesus Christ cleans-
eth us from all sin." Now it would be very re-
markable, if immediately after this assertion, the
Apostle should mean to say, (as they suppose he
did,) that it does not cleanse us from all sin, and
if we say it does, we deceive ourselves. For he
had just assumed that the blood of Jesus Christ
does cleanse us from all sin. If this were his
meaning it involves him in as palpable a contra-
diction as could be expressed.

(3.) This view of the subject then represents
the Apostle in the conclusion of the seventh verse,
as saying, the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son,
cleanseth us from all sin. And in the eight
verse, as saying, that if we suppose ourselves to
be cleansed from all sin, we deceive ourselves,
thus flatly contradicting what he had just said.
And in the ninth verse he goes on to say that He
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness, that is, the
blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.
But if we say it does, we deceive ourselves. But
if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all un-
righteousness. Now all unrighteousness is sin.
If we are cleansed from all unrighteousness, we
are cleansed from sin. And now suppose a man
should confess his sin, and God should in faith-
fulness and justice forgive his sin and cleanse
him from all unrighteousness, and then he should
confess and profess that God had done this, are
we to understand that the Apostle would then
affirm that he deceives himself in supposing that

Li,

I
I

SANCTII'ICATION.

141

the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth him from all
sin ?

But as I have already said, I do not understand
the Apostle as affirming anything in respect to
the present moral character of any one, but as
speaking of the doctrine of justification. In the
tenth verse. He appears to affirm over again what
he had said in the eighth. It we say that we
have not sinned, we make him a liar.

This then appears to me to be the meaning of
the whole passage. If we say that we are not
sinners, that is, have no sin to need the blood of
Christ, that we have never sinned, and conse-
quently need no Saviour, we deceive ourselves.
For we have sinned, and nothing but the blood
of Christ cleanseth us from sin, or procures our
pardon and justification. And now, if we will
not deny but confess that we have sinned, " He
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness." " But if
we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a
liar, and His word is not in us.''

5. It has been objected to the view I have given
of Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34, that if that passage is to
be considered as a promise of entire sanctifica-
tion, this proves too much. Inasmuch as it is
said, " they shall all know the Lord from the
least to the greatest," therefore, says the objector,
it would prove that all the Church has been in a
state of entire sanctification ever since the com-
mencement of the New Testament dispensation.
To this objection I answer:

(i.) I have already, I trust, shown that this
promise is conditioned upon faith, and that the

,^"

142

VIKWS <^F

blessiiif^ cannot possibly be received but by faith.

(2.) It is doubtless true that many have received
this covenant in its fulness.

(3.) A promise may be unconditional or abso-
lute, and certain of a fulfilment in relation to the
whole Church as a body in some period of its
history, which is, nevertheless, conditional in
relation to its application to any particular indi-
viduals or generation of individuals.

(4.J I think it is in entire keeping with the
propnecies to understand this passage as express-
ly promising to the Church a day, when all her
members shall be sanctified, and when " Holiness
to the Lord shall be written upon the bells of the
horses." Indeed it appears to be abundantly
foretold that the Church, as a body, shall, in this
world, enter into a state of entire sanctification,
in some period of her history; and that this will
be the carrying out of these promises of the New
Covenant, of which we are speaking. But it is
by no means an objection to this view of the
subject, that all the Church have not yet entered
into this state.

It has been maintained that this promise in

teremiah has been fulfilled already. This has
een argued,

(I.) From the fact that the promise has no
condition, expressed or implied, and the respon-
sibility therefore rests with God.

(2.) That the Apostle in his epistle to the
Hebrews, quotes it as to be fulfilled at the advent
of Christ. Now, to this I answer.

It might as well be argued that all the rest of
the promises and prophecies relating to the gos-

SANCTIFICATION.

143

pel day were fulfilled, because the time had come
when the promise was due. Suppose it were
deuied that the world would ever he converted,
or that there ever would be any more piety in
the world than there has been and is at present ;
and when the promises and prophecies respecting
the latter day glory, and the conversion of the
world, should be adduced in proof that the world
is to be converted, it should be replied that these
promises had already been fulfilled — that they
were unconditional — and that the advent of the
Messiah was the time when they became due.
But suppose, that in answer to this, it should be
urged that nothing has ever yet occurred in the
history of this world that seems at all to have
come up to the meaning of these promises and
prophecies — thSt the world has never been in the
state which seems to be plainly described in these
promises and prophecies — and that it cannot be
that any thing the world has yet experienced is
what is meant by such language as is used in the
Bible in relation to the future state of the world.
Now, suppose to this it should be replied, that
the event has shown what the promises and
prophecies really meant — that we are to interpret
the language by the fact — that as the promises
and prophecies were unconditional, and the
gospel day has really co* \e when they were to
be fulfilled, we certainly know, whatever their
language may be, that they meant nothing more
than what the world has already realized ? This
would be precisely like the reasoning of some
persons in relation to Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34. They
say.

a. The promises are without condition.

,f r

•ri

VI l:\vs of

. ',

b. The time has come for their fulfilment.
Therefore the world has realized their fulfilment,
and all that was intended by them ; that the facts
in the case settle the question of construction
and interpnjtadon ; and we know that they never
intended to promise a state of entire sanctifica-
tion, because as a matter of fact no such state has
be(m realized by the Church. Indeed! Then the
Bible is the most hyperbolical, not to say ridicu-
lous book in the universe. If what the world has
seen in regard to the extension and universal pre-
valence of the Redeemer's kingdom, is all that
the promises relating to these events really mean,
then the i^ible of all books in the world is the
most calculated to deceive mankind. But who,
after all, in the exercise of his sober senses, will
admit any such reasoning as this? Who does not
know, or may not know, if he will use his com-
mon sense, that although these promises and
prophecies are unconditionally expressed, yet
that they areas a matter of fact really conditioned
upon a right exercise of human agency, and that
a time is to come when the world shall be con-
verted; and that the conversion of the world
implies in itself a vastly higher state of religious
feeling and action in the Church, than has for
centuries, or perhaps ever been witnessed — and
that the promise of the New Covenant is still to
be fulfilled in a higher sense than it ever has
been ? If any man doubts this, I must believe
that he does not understand his Bible.

Faith, then, is an indispensable condition of
the fulfilment of all promises of spiritual bless-
ings, the reception of which involves the exercise
of our agency.

SANCnUCATIUN.

Again, it is not a little curious, that those who
give this interpretation to these promises /;//n/,'"/w<?
that they s(;e a very close connection, if not an
absolute identity of our views with those of
modern Antinomian Perfectionists. Now it is
of importance to remark, that this is one of the
leading j)eculiarities of that sect. They [the
Antinomian Perfectionists] insist that these are
promises without condition, and that consequent-
ly their own watchfulness, prayers, exertions, and
the right exercise of their own agency, are not
at all to be taken into the account in the matter
of their j)erseverance in holiness — that the res-
ponsibility is thrown entirely upon Christ, inas-
much as his promises are without condition.
The thing that he has promised, say they, is,
that without any c(;ndition, he will keep them in
a state of eritire sanctification — that therefore,
for them to confess sin, is to accuse Christ of
breaking his promises. For them to make any
efforts at perseverance in holiness is to set aside
the gospel and go back to the law. For them
even to fear that they shall sin, is to fear that
Christ will tell a lie.

The fact is that this, and their setting aside
the moral law, are the two great errors of their
whole system. It would be easy to show that the
adoption of this sentiment, that these promises
are without condition, expressed or implied, has
led to some of their most fanatical and absurd
opinions and practices. They take the ground
that no conditi )n is expressed, and that therefore
none is implied ; overlooking the fact, that the
very nature of the thing promised, implies that

I! !

146

VIFAVS OF

faith is the condition upon which its fulfilment
must depend. It is hoped therefore, that our
brethren who charge us with perfectionism, will
be led to see that to tliemselves, and not to us,
does this charge belor^g.

These are the principal passages that occur to
my mind, and those I believe upon which the
principal stress has been laid by the opposers of
this doctrine. And as I do not wish to protract
the discussion, I shall omit the examination of
other passages, as I design at a future time ta
answer such objections as may seem to be of
weight. This 1 design to do without either the
spirit or form of controversy, noticing and ans-
wering such objections as may from time to time
occur to my own mind, or as may be suggested
by others.

There are many objections to the doctrine of
entire sanctification, besides those derived from
the passages of scripture which I have consider-
ed. Some of these objections are doubtless hon-
estly felt, and deserve to be considered. I will
then proceed to notice such of them as now occur
to my mind.

6. It is objected that the doctrine of entire and
permanent sanctification in this life, tends to the
error*' of modern perfectionism. This objection
has bt;en urged by some good men, and, I doubt
not^ honestly urged. But still I cannot believe
that they have duly considered the matter. It
seems to me that one fact will set aside this objec-
tion. It lb well known that theWesleyan Meth-
odists have, ac a denomination, from the earliest
period of their history, maintained this doctrine

SANCTIFICATION.

147

in all its length and breadth. Now if such is the
tendenc}' of the doctrine, it is passing strange
that this tendency has never developed itself in
that denomination. So far as I can learn, the
Methodists haVe been in a great measure if not
entirely exempt from the errors held by modern
perfectionists. Perfectionists, as a body, and I
believe with very few exceptions, have arisen out
of those denominations that deny the doctrine of
entire sanctification in this life.

Now the reason of this is obvious to my mind.
When professors of Religion, who have been all
their life subject to bondage, begin to inquire
earnestly for deliverance from their sins, they
have found neither sympathy nor instruction in
regard to the prospect of getting rid of them in
this life. Then they have gone to the Bible, and
there found, in almost every part of it, Christ
presented as a Saviour from their sins. But when
they proclaim this truth, they are at once treated
as heretics and fanatics by their brethren, until,
being overcome of evil, they fall into censorious-
ness ; and finding the Church so decidedly and
utterly wrong, in her opposition to this one great
important truth, they lose confidence in their
ministers and the Church, and, being influenced
by a wrong spirit, Satan takes the advantage of
them, and drives them to the extreme of error
and delusion. This I believe to be the true his-
tory of many of the most pious members of the
Calviristic churches. On the contrary, the Meth-
odists are very much secured against these errors.
They are taught that Jesus Christ is a Saviour
from all sin in this world. And when they in-

K 1

,!■

148

VIEWS OF

II ^

quire for deliverance, they are pointed to Jesus
Christ as a present and all-sufficient Redeemer.
Finding sympathy and instruction on this great
and agonizing point, their confidence in their
ministers and their brethren remains, and they
walk quietly with them.

It seems to me impossible that the tendency of
this doctrine should be to the peculiar errors of
the modern perfectionists, and yet not an instance
occur among all the Methodist ministers, or the
thousands of their members, for one hundred
years.

And here let me say, that it is my full convic-
tion, that th^^re are but two ways in which minis-
ters of the present day can prevent members of
their churches from becoming perfectionists. One
is, to suffer them to hve so far from God, that
they will not inquire after holiness of heart ; and
the other is, most fully to inculcate the glorious
doctrine of entire consecration, and that it is the
high privilege as well as the duty of Christians,
to live in a state of entire co» ^ecration to God.

I can say from my own experience, that since
I have understood and fully taught the doctrine
as I now hold it, I see no tendency among those
who listen to my instructions to these errors,
while in churches not far distant, where the
doctrine which we inculcate here is opposed,
there seems to be a constant tendency among
their most pious people to Antinomian perfec-
tionism. How can this be accounted for on any
other principle than the one above stated? I can
truly say that those persons here, who have been
the first to lay hold on (he dogtrinq of entire

SANCTIFICATION.

Jesus

semer.

great

their

i they

icy of
:)rs of
tance
r the
idred

nvic-
linis-
rs of

One

that

and
"ious
5 the
ans,
;d.
ince
rine
lose
ors,
the
ied,
>ng
ec-
iny
;an
ten
ire

sanctification in this life, and who give the
highest evidence of enjoying the blessing of
present sanctification have been at the farthest
remove from the errors of the modern perfection-
ists. I might state a great many facts upon this
subject, but, for the sake of brevity, I omit them.

But, aside from the facts, what is the founda-
tion of all the errors of the modern perfectionists ?
Every one who has examined them knows that
they may be summed up in this, the abrogation
of the moral law. And now I would humbly
inquire, what possible tendency can there be to
their errors, if the moral law be preserved in the
system of truth? In these days a man is culpa-
bly ignorant of that class of people, who does
not know that the ' head and front of the offend-
ing,' and falling, is the setting aside of the law of
God. The setting aside of the Christian ordin-
ances of baptism and the Lord's supper, proceeds
upon the same principle, and manifestly grows
out of the abrogation of the law of God. But re-
tain the law of God, as the Methodists have done,
and as other denominations have done, who, from
the days of the Reformation, have maintained
this same doctrine, and there is certainly no
tendency to Antinomian perfectionism.

I have many things to say upon the tendency
of this doctrine, but at present this must suffice.

By some it is said to be identical with Perfec-
tionism ; and attempts are made to show in what
particulars Antinomian Perfectionism and our
views are the same. On this I remark:

(i.) It seems to have been a favorite policy of
certain controversial writers for a long time, in-

jl^l

f ^

150

VIEWS OF

I!'

Bi ^ !i

stead of meeting a proposition in the open field
of fair and Christian argument, to give it a bad
name, and attempt to put it down, not by force
of argument, but by showing that it is identical
with or sustains a near relation to Pelagianism,
Antinomianism, Calvinism, or some other ism,
against which certain classes of minds are deeply
prejudiced. In the recent controversy between
what are called Old and New School Divines,
who has not witnessed with pain the frequent
attempts that have been made to put down the
New School Divinity, as it is called, by calling
it Pelagianism, and quoting certam passages
from Pelagius, and other writers, to show the
identity of sentiment that exists between them.

This is a very unsatisfactory method of attack-
ing or defending any doctrine. There are, no
doubt, many points of agreement between Pela-
gius and all truly orthodox divines, and so there
are many points of disagreement between them.
There are also many points of agreement be-
r 'een modern Perfectionists and all Evangelical
Christians, and so there are many points of dis-
agreement between them and the Christian
Church in general. That there are some points
of agreement between their views and my own,
is no doubt true. And that we totally disagree
in regard to those points that constitute their
great peculiarities, is, if I understand them, also
true.

But did I really agree in all points with Augus-
tine or Edwards, or Pelagius, or the modern Per-
fectionists, neither the good nor the ill name of
any of these would prove my sentiments to be

vil

SANCTIFICATION.

151

Open fieJd
e it a bad
t by force
> identical
agianism,
>ther ism,
ire deeply
" between
Divines,
frequent
down tha
•y calling
passages
how the
-n them,
f attack-
are, no
en Pela-
so there
-n them,
lent be-
ngehcal
J of dis-
hristian
points
ly own,
isagree
e their
m, also

^ugus-

'n Per-

ime of

to be

either right or wrong. It would remain after all,
to show that those with whom I agreed were
either right or wrong, in order on the one hand,
to establish that tor which 1 contend, or on the
other, to overthrow that which I maintain. It is
often more convenient to give a doctrine or an
argument a bad name, than it is soberly and sat-
isfactory to reply to it.

(2.) It is not a little curious that we should be
charged with holding the same sentiments with
the Perfectionists ; and yet they seem to be more
violently opposed to our views, since they have
come to understand them, than almost any other
persons whatever. I have been informed by one
of their leaders, that he regards me as one of the
master-builders of Babylon. And I also under-
stand that they manifest greater hostility to the
Oberlin Evangelist than almost any other class
of persons.

(3.) I will not take time, nor is it needful, to
go into an investigation or a denial even of the
supposed or alleged points of agreement be-
tween us and the Perfectionists. But for the
present it must be sufficient to request you to
read and examine for yourselves.

With respect to the modern Perfectionists,
those who have been acquainted with their writ-
ings, know that some of them have gone much
farther from the truth than others. Some of
their leading men, who commenced with them
and adopted their name, stopped far short of
adopting some of their most abominable errors;
still mamtaining the authority and perpetual
obligation of the moral law ; and thus have been

IM II

152

VIEWS OF

saved from going into many of the most objec-
tionable and destructive notions of the sect.
There are many more points of agreement be-
tween that class of Perfectionists and the ortho-
dox church, than between any other class of
them and the Christian Church. And there are
still a number of important points of difference,
as every one knows who is possessed of correct
information upon this subject.

I abhor the practice of denouncing whole
classes of men for the errors of some of that
name. I am well aware that there are many of
those who are termed Perfectionists, who as
truly abhor the extremes of error into which
many of that name have fallen, as perhaps do
any persons living.

7. Another objection is, that persons could not
live in this world, if they were entirely sanctified.
Strange ! Does holiness injure a man ? Does
perfect conformity to all the laws of life and
health, both physical and moral, render it impos-
sible for a man to live ? If a man break off from
rebellion against God, will it kill him ? Does
there appear to have been any thing in Christ's
holiness inconsistent with life and health ?
The fact is, that this objection is founded in a
gross mistake in regard to what constitutes entire
sanctification. It is supposed by those who hold
this objection, that this state implies a continual
and most intense degree of excitement, and of
many of those things which I have shown in a
former part of this discourse are not at all implied
in it. I have thought, that it is rather a glorified
than a sanctified state, that most men have be-

SANCTIFICATION.

nost objec-
^ the sect.
?ement be-
the ortho-
Jr class of
1 there are
difference,
of correct

^g whole
le of that
J many of
, who as
ito which
>rhaps do

could not
anctified.
? Does
life and
it impos-
off from
? Does
Christ's
health ?
ed in a
's entire
ho hold
>ntinual
and of
^vn in a
mplied
lorified
ive be-

153

fore their minds whenever they consider this
subject. When Christ was upon earth, he was
in a sanctified but not in a glorified slate. " It
is enough for the disciple that he be as his
Master." Now what is there in the moral charac-
ter of Jesus Christ, as represented in his history,
aside from his miraculous powers, that may not
and ought not to be fully copied into the life of
every Christian ? I speak not of his knowledge,
but of his spirit and temper. Ponder well every
circumstance of his life that has come down to
us, and say, beloved, what is there in it, that
may not, by the grace ox God, be copied into
your own ? And think you, that a full imitation
of him in all that relates to his moral character
would render it impossible for you to live in this
world ?

8. Again, it is objected against our professing
a state of entire sanctification, that it not only
implies present obedience to the law of God, but
such a formation and perfection of holy habits,
as to render it certain that we shall never again
sin. And that a mkn can no more tell when he
is entirely sanctified, than he can tell how many
holy acts it will take to form holy habits of such
strength that he will never again sin. To this I
answer;

(I.) The law of God has. nothing to do with
requiring this formation of holy habits. It is
satisfied with present obedience, and only de-
mands at every present moment, the full devotion
of all our powers to God. It never, in any
instance, complains that we have not formed
such holy habits that we shall sin no more.

VIEWS OF

(2.) If it be true that a man is not entirely
sanctified until his holy habits are so fixed, as to
render it certain that he will never sin ac^ain,
then Adam was not in a state of entire sanctifica-
tion previously to the fall, nor were the angels in
this state before their fall.

) If this objection be true, there is not a
saint nor an angel in heaven, so far as we can
know, that can with the least propriety profess a
state of entire sanctification ; for how can they
know that they have performed so many holy
acts, as to have created such habits of holiness
as to render it certain that they will never sin
again.

(4.) Entire and continued sanctification does
not depend upon the formation of holy habits,
nor at all consist in this. But both entire and
permanent sanctification are based alone upon
the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Perseverance
in holiness is to be ascribed entirely to the influ-
ence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, both now
and to the end of our lives, instead of being
secured at all by any habits of holiness which
we may or ever shall have formed.

9. Another objection is, that the doctrine tends
to spiritual pride. And is it true indeed that to
become perlectly humble tends to pride? But
entire humility is implied in entire sanctification.
Is it true that you must remain in sin, and, of
course, cherish pride in order to avoid pride? Is
your humility more safe in your own hands, and
are you more secure against spiritual pride in
refusing to receive Christ as your helper, than

(I
of
pui
gei

gO(

SANCTIFICATION.

155

>t entirely
xed, as to
sin a^aiii,
sanctifica-
angeJs in

is not a

IS we can

profess a

can they

any holy

iiohness

never sin

:ion does
y habits,
iitire and
ne upon
sverance
he influ-
>oth now
^i being

>£>

which

nie tends
' that to
? But
ication.
and, of
ide? Is
ds, and
•ride in
:r, than

you would be in at once embracing Him as a full
Saviour?

10. Again, it is objected that many who have
embraced this doctrine, really are spiritually
proud. To this I answer:

(i.) So have many who believed the doctrine
of regeneration been deceived and amazinglj'
puffed up with the idea that they have been re-
generated when they have not. But is this a
good reason for abandoning the doctrine of re-
generation, or any reason why the doctrine
should not be preached ?

(2.) Let me inquire, whether a simple declara-
tion of what God has done for their souls, has
not been assumed as itself sufficient evidence of
spiritual pride on the part of those who embrace
this doctrine, while there was in reality no spirit-
ual pride at all? It seems next to impossible,
with ihh present views of the Church, that an
individual should really attain this state, and
profess it in a manner so humble as not, of course,
to be suspected of enormous spiritual pride ? This
consideration has been a snare to some who have
hesitated and even neglected to declare what
God has done for their souls, lest they should be
accused of spiritual pride. And this has been a
serious injury to their piety.

11. But, again, it is objected that this doctrine
tends to censoriousness. To this I reply:

(i.) It is not denied that some who have pro-
fessed to believe this doctrine have become
censorious. But this no more condemns this
doctrine than > condemns that of regeneration.
And that it tends to censoriousness, might just

'I >

156

VIEWS OF

as well be urged against every acknowledged
doctrine of the Bible as against this doctrine.

(2.) Let any Christian do his whole duty to
the Church and the world in their present state —
let him speak to them and of them as they really
are; and he would of course incur the charge of
censoriousness. It is therefore the most unrea-
sonable thing in the world to suppose that the
Church, in its present state, would not accuse
any perfect Christian of censoriousness. Entire
sanctification implies the doing of all our duty.
But to do all our duty, we must rebuke sin in
high places and in low places. Can this be done
with all needed severity, without in many cases
giving offence and incurring the charge of censo-
riousness ? No; it is impossible; and to main-
tain the contrary, would be to impeach the wis-
dom and holinc.T". of Jesus Christ himself.

12. It is objected that this doctrine lowers the
standard of holiness to a level with our own ex-
perience. It is not denied that in some instances
this may have been true. Nor can it be denied,
that the standard of Christian perfection has
been elevated much above the demands of the
law, in its application to human beings in our
present state of existence. It seems to have
been forgotten, that the inquiry is, what does
the law demand ? — not of angels, and what would
be entire sanctification in them ; nor of Adam,
previously to the fall, when his powers of body
and mind were all in a state of perfect health :
not what will the law demand of us in a future
state of existence ; not what the law may de-
mand of the Church in some future period of its

SANCTIFICATION.

157

tiowledged
loctrine.
ie duty to
nt state— -
(ley really
charge of
3st unrea-
i that the
^t accuse
'• Entire
our duty.
^e sin in
s be done
my cases
of censo-
to main-
the wis-
I
wers the

own ex-
nstances
' denied,
tion has
s of the
3 in our
to have
at does
t would

Adam,
^f body
health :
t future
lay de-
d of its

history^on earth, when the human constitution, by
the universal prevalence of correct and thorough
temperance principles, may have acquired its
pristine health and powers ; — but the question is,
what does the law of God require of Christians
of the present generation ; of Christiatis in all
respects in our circumstances, with all the ignor-
ance and debility of body and mind which have
resulted from the intemperance and abuse of the
human constitution through so many generations?

The law levels its claims to us as we are, and
a j ust exposition of it, as I have already said, under
all the present circumstances of our being, is
indispensable to a right apprehension of what
constitutes entire sanctification.

To be sure, there may be danger of frittering
away the claims of the law and letting down the
standard. But I would humbly inquire whether,
hitherto, the error has not been on the other side,
and whether as a general fact, the law has not
been so interpreted as naturally to beget the idea
so prevalent, that if a man should become holy
he could not live in this world ? In a letter lately
received from a beloved, and useful, and vener-
ated minister of the gospel, while the writer ex-
pressed the greatest attachment to the doctrine
of entire consecration to God, and said that he
preached the same doctrine which we hold to his
people every Sabbath, but by another name, still
he added that it was revolting to his feelings to
hear any mere man set up the claim of obedience
to the law of God. Now let me inquire, why
should this be revolting to the feelings of piety ?
Must it not be because the lav/ of God is supposed

)

U
I

159

VIF.WS f)F

to require something ol human beings in our
state, which it does not and cannot require ?
Why should such a claim be thought extravagant,
unless the claims of the living God be thought
extravagant? If the law of God really requires
no more of men than what is reasonable and
possible, why should it be revolting to any mind
to hear an individual profess to have attained to
entire obedience? I kr ;)w that the brother to
whom I allude, would be almost the last man
deliberately and knowingly to give any strained
interpretation to the law of God ; and yet I can-
not but feel that much of the difficulty that good
men have upon this subject, has arisen out of a
comparison of the lives of saints with a standard
entirely above that which the law of God does
or can demand of persons in all respects in our
circumstances.

13. Another objection is, that as a matter of
fact the grace of God is not sufficient to secure
the entire sanctification of saints in this life. It
is maintained, that the question of the attain-
ability of entire sanctification in this life, resolves
itself after all into the question whether the
Church is, and Christians are sanctified in this
life ? The objectors say that nothing is suf-
ficient grace that does not as a matter of fact,
secure the faith and obedience and perfection ot
the saints ; and, therefore, the provisions of the
gospel are in fact to be measured by the results ;
and that the experience of the Church decides
both the meaning of the promises and the extent
of the provisions of grace. Now, to this I answer:

If this objection be good for any thing in regard

in our
tquire ?
,^agant,
liought
iquires
le and
^ mind
ned to
her to
t man
rained
I can-
t good
it of a
ndard
i does
n our

iter of
lecure
e. It
ttain-
jolves
r the
this
; suf-
fact,
on ot
)f the
jults ;
cides
xtent
Jwer:
gard

SANCriFlCATlON.

159

to entire sanctification, it is equally true in regard
to the spiritual state of every person in the world.
If the fact that men arc not perfect, proves that
uo provision is made for their perfection, their
being no l)(;tter than they are proves that there
is no ])rovision for their being any better than
they are, or that they might have aimed at being
any better, with any rational hope of success.
But who, except a fatalist, will admit any such
conclusion as this? And yet I do not see but
this conclusion is inevitable from such premises.

14. Another objection to this doctrine is, that
it is contrary to the views of some of the greatest
and best men in the Church, — that such men as
Augustine, Calvin, Doddridge, Edwards, <&c.,
were of a different opinion. To this I answer:

(i.) Suppose they were; — we are to call no
man father in such a sense as to yield up to him
the forming of our views of Christian doctrine.

(2.) This objection comes with a very ill grace
from those who wholly reject their opinions on
some of the most important points of Christian
doctrine.

(3.) Those men all held the doctrine of physical
depravity, which was manifestly the ground of
their rejecti<i>,, the doctrine ol entire consecration
to God in this life. Maintaining as they seem
to have done, that the constitutional susceptibil-
ities of body and mind were depraved and sinful,
consistency, of course, led them to reject the
idea that persons could be entirely sanctified
while in the body. Now, I would ask what con-
sistency is there in quoting them as rejecting the
doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, while

;r.«ti.r3t*J, < 1 1 tlWW*****

.»!•'

i6o

VIEWS OF

■

the reason of this rejection, in their minds, was
founded in the doctrine of physical depravity,
which notion is entirely denied by those who
quote their authority ?

15. But, again, it is objected, that if we should
attain this state of entire and continual consecra-
tion or sanctification, we could not know it until
the day of Judgment, and that to maintain its
attainability is vain, inasmuch as no one can
know whether he has attained it or not. To this
I reply;

(i.) A man's consciousness is the highest and
best evidence ot the present state of his own
mind. I understand consciousness to be the
mind's recognition of its own states, and that it
is the highest possible evidence to our own minds
of what passes within us. Consciousness can of
course testify only to our present sanctification,
but

(2.) With the law of God before us as our
standard, the testimony of consciousness in re-
gard to whether the mind is conformed to that
standard or not, is the highest evidence which
the mind can have of a present state of conformi-
ty to that rule.

(3.) It is a testimony which we cannot doubt
any more than we can doubt our existence.
How do we know, that we exist ? I answer : by
our consciousness. How do I know that I breathe,
or love, or hate, or sit, or stand, or lie down, or
rise up — that I am joyful or sorrowful — in short,
that I exercise any emotion, or volition, or affec-
tion of nvlnd — How do I know that I sin, or re-
peiit, or believe.'' I answer: by my own conscious-

SANCTIFICATION.

t6i

ness. No testimony can be " so direct and con-
vincing as this."

Now in order to know, that my repentance is
genuine, I must intellectually understand what
genuine repentance is. So if I would know
whether my love to God or man, or obedience to
the law is genuine, I must have clearly before
my mind the real spirit, and meaning, and bear-
ing of the law of God. Having the rule before
my mind, my own consciousness affords " the
most direct and convincing evidence possible"
whether my present state of mind is conformed
to the rule. The Spirit of God is never employed
in testifyin,^ lO what my consciousness teaches,
but in setting in a strong light before the mind
the rule to which I am to conform my life. It
is His business to make me understand, to induce
me to love and obey the truth ; and it is the
business of consciousness to testify to my own
mind, whether I do or do not obey the truth
when I apprehend it. A man ma}' be mistaken
in regard to the correctness of the law or truth of
God. He may therefore mistake the character
of his exercises. But when God so presents the
truth as to give the mind assurance, that it
understands his mind and will upon any subject,
the mind's consciousness of its own exercises in
view of that truth, is " the highest and most
direct possible " evidence of whether it obeys or
disobeys.

(4.) If a man cannot be conscious of the char-
acter of his own exercises, how can he know
when and of what he is to lepent ? If he has
committed sin of which he is not conscious, how
6

;«i

162

VIEWS OF

is he to repent of it ? And if he has a holiness
of which he is not conscious, how could he feel
that he has peace with God ?

But it is said a man may violate the law not
knowinf( it, and consequently have no conscious-
ness that he sinned, but that afterwards a know-
ledge of the law may convict him of sin. To this
1 reply, that if there was absolutely no knowledge
that the thing in question was wrong, the doing
of that thing was not sin, inasmuch as some de-
gree of knowledge of what is right or wrong is
indispensable to the moral character of any act.
In such a case there may be a sinful ignorance
which may involve all the guilt of those actions
that were ^ done in consequence of it ; but that
blame-worthiness lies in the ignorance itself, and
not at all in the violation of the rule of which the
mind was at that time entirely ignorant.

(5.) The Bible everywhere assumes, that we
are able to know, and unqualifiedly requires us
to know what the moral state of our mind is. It
commands us to examine ourselves, to know and
to prove our own selves. Now how can this be
done but by bringing our hearts in to the light of
the law of God, and then taking the testimony of
our own consciousness, whether we are or are not
in a state of conformity to the law ? But if we
are not to receive the testimony of our conscious-
ness in regard to our sanctification, are we to re-
ceive it in respect to our repentance or any other
exercise of our mind whatever? The fact is that
we may deceive ourselves, by neglecting to com-
pare ourselves with the right standard. But
when our views of the standard are right, and

SANCTIFICATIOM.

^03.

our consciousness is a felt, decided, unequivocal
state of mind, we cannot be deceived any more
than we can be deceived in regard to our own
existence.

(6.) But it is said our consciousness does not
teach us what the power and capacities of our
minds are, and that therefore, if consciousness
could teach us in respect to the kind of our exer-
cises, it cannot teach us in regard to their degree^
whether they are equu.1 to the present capability
of our mmd. To this I reply :

a. Consciousness does as unequivocally testify
whether we do or do not love God with all our
heart, as it does whether we love Him at all.
How does a man know that he lifts as much as
he can, or runs, or leaps, or walks as fast as he
is able ? I answer : by his own consciousness.
How does he know that he repents or loves with
all his heart ? I answer : by his own conscious-
ness. This is the onl}^ possible way in wliich he
can know it.

6. The objection implies that God has put
within our reach no possible means of knowing
whether we obey Him or not. The Bible does
not directly reveal the fact to any man, whether
he obeys God or not. It reveals his duty, but
does not reveal the fact whether he obeys. It
refers this testimony to his own consciousness.
The Spirit of God sets our duty before us, but
does not directly reveal to us whether we do it
or not : for this- would imply that every man is
under constant inspiration.

But it is said the Bible directs our attention to
the fact, whether we obey or disobey is evidence

I
I

k%^

mum

«e*

1'.,

.64

VIKWS OF

whether we are in a right state of mind or not.
J^ut I would inquire, how do we know whether
we obey or disobey ? How do we know any thing
of our conduct but by our consciousness ? Our
conduct as observed by otiiers is to them evidence
of the state of our liearts. But, 1 repeat it, our
consciousness of obedience to God, is to us tlie
liighest and indeed the only evidence of our true
cliaracter.

c. If a man's own consciousness is not to be
a witness, either for or against him, no other tes-
timony in the universe can ever satisfy him ot
the propriety of Gods dealing with him in the
iinal judgment. Let ten thousand witnesses
testify that a man had committed murder, still
the man could not feel condemned for it unless
his own consciousness bore testimony to the fact.
So if ten thousand witnesses should testify that
he had performed some good act, he could feel no
self-complacenc}^, or sense of self-approbation
and virtue, unless his consciousness bore its tes-
timony to the same eft'ect. There are cases of
common occurrence, where the witnesses testify
to the guilt or innocence of a man contrary to the
testimony of his own consciousness. In all such
cases, from the very laws of his being, he rejects
all other testimony : and let me add, that he would
reject the testimony of God, and from the very
laws of his being must reject it, if it contradicted
his own consciousness. When God convicts a
man of sin, it is not by contradicting his con-
sciousness; but, by placing the consci )usness
which he had at the time in the clear, strong
light of his memory, causing him to discover

■^"•■?f»*S^Si^^Si^

SANCTIFICATION.

165

clearly, and to remember distinctly, what light
he had, what thoughts, what convictions ; in
other words, what consciousness he had at the
time. And this, let me add, is the way, and the
only way, in which the Spirit of God can convict
a man of sin, thus bringing him to condemn him-
self. Now, suppose that God should bear testi-
mony against a. man^ that at such a time he did
such a thing — that such and such were all the
circiinlstances of the case — and suppose that, at
the same tirrie, the individual is unable to remem-
ber, and appears never to have had the least
consciousness of the transaction. The testimony
of God, in this case, could not satisfy the man's
mind, or lead him into a state of self-condemna-
tion. The only possible way in which this state
of mind could be induced would be to arouse the
memory of part consciousness, and cause the
whole scene to start into living reality before his
mind's eye, as it passed in his own consciousness
at the time. But if he had no consciousness of
any such thing, and consequently no remem-
brance of it could possibly take place to convict
him of sin is naturally and for ever impossible.

(7.) Men may overlook what consciousness is.
They may mistake the rule of duty — they may
confound consciousness with a mere negative
state of mind, or that state in which a man is not
conscious of a state of opposition to the truth.
Yet it must for ever remain true, that to our own
minds, *' consciousness must be the highest pos-
sible evidence" of what passes within us. And
if a man does not, by his own consciousness,
know whether he does the best that he can, un-

' H

(' --

tl ^

h (i

V,=!

ifi

1 66

VlKWS OF

(ler the circumstances —whether he has a single
eye to the glory oi (iod — and whether he is in a
state of entire consecration to God — he cannot
know it in any way whatever. And no testi-
mony whatever, cither oi God or man, could, ac-
cording to the law of his being, satisfy him, and
beget in him either conviction of guilt on the one
hand, or self-approbation on the other.

(8.) Let me ask, how those who make this
objection know that they are not in a sanctified
state ? Has God revealed it to them ? Has He
revealed it in the Bible ? Does the Bible say to
A. B., by name, you arenot in a sanctified state ?
or does it lay down a rule, in the light of which
his own consciousness bears this testimony
against him ? Has God revealed directly by
Piis Spirit^ that he is not in a sanctified state?
Or does He hold the rule of duty strongl}^ before
the mind, and thus awaken the testimony of con-
sciousness, that he is not in this state.

Now just in the same way, consciousness testi-
fies of those that are sanctified, that they are in
that state. Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of
God, makes any new or particular revelation to
them by name. * But the Spirit of God bears
witness with their spirits, by setting the rule in
a strong light before them. He induces that
state of mind that consciousness pronounces to
be conformity to the rule. This is as far as
possible from setting aside the judgment of God
in the case, lor consciousness is, under these
circumstances, the testimony of God, and the
way in which he convinces of sin on the one
hand, and of entire consecration on the other.

SANCTIFICATION.

167

By some, it is still objected that consciousness

alone is not evidence even to ourselves, of our
being or not being in a state of entire sanctifica-
tion — that the judgment of th(i mind is also em-
ployed in deciding the true intent and meaning
of the law, and is therefore as absolutely a wit-
ness in the case as consciousness is. "Conscious-
ness," it is said, "gives us the exercises of our
own mind, and the judgment decides whether
these exercises are in accordance with the law of
God." So that it is the judgment rather than
the consciousness, that decides whether we are
or are not in a state of entire sanctification ; and
therefore, il in our judgment of the law we happen
to be mistaken, than which nothing is more com-
mon, in such case we are utterly deceived, if we
think ourselves in a state of entire sanctification.
To this 1 answer,

1. It is indeed our judgment that decides upon
the intent and meaning of the law.

2. That we may be mistaken in regard to its
true meaning and appHcation in certain cases.
Bit,

3. 1 deny that it is the judgment which is to us
the witness in respect to the state of our own
minds. There are several powers of the mind
called into exercise in deciding upon the meaning
of, and obeying the law of God ; but it is con-
sciousness alone that gives us these exercises.
Nothing but consciousness can possibly give us
any exercise of our own minds, that is, we have
no knowledge of any exercise but by our own
consciousness. Suppose then the judgment is
exercised,' the will is exercised, and all the vol-

K'WIH

i68

VIEWS or

luitary powers are e^ercisrd. These exercises
are revealed tu us only an 1^ irfMy by conscious-
ness; so that it remains an inNariah'.: truth, that
consciousness is to us the only possible witness
of what our exercises are, and consequently of
the state of our own minds.

While I say that consciousness is the only evi-
dence we have or can have of our spiritual state,
and of the exercises of our own minds, it should
be distinctly kept in mind that many thoughts,
emotions, and affections, pass in our minds which
we do not so distinctly recognize at the time as
to remember them for an hour, or perhaps for a
moment. We must be indeed slightly conscious
of their existence at the time ; but our minds
being occupied so much with other things, pre-
vents our so distin '.tly marking them, as to lodge
them in our memories. Now of these thoughts,
emotions and affections, which thus often pass
through our minds in a great measure unnoticed,
the following things should be said, deeply pon-
dered, well understood, and always remembered.

1. Many of them to say the least, must be sin-
ful or holy.

2. If they are not distinctly noticed by con-
sciousness, their moral character whether sinful
or holy, may be at the time overlooked by us.

3. As we have no distinct recollection of them,
we may affirm that we are not conscious of sin,
when as a matter of fact we may have been
guilty of it in the exercise of these unnoticed
thoughts and affections.

4. So that all that a man in this ^state of ex-
istence may ever be able to affirm in respect to his

SANCTIFICATION.

169

jrcises
cious-
i,that
itness
tly of

y evi-
state,
bould
ghts,
which
ne as
for a
Jcious
Binds
, pre-
lodge
ights,
pass
ticed,
pon-
>ered.
5 sin-

con-
jinful
s.

hem,
" sin,
been
:iced

' ex-
ohis

moral character is, that he is not conscious of sin,
without being able to say absolutely that he does
not, and has not within a given time, had any
exercise of mind that is sinful. When his mind
is strongly exercised, and his consciousness there-
fore very clear and distinct, he may be able to
aftirm with a good degree of confidence, if not
with certainty, that he has had no sinful exer-
cises pe.haps for a given time, but yet of the gen-
eral tenor of his life I do not see how he can
affirm any thing more with certainty, than that
he does not remember to have been conscious of
any sin.

5. This view of the subject will account for
the fact to which I have already alluded, that the
way in which the Spirit of God often, nay always,
convinces of sin, is by awakening in our mem-
ories the recollection of past consciousness, and
often in this way revealing to us distmctly former
states of mind of which we were but very slightly
conscious at the time, thus making us to see that
we have been guilty of sin of the commission of
which we were not before at all aware. Paul
seems to me to recognize the principle here in-
culcated, when he says : " But with me it is a
very small thing that I should be judged of you,
or of man's judgment; yea, I judge not mine
own self; for I know nothing by myself; yet am
1 not hereby justified : but He that judgeth me is
the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the
time, until the Lord come, who both will bring
to light the hidden things of darkness, and will
make manifest the counsels of the hearts ; and
then shall every man hr-ve praise of God." Here

wmmmmmmmmnMa

170

VIEWS OF

the Apostle says that he does not judge or under-
take to decide fully, as I understand him, in re-

•t to til

irtVrti

•f h

character

own
'• Kor 1 know not hni^^ by myself; yet am I not here-
by justified : that isif 1 understand him, Though
I am not conscious of any wron^, yet by this I
am not justified. ''But He that judgeth me is
the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the
time, until the Lord come, who will bring to
light the hidden things of darkness, and make
manifest the counsels of the heart." By the
" hidden things of darkness," in this connection,
the Apostle seems to me to refer to those states
of mind of which at the time he had very slight
consciousness, and was therefore immediately
forgotten. Paul could not have meant that he
formed no judgment whatever of his own char-
acter, or that he did not judge himself in respect
to the general uprightness and h liness of his
character, for this would make him contradict
what he elsewliei*. affirms ; but that there might
be things unperceived or unremembered about
him of which he did not form a judgment, and
could not therefore say that in no thought or
affection, he had been guilty of any wrong.

When therefore I say that by consciousness a
man may know whether he is in a state of entire
sanctification, I mean that consciousness is the
real and only evidence that we can have ot being
in this state, and that when our minds are exer-
cised strongly, and our consciousness therefore
distinct, the testimony of consciousness is clear
and explicit, and so satisfactory that we cannot
doubt it. But under other circumstances, and in

SANCTIFICATION.

171

other states of mind, when the exercises of the
mind are such as to render consciousness less dis-
tinct and vivid, affections may he exercised by
us, whether sinful or holy, that are not so dis-
tinctly noticed by consciousness, and so fully re-
membered by us that we can afrirm absolutely of
them, that they were not sinful.

Again, the objection that consciousness cannot
decide in regard to the strength of our powers,
and whether we really serve God with all our
strength, seems to be based upon the false sup-
position that the law of God requires every
power of body and mind to be excited at every
moment to its full strength, and that too without
any regard to the nature of the subject about
which our powers for the time being are employ-
ed. In a former part of this discourse, I endeavor-
ed to show, and trust I did sliow, that perfect
obedience to the law of God requires no such
thing. Entire sanctification, is entire consecra-
tion. Entire consecration, is obedience to the
law of God ; and all that the law requires is, that
our whole being be consecrated to God, and the
amount of strength to be expended in his service
at any one moment of time, must depend upon
the nature of the subject about which the powers
are for the time being employed. And nothing
is farther from the truth than that obedience to
the law of God requires every power of body and
mind to be constantly on the strain, and in the
highest possible degree ol excitement and activity.
Such an interpretation of the law of God as this,
would be utterly inconsistent with life and health,
and would write Mene, Tekel upon the life and

172

VlliWS OF

conduct of |«'sus ('lirist hinis(;lf; for his whole

thi

he was not in a state
constant excitement to the full extent of his
powers.

tT). Again, it is objected that if this state were
attained in this life, it would be the end of our
probation. To this I reply, that probation since
the fall of Adam, or those points in which we are
in a state of probation or trial, are,

(i.) Whether we will repent and believe the
gospel ;

(2.) Whether we will persevere in holiness to
the end of life.

Some suppose that the doctrine of the perse-
verance of the saints, sets aside the idea of being
at all in a state of probation after conversi n.
They reason thus: If it is certain that the saints
will persevere, then their probation is ended; be-
cause the question is already settled, not only
that they will be converted, but that they will
persevere to the end, and the contingency in re-
gard to the event, is indispensable to the idea of
probation. To this I reply:

That a thing may be contingent with man that
is not at all so with God. With God, there is not,
and never was any contingency with regard to
the final destiny of any being. But with men,
almost all things are contingencies. God knows
with absolute certainty whether a man will be
converted, and whether he will persevere. A
man may know that he is converted, and may
believe that by the grace of God he shall per-
severe. He may have an assurance of this in
proportion to the strength of his faith. But the

SANCTIIICATION.

173

whole
te of
^f his

were

t our

since

veare

knowledge of this fact is not at all inconsistent
with the idea of his continuance in a stat(^ of
trial till the day of his d(!ath. in ;»s much as his
perseverance depends upon the exercise of his
own voluntary agency.

In the same way some say, that if we have at-
tained a state of (Mitire and permanent sanctihca-
tion, we can no longer he in a state of probation.
I answer, that pers(;verance in this depends upon
the promises and grace of (lod, just as the final
perseverance of the saints does. In neither case
can we have any other assurance of our persever-
ance than that of faith in the promise and graces
of God : n(jr any other knowledge that we shall
continue in this state, than that which arises out
of a belief in the testimony of God, that He will
preserve us blameless until the coming of our
Lord Jesus (>hrist. If this be inconsistent with
our probation, I see not why the doctrine of the
saint's perseverance is not ecjually inconsistent
with it. If any one is disposed to maintain that
for us to have any judgment or belief in regard
to our final penseverance, is inconsistent with a
state of probation, all I can say is, that his views
of probation are very different from my own, and
so far as I understand, from those of the Church
of God.

Again: there is a very high and important
sense in which every moral being will remain on
probation to all eternity. While under the moral
government of God, obedience must forever re-
main a condition of the favor of God. And the
fact of continued obedience will forever depend
on the faithfulness and grace of God ; and the

■

^74

VIEWS OF

1 ii

i \.

only knowledge we can ever have of this fact,
either in heaven or on earth, must be founded
iipon the faithfuhiess and truth of God.

Again j if it were true, that entering upon a
state of permanent sanctification in this life, were,
in some sense, an end of our probation, that
would be no objection to the doctrine ; for there
is a sense in which probation often ends long
before the termination of this life. Where, for
example, a person has conmiitted the unpardon-
able sin, or where from any cause, God has given
up sinners to fill up the measure of their iniquity,
withdrawing forever his Holy Spirit from them,
and sealed them over to eternal death ; this, ir
a very important sense, is the end of their pro-
bation, and they are as sure cS hell as if they
were already there.

So on the other hand, when a person has re-
ceived, after that he believes, the sealing of the
Spirit unto the day of redemption, as an earnest
of his inheritance, he may and is bound to re-
gard this as a solemn pledge on the part of God
of his final perseverance and salvation, and as
no longer leaving the final question of his destiny
in doubt.

Now it should be remembered, that in botli
these cases the result depends upon the exercise
of *he agency of the creature. In the case of the
sinner given up of God, it is certain that he will
not repent, though his impenitence is voluntary
and by no means a thing naturally necessary. So
on the other hand, the perseverance of the saints
is certain though not necessary. If in either

SANCTIFICATION.

175

fact,
>unded

ipon a
,were,
, that
there
Jong
re, for
rdon-
given

quity,

them,

lis, ir

r pro-
thev

IS re-
•f the
rnest
o re-
God
d as
stiny

both
rcise

the
wiJJ
tary

So
ints
her

case there should be a radical change of character,
the result would differ accordingly.

17. Again, while it is admitted by some that
entire sanctification in this life is attainable, yet
it is r^enied that there is any certainty that it will
be attained by any one before death. For, it is
said, that all the promises of entire sanctification
are conditioned upon faith, they therefore secure
the entire sanctification of no one. To this I
reply :

TliJit all the promises o{ salvation in the Bible
are conditioned upon faith and repentance, and
therefore it does not follow on this principle, that
any person ever will be saved. What does all
this arguing prove? The fact is, that while the
promises of both salvation and sanctification, are
conditioned upon faith as it respects individuals ;
yet to Christ and to the Church as a body, as I
have alread}'^ shown, these promises are uncon-
ditional. With respect to the salvation of sinners,
it is promised that Christ shall have a seed to
serve Him, and the Bible abounds with promises,
both to Christ and the Church, that secure with-
out condition as it regards them, the salvation of
great multitudes of sinners. So the promises
that the Church as a body, at some period of her
arthly history, shall be entirely sanctified, are,
as it regards the Church, unconditional. But, as
I have already shown, as it^respects individuals,
the fulfilment of these promises must depend
upon the exercise of faith. Both in the salvation
of sinners and the sanctification of Christians,
God is abundantly pledged to bring about the
salvation of the one and the sanctification of the

'i'
it

>mm

170

VIEWS OV

; H

Other, to the extent of His promise. But as it re-
spects individuals, no one can claim the lulfil-
nient of these promises without complying with
the conditions.

These are tlie principal objections that have
occurred to luy mind, or that have, so far as I
know, been urged by others. There may be and
doubtless are others, of greater or less plausibil-
ity, to which I may have occasion to refer here-
after.

VIII. / am next to shoiv when entire sanctijica-
lion is attainable.

I. The blessing of entire sanctification is prom-
ised to Christians. The promise in —

Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34 : " Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant
wi^h the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah : not according to the covenant that I
made with their fathers, in the day that I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land
of Kgypt; which my covenant they break, al-
though I was a husband unto them, saith the
Lord : but this shall be the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel : After those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward
parts and write it in their hearts ; and will be
their God, and they shall be my people. And
they shall teach no more every man his neighbor,
and every man his Brother, saying, know the
Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least
of them unto t^e greatest of them, saith the Lord:
for I will foi /e their iniquity, and I will re-
member their sins no more."

SANCriFlCATloN.

^77

it re-
ulfil-
with

have

as 1

and

Jibil-

lere-

Ezk. xxxvi. 25-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all
your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
cieanse you. A new heart, also, will 1 give you,
and a new spirit will I put within you: and 1 will
take away the stony heart out ot your ilesh, and
1 will give you a heart of flesh. And 1 will put
my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in
my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments
and do them."

I Thess. V. 23 — 24 : ** And the very God of
peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God your
whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved
blameless unto tlie coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also
will do it."

Eph. i. 13: ''In whom ye also trusted, after
that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation ; in w^boni also, after that ye be-
lieved, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise,"

These and many others show that the promise
is made to those who have some degree of faith,,
that is, who have been regenerated. In the last
it is said: " We are sealed after that we believe."

2. Faith is always the expressed or implied
condition of the promises. It has been supposed
that the promise in Jer. xxxi., together with
other kindred promises, is absolute in such a
sense as to have no condition whatever. To this
it may be replied, as it has been before in sub-
stance, i:hat the things which they promi*^" ^ re of
such a nature as that they cannot pos' ly be
received but by faith, nor is faith the ti ig pro-

178

VIEWS OF

' ! • '

> !

; Si:

mised. The law of love cannot -possibly be written
in the heart, but through the faith which works
by love. Therefore of necessity this promise, as
well as all other promises of spiritual blessings,
is conditioned upon faith in us. It may be said
that the promise to write the law in our hearts,
includes the doing of all that which is essential
to its fulfilment, and that therefore a promise to
beget love is virtually a promise to secure the
right use of the means necessary to that end. But
this is as far as possible from excluding our own
agency and responsibility. When Paul had de-
clared, that not a hair of any man's head on
board the ship should perish, this did not exclude
the necessity of the sailors remaining on board.
For he afterwards said, " except these abide m
the ship ye cannot be saved." Now it is true
that in a very important sense, the promise that
the hair of no man's head sHpuld perish, implied
that God would secure the use of the requisite
means to preserve them. Yet who would infer
from this that that promise was not conditioned
upon the sailors remaining on board, and the
right use of the voluntary agency of Paul and all
the rest on bo?v to preserve themselves. So
it should be remeiiibered, that the promises, to
create a new heart and a new spirit — to make a
new covenant with the house of Israel — and to
write the law in tht.^r hearts — are certainly and
necessarily condiiloa^d ^ipnn the taith of every
one who would receive Lheir fiilfilment.

To the doctrine u^ retire sanctification by
faith, it has been objected, that faith is itself a
holy exercise, and therefore, as such, is, for the

SANCTIFICATION.

179

en
•ks
as

al
to

time being, entire sanctification, and that, to
make faith the condition of entire sanctification
is to make entire holiness the condition of entire
hoHness. To this I reply : sanctification is by
faith in two senses.

I. Sanctification is by faith in opposition to
sanctification^ by law, that is, the sonl is sancti-
fied by faith in Christ in opposition to legal
sanctification. Christians are made holy by
contemplating the love of Christ and by faith in
Him and His Atonement instead of being made
holy by the influence of legal considerations.
This is evident from what the Apostle says in
Rom. ix. 30-32 : ** What shall we say then ? That
the Gentiles, which followed not after righteous-
ness, have attained to righteousness, even the
righteousness which is of faith ; but Israel, which
followed after the law of righteousness, hath not
attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore ?
Because they sought if not by faith, but, as it
were, by the works of the law: for they stumbled
at that stumbling-stone" The sanctification 01
the saints is effected only by renouncing all hc^ne
of justification or sanctification on the grouno of
law, and embracing Christ as our wisdom,
righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
Faith is, indeed, a holy exercise, and therefore is,
in the lowest sense, entire sanctification.' It is
entire sanctification in the sense, simply, of i
holy exercise. But it is not a state of entire
sanctification in the sense in which I use the
term in this discourse, nor, as I think, in the
sense in which the Bible nses the term. The
sense in which I use the term entire i?anctifica-

fW'i»>qn«8is^iiraCM>.g^8ia»»'{TOWW

%jm

■ 1

■'!l

i<So

VlliWS OF

tion includes all that is implied in perfect obedi-
ence to the law of God. In this sense of the
term, it includes, if I may so speak, the who/e
family of holy exercises, of which faith is one,
and but one. In the sense in which I use entire
sanctification, it includes all the modifications
of benevolence, whereas faith is but one of the
forms, or modifications of holiness.

2. Who does not know that one holy exercise
not only may be the condition of another, but
that, as a matter of fact, faith is and must be the
condition of the whole circle of holy affections.

3. This state is attainable on the ground of
natural ability at any time. If this state were
not attainable on the ground of natural ability,
it would not be required, and its absence would
not be sin. But it has been doubted whether
the work of entire sanctification is such, in its
own nature, that it can be accomplished at once.
To this I reply:

(i.) If it cannot be instantly accomplished, it
would not be instantly required.

(2.) If it were not, in its own naturr, capable
of being attained at once, the non-attaining of it
at once would not be sin. All that would be
required would be to press forward as fast as we
could.

(3.) But in this case the pressing forward
would be a sinless state, because it would be all
that could be requ: od. So that we should
possess at once what, according to the supposi-
tion, is naturally impossible, that is, a state of
entire sanctification.

(4.) I have already shown that provision is

SANCTIFICATION.

i8i

)edi-
the
hole
one,
tire
ons
the

made against every temptation. And as tempta-
tion, under some form, is the cause of all sin, if
sufficient provision is made against all present
and future temptation, it follows that a state of
entire sanctification is attainable at once.

4. Full faith in the word and promise of (iod,
naturally, and certainly, and immediately pro-
duces a state of entire sanctification. Let it he
understood that by faith, I mean — -^

(i.) A reaHzation of the truth and meaninr; <)^
the Bible.

(2.) A laying hold upon all those truths upon
which this state of mind depends, especially a
full realization and beHef of the sacred record
God has given of his Son, " that his blood cleans-
eth us from all sin." It is easy to see that the
realization and belief of the infinite love of God,
as manifested in Christ Jesus, would have a
tendency to fill the mind with unutterable and
constant love to God — and beget the most cordial
and perfect love to man. This result is instan-
taneous on the exercise of faith, and in this sense
sanctification is an instantaneous work.

5. God is able to produce entire sanctification
in any soul, when he is pleased to do so.

This appears to be plainly taught by Christ,
when he spoke of the ability of God to save the
rich. He asserts that their salvation is more dif-
ficult "than for a camel to go through the eye
of a needle." And when the disciples expressed
their astonishment, he replied, that "with God
all things are possible." Now this seems to be a
case in point. To sanctify the rich is the only
difficulty in the way of their salvation. And

•Ti

182

VIEWS OF

t 'i

Christ has asserted, that God is able not only to
sanctify them, but that "all things are possible
with him," that is, that there is no limit to his
ability in this respect.

Eph. iii. 20, proves the same point. Here the
Apostle asserts that God is able to do *' abundant-
ly above all that we ask and abjve all that we
think," exceeding abundantly, &c. Now we can
b'>th ' ' :\k of and ask for the blessing of entire,
and perman '"*■, and instantaneous sanctification,
and if this passage of scripture is true, God is
able to grant it.

That God is able not only to produce present
but also to confirm l- in a state of perpetual
sanctification, is plain from many other passages
of scripture. Jude 24 : "Now unto him that
is able to keep you from falling, and to present
you faultless before the presence of his glory
with exceeding joy." Upon this passage 1
remark :

(i.) Here it is asserted, that God is able to
keep us from falling.

(2.) To present us faultless before the presence
of his glory.

(3.) To keep us and to present us faultless, is
to preserve us in a state of perrnanent sanctifica-
tion. And this it is declared he is able to do.

To this it has been objected that moral govern-
ment implies the power to resist every degree of
motive. This I most fully admit. But it is one
thing to have the power thus to resist, and quite
another to use that power. God certainly knew
when he created moral agents to what extent,
Vinder their circunistances, they would actually

,«iJ

iy to
sibJe
o his

J the
ant-
we
can
tire,
on,
>d is

SANCTIFICATION.

1S3

exercise their p()\v(;r ol resistance, and therefore
whether he could saiictitv and save tliem or not.
As a matter of 1 ict, hv. h:is overcome the voUm-
tary resistance ot all who are converted. And it*
he has broken dovvii their e:i!nit\ , and so far sub-
dued them, is it incredible that he should not be
able wholly to sanctify tliem, and preserve them
blameless ?

IX. / am to shoiv how entire sandification is
attainable.

1. A state of entire sanctification can never be
attained by an indifferent waitin^f of God's time.

2. Nor by any works of law, or works of any
kind performed in your own strength, irrespec-
tive of the grace ot God. By this 1 do not mean
that were you disposed to exert your natural
powers aright, you could not at once obey the
law in the exercise of your natural strength. But
I do mean, that as you are w^holly indisposed to
use your natural powers aright without the grace
of God, no efforts that you will actually make in
your own strength or independent of His grace,
will ever result in your entire sanctification.

3. Not by any direct efforts to feel right.
Man}' spend their time in vain efforts to force
themselves into a right state of feeling. Now it
should be for ever understood, that neither faith,
love, nor repentance, nor any other right feeling
is ever the result of a direct effort to put forth
these exercises. But on the contrary, they are
the spontaneous actings of the mind when it has
under its direct and deep consideration the objects
of faith, and love, and repentance. By spontan-

i ^itfTrimTr i mr

184

VIKVVS OF

1 '1:

't'

eons, I do not mean involuntary. They are the
voluntary and the most easy and natural states
of mind possible under such circumstances. So
far from its recjuiring an effort to put them forth,
it wouiJ i ather re(|uire an effort to prevent them,
when the mind is intensely cc^nsidering those ob-
jections and considerations which have a natural
tendency to produce them. This is so true that
when persons are in the exercise of such aft'ec-
tions, they feel no difficulty at all in their exer-
cise, but wonder how any one can help feeling
as they do. It seems to them so natural, so easy,
and I may say, so almost unavoidable, that they
often feel and express astonishment that any one
should find it difficult to love, believe, or repent.
The course that many persons take on the sub-
ject of religion has often appeared wonderful to
me. They make themselves, their own state and
interests, the central point, around which their
own minds are continually revolving. Their
selfishness is so great that their own interests,
happiness and salvation fill their whole field of
vision. And with their thoughts and anxieties,
and whole souls clustering around their own sal-
vation, they complain of a hard heart — that they
cannot love God — that they do not repent, and
cannot beUeve. Being conscious that they do
not feel right, they are the more concerned about
themselves, which concern but increases their
embarrassment and the difficulty of exercising
right affections. The more deeply they feel, the
more they try to feel- — the greater efforts they
make to feel right without success, the more are
they confirmed in their selfishness, and the more

SANCTIFICATION.

T«5

are their thoughts i^liied to their own interests,
and they are of course al a gieat^'i and greater
distance from any right state oi feeling. And
thus their selfish anxieties beget ineffectual
efforts, and these efforts but deepen their anxie-
ties. And if in this state, death should a|)pear
in a visible form before them, or the last trumpet
sound, and they should be summoned to the
solemn Judgment, it would but increase their
distraction, confirm and almost give omnipotence
to their selfishness, and render their sanctifica-
tion morally impossible.

4. Not by any efforts to obtain grace by works
of law. In my lecture on Faith, in the first
volume of the Evangelist, I said the following
things :

(i.) Should the question be proposed to a Jew,
*'\Vhat shall I do that I may work the works of
grace?" — in other words, how shall I obtain a
state of entire obedience to the law of God, or
entire sanctification ? — he would answer, keep the
law, both moral and ceremonial, that is, keep the
commandments.

(2.) To the same inquiry an Arminian would
answer, improve common grace, and you will
obtain converting grace, that is, use the means
of grace according to the best light you have,
and you will obtain the grace of salvation. In
this answer it is not supposed that the inquirer
already has faith ; but that he is in a state of
unbelief, and is inquiring after converting grace.
The answer, therefore, amounts to this : you
must get converting grace by your impenitent

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

'<" <Cx

1.0

I.I

1.25

^ M£ III 2.0

1- u ^°™™

1.4

III

1.6

^ < f/ ^1

■'I

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

9 %^:

i/x

1 86

VIEWS OF

works ; you must become holy by your hypocrisy ;
you must work out sanctification by sin.

(3.) To this question, most professed Calvinists
would make in substance the same reply. They
would reject the language, while they retained
the idea. Their direction would imply, either
that the inquirer already has faith, or that he
must perform some works to obtain it, that is,
that he must obtain grace by works of law.

A late Calvinistic writer admits that entire and
permanent sanctification is attainable. Although
he rejects the idea of the actual attainment of
such a state in this life. He supposes the con-
dition of attaining this state, or the way to attain
it, is by a diligent use of the means of grace, and
that the saints are sanctified just so far as they
make a diligent use of the means of sanctification.
But as he denies that any saint ever did, or will,
use all the means with suitable diligence, he de-
nies also, of course, that entire and permanent
sanctification ever is attained in this life. The
way of attaining it, according to his teaching, is
by the diligent use of means. If, then, this writer
were asked "what shall I do that I may work the
work of God," — or, in other words, what shall 1
do to obtain entire and permanent sanctification.
His answer, it seems, would be: "Use diligently
all the means of grace," that is, you must get
grace by works, or, with the Arminian, improve
common grace, and you will secure sanctifying
grace. ; :

Neither an Arminian, nor a Calvinist would
formally direct the inquirer to the law^ as the
^roun4 pf Justification. But nearly the whole

SANCTIFICATION.

187

Church would give directions that would amount
to the same thing. Their answer would be a
legal, and not a gospel answer. For, whatever
answer is given to this question, that does not
distinctly recogn'xze faith, as the foundation of all
virtue in sinners, is legal. Unless the inquirer
is made to understand that this is the first, grand,
fundamental duty, without the performance of
which all virtue, all giving up of sin, all accept-
able obedience, is impossible, he is misdirected.
He is led to believe that it is possible to please
God without faith ; and to obtain grace by works
of law. There are but two kinds of works —
works of law, and works of faith. Now il the
inquirer has not the "faith that works by love,"
to set him upon any course of works to get it, is
certainly to get faith by works of the law. What-
ever is said to him that does not clearly convey
the truth,that both justification andsanctification
are by faith, without works of law, is law, and
not gospel. Nothing before, or without faith,
can possibly be done by the unbeliever, but
works of law. His first duty, therefore, is faith;
and every attempt to obtain faith by unbelieving
works, is to lay works at the foundation, and
make grace a result. It is the direct opposite of
gospel truth.

Take facts as they arise in every day's experi-
ence, to show that what I have stated is true of
almost all professors and non-professors. When-
ever a sinner begins in good earnest to agitate
the question, **what shall I do to be saved?" he
resolves as a first duty, to break of from his sins,
that is. in unbelief. Of course, his reformation

1 88

Views oP

is only outwardi He determines to do better—^
to reform in this^ thatj and the other thing, and
thus prepare himself to be converted. He does
not expect to be saved without grace and faithj
but he attempts to get grace by works of law.

The same is true of multitudes of anxious
Christians^ who are inquiring what they shall do
to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil.
They overlook the fact, that " this is the victory
that overcometh the world, even our faith," that
it is with '*the shield of faith" that they are ** to
quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." They
ask why am I overcome by sin ? Why can I not
get above its power? Why am I thus the slave
of my appetites and passions, and the sport of
the devil ? They cast about for the cause of all
this spiritual wretchedness and death. At one
time, they think they have discovered it in the
neglect of one duty ; and at another time in the
neglect of another. Sometimes, they imagine
they have found the cause to lie in yielding to
one sin, and sometimes in yielding to another.
They put forth efforts in this direction, and in
that direction, and patch up their righteousness
on one side, while they make a rent in the other
side. Thus they spend years, in running around
in a circle, and making dams of sand across the
current of their own corruptions. Instead of at
once purifying their hearts by faith, they are en-
gaged in trying to arrest the overflowing of their
bitter waters. Why do I sin ? they inquire : and
casting about for the cause, they come to the
sage conclusion, it is because I neglect such a
duty, that is, be'^ause I do sin. But how shall

JiANCTIFlCAtlON*

IS9

1 get rid of sin? Answer: by doing nly duty^that
is, by ceasing from sin. Now the real inquiry is,
why do they neglect their duty? Why do they
commit sin at all ? Where is the foundation of
all the this mischief? Will it be replied^ the
foundation of all this wickedness 11 in the corrup-
tion of our nature — in the wickedness of our
heart — in the strength of our evil propensities
and habits? But all this only brings us back to
the real inquiry again — How are this corrupt
nature, this wicked heart, and these sinful habits,
to be overcome ? I answer, by faith alone^ No
works of law h^ve the least tendency to overcome
our sins; but rather confirm the soul in self*
righteousness and unbelief.

The great and fundamental sin, which is at the
foundation on all other sin, is unbelief. The
first thing is, to give up that — to believe the
word of God. There is no breaking off from one
sin without this. *' Whatsoever is not of faith
is sin." " Without faith it is impossible to please
God." ' ,

Thus we see, that the backslider and convict-
ed sinner, when agonizing to overcome sin, will
almost always betake themselves to works of law
to obtain faith. They will fast, and pray, and
read, and struggle, and outwardly reform, and
thus endeavor to obtain grace. Now all this is
in vain and wrong. Do you ask, shall we not
fast, and pray, and read, and struggle ? Shall
we do nothing — but sit down in Antinomian se-
curity and inaction ? I answer, you must do all
that God commands you to do ; but begin where
he tells you to begin, and do it in the manner

igo

VIEWS OF

1>-

in which he commands you to do it; that is, in
t le exercise of that faith that works by love.
Purify your hearts by faith. BeHeve in the Son
of God. And say not in your heart, "who shall
ascend up into heaven," that is, to bring Christ
down from above ; or who shall descend into the
deep, that is, to bring up Christ again from the
dead. But wHat saith it? The word is nigh thee,
even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the
word of faith which we preach."

Now these facts show, that even under^the
gospel, almost all professors of religion, while
they reject the Jewish notion of justification by
works of the law, have after all adopted a
ruinous substitute for it, and suppose that, in
some way, they are to obtain grace by their
works,

5. A state of entire sanctification cannot be at-
tained by attempting to copy the experience of
others. It is very common for convicted sinners,
or for Christians inquiring after entire sanctifica-
tion, in their blindness to ask others to relate
th6tr experience, to mark minutely the detail of
all their exercises, and then set themselves to
pray for and make direct efforts to attain the
same class of exercises — not seeming to under-
stand that they can no more exercise feelings in
th6 detail like others, than they can look like
othftTs. Human experiences differ as human
countenances differ. The whole history of a
man's former state of mind, comes in of course
to modify his present and future exercises. So
that the precise train of affections which may be
rerqtrtsit6 in your case, and which will actua'lly

SANCTIFICATION.

191

occur in your case, if you are ever sanctified,
will not in all its detail, coincide with the exer-
cises of any other human being. It is of vast
importance for you to understand, that you can
be no copyist in any true religious experience ;
aud that you are in a great danger of being de-
ceived by Satan, whenever you attempt to copy
the experience of others. I beseech you, there-
fore to cease from praying for or trying to obtain
tne precise experience of any person, whatever.
All truly Christian experiences are, like human
countenances, in their outline, so much alike as
to be readily known as the lineaments of the re-
ligion of Jesus Christ. But no farther than this
are they alike, any more than human counten-
ances are alike,

6. Not by waiting to make preparations before
you come into this state. Observe that the thing
about which you are inquiring is a state of entire
consecration to God. Now do not imagine that
this state of mind must be prefaced by a long in-
troduction of preparatory exercises. It is com-
mon for persons when inquiring upon this sub-
ject with earnestness, to think themselves hinder-
ed in their progress by a want of ♦ihis or that or
the other exercise or state of mind. They look
every where else but at the real difficulty. They
assign any other and every other but the true rea-
son for their not being already in a state of sanc-
tification. ~ m.

7. Not by attending meetings asking the pray-
ers of other Christians, or depending in any way
upon the means of getting into this state. By
this I do not intend to say that means are unne-

:'t-'

!l 1

'\ !

192

VIEWS OF

J) i

cessary, or that it is not through the. instrumen-
tality of truth, that this state of mind is induced.
But I do mean that while you are depending up-
on any instrumentality whatever, your mind is
diverted from the real point before you, and you
are never like to make this attainment.

8. Not by waiting for any particular views of
Christ. When persons, in the state of mind of
which I have been speaking, hear those who live
in faith describe their views of Christ, they say,
O, if I had such views, I could believe; 1 must
have these before I can believe. Now you should
understand that these views arj the result and
effect of faith. These views ui which you speak,
are those which faith discovers in those passages
of scripture which describe Christ. Faith appre-
hends the meaning of those passages, and sees
in them those very things which you expect to
see before you exercise faith, and which you
imagine would produce it. Take hold, then,
on the simple promise of God. Take God at
His word. Believe that He means just what He
says; and this will at once bring you into the
state of mind after which you inquire.

9. Not in any way which you may mark out
for yourself. Persons in an inquiring state are
very apt, without seeming to be aware of it, to
send imagination on before them, to stake out
the way, and set up a flag where they intend to
come out. They expect to be thus and thus
exercised — to have such and such peculiar views
and feelings, when they have attained their
object. Now, there probably never was a per-
son who did not find himself disappointed in

»,.

SANCTIFICATION.

193

these respects. God says, **I will bring the
blind by a way that they know not. I will lead
them in paths that they have not known : I will
make darkness light before them, and crooked
things straight. These things will I do unto
them, and not forsake them." This suffering
your imagination to mark out your path is a
great hindrance to you, as it sets you upon
making many fruitless, and worse than fruitless,
attempts to attain this imaginary state of mind
— wastes much of your time — and greatly wearies
the patience, and grieves the Spirit of God.
While He is trying to lead you right to the point,
you are hauling off from the course, and insisting
that this which your imagination has marked
out is the way, instead of that which He is try-
ing to lead you. And thus, in your pride and
ignorance, you are causing much delay, and
abusing the long-suffering of God. He says,
^*This is the way, walk ye in it." But you say,
no — this is the way. And thus you stand and
parley, and banter, while you are every moment
in danger of grieving the Spirit of God away
from you, and of losing your soul.

10. Not in any manner, or at any time or
place, upon which you may, in your own mind,
lay any stress. If there is any thing in your
imagination that has fixed definitely upon any
particular manner, time, or place, or circumstance
you will in all probability either be deceived by
the devil, or entirely disappointed in the result.
You will find that in all these particular items
on which you had laid any stress, that the
wisdom of man is foolishness with God — that

, !

194

VIEWS OF

li i

your ways are not His ways, nor your thoughts
His thoughts. ''For as the heavens are higher
than the earth, so are His ways higher than your
ways, and His thoughts than your thoughts."
But,

II. This st'^te is to be attained by faith alone.
Let it be forever remembered, that '* without
faith it is impossible to please God," and ** what-
soever is not of faith, is sin."

Both justification and sanctificatiun are by
faith alone. Rom. iii. 30: " Seeing it is one God
who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and
the uncircumcision through faith ; " and v. i :
" Therefore, being justified by faith, we have
peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Also ix. 30, 31 : ** What shall we say then ? that
the Gentiles, who followed not after righteous-
ness, have attained to righteousness, even the
rigteousness which is of faith. Bu^ Israel, who
followed after righteousness, hath not attained to
the law of righteousness. Wherefore ? Because
they sought it not by faith, but as it were, by
the works of the law."

That you may clearly understand this part of
the subject, I will quote again from my lecture in
the first volume of the Evangelist, the elements
that constitute saving faith.

(i.) The first element of saving faith is a realiz-
ing sense of the truth of the Bible. But this is
not alone saving faith, for Satan has this realiz-
ing sense of truth, which makes him tremble.

(2.) But the second element in saving faith is
the consent of the heart or will to the truth per-
ceived by the intellect. It is a cordial trus.t or

Iz-

[z-

Ir-

SANCTIFICATION.

195

resting of the mind in those truths, and a yield-
k ig up of the whole being to their influence.
Now it is easy to see, that without the confi-
dence of the heart, there can be nothing but an
outward obedience to God. A wife without con*
fidence in her husband, can do nothing more than
perform outwardly her duty to him.. It is a con-
tradiction to say that without confidence, she
can perform her duty from the heart. The
same is true of parental and all other govern-
ments. Works of law may be performed without
faith : that is, we may serve from fear or hope,
or some selfish consideration ; but without the
confidence that works by love, obedience from
the heart is naturally impossible. N^^y, the very
terms, obedience from the heart without love,
are a contradiction.

(3.) This is the most simple and rational state
of mind conceivable. It is that state of mind
for which very young children are so remarkable.
Before they have been taught distrust by the
hypocrisy and depravity of others they seem to
know nothing of unbelief. They are so simple
and honest, that they feel entire confidence in
those around them. It is merely a trust in testi-
mony, a resting of the heart in truths perceived
by the intellect, a natural yielding of the volun-
tary powers to the testimony of God.

(4.) This state of mind is spontaneous. It is
not, as I have said, the result of an effort to
believe, but the natural resting or reposing of the
mind in the truth of God. And when the soul
believes, all that it can say is, that "while I
mused the fire burned," when I thought on the

196

VIF.WS OF

trutli lo 1)0 believed, ere I was aware, I found
myself believing. As I have already said, 1 do
not mean that this is an involuntary state of
mind, but that it is voluntary in so high a sense
as not to be the result of effort, but the joyful,
and natural, and easy yielding up of the mind to
the influence of truth.

(5.) Faith discovers the real meaning, and
apprehends the fulness of those passages that
describe Christ. Faith therefore presents Christ
to the mind not as at a distance, but as near, not
as enveloped in clouds: but, in those passages
that describe Him, is beheld a fulness, and a
glory, and a surpassing loveliness that over-
power and melt the soul.

(6.) The truths to be believed, in order to
induce this state of mind, are those which com-
prise "the recofd that God has given of his Son."
The mind needs to apprehend God in Christ.
To be like God, we must know what He is. To
be led to a spontaneous consecration of all to
Him, our selfishness must be overcome by a
knowledge of what God is. And this knowledge
is to be obtained only by seeing God in Christ.
For this very purpose, God took to Himself
human nature, that He might reveal Himself to
the sons of men, and thus possess their minds of
a true knowledge of His character.

(7.) The natural and certain effect of their
knowing God is a state of entire consecration to
Him. 1 have said that while individuals are
taken up with contemplating themselves, their
own characters, dangers, and troubles, they can-
not be sanctified, because there is no tendency in

SANCTIFICATION.

197

1
O
.f

i
t
t
t

R\icb considerations to produce tliis state. They
may dwell upon their own misery, or their
v/retchedness to all eternity, without finding it
possible to consecrate themselves to God, for
what is there in such considerations that can in
any way produce such a result? It is a consid-
eration of the infinite excellence of Christ's
character, and this alone that can inspire faith
or love. If, therefore, you ever expect to trust
in God, and love Him with all your heart, you
must acquaint yourselves with the reasons for
thus loving and trusting Him. You must know
God. You must have the true knowledge of God.
God, and not yourselves, must he the object of
your thoughts. Cease then, I beseech you, to
expect to be sanctified by any works of your
own, or any direct efforts to feel or to do more
or less, and remember *' that faith cometh by
hearing." In other words — to understand and
believe the record that God hath given oi His
Son, will at once give you an experimental
acquaintance with the truth, that *'the blood of
Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin."

The New and the Old dispensation differ in
two respects.

1. The New is a fuller and more perfect rev-
elation of Christ, or of those things that are in-
dispensable to sanctification.

2. There is a vastly greater amount of the
Holy Spirit's influence exerted under this dis-
pensation. The Old made nothing perfect, be-
cause of the obscure nature of the revelation of
•Christ, and because there was not such a degree
of divine influence as fully to possess the niind

ill

I9S

VtKWS OP

of the truths indispensable to permanent sancti-'
fication. The mind must know enough of God
to clay selfishness, and without this, neither love
nor permanent sanctification is possible. The
New, blessed be God, with the influences of the
Holy Spirit) has brought us into the clear sun-
light, and so revealed God as to overcome sin.

In conclusion 1 woi-.ld remark:

I. That it is useless to speculate upon any
supposed distinction that might have been in the
Apostle's mind between the soul and spirit of
man, when he penned the passage which stands
at the head of this discourse. I undercland the
p'*ayer of the Apostle to be for the entire conse-
cration of the whole being to the service of God.
I need not dwell with any more particularity upon
the text, except it be to mention some things
which I suppose are implied in the entire sancti-
fication of the bo.ly.

(i.) I understaiivl Ihe sanctification of the body
to iiT(p)v the entire consecration, by the soul, of
ail its ;r, mbers to the service of God. The body
is to le regarded merely as the instrument of
thfi you; : hrough which it manifests itself, and by
whuvli it fulfils its desires.

(2.) The entire sanctification of the body im-
plies also the entire consecration of all its appe-
tites and passions to the service of God, that is,
that all its appetites shall be used only for the
purposes for which they were designed, not to
be the masters, but the servants of the soul, not
to lead the soul away from God, but to subserve
the highest interests of the physical organization.

(3.) It implies keeping the body under, and

vte

SANCTIFICATION.

199

bringing it into subjection — so that no appetite
or passion of the body is indulged merely for the
sake of the indulgence — that no appetite or pas-
sion is to be at any time consulted or its indul-
gence allowed but for the glory of God, to an-
swer the end of our being, and to render us in
the highest degree useful. ThiC grand error of
mankind is, that the soul has been debased even
to be the slave of the body, that appetite and
passion have ruled, that the "fleshly mind which
is enmity against God," has been suffered to be-
come the law of the soul, and hence the Apostle
complains that he saw "a law in his members
warring against the law of his mind, bringing
him into captivity to the law of sin and death,"
which was in his members. Hence also, it is
sa;d that "if ye live aftei the flesh ye shall die,"
that " to mind the flesh is enmity with God,"
that, "the minding of the flesh is death," that
"he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh
reap corruption." In short it is every where in
the Bible expressly taught, that one great error
and sin of mankind is the indulgence of the flesh.
Now the entire sanctification of the body implies
the denial of the lusts of the flesh, that "we put
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provi-
sion for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof,"
that the appetites and passions be restrained and
entirely subjugated to the highest interest and
perfection of the soul and to the glory of God.
The highest sense in which the body may be
sanctified in this life implies:

a. The strictest temperance in all things. By
temperance I mean the moderate use of things

200

VIEWS OF

that are useful, and total abstinence from things
that are pernicious.

b. It implies also the utter denial of all the
artificial appetites of the body. By artificial
appetites I mean all those appetites that are not
natural to man previous to all depravity of the
system by any kind of abuse or violation of its
laws. Among the artificial appetites are all those
hankerings after various poisons, narcotics, and
innutritions stimulants that are in almost uni-
versal use, such as tobacco, tea, coffee and the
like. All such substances are utterly inconsistent
with perfect temperance — are worse than useless,
and produce only a temporary excitement at
the expense of certain and permanent debility.
They deceive mankind on the same principle
that alcohol has so long deceived men, and
though not to the same degree injurious and in-
consistent with the highest well being of the body
and soul, yet they are as really so, and therefore
utterly unlawful. And nothing but ignorance
can prevent their use in any instance as an article
of diet from being sin ; and v/hen the means of
knowledge are at hand, this ignorance itself be-
comes sin. Consequently persevering in this use
under such circumstances is not only inconsistent
with entire and permanent sanctification but
also with justification and salvation.

c. Temperance implies a knowledge of, and
compliance with all the laws of our physical
system. There is scarcely any branch of know-
ledge more important to mankind than a know-
ledge of the structure and laws of their own
being. Nor is there scarcely any subject, upon

SANCTIFICATION.

201

which men are so generally and so shame-
fully ignorant. It seems not at all to be known
by mankind in general, or even suspected, that
every thing about their bodies is regulated by
laws, as certain as the law of gravitation ; and
that a perfect knowledge of and conformity to
these laws, would render permanent health as
certain as the regular motion of the planets.
The world is full of disease and premature death,
and men speak of these things as mysterious
providences of God, without ever so much as
dreaming that they are the natural and certain
results of the most outrageous and reckless vio-
lations of the laws of the human constitution.

d. Temperance in all things implies correct
dietic and other habits in respect to exercise and
rest. And in short, such obedience in all re-
spects to the physiological laws of the constitu-
tion as to promote in the highest degree its phy-
sical perfection, and thus preserve it in a state in
which it will be in the highest degree capable of
being used by the soul, to fulfil all the will of
God. There are no doubt, occasions on which
the bodily strength and the body itself may be
sacrificed to the interests of the soul, and of the
Redeemer's kingdom—cases in which the viola-
tion of physical law may be justifiable and even
a duty, where the kingdom of Christ demands
the sacrifice. Christ gave up His body a sacri-
fice. The Apostles and Martyrs gave up theirs.
And in every age multitudes have given them-
selves up to labors for the kingdom of Christ,
that have soon ended their mortal lives. This is
not inconsistent with the highest consecration of

\09,

VIEWS OF

the body, and of the whole being to God. But
on the other hand, it is one of the highest in-
stances of such consecration. But, where the
circumstances do not demand it, the sanctifica-
tion of the body implies that its strength shall
not be exhausted, nor any of its powers debilitated
or injured by any neglect of exercise, or by any
over-working of its organs, or by any violation
of its laws whatever. It implies the utmost
regularity in all our habits of eating, drinking,
sleeping, labor, rest, exercise, and in short a
strictly religious regard to all those things that
can contribute to our highest perfection of body
and soul. Can a glutton, who is stupified two
or three times a day with his food, be entirely
consecrated, either body or soul, to God ? Cer-
tainly not. His table is a snare, and a trap, and
a stumbling block to him. Can an epicure,
whose dainty palate loathes every correctly pre-
pared article of diet, and who demands that every
meal should be prepared with seasonings and
condiments highly injurious to the health of his
body and the well-being of his soul — can he be
in a state of entire consecration to God? No!
surely. His "god is his belly." His *' glory is
in his shame." He " minds earthly things."
And an Apostle would tell him, "even vveeping,
that his end is destruction." It is appaling to
see the various forms of disease and wretched-
ness with which mankind are cursed on account
of their wanton disregard of the laws of their
being. The highest powers of the human mind
can never be developed, nor its highest perfection
attained, in a diseased body ; and, probably,

SANCTIFICATION.

203

.')

scarcely a single member of the human family in
his present state, has any thing like perfect
health. Many suppose themselves to be perfectly
healthy, simply because they never saw a person
who had perfect health, and also because they
do not know enough of themselves to know that
many of their organs may be fatally diseased
without their being aware of it.

The influence of dietetic and other habits upon
the health of the body is known to but a very
limited extent among mankind, and far less is it
understood that whatever affects the body, inevi-
tably affects the mind, and that the temper and
spirit of a man are in a great measure modified
by the state of his health. It is known to some
extent that an acid stomach begets fretfulness,
and that certain nervous diseases, as they are
called, greatly affect the mind. But it is not so
generally known as it ought to be, that all our
dietetic and other physiological habits have a
powerful influence in forming and moulding our
moral character. Not necessarily, but by way
of temptation, acting through our bodily organs,
all stimulants and all things injurious to the
body act most perniciously upon the mind. Let
me say, therefore, beloved, in one word, as I
cannot dwell upon this subject longer, that if you
expect the sanctification of body, soul and spirit,
you must acquaint yourselves with the true
principles of temperance and physiological re-
form, and most religiously conform yourselves to
them, not only in the aggregate but in the detail.

But I have already protracted the discussion
of this subject so long that I will not add morq

204

VIEWS OF

at present, except to conclude what I have to say
with several brief

remarks:

1. There is an importance to be attached to
the sanctification of the body, of which very few
persons appear to be aware. Indeed unless the
bodily appetites and powers be consecrated to
the service of God — unless we learn to eat and
drink, and sleep, and wake, and labor, and rest,
for the glory of God, entire and permanent sancti-
fication is out of the question.

2. It is plain, that very few persons are aware
of the great influence which their bodies have
over their minds, and of the indispensable neces-
sity of bringing their bodies under, and keeping
them in subjection. <

3. Few people seem to keep the fact steadily
in view, that unless their bodies be rightly man-
aged, they will be so fierce and over-powering a
source of temptation to the mind, as inevitably
to lead it into sin. If they indulge themselves in
a stimulating diet, and in the use of those condi-
ments that irritate and rasp the nervous system,
their bodies will be of course and of necessity the
source of powerful and incessant temptation to
evil tempers and vile affections. If persons were
aware of the great influence which the body has
over the mind, they would realize that they can-
not be too careful to preserve the nervous system
from the influence of every improper article of
food or drink, and preserve that system as they
would the apple of their eye, from every influence
that could impair its functions.

SANCTIFICATION.

205

4. No one who has opportunity to acquire in-
formation in regard to the laws of life and health,
and the best means of sanctifying the whole
spirit, soul, and body, can be guiltless if he neg-
lects these means of knowledge. Every man is
bound to make the structure and laws of both
body and mind the subject of as tho»ough investi-
gation as his circumstances will permit, to inform
himself in regard to what are the true principles
of perfect temperance, and in what way the most
can be made of all his powers of body and mind
for the glory of God.

5. From what has been said in this discourse,
the reason why the Church has not been entirely
sanctified is very obvious. As a body the Church
has not believed that such a state was attainable
in this life. And this is a sufficient reason, and
indeed the best of all reasons for her not having
attained it,

6. From what has been said, it is easy to see
that the true question in regard to entire sanctifi-
cation in this life is, is it attainable as a matter
of fact ? Son^e have thought the proper question
to be are Christians entirely sanctified in this
life ? Now certainly this is not the question that
needs to be discussed. Suppose it to be fully
granted that they are not ; this fact is sufficiently
g,ccounted for, by the consideration that thpy do
not know or believe it to be attainable in this life,
If they believed it to be attainable, it might no
longer be true that they do not attain it, But if
provision really is made for this attainment, it
amounts to nothing unless it be recognized s^nd
believed, The thing needed then is to bring the

■ 'r - ^ ' W i w i l i^

m I

ilf

206

VIEWS OF

Church to see and believe, that this is her high
privilege and her duty. It is not enough to say
that it is attainable, simply on the ground of na-
tural ability. This is as true of the devil, and of
the lost in hell, as of men in this world. But
unless grace has put this attainment so within
our reach, a^ that it may be aimed at with the
reasonable prospect of success, there is, as a
matter of fact, no more provision for our entire
sanctification in this life than for the devil's. It
seems to be trifling with mankind, merely to
maintain the attainability of this state on the
ground of natural ability only. The real ques-
tion is, has grace brought this attainment so
within our reach, that we may reasonably expect
to experience it in this life ? It is admitted that
on the ground of natural ability both wicked men
and devils have the power to be entirely holy.
But it is also admitted that their indisposition to
use this power aright is so complete, that as a
matter of fact, they never will, unless influenced
to do so by the grace of God. I insist, therefore,
that the real question is, whether the provisions
of the gospel are such, that, did the Church fully
understand and lay hold upon the proffered grace
she might, as a matter of fact, attain this state.
7. We see how irrelevant and absurd the ob-
jection is, that as a matter of fact the Church has
not attained this state, and therefore it is not
attainable. Why, if they have not understood it
to be attainable, it no more proves its unattain-
ableness, than the fact that the heathen have not
embraced the gospel proves that that they will
not when they know it,

SANCTIFICATION.

207

8. You see the necessity of fully preaching
and insisting upon this doctrine ad of calling it
by its true scriptural name. It is astonishing to
see to what an extent there is a tendency among
men to avoid the use of scriptural language, and
cleave to the language of such men as Edwards
and other great and good divines. They object
to the terms of perfection and entire sanctifica-
tion, and prefer to use the terms entire consecra-
tion, and other such terms as have been common
in the Church.

Now, I would by no means contend about the
use of words ; but still it does appear to me, to
be of great importance, that we use scripture
language and insist upon men being ^^ perfect as
their Father in heaven is perfect," and being
*' sanctified wholly, body, soul and spirit." This
appears to me to be the more important for this ^
reason, that if we use the language to which the
Church has been accustomed upon this subject,
she will, as she has done, misunderstand us, and
will not get before her mind that which we really
mean. That this is so is manifest from the fact
that the great mass of the Church Arill express
alarm at the use of the terms perfection and en-
tire sanctification, who will neither express or
feel any such alarm if we speak of entire conse-
cration. This demonstrates that they do not, by
any means, understand these terms as meaning
the same thing. And although I understand
them as meaning precisely the same thing, yet I
find myself obliged to use the terms perfection
and entire sanctification to possess their minds
of my real meaning. This is Bible language.

2o8

VIEWS OF

It is unobjectionable language. And inasmuch
as the Church understands entire consecration to
mean something less than entire sanctification or
Christian perfection, it does seem to me of great
importance, that ministers should use a phrase-
ology which will call the attention of the Church
to the real doctrine of the Bible upon this sub-
ject. And I would submit the question with
great humility to my beloved brethren in the min-
istry, whether they are not aware, that Christians
have entirely too low an idea of what is implied
in entire consecration, and whether it is not use-
ful and best to adopt a phraseoJogj^ in addressing
them that shall call their attention to the real
meaning of the words which they use ?
'^'9. Young converts have not been allowed so
much as to indulge the thought that they could
live even for a day wholly without sin. They
have as a general thing no more been taught to
expect to live even for a day without sin, than
they have been taught to expect immediate trans-
lation, soul and body, to Heaven. Of course
they have not known that there was any other
way, than t^ go on in sin, and however shocking
and distressing the necessity has appeared to
them in the ardor of their first love, still they
have looked upon it as an unalterable fact, that
to be in a great measure in bondage to sin is a
thing of course while they live in this world.
Now with such an orthodoxy as this, with the
conviction in the Church and ministry so ripe,
settled, and universal, that the utmost that the
grace of God can do for men in this world is to
bring them to repentance and to leave them to

iA»i> .>j' **;-c

!•; J f'riii

:" » i '

V t.t •

SANCTIFICATION.

209

live and die in a state of sinning ar. . repenting,
is it at all wonderful that the state of religion
should be as it really has been ?

In looking over the results of preaching the
doctrine of this discourse to Christians, I feel
compelled to say, that so far as all observation
can go, I have the same evidence, that it is truth
and as such is owned and blessed oi God to the
sanctification of Christians, that I have, that
those are truths which I have so often preached
to sinners, and which have been so often and so
eminently blessed of God to their conversion.
This doctrine seems as naturally calculated to
elevate the piety of Christians, and as actually to
result in the elevation of th'^ir piety under the
blessing of God as those truths that, when an
Evangelist, I preached to sinners, were to their
conversion.

10. Christ has been in a great measure lost
sight of in some of His most important relations
to mankind. He has been known and preached
as a pardoning and justifying Saviour, but as an
actually indwelling and reigning Saviour in the
heart, He has been but little known. I was
struck with a remark, a few years since, of a
brother whom I have from that time greatly
loved, who had been for a time in a desponding
state of mind, borne down with a great sense of
his own vileness, but seeing no way of escape.
At an evening meeting the Lord so revealed Him-
self to him as entirely to overcome the strength
of his body, and his brethren were obliged to
carry him home. The next time I saw him he
exclaimed to me with a pathos I shall never for-

*-M ■'. V^;

^rf>

VIF.WS OF

got, " Brother Finney, the Church have buried
the Saviour." Now it is no doubt true, that the
Church have become awfully alienated from
Christ — have in a great measure lost a know-
ledge of what He is and ought to be to her — and
a great many of her members, I have good reason
to know, in different parts of the country, are
saying, with deep and overpowering emotion,
'* They have taken away my Lord, and 1 know
not where they have laid Him."

II. With all her orthodoxy, the Church has
b^en for a long time much nearer to Unitarian-
ism than she has imagined. This remark may
shock some of my readers, and you may think it
savors of censoriousness. But, beloved, I am
sure it is said in no such spirit. These are ''the
words of truth and soberness." So little has
been kno vn of Christ, that, if I am not entirely
mistaken, there are multitudes in the orthodox
churches who do not know Christ, and who in
heart are Unitarians, while in theory they are
orthodox.

I have been, within the last two or three years,
deeply impressed with the fact that so many
professors of religion are coming to the ripe con-
viction that they never knew Christ. There
have been in this place almost continual develop-
ments of this fact, and I doubt whether there is a
minister in the land who will present Christ as
the gospel presents Him, in all the fulness of his
official relations to mankind, who will not be
struck and agonized with developments that will
assure him that the great mass of professors of
religion do not know the Saviour. It has been

1 1 'i

SANCTIFICATION.

211

to my own mind a painful and a serious question,
what I ought to think of the spiritual state of
those who know so Httle of the blessed Jesus.
That none of them have been converted, I dare
not say. And yet, that they have been converted,
I am afraid to say. 1 would not for the world
'* quench the smoking flax or break the bruised
reed," or say any thing to stumble or weaken
the feeblest lamb of Christ; and yet my heart is
sore pained, my soul is sick ; my bowels of com-
passion yearn over the Church of the blessed
God. O, the dear Church of Christ ! What
does she m her present state know of gospel rest
of that '* great and perfect peace which they
have whose minds are stayed on God."

12. If I am not mistaken, there is an extensive
feeling among Christians and ministers, that
much is not, that ought to be known and may be
known of the Saviour. Many are beginning to
find that the Saviour is to them "as a root out of
dry ground, having neither form nor comeliness:"
that the gospel which they preach and hear is
not to them "the power of God unto salvation"
from sin ; that it is not to them "glad tidings of
great joy;" that it is not to them a peace-giving
gospel; and many are feeling that if Chri:.t has
done for them all that His grace is able to do in
this life, that the plan of salvation is sadly de-
fective, that Christ is not, after all, a Saviour
suited to their necessities — that the religion
which they have is not suited to the world in
which they live — that.it does not, cannot, make
them free : but leaves them in a state of perpet-
ual bondage. Their souls are agonized and

212

VIEWS OF

i'f

tossed to and fro without a resting place. Mul-
titrdes also are beginning to see that there are
many passages, both in the Old and New Testa-
ments, which they do not understand ; that the
promises seem to mean much more than they
have ever realized, and that the gospel and the
plan of salvation, as a whole, must be something
very different from that which they have as yet
apprehended. There are great multitudes all
over the country who are inquiring more earnest-
ly than ever before after a knowledge of that
Jesus who is to save His people from their sins.

A fact was related in my hearing a short time
since, that illustrates in an affecting manner the
agonizing state of mind in which many Chris-
tian's are, in regard to the present state of many
of the ministers of Christ. I had the statement
from the brother himself, who was the subject of
his narrative. A sister in the church to which
he preached became so sensible that he did not
know Christ, as he ought to know Him, that she
was full of unutterable agony, and on one occa-
sion, after he had been preaching, fell down at
his feet with tears and strong beseechings that
he would exercise faith in Christ. At another
time she was so impressed with a sense of his
deficiency in this respect, as a minister, that she
addressed him in the deepest anguish of her soul
crying out — **0, I shall die, I shall certainly die,
unless you will receive Christ as a full Saviour,"
and, attempting to approach him, she sunk iown
helpless, overcome with *agony and travail of
soul, at his feet.

Xh^r^ is rpanifpstly a gr§at struggle in the

SANCTIFICATION.

213

Kt^jt*

minds of multitudes, that the Saviour may be
more fully revealed to the Church, that the pres-
ent ministry especially may know Him, and the
power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of
His sufferings, and be made conformable to His
•death.

13. If the doctrine of this discourse is true,
you gfee the immense importance of preaching it
clearly and fully in revivals of religion. When
the hearts of converts are warm with their first
love, then is the time to make them fully ac-
quainted with their Saviour, to hold Him up in
all His offices an^ relations, so as to break the
power of every sin — to break them off for ever
from all self-dependence, and to lead them to
receive Christ as a present, perfect, everlasting
Saviour.

14. Unless this course be taken, their back-
sliding is inevitable. You might as well expect
to roll back the waters of Niagara with your
hand, us to stay the tide of their corruption
without a deep, and thorough, and experimental
acquaintance with the Saviour. And if they are
thrown upon their own watchfulness and resour-
ces, for strength against temptation, instead of
being directed to the Saviour, they are certain
to become discouraged and fall into continual
bondage.

15. But before I conclude these remarks, I
must not omit to notice the indispensable neces-
sity of a willingness to do the will of God, in
order rightly to understand this doctrine. If a
man is unwilling to give up his sins, to deny
himself all ungodliness and every \\rorldly lust — ■

» ?

214

VIEWS OF

, :^

;■;

if he is unwilling to be set apart wholly to the
service of the Lord, he will either reject this
doctrine altogether, or only intellectually admit
it, without receiving it into his heart. It is an
imminently dangerous state of mind to assent to
this or any other doctrine of the gospel, and not
reduce it to practice.

i6. Much evil has been done by those- who
have professedly embraced this doctrine in theory
and rejected it in practice. Their spirit and tem-
per have been such as to lead those who saw
them to infer that the tendency of the doctrine
itself is bad. And it is not to be doubted that
some who have professed to have experienced the
power of this doctrine in their hearts, have
greatly disgraced religion by exhibiting any
other spirit than that of an entirely sanctified
one. But why, in a Christian land, should this
be a stumbling block ? When the heathen see
persons from Christian nations who professedly
adopt the Christian system, exhibit on their
shores and in their countries, the spirit which
many of them do, they infer that this is the ten-
dency of the Christian reHgion. To this our
Missionaries reply that they are only nominal
Chrisytians, only speculative, not real believers.
Should thousands of our cJmrch members go
among them, they would have the same reason
to complain, and might reply to the Missionaries,
these are not only nominal, believers, but profess
to have experienced the Christian religion in
their own hearts. Now, what would the Mission-
aries reply? Why, to be sure, that they were
professors of reHgion ; but that they really did

SANCTIFICATION.

215

not know Christ ; that they were deceiving them-
selves with a name to live, while in fact they
were dead in trespasses and sins.
V It has often been a matter of astonishment to
me that in a Christian land it should be a stum-
bling block to any, that some, or if you please,
a majority of those who profess to receive and to
have experienced the truth of this doctrine,
should exhibit an unchristian spirit. What if
the same objection should be brought against the
Christian religion ; against any and every doc-
trine of the gospel; that the great majority, and
even nine-tenths of all the professed believers
and receivers of those doctrines were proud,
worldly, selfish, and exhibited any thing but a
right spirit ? Now, this objection might be made
with truth to the professedly Christian Church.
But would the conclusiveness of such an objec-
tion be admitted in Christian lands ? Who does
not know the ready answer to all such objections
as these, that the doctrines of Christianity do
not sanction such conduct, and that it is not the
real belief of them that begets any such spirit or
conduct ; that the Christian religion abhors all
these objectionable things. And now suppose it
should be replied to this, that a tree is known by
its fruits, and that so great a majority of the pro-
fessors of religion could not exhibit such a spirit,
unless it were the tendency of Christianity itself
to beget it. Now, who would not reply to this, that
this state of mind and course ol conduct ol which
they complain, is the natural state of man unin-
fluenced by the gospel of Christ ; that in these
instances, on account of unbelief, the gospel has

2l6

VIEWS OP

failed to correct what was already wrong, and
that it needed not the influence of any corrupt
doctrine to produce that state of mind? It ap-
pears to me that these objectors against this
doctrine on account of the fact that some and
perhaps many who have professed to receive it,
have exhibited a wrong spirit, take it for granted
that the doctrine produces this spirit instead of
considering that a wrong spirit is natural to men,
and that the difficulty is that through unbelief
the gospel has failed to correct what was before
wrong. They reason as if they supposed the
human heart needed something to beget within
it a bad spirit, and as if they supposed that a
belief in this doctrine had made men wicked, in-
stead of recognizing the fact that they were
before wicked, and that, through unbelief, the
gospel has failed to make them holy.

17. But let it not be understood, that I sup-
pose or admit that any considerable number who
have professed to have received this doctrine in-
to their hearts, have as a matter of fact exhibited
a bad spirit. I must say that it has been eminent-
ly otherwise so far as my own observation ex-
tends. And I am fully convinced, that if I have
ever seen Christianity in the world, and the
spirit of Christ, that it has been exhibited by
those, as a general thing, who have professed to
believe, and to have received this doctrine into
their hearts.

18. How amazingly important it is, that the
ministry and the Church should come fully to a
right understanding and embracing of this doc-
trine. O it will be like life from the dead. The pro-

SANCTIFICATION.

217

,
''

"V*

clamation of it is now regarded by multitudes as
*' good tidings of great joy." From every quar-
ter, we get the gladsome intelligence, that souls
are entering into the deep rest and peace of the
gospel, that they are awaking to a life of faith and
love — and that instead ofsinking down into Anti-
nomianism, they are eminently more benevolent,
active, holj^ and useful than ever before — that
they are eminently more prayerful, watchful, dil-
igent, meek, sober-minded and heavenly in all
their lives. This as a matter of fact, is the char-
acter of those, to a very great extent at least, with
whom I havebeen acquainted, who have embrac-
ed this doctrine. I say this for no other reason than
to relieve the anxieties of those who have heard
very strange reports, and whose honest fears have
been awakened in regard to the tendency of this
doctrine.

19. Much pains have been taken to demon-
strate that our views of this subject are wrong.
But in all the arguing to this end, hitherto, there
has been one grand defect. None of the oppo-
nents of this doctrine have yet showed us **a
more excellent way and told us what is right."
It is certainly impossible to ascertain what is
wrong on any moral subject unless we have be-
fore us the standard of right. The mind must
certainly be acquainted with the rule of right,
before it can reasonably pronounce any thing
wrong, for " by the law is the knowledge of sin."
It is therefore certainly absurd for the opponents
of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life
to pronounce this doctrine wrong without being
able to show us what is right. To what purpose

2l8

VIEWS OF

then, I pray, do they argue who insist upon this
view of the subject as wrong while they do not so
much as attempt to tell us what is right? It
cannot be pretended that the scripture teaches
nothing upon this subject. And the question is,
what does it teach ? Until it is definitely ascer-
tained what the Bible does teach, it can by no
possibility be shown what is contrary to its
teaching. We therefore call upon the denoun-
cers of this doctrine, and we think the demand
reasonable, to inform us definitely, how holy
Christians may be and are expected to be in this
life. And it should be distinctly understood, that
until they bring forward the rule laid down in
the scripture upon this subject, it is but arro-
gance to pronounce any thing wrong. Just as if
they should pronounce anything to be sin with-
out comparing it with the standard of right.
Until they inform us what the scriptures do
teach we must beg leave to be excused from sup-
posing ourselves obliged to believe that what is
taught in this discourse is wrong or contrary to
the language and spirit of inspiration. This is
certainly a question that ought not to be thrown
loosely by without being settled. The thing at
which we aim is to establish a definite rule or to
explain what we suppose to be the real and ex-
plicit teachings of the Bible upon this point.
And we do think it absurd that the opponents of
this view should attempt to convince us of error,
without so much as attempting to show what the
truth upon the subject is. As if we could easily
enough decide what is contrarv to right, without
possessing any knowledge of right. We beseech,

'vir

SANCTIFICATION.

^ig

i:.

therefore, our brethren in discussing this subject
to show us what is right. And, if this is not the
truth, to show us a more excellent way, and
convince us that we are wrong by showing us
what is right. For we have no hope of ever
seeing that we are wrong until we can see that
some thing else than what is advocated in this
discourse is right.

20. I have by no means given this subject so
ample a discussion as I might and should have
done, but for my numerous cares and responsi-
bilities. I have been obliged to write in the
m idst of the excitemc^nt and labor of a revival of
religion, and do not by any means suppose, either
that I have exhausted the subject, or so ably de-
fended it as I might have done, had I been in
other circumstances. But, dearly beloved, under
the circumstances, I have done what I could,
and thank my Heavenly Father that I have been
spared to say so much in defence of the great,
leading, central truth of revelation — the entire

SANCTIFICATION OF THE CHURCH BY THE SpIRIT OF

Christ.

And now, blessed and beloved brethren and
sisters in the Lord, *' let me beseech you, by the
mercies of God that you present your bodies a
living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,
which is your reasonable service." " And may
the very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and
I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body,
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He that calleth
you, who also will do it."

IiITERATURE

PUBLISHED AND FOR SjlLE

AT THE

Toronto Willard Tract Depository.

ALL BOOKS SENT POST FREE.

COMPLETE CATALOGUES SENT ON APPLICATION.

Daily Helps to the Higher Life. By

Rev. W. Gluyas Pascoe. Extra cloth $i 50-

Mildmay Conference. A most vahiable

book for Christians. Nett o 45'

The Oxford Meetings. Account of the
Union Meetings for the Promotion of
Scriptural Holiness, held at Oxford,
England, from August 29th to Septem-
ber 7th, 1874. Price, paper boards,
50C. nett; cloth, nett o 75

The Brighton Convention Report, be-
ing ten days Convention for promotion
of Holiness, held at Brighton, May
29th. Cheap edition, paper 30C., cloth
nett o 50'

^.l

TORONTO WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY'.

New and enlarged edition, cloth, nett $i oo
" " ** sewed " o 70

The Higher Christian Life. By Board-
man. Nett o 20

Work for Jesus* The Experience and
Teachings ol Mr. and Mrs. Boardman.
With Introduction by Dr. Cullis o 60

Holiness, as demanded and provided by

the Gospel. J. F. B. Tinling, B.A... o 15

A Living Epistle, or Gathered Frag-
ments from the Correspondence of the
late Caroline S. Blackwell. New and
much enlarged edition 2 25

The Highway of Holiness, or " The
Higher Christian Life." Bythe Rev.
Charles Graham (Editor Christian Ar-
mour.) o» 75

The Life of Alfred Cookman. By
Henry B. Ridgaway, D.D., With
preface by Wm. Morley Punshon,
LL.D I 50

No Condemnation, or the True Ground
of Christian Triumph. By Rev. John
Purves, LL.D o 15

The Promise of the Father ; a Call to
Holiness (enlarged edition.) By Gar-
diner Tishbourne, Vice- Admiral o 08

The Tabernacle and its Services. By

William Brown i 00

Tabernacle and Priesthood. By H.

W. Soltau I 35

The Gospel according to Moses, as
seen in the Tabernacle and its various
services. By George Rodgers 050

TORONTO WIM.ARD TRACT PF.POfilTORV.

Christ in the Tabernacle. By Frank

H.White $1 50

Types and Shadows. By Frank H.
White. A most admirable book for
the young. lUustrated o 10

The Tabernacle. Small edition, paper o 08

The Tabernacle of Israel. Illustrated

by H. W. Soltau. Extra Cloth 4 75

The Holy Vessels and Furniture of
the Tabernacle of Israel. Extra
cloth. Highly illustrated by H. W.
Soltau 4 75

The Jewish Temple. By George

Rodgers. Paper o 15

The True Tabernacle. By George C.

^Needham. Cloth i 00

Mr. Needham's exposition of these
Old Testament types, have created a
deep interest in Christian Circles.
The present series of Lectures will
prove a great help to Bible students.

Important Truths, being Nos. i to 12 of

Lincoln Leaflets o 30

Lincoln Leaflets. Per packet o 15

Lectures on the Epistles of St. John... o 60

Lectures on the Epistles to the He-
brews o 45

Lectures on the Revelation. Two vols.

in one. Cloth gilt i 50

Expository Lectures on the Epistle

to the Hebrews. 2 vols. Cloth ... 4 00

Christ in the Church. Cloth 180

The Lord's Prayer, Lectures on. Cloth i 80

^5.

'S ,

TORONTO WILLARD TRACT DliPOblTORY.

Christ and the Scriptures. Cloth 45c.

Paper 30c. Large edition $1 00

" We thank God with a full heart
for this fresh, powerful, living utter-
a:ice of great (and some of them for-
gotten) truths." — British Herald,

" To all disciples of Jesus this work
commends itself at once, by its grasp
of truth, its insight, its profound sim-
plicity, the life which is in it, and its
spiritual force." — Christian Work,

Christ Crucified. Cloth i 00

Conversion. (Illustrated from the Bible.)

Cloth I 00

Life of Faith. (Its Nature and Power.)

Cloth o 75

Thoughts on the Book of Revelation

and the Church of Christ o 30

The Hidden Life or Thoughts on

Communion with God. Cloth i 50

By C. H. SPURGEON.
The Treasury of David. An original

exposition of the Book of Psalms, and

other collections on the same. 4 vols.

royal vo, cloth, per vol 2 25

Spurgeon's Lectures, or Lectures to my

Students. Cloth o 75

Types and Emblems ; collection of ser-
mons I 00

The Saint and his Saviour ; (The pro-
gress of the soul in the knowledge of
Jesus.) I 00

Morning by Morning, or Daily Read-
ings for the family or the closet.
(Sixty-fifth thousand.) i 00

* '

Toronto willard tract depository.

1
T

I
t

Evening by Evening. (Fortieth thou-
sand $1 oo

Flashes of Thought. Being i,ooo choice

Extracts. Cloth i 50

Trumpet Calls to Christian Energy.

Cloth ..* '. I 00

Gleanings among the Sheaves. Cloth o 45

Christ's Glorious Achievements, (new) o 30
" Seldom, we venture to think, has
such a glorified theme been handled
after such a glorious fashion. Every
page drops fatness — it is a rare spirit-
ual feast." — The Christian.

A Man in Christ. An address delivered

by request, Dec. 4th, 1876 o ». j

Your own Salvation, (new) 010

Baptism of the Holy Ghost. By Asa

Mahan, D.D. Cloth i 25

Baptism of the Holy Ghost. By Asa

Mahan, D.D. ; and Endowment of

Power, by Finney. Cloth o 60

In the Power of the Spirit, or. Christian

Experience in the light of the Bible.

By W. E. Boardman. Cloth i 00

Mission of the Spirit. By Rev. L. R.

Dunn. Cloth i 25

Gift of the Holy Ghost. By Rev. E.

Davis. Extra cloth 80c. nett, cloth

60c. nett, paper, nett o 40

Work of the Holy Spirit. By R. P. S.

2c. each, or per doz o 20

Power from on High. By Rev. Hugh

Johnson, B.D. 2c. each, or per doz. o 20

V, '■ i

UTORY.

thou-

$1 oo

^oice

I 50

I <X)

'loth o 45
jew) o 30
I has
died
very
>irit-

ered

o ^Z

O IP

Asa

: of

..... o 60

:ian

ble.

.... I 00

. • • . X 2 s

E.
oth
.... o 4.0

.... O 20 ''
OZ. O 20