154. Chapter 8: Sanctification.
Chapter 8
Sanctification. The term sanctification is in frequent use, particularly with Methodists, for the expression of a full salvation or a completeness of the Christian life. It is not in itself adequate to such expression, for the reason that it is often used in Scripture in a lower sense, or without the idea of completeness.[803] Hence in its doctrinal use it is often accompanied with the word entire; so that the full expression is entire sanctification. This is not without warrant in the words of St. Paul wherein he prayed that the Christians of Thessalonica might be wholly sanctified (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
[803]
Other words or formulas are also in use: such as holiness, Christian perfection, the higher Christian life. Christian purity, love enthroned; but such formulas are merely representative of the doctrine, not the full expression of its content. Hence, which shall be used is a matter of mere individual preference. The doctrine itself is the question of interest.
I. Meaning Of Sanctification.
Holiness in man is a moral or religious state; sanctification, a gracious work of God whereby that state is produced. The idea of the divine holiness underlies that of human holiness. Without the former there is no place for the latter. That God is holy is a reason for holiness in ourselves: “Because it is written. Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16). There was no such an idea in Greek thought; not even the idea of the divine holiness. This being the case, there could be no such reason in the Greek mind for personal holiness. Hence new meanings were necessary to the Greek words appropriated for the expression of these purely biblical ideas.[804] [804]
[805]
1. Ceremonial Sanctification.—While the terms of sanctification have a far deeper meaning, as we shall point out, they are sometimes used in the sense of a setting apart from secular to sacred uses, a consecration to God and religion. Here the meaning is the same in application to both things and persons. Thus places, altars, offerings, the tabernacle, and the temple were sanctified. In the same sense there was a sanctification of the priests, and also of the Jewish people. The verb
We may here note the fact that these terms of sanctification are sometimes used in the sense of veneration or reverence. They thus mean a devout and worshipful state of mind respecting God. Here is an instance: “This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me” (Leviticus 10:3). The trisagion of Isaiah—“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts”—is the expression of adoring reverence (Isaiah 6:3). The first petition in our Lord’s Prayer—“Hallowed be thy name”—
Such an adoring reverence is possible only with a deep sense of the divine holiness. There is much in the greatness and majesty of God, much in his mighty works, much in the thought of his infinite knowledge and power, to awaken admiration and awe; much in his justice to inspire fear; much in his love to kindle a grateful love in us; but not without the sense of his absolute holiness can we bow to him in adoring reverence. This is the spirit of the heavenly worship: “Holy, holy, holy. Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8).
2. Deeper Moral Sense.—The distinction here is between the ceremonial and the moral forms of sanctification. The first is outward and official; the second, inward and of the moral and religious nature.
Regeneration furnishes the best exemplification of this work. In the full extent of it, regeneration is of the nature of sanctification. This was shown in our treatment of that subject. It must be such from the very ground of its necessity, which lies in the depravity or corruption of our moral nature. The removal of this corruption is possible only through an interior purification. Such purification is the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, so far as it is therein accomplished. It is hence true that, in the full extent of it, regeneration is of the nature of sanctification; and whatever be the work of sanctification, as distinctively held, it cannot be different in kind. Certainly we have in regeneration the best exemplification of its nature.
3. Entire Sanctification.—The meaning of entire sanctification is obvious in the light of what has preceded. If regeneration were so thorough as to complete the subjective purification there could be no place for the special work of sanctification. In case of serious degeneration, as in some instances in the churches of Corinth and Galatia, there would be need of a renewed purification; but it would be accomplished by a renewed work of regeneration, if regeneration were primarily complete sanctification. The theory then is that regeneration is not in its primary work complete sanctification; that it does not immediately produce a fullness of the inner spiritual life. The doctrine is under no necessity of assuming that this is never the case, particularly so far as the subjective state is concerned. We could not affirm that there are no exceptions ; and, not only for the reason that we see no doctrinal necessity for it, but also because some, even from the hour of their conversion, give constant proof of a fullness of the spiritual life, if not in its maturity yet in its entirety. Mr. Wesley himself never denied the possibility, nor even the actuality, of such instances, though he thought them rare, even if ever actual. The common fact is that of incompleteness. Hence it is the definite work of entire sanctification to complete the subjective purification. So far the statement is simple and easily made; but a philosophy of the facts is no easy attainment. They will be more fully considered in the next section.
4. Two Spheres of the Sanctification.—We think it important to observe that there are two spheres of sanctification, as the doctrine is distinctively held: one within the moral nature; the other within the actual Christian life. The two are closely related, the former being the necessary ground of the latter. Only as the nature is sanctified can the life be in holiness. But the perfection or maturity of the Christian graces is not an immediate product of the subjective purification. Hence the importance of distinguishing the two spheres, so that we shall not fall into the error of maintaining the doctrine of an instant attainment of perfection in such graces. Here the law of growth must be admitted. On the other hand, in the light of this distinction we may see the more clearly the possibility of an instant subjective purification.
II. Sanctification Of The Nature.
1. Incomplete in Regeneration.—The doctrine of an incompleteness of the work of regeneration underlies that of entire sanctification, particularly in its Wesleyan form. Without such incompleteness there could be no place for the definite second-blessing view. That somewhat of depravity remains in the regenerate, or that regeneration does not bring to completeness the inner spiritual life, is a widely accepted doctrine. Indeed, exceptions are so few that the doctrine must be regarded as truly catholic. However, it does not necessarily carry with it the doctrine of entire sanctification as a possible attainment in the present life. Hence many who hold the former deny the latter. On the other hand, the impossibility of such sanctification is no consequence of the incompleteness of regeneration. The grace which therein so largely purifies our nature surely can wholly cleanse it. Hence there is place for the doctrine of entire sanctification as an attainable blessing in the present life. The question of a remnant of depravity is not without perplexity as the nature of depravity as a whole is difficult for thought, so that of a remnant, not different in kind from the whole, is difficult. Consequently, there is perplexity in the notion of entire sanctification.
It must not be overlooked that the Scriptures represent the corruption or depravity of human nature in figurative forms, nor that the figures are taken from the physical plane. The same is true of the forms in which the cleansing or purification of the soul is expressed. Thus the subjective state of evil is represented as one of filthiness or uncleanness; and, accordingly, the sanctification is represented as a cleansing or washing or purifying (Psalms 51:2; Psalms 51:7; Ezekiel 36:25; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1). But for any true conception of either the corruption or the cleansing we must look through the physical imagery and seek to grasp in thought the spiritual realities which it represents. Here, however, is the very point of difficulty—the difficulty of grasping in clear thought the spiritual things which lie back of these physical representations.
If depravity existed in the soul in the form of a substance, as poison exists in a living body, or alien elements in water, or alloy in gold, not only the notion of its nature, but also the notion of sanctification, and whether in part or in whole, would be simple. Remove all the poison from the living body, all alien elements from the water, all alloy from the gold, and in each case the purification is complete. In such a sense the removal of all remnants of depravity would be entire sanctification. But the view is purely physical, and hence can afford no clearness of conception. It is too Manichaean for any truly Christian theology. Depravity is a moral state of the soul, not a substance within it. These facts should not be overlooked in the treatment of entire sanctification. They clearly show that, whatever the certainty of its possibility, or even of its actuality, the nature of it cannot be directly apprehended in thought. The repetitious use of the figurative terms respecting remnants, and roots, and alloys, and sediments cannot exactly define the incompleteness of regeneration; nor can such use of the physical terms of washing and eradication exactly define the purely spiritual work of entire sanctification. It is useless to assume an unattainable clearness of view on these questions; and the proper recognition of such obscurity as we have pointed out might save us from unseemly pretensions, not only to a perfect conception of the inner nature of sanctification, but also to an actual presentation of it with perfect clearness both in itself and in its distinction from regeneration.
Some clearly see the obscurity at this point; if not in their own view, yet in the view of others. “In entering, some years since, upon a re-examination of the difficult subject of holiness, I found that all the light which I had previously received, whether from reading, instruction, or meditation, was inadequate to the demands of my own reason, and also to answer the numerous inquiries propounded to me by my discriminating pupils. Unsatisfied and wearied with all that I had ever seen or heard in explanation of its unexplained mysteries, I sat down, not to reading and collating, but to patient and prayerful thought.”[807] These are the utterances of a mind thoroughly candid in temper, rarely acute in analytic power, and clear in philosophic insight. Their date is 1871. To the mind of Dr. McCabe such was then the obscurity of this subject in all former presentations of it.
[807]
“Every effort I have made to define clearly to my own mind precisely what is meant by sin in believers has deepened the conviction that the subject is one of manifold difficulty, and about which there is great confusedness of thought. I find evidences of obscurity in all the writings about it. The most eminent divines are not clear. They all agree in the fact; but when they attempt to explain they become confused. The difficulty is to make plain what that sin is from which Christian men are not free, which remains in, or is found still cleaving to, believers; how to discriminate between the some sin that is removed in regeneration and the some sin that remains. And it is just around this point that revolves the whole question of entire sanctification, both as to what it is and its possibility.”[808] Such are the statements of this writer after a careful study of our best authorities on the question. Surely these testimonies strongly favor the suggestion of less pretension to a thorough clearness of the doctrine.
[808]
However, as the truth of native depravity is not conditioned on a capacity in us fully to apprehend it, or clearly interpret it in thought, so the truth of a remnant of depravity after regeneration is not so conditioned. In each case the inner state may be known through its activities, as manifest in our consciousness. There is another mode of information. By the observation of others, as to their tempers, words, and acts, we gain an insight into their inner nature, and may thus know its characteristic tendencies, whether to the good or the evil. In such manner we may have the proof of a remnant of depravity, whatever its own obscurity for thought. Hence there is here no mystery in the distinctive doctrine of entire sanctification which should discredit its reality, just as there is no mystery of regeneration which should discredit the reality of a large measure of sanctification therein. On the broadest distinction there is for us the possibility of two lives—two alternatively: one in the flesh; the other in the Spirit. Tic latter is possible only through the presence of the Spirit as a renewing and purifying power in the soul; the former, inevitable in his absence. This does not mean that the subjective state of all in each class is precisely the same. If we judge the inner state of the unregenerate simply by the outer life we shall be constrained to admit wide differences therein, or at least the presence of moral forces which in many instances greatly restrain the natural tendencies of such a state. The real truth is that, with the reality of a common native depravity, there are degrees of moral perversity. So, if we judge the inner state of the regenerate by the outer life, we must admit the truth of differences therein; that the spiritual life is far deeper in some than in others. There may be such a work of the Spirit within the soul as shall give completeness to the inner spiritual life; but such completeness is rarely the work of regeneration. This is the view which underlies the distinctive doctrine of sanctification.
If direct proof of an incompleteness of regeneration, such as constitutes a necessity for the distinct work of sanctification, be demanded, what shall we offer? We can hardly pretend to any direct or formal Scripture statement of such a fact. There are very definite statements respecting both the necessity and nature of justification, also respecting the necessity and nature of regeneration. On the latter question we may instance the words of our Lord (John 3:3-7). Here the necessity for regeneration is definitely stated as lying in an inherited depravity of nature; but not in all the Scriptures is there any such statement respecting a necessity for sanctification as lying in an incompleteness of regeneration. Certainly the truth of this statement cannot be questioned. What then? Is it a truth which is adverse to the doctrine of sanctification? No, not to the real truth of the doctrine; though it may be adverse to some unwise teaching respecting it. The assumption of a definiteness which cannot be shown, and which does not exist, must be a weakness in any teaching. There is such a weakness of more or less teaching on this question. The failure to show the assumed definiteness in the Scripture ground of the doctrine is, in the view of many, the disproof of the doctrine. Here is the point where many halt.
We might adduce the consciousness of the newly regenerate, or even of the regenerate generally, in proof of an incompleteness of regeneration. Mostly, such have inner conflicts which accord with such incompleteness, and which would he out of accord with a state of entire sanctification. But we have already considered the question whether the Christian consciousness is a source of theology, and found it not to be such; hence we cannot admit it to a place of authority in this case. The Christian consciousness has its value for theology, not, however, as its source, but as confirmatory of its doctrines. It is confirmatory of any doctrine of the Scriptures with which it is in strict accord. But the Scriptures themselves must furnish the doctrine before the accordance can be known or the affirmation be of any doctrinal value. This is a principle which is not always properly observed. We mean no doctrinal dissent from Mr. Wesley if we say that in some instances, as recorded in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection, he gave too much doctrinal weight to individual professions of experience. That he so did is manifest in modifications of his own views.
But, while the Scriptures are without any explicit or formal utterance of an incompleteness of regeneration, yet the idea is clearly present in many forms of words respecting the new regenerate life, or even the regenerate life generally; so that the doctrine of such incompleteness may fairly claim for itself a sure basis in the Scriptures. Now, with the doctrine so found in the Scriptures, we may validly adduce the facts of Christian experience in its affirmation. There is widely in the consciousness of the regenerate a sense of incompleteness in their spiritual life; a sense of the lack of that fullness which is the happy experience of some Christians, and which must be the common privilege of believers. The doctrine thus grounded in the Scriptures and affirmed by the common Christian consciousness may easily command the common Christian faith, and be accepted as a doctrine of the weightiest practical concern. So far the elements of the doctrine of sanctification are clear and sure.
However, it should not be thought strange that some question the truth of this doctrine, or even oppose it. On the face of the Scriptures not a few things are seemingly against it. Other facts aside, we would most naturally think of regeneration as a complete work of subjective purification. As we are born of the Spirit, so do we receive the impress of his own likeness. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh”—in the sense of depravity; and “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—in the sense of holiness (John 3:6). If the likeness is complete in the former case, why not in the latter? “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?” “What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous” (Job 14:4; Job 15:14)? We thus prove the native depravity of the race. Conversely, then, why should any uncleanness remain in the soul when it is born of the Holy Spirit? Further, it is clearly true that not a few texts adduced in proof of entire sanctification in some instances express simply the regenerate state; and if they mean a complete work in the one case, why should they mean an incomplete work in the other? Much might be added in the same line. However, the aim of these remarks is not to support this view, and thus to overthrow what we have before maintained, but rather to show a reason for charity toward such as do not accept it. They can hardly question the possibility of more or less degeneration in the regenerate life, and in such case must admit the need of its renewal. And if, with the completeness of regeneration, they hold, not only the possibility of such degeneration and the need of such renewal, but also the common privilege and duty of a wholly sanctified and consecrated life, they hold what is most vital in the doctrine of sanctification, and should be regarded as its friends, not as its enemies.
2. Completion in Sanctification.—The one distinction of entire sanctification, as compared with regeneration, lies in its completeness. The work of the Holy Spirit, as graciously wrought in the soul, is the same in kind in both. This fact opens the way to a clearer view of entire sanctification. As regeneration is, in the full extent of it, a purification of the nature, or an invigoration of the moral and religious powers, or both, so entire sanctification is a completion of the gracious work. So far as we may grasp in thought the work of regeneration, we may also grasp that of entire sanctification. As before stated, we have no direct insight into the nature of depravity; but its characteristic tendencies or forms of activity are open to our observation; and so far as such facts are an expression of that nature we come to know what it is. Much of the natural history of man rests upon such ground. The same is true respecting the natural history of the animal orders. Through the observation of their habits of life we reach a clear notion of the tendencies of their nature. We thus know the ferocity of the tiger and the gentleness of the lamb. In like manner we know the subjective state of depravity in man; and so far we may know what must be the work of the Holy Spirit in his purification. Further, while we cannot accompany the Spirit as direct witnesses of his work within the soul, we may know its nature in the gracious fruits which immediately spring from it, as we observe them in the new life of its subjects. Indeed, we have a far deeper source of knowledge, even that of a conscious experience of the change thus wrought—a change so thorough that old things pass away and all things become new (2 Corinthians 5:17).
We have no instance of any such change among the animal orders, and hence no illustration therein of this gracious work. The nature of the tiger is never changed into that of the lamb. Whatever the seeming docility induced by methods of training, they are as powerless for the effectuation of any real change of his nature as the flesh and blood of the lamb which for the hour may appease his voracious hunger. But among men there are innumerable examples of the transforming power of regeneration; indeed, innumerable witnesses of its actual experience. The facts thus presented are equally applicable to the work of entire sanctification. If somewhat of depravity remains in the regenerate, or there be any lack of thoroughness the invigoration of the moral and religious powers, there is need of a deeper work, that both the cleansing and the invigoration may be complete. The need is the same in kind as in the case of regeneration, and the work of the Holy Spirit the same. As in a very large measure the work is wrought in regeneration, so is it completed in entire sanctification. The clearer spiritual discernment, the easier victory over temptation, the greater strength unto duty, the intenser love, and the closer communion with God answer to that completion. There are many examples of such a complete work, many witnesses to its attainment. Is the inner work of entire sanctification in the mode of repression or in that of eradication? Such a question is in issue among the friends of the doctrine. Any thorough solution of it would require an insight into the metaphysical nature of depravity, and also into the metaphysical nature of regeneration, which we do not possess, and unto which we cannot attain.
Bishop Foster clearly holds the view of repression;[809] also Beet.[810] Dr. Whedon is in full agreement with them: “‘Washed their robes’—purified their characters. This is a very vivid image of sanctification through the atonement. It illustrates how deep the doctrine of the atonement maintained in the Apocalypse. But we must look through the intense imagery at the literal fact, and not allow our imagination to be lost in the imagery. There is no literal robe, no literal washing of the robe in blood. What is true is that Christ died for our sins, and through the merit of his atonement the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon us, giving us power to resist temptation, to repress our disordered affections, and bring all into obedience to the law of Christ. And that is sanctification.”[811] In this characterization of the inner work of sanctification there is no word which means eradication, but there are words which mean repression or subjugation.
[809]
[810]
[811]
If the words of Dr. Whedon mean no more than appears in this criticism, he certainly falls far short of the truth of sanctification. But they may fairly mean much more; and it seems to us that he really meant much more in their use. Much of the same criticism might be made, and even more aptly, upon the state of regeneration, as usually maintained. In the doctrine of sanctification, in its truest Wesleyan form, there is conceded to the regenerate a power of repression or subjugation over the remnants of depravity. No other position is more fully maintained by Mr. Wesley himself. But surely this does not level the regenerate state to that of the unregenerate. In the one there is spiritual life; in the other, spiritual death. Further, the repression or subjugation may be so thorough in sanctification that the disorderly affections shall become orderly, or passively yield to the dominance of the higher spiritual life. The theory of repression certainly does not mean the freedom and full vigor of evil forces which constantly war against the soul. The notable formula of Dr. Chalmers, “the expulsive power of anew affection,” is entirely consistent with the theory of repression; indeed, more consistent than with that of eradication. The new affection is not from the creation of a new power, but from the development of a capacity all the while latent in the mind; so the expulsion of a prior affection is not an eradication of the power which it manifests, but a suppression of its activity. “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear” (1 John 4:18). Here is the same principle. But how does love cast out fear? Certainly not by an eradication of the capacity of fear, but by a suppression of its activity. This is the only mode in which love can cast out fear, or one affection expel another. Every possible affection must have its capacity in our nature. Hence, if in sanctification there is not only a suppression of all disordered affections, but also an eradication of all capacity for them, there can be no possible lapse from that state. But nothing could be more contrary than this result to the truly Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification. In a discussion of his own proposition, “sanctification is not the destruction of the passions,” Dr. Lowrey seems to us in full accord with the view of repression, and against that of eradication.[813] [813]
3. Concerning Sin in the Regenerate.—The truth of a remnant of depravity in the regenerate is not the truth of all the teaching respecting it. That remnant must not be exaggerated in the interest of the doctrine of sanctification, nor to the detriment of the truth of regeneration. The latter point needs to be guarded as vitally important. That this doctrine is exaggerated in some of its confessional statements we have no question. We may give two instances. In the articles of the Anglican Church, after a very strong characterization of inherited depravity, the doctrinal statement proceeds thus: “And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek
[815]
These we call mistaken views of regeneration; exaggerations of the depravity in the regenerate. Such is not the sinful state of a soul newly born of God into a gracious sonship. How shall we account for such exaggerations? Partly from the history of the doctrine. The doctrine itself was not original with either the Anglican Convocation or the Westminster Assembly, but was with each an inheritance from an early Christian age. The material fact is the close historical connection of the doctrine with that of baptismal regeneration. This connection may easily account for the very low view of regeneration. But the view is false to the truth of that great and gracious work; false to the Scriptures respecting it; false to the consciousness of the truly regenerate. The superficiality of regeneration is no implication of its incompleteness. Nor should it be undervalued, as it sometimes is, through an unwise zeal for the doctrine of sanctification. The less the work of regeneration, the greater the work of sanctification; so the former is sometimes held to be a very imperfect work, that the greater prominence may be given to the latter. But it is unwise, and a perversion of vital truth, to lower one fact in the work of salvation in order to exalt another. Regeneration is not a superficial work; nor is it, nor can it be, a small thing to be born of the Spirit.
Further, there is a mistaken use of certain instances of defective Christian life, particularly in the churches of Corinth, Galatia, and Asia, which leads to a false view of regeneration. The mistake arises in the treatment of such instances just as though they represented a true and normal regenerate life, whereas the Scriptures treat them as instances of very serious degeneration. This must be plain to any one who will study even a part of the appropriate texts (1 Corinthians 3:1-4; Galatians 1:6; Galatians 3:1-3; Galatians 5:7; Revelation 2:2-6; Revelation 2:13; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 3:2-3). Hence they cannot fairly represent the true regenerate life. If the aim was to prove that there may be serious degeneration without an utter forfeiture of the regenerate state, these instances would be in point; but they cannot be in point for the proof of the traditional doctrine of sin in the regenerate, because in such use it must be assumed that they fairly represent the normal regenerate life; and such an assumption is openly contrary to the Scriptures.
We cannot think Mr. Wesley’s notable sermon “On Sin in Believers” entirely clear of this error.[816] It is the traditional doctrine which he therein maintains, and which he largely supports with such instances of degenerate Christian life as we before noted. There is in his discussion no dissent from that doctrine respecting the low state of the regenerate life which it assumes; no discrimination between the true regenerate life and that defective form of it represented by these instances of serious degeneration. Such is the doctrine which Mr. Wesley maintains in that sermon, and which he declares to have been the doctrine of the Church from the beginning. So broadly and invariably has it been held, that it must be viewed as truly catholic. The opposing doctrine of entire sanctification in regeneration was new with Zinzendorf, and wholly unknown before him. In emphasizing such facts Mr. Wesley further shows that it is the traditional doctrine of sin in the regenerate, even in its fullest strength, which he maintains in that notable sermon. Mr. Wesley was doctrinally educated in the Anglican articles, and in the ninth, which formulates this doctrine, just as he was in the others; and, while he came to far deeper and clearer views of the regenerate life than this article allows, yet is it the doctrinal basis of his sermon “ On Sin in Believers.”
[816]
We make no issue with Mr. Wesley in his sharp criticism of Zinzendorf respecting this new doctrine; though we would as soon believe and teach that regeneration is entire sanctification as to believe and teach that it is intrinsically a low spiritual state, a life half carnal, and that, simply as such, it never can be any better. We should be nearer the truly Wesleyan doctrine of regeneration in the former case than in the latter. The doctrine of Zinzendorf could easily be so perverted as to become a serious detriment to the spiritual life; but it should not be overlooked that his soteriology was strongly tinctured with antinomianism, and that this fact may account for much of the actual evil. On the other hand, such views of the regenerate life as shall answer to the traditional doctrine of sin in believers must be most harmful. According to that doctrine there is unavoidably much sin in the regenerate life; and yet that such sin is not sin; that is, that it is not counted to the regenerate as sin. There is in such a doctrine no urgent call to an earnest, consecrated Christian life; no inspiration of hope for its attainment. Such views of the regenerate life are neither truly scriptural nor truly Wesleyan. Hence we must think that Mr. Wesley’s sermon “On Sin in Believers” is not true either to the real truth of regeneration or to his own truthful views of that great and gracious work. All this must be plain to any one who will fairly compare that sermon with his sermon on “The Marks of the New Birth.”[817] Indeed, hisPlain Account of Christian Perfection is pervaded with views of regeneration in full accord with the latter sermon, but which are strongly out of accord with the special doctrine maintained in the former. The true regenerate life is not in the low plane of the traditional doctrine.
[817]
4. The Second-Blessing View.—The doctrinal view of the second blessing, as definitely held, consists of two parts, one of which has already been stated, but which may here be restated in connection with the other. The doctrine will thus be presented the more clearly.
Underlying the definite second-blessing view is the doctrine of a common incompleteness of the work of regeneration. Herein the soul is renewed, but not wholly; purified, but not thoroughly. Somewhat of depravity remains which wars against the new spiritual life; not strong enough to bring that life into bondage to itself, yet strong enough to impose a burden upon the work of its maintenance. Such is the first part. The doctrine in the second part is that the regenerate shall come to the consciousness of this incompleteness, and to a deep sense of the need of a fullness of the spiritual life; that these experiences shall be analogous to those which preceded the attainment of regeneration, and be just as deep and thorough. The fullness of sanctification shall be instantly attained on the condition of faith, just as justification is attained; and there shall be anew experience of a great and gracious change, and just as consciously such as the experience in regeneration. That Mr. Wesley held and taught such views there can be no doubt; though we think it would be a wrong to him to say that he allowed no instances of entire sanctification except in this definite mode. We see no perplexity for faith in the possibility of such an instant subjective purification. Through the divine agency the soul may be as quickly cleansed as the leper, as quickly purified in whole as in part. We admit an instant partial sanctification in regeneration, and therefore may admit the possibility of an instant entire sanctification.
Such a view of sanctification does not mean that there need be no preparation for its attainment. The necessity of process of such a preparation is uniformly held, even by such as hold strongly the second-blessing view. The idea of such a preparation is inseparable from the process of experience through which, according to this view, the regenerate must pass in order to the attainment of entire sanctification.[818] [818]
However, this process of preparation need not be chronologically long. No assumption of such a necessity could be true to the soteriology of the Scriptures. Let it be recalled that the question here is, not the maturity of the Christian life, but the purification of the nature. For the attainment of the former there must be growth, and growth requires time. But, while the subjective purification may be progressively wrought, it is not subject to the law of growth; and it is so thoroughly and solely the work of God that it may be quickly wrought. Neither is there any necessity that the mental process of preparation shall be chronologically a long one. Here, as in many other spheres, the mental movement may be very rapid. It is often so in conversion. In many instances the whole mental process has been crowded into an hour, or even less time. Even heathen have been saved, born of the Spirit through faith in Christ, under the first sermon they ever heard. But there is as really a necessary process of preparation for regeneration as for entire sanctification; and such preparation need require no more time in the latter case than in the former. That a subjective purification may be attained according to the definite second-blessing view does not limit the possibility to this single mode. There is no ground in Scripture for such a limitation. Indeed, the attainableness of sanctification according to this definitely wrought doctrine, as above stated, is a truth which lies in the soteriology of the Scriptures as a whole, and not in any definite teaching on the question. While they are full of the idea of entire sanctification, they are quite empty of any such teaching respecting the mode of its attainment. Hence any insistence upon such a mode as the only possible mode of sanctification must be without definite warrant of Scripture. Further, we think it a serious objection to this view, as thus rigidly held, that it cannot consistently allow any preaching of holiness, or any seeking after it, or any expectation of its attainment, except in this definite mode.
Mr. Wesley held strongly the view of an instant subjective sanctification; and we fully agree with him, not only in its possibility, but also in its frequent actuality; but his own illustration of his doctrine points to a possible attainment in a gradual mode. It is given in his answer to the question: “Is this death to sin, and renewal in love, gradual or instantaneous?” His answer is: “A man may be dying for some time, yet he does not, properly speaking, die till the instant the soul is separated from the body, and in that instant he lives the life of eternity. In like manner, he may be dying to sin for some time; yet he is not dead to sin till sin is separated from the soul; and in that instant he lives the full life of love.”[819] The instant consummation here emphasized does not exclude the gradual approach to it; so that, according to this illustration, there may be a gradual dying unto sin until the death is complete; a gradual subjective purification until completeness is attained. Such a view is in the fullest accord with the soteriology of the Scriptures.
[819]
III. The Life In Holiness. In the earlier part of this discussion we pointed out the distinction between the two questions respecting the sanctification of the nature and the holiness of the life. Having sufficiently treated the former, we now take up the latter. This question we desire, first of all, to present in the words of some of its leading expositors. However, there is one difficulty in such presentation; it arises from a lack of proper discrimination between the two spheres of sanctification which we before pointed out. Mostly, the subject is treated simply as one, and without any real distinction, certainly without any formal distinction, between the sanctification of the nature and the holiness of the life. This is specially true of Mr. Wesley’s treatment. While both questions appear in his discussions, yet it is without, any such distinction of the two as we think necessary to the clearer treatment of the subject. Such is the case in the passages which we shall directly cite from him; yet, with proper discrimination on our own part, the fact need not obscure his portraiture of the life in Christian holiness.
1. Portraiture of the Life.—We first present this portraiture as drawn by Mr. Wesley himself. In the first citation we observe the order of question and answer in which he wrote.
“Q. What is Christian perfection?
“A. The loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul ; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions are governed by pure love.
“Q. Do you affirm that this perfection excludes all infirmities, ignorance, and mistake?
“A. I continually affirm quite the contrary, and always have done so.
“Q. But how can every thought, word, and work be governed by pure love, and the man be subject at the same time to ignorance and mistake?
“A. I see no contradiction here: ‘A man may be filled with pure love, and still be liable to mistake.’ Indeed, I do not expect to be freed from actual mistakes till this mortal puts on immortality. . . .
“But we may carry this thought farther yet. A mistake in judgment may possibly occasion a- mistake in practice. For instance: Mr. De Renty’s mistake touching the nature of mortification, arising from prejudice of education, occasioned that practical mistake, his wearing an iron girdle. And a thousand such instances there may be, even in those who are in the highest state of grace. Yet where every word and action springs from love, such a mistake is not properly a sin. However, it cannot bear the rigor of God’s justice, but needs the atoning blood.
“Q. What was the judgment of all our brethren who met at Bristol, in August, 1758, on this head?
“A. It was expressed in these words: 1. Every man may mistake as long as he lives. 2. A mistake in opinion may occasion a mistake in practice. 3. Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect law. Therefore, 4. Every such mistake, were it not for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal damnation. 5. It follows that the most perfect have continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as well as for their brethren, ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’
“This easily accounts for what might otherwise seem to be utterly unaccountable, namely, that those who are not offended when we speak of the highest degree of love, yet will not hear of living without sin. The reason is, they know all men are liable to mistake, and that in practice as well as in judgment. But they do not know, or do not observe, that this is not sin, if love is the sole principle of action.
“Q. But still, if they live without sin, does not this exclude the necessity of a Mediator? At least, is it not plain that they stand no longer in need of Christ in his priestly office?
“A. Far from it. None feel their need of Christ like these; none so entirely depend upon him. For Christ does not give life to the soul separate from, but in and with himself. Hence his words are equally true of all men, in whatsoever state of grace they are: ‘As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me: without (or separate from) me ye can do nothing.’
“In every state we need Christ in the following respects: 1. Whatever grace we receive it is a free gift from him. 2. We receive it as his purchase, merely in consideration of the price he paid. 3. We have this grace, not only from Christ, but in him. For our perfection is not like that of a tree, which flourishes by the sap derived from its own root, but, as was said before, like that of a branch which, united to the vine, bears fruit; but, severed from it, is dried up and withered. 4. All our blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, depend on his intercession for us, which is one branch of his priestly office, whereof therefore we have always equal need. 5. The best of men still need Christ in his priestly office to atone for their omissions, their shortcomings (as some not improperly speak), their mistakes in judgment and practice, and their defects of various kinds; for these are all deviations from the perfect law, and consequently need an atonement. Yet that they are not properly sins we apprehend may appear from the words of St. Paul: ‘He that loveth hath fulfilled the law; for love is the fulfilling of the law’ (Romans 13:10). Now, mistakes, and whatever infirmities necessarily flow from the corruptible state of the body, are no way contrary to love; nor, therefore, in the Scripture sense, sin.
“To explain myself a little further on this head: 1. Not only sin, properly so called (that is, a voluntary transgression of a known law), but sin, improperly so called (that is, an involuntary transgression of a divine law, known or unknown), needs the atoning blood. 2. I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes those involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be naturally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality. 3. Therefore sinless perfection is a phrase I never use, lest I should seem to contradict myself. 4. I believe a person filled with the love of God is still liable to these involuntary transgressions. 5. Such transgressions you may call sin, if you please: I do not, for the reasons above mentioned.”[820] [820]
Such is the Christian perfection which Mr. Wesley maintained. Surely he cannot be fairly accused of extravagance. His doctrine means no absolute perfection; no such perfection as might be possible in a purely spiritual being; no such perfection even as might have been possible to unfallen man. Many forms of infirmity are clearly recognized as inseparable from our present life, whatever our spiritual attainment. Indeed, with his own qualifications, the moderation of his doctrine is all that the Scriptures will allow. In another view, his doctrine is carefully guarded against harmful perversions, the possibility of which he clearly foresaw. No possible attainment in grace can for a moment free us from the need of Christ, or lift us above the propriety of praying, “Forgive us our trespasses. “Finally, love is emphasized as the central reality of Christian perfection. This is a view which Mr. Wesley has often presented, and not without the fullest warrant of Scripture. It is not meant, either in the Scriptures or in his doctrine, that love is the only Christian duty, but, rather, that with the supremacy of love the whole life must be in harmony with the will of God. It is in this sense that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). In 1767 Mr. Wesley wrote thus: “Some thoughts occurred to my mind this morning concerning Christian perfection, and the manner and time of receiving it, which I believe may be useful to set down.
“1. By perfection I mean the humble, gentle, patient love of God and our neighbor, ruling our tempers, words, and actions. . . .
“2. As to the manner. I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith; consequently in an instant. But I believe a gradual work, both preceding and following that instant.
“3. As to the time. I believe this instant generally is the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body. But I believe it may be ten, twenty, or forty years before. I believe it is usually many years after justification; but that it may be within five years or five months after it, I know no conclusive argument to the contrary.”[821] [821]
“We call Christian perfection the maturity of grace and holiness, which established, adult believers attain to under the Christian dispensation; and by this means we distinguish that maturity of grace, both from the ripeness of grace which belongs to the dispensation of the Jews below us, and from the ripeness of glory which belongs to departed saints above us. Hence it appears that, by Christian perfection, we mean nothing but the cluster and maturity of the graces which compose the Christian character in the Church militant.
“In other words, Christian perfection is a spiritual constellation made up of these gracious stars: perfect repentance, perfect faith, perfect humility, perfect meekness, perfect self-denial, perfect resignation, perfect hope, perfect charity for our visible enemies, as well as for our earthly relations; and, above all, perfect love for our invisible God, through the explicit knowledge of our Mediator Jesus Christ. And as this last star is always accompanied by all the others, as Jupiter is by his satellites, we frequently use, as St. John, the phrase ‘perfect love,’ instead of the word ‘perfection;’ understanding by it the pure love of God, shed abroad in the heart of established believers by the Holy Ghost, which is abundantly given them under the fullness of the Christian dispensation.”[822] [822]
We add another passage, one with little detail, but intensely forceful in the presentation of the central realities of a life in Christian holiness: “By holiness I mean that state of the soul in which all its alienation from Cod and all its aversion to a holy life are removed. In this state sin is odious. The more holy any soul, any being is, the more odious sin becomes. To a good man sin is odious; to a holy man it is more odious; to an angel it is far more so still; but to God sin must be, to us, inconceivably odious. And therefore it is said that the heavens are not clean in his sight, and that he charged his angels with folly—so insignificant is their holiness when contrasted with the holiness of God. Holiness admits of an infinite number of degrees; and there is set before us an eternal progression in holiness. But that degree of it, or that state of the soul in which temptations to sin leave there no damaging moral influence, no tarnish of sin, no pain in the conscience, no corruption of the will, no obscurity or perversion of the spiritual vision—that state in which the all-efficacious blood of Jesus has washed away all the stains of sin, and in which the Holy Spirit constantly presides, rules, and reigns without a rival—is what we call sanctification.”[824] [824]
Further appropriate citations could do little more than repeat what has already been well stated, and therefore may be omitted. We add a few words in the form of a definitive statement: With a true and full self-consecration to God; with a trustful resting of the soul in Christ; with a single purpose and earnest endeavor to do his will; with a gracious power through the Spirit against evil and unto a good life; most of all, with the supremacy of love in the soul, the life is in Christian holiness. Such it may be from the hour of the subjective purification, or the thorough invigoration of the moral and religious powers, and while the maturity of the Christian graces is yet wanting. If holiness of life be not possible prior to such maturity, then it must be impossible through all the time necessary to that attainment. In this case holiness of life never can be reached except through a process of growth; and therefore, for a greater or less time, the life in regeneration must be a sinful life. But such is not the Wesleyan doctrine. Mr. Wesley himself maintained the possibility of a holy life in the regenerate state, and from the hour of regeneration. Surely, then, it must be possible from the hour of the subjective sanctification.
2. Grades in Graces.—The life in holiness does not mean an exact equality in the graces of all who so live. Here the element of time must cause wide differences. As these graces acquire strength through trial and reach maturity through a process of growth, so they should be stronger and maturer in those long in the life of holiness than in those who have but recently attained it. There are other laws of difference, particularly in the matter of capacity and temperament. The religious capacity is no more equal in all men than the intellectual capacity. Such being the case, there can be no one grade for all who attain unto a life in holiness. “The point to be maintained is a pure heart, an unsinning life, and a loving service progressively commensurate with our ever-increasing capacity and light. This rule will show a disparity among entirely sanctified persons. Capacity and circumstances will make the difference. This fact should caution us not to pronounce all persons unsanctified who do not measure up to the highest standard in our estimation in sanctity of life and propriety of behavior.”[825] [825]
3. Law of Perfection in Graces.—In an earlier part of this discussion it was shown that a subjective sanctification is the necessary ground of the Christian graces, in all stages of their development; but it was also pointed out that the perfection or maturity of these graces is not an instant, not even a direct product of such sanctification. They must have time for growth; must be tested in the fields of duty and trial; must be strengthened and perfected through the proper exercise. In this manner not a few whose record is in sacred history gained the strength and fullness of their religious character. Such character could not have been gained in any other mode. A glance at the lives of the leading biblical characters will readily discover the truth of these statements. There are many such instances in Christian history. The men of distinction in Christian character and service have ever reached the perfection of their graces through the fulfillment of trying duty. No endowment of grace ever supersedes this law of perfection. There is a wisdom, a strength, a patience, a courage, a zeal, a self-consecration in the spirit of self-sacrifice which can be won only on the field of duty and trial. Take the instance of St. Paul: with the same recipiency of grace, yet without his many trying experiences, he never could have attained to such a degree of perfection in so many Christian graces. The law thus illustrated by so many notable instances is applicable to every Christian life.
It is not essential to such a life, that it shall be without variations of experience; that no shadow shall fall upon its sunshine, nor sense of sorrow mingle with its joy; that there shall be no moments of temptation or trial, hesitation or doubt. It is true that uniformity of experience is to be regarded as specially characteristic of the life in holiness; but such variations as we have indicated are, as occasional facts, entirely consistent with the truest constancy. In all and through all there may be the unmovable steadfastness of faith and the fullness of love. If it be not so, there is for us no present attainment of a full salvation; none, indeed, in the present life. Whatever the blessedness of this state, it is not the heavenly state. With the fullness of salvation we are still in the body and in the common relations of life. Many infirmities and trials are inseparable from this bodily state; many burdens and sorrows, unavoidable in these relations. The imagination, especially when warmed by the mystical temper, may picture a state of indifference to outward things; a state in which the soul is so lost in God as to be free from all anxiety and care, and even without wish of ease from pain; a state in which sickness and death are indifferent to the calm repose, and even the peril of souls awakens no solicitude; but such a reverie is far more replete with hallucination than with the truth and reality of sanctification. Certainly it is neither Paul-like nor Christ-like. The doctrine of sanctification must not be so interpreted as to be made a doctrine of despair to all Christians who have not consciously attained to such an experience, particularly in the definite manner of the second-blessing theory. No such interpretation can be true, because it must deny the salvation of the truly regenerate. The truly regenerate are saved, and in the maintenance of a truly regenerate life must be finally saved. If there is any clear truth of soteriology in the Scriptures this truth is there. Through faith in Christ they have received the double blessing of justification and regeneration. By the one they are freed from the guilt of sin, and by the other they are born into the kingdom of God and become his children (John 1:12-13; John 3:36; Romans 5:1-2; Romans 8:1). The texts given by reference are replete with the truths just stated, as are many others which might easily be added. Indeed, such is the pervasive sense of the Scriptures. We are redeemed by Christ that we might become the sons of God (Galatians 4:4-5; 1 John 3:1). That sonship is surely attained through regeneration. “And if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Galatians 4:7; Romans 8:17). Wesley taught this doctrine, and so did Fletcher and Watson; and so has every truly Wesleyan representative who has ever written upon the subject. Is the maintenance of a life in the fullness of sanctification essential to final salvation? Yes, if we are under a dispensation of law; no, if we are under a dispensation of grace. But we are under grace, and not under the law. Such is the doctrine of St. Paul: “For ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid” (Romans 6:14-15). Our privilege and duty point in the same direction, and bid us strive after all the gracious attainment for which we are apprehended by Christ Jesus (Php 3:12). Yet with the sense of many shortcomings we may, and we must still cling to Christ and hope in him. So must we encourage others to do. Never may we break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. The Master never does (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20).
4. The Assurance of Sanctification.—The assurance of sanctification is a part of the doctrine, as it is usually maintained. There may be some differences of view respecting the source or sources of assurance, while there is agreement respecting the fact itself. Such a form of assurance is a mental state respecting some fact or truth, and is well known in consciousness. As a mental state it is much the same, however greatly the facts or truths which it respects may differ. But, while the mental state is thus one, it may arise from different sources. As in the present question the matter of assurance is the fullness of salvation, so the assurance itself can arise only from such facts or agencies as shall verify to the mind the reality of such a gracious attainment.
Two sources of such assurance are usually claimed: the witness of the Holy Spirit; and the witness of our own Spirit. Thus the witnesses are held to be the same in this case as in the assurance of sonship. There is no apparent reason for any question respecting the latter witness, but there may be differences of view respecting the former.
There is a direct witness of the Spirit to our sonship, as was shown in our doctrine of assurance. In that case the Scriptures are explicit; but they are not explicit respecting such a witness to the fullness of salvation. It is not claimed that they are; hence that there is such a witness can be maintained only as an inference. This is the manner in which it is maintained: “What I would now urge is, that if a sensible evidence of adoption may be expected, that the same kind of evidence may be expected, with increased luster, to accompany the different stages of our progress in holiness. If God vouchsafe to the merely justified an evidence of gracious acceptance, would he be likely to withhold from those whose hearts are entirely consecrated to him an evidence that the offering is accepted? Indeed, the doctrines of the evidence of adoption, and of entire sanctification in this life, being proved, it seems a matter of course that the inward testimony of the Spirit to the truth of the latter, whenever it takes place, would be afforded” (George Peck: Christian Perfection, pp. 440, 441). So far as this argument relates to the assurance of sanctification through the witness of the Spirit, it has little weight. Here is still the significant fact that, while the Scriptures are explicit respecting a direct witness of the Spirit to adoption or sonship, they are quite silent respecting such a witness to entire sanctification. The prominence given to this blessing must not be overlooked. In the view of not a few it is quite equal to regeneration, whereby we become the children of God; indeed, in the view of some, even greater. Such is the assumption of the argument above cited; and that superiority is made the ground of an inference in favor of a direct witness of the Spirit to the attainment of sanctification. The argument is really this: if there is a direct witness of the Spirit to our regeneration and sonship, there must be such a witness to the greater blessing of an entire sanctification. But if there be such a witness of the Spirit, and for the reason just given, why the silence of Scripture respecting it? Why is his witness an explicit truth of Scripture in the one case and in the other left to inference? Nor can such a witness of the Spirit be affirmed by the consciousness of the wholly sanctified. In order to any such affirmation, this testimony must be so communicated to their intelligence that they shall know it to be given directly by the Spirit. Such, however, is not the manner of the Spirit in his witness to our sonship. Therein his testimony is given simply in the mode of an impression in our consciousness; an impression in the form of an assurance that we are the children of God; and we are directly cognizant only of that impression, not of the agency of the Spirit whereby it is produced. That there is such a witness of the Spirit we know only through the Scriptures. Such must be the witness of the Spirit to the state of entire sanctification, if there be any such a witness. The advocates of the doctrine assume this in making the direct witness of the Spirit to our sonship the chief ground from which they infer such a witness to our sanctification. But, being such, the consciousness of the sanctified cannot be cognizant of the agency of the Spirit therein, and therefore cannot verify the fact of such a witness. On the explicit ground of Scripture we know that there is a direct witness of the Spirit to our sonship; but there is no such ground on which we may know the fact of such a witness to our sanctification. Still there may .be such a witness. We have neither denied it nor attempted to disprove it. We have shown that there is no sufficient ground for its confident assertion. It is better, therefore, that such assertion be not made.
We do not question the fact of an assurance of entire sanctification. There may be a direct witness of the Holy Spirit to such a gracious attainment; but without such a witness the assurance is still possible. The inner work of salvation is such that it clearly reveals itself in the consciousness of its subjects. Regeneration so reveals itself. It brings a heavenly light and life into the soul; it brings a heavenly peace and love and joy. The soul is deeply conscious of these new experiences, and finds in them the assurance of salvation and acceptance in the loving favor of God. It is conscious of renewed blessings; of blessings often repeated; of some as very deep and precious. So the full salvation may reveal its fullness in the consciousness of the happy recipient. The fullness of peace and purity, rest and love, may thus be known; but as the facts of experience through which our own spirit witnesses to our sonship must ever be tested and approved by the Scriptures, so must the experiences through which it witnesses to a full salvation be tested and approved.
5. Sanctification a Common Privilege.—There is a divine side to this question as well as a human side. If we look only at the human we shall more than doubt the possibility of a full salvation in the present life. In this single view we shall see nothing but the weakness and sinfulness of man. But if we look also on the divine side we shall see the infinite efficiencies which center in the economy of redemption; efficiencies which work together for our salvation from sin. Let us say, then, that man is corrupt and sinful, and in himself not only weak, but utterly helpless ; but against all this let us affirm the truth that on the divine side there is a mighty Saviour, an all-cleansing blood, and a divine Purifier. In these central truths of our soteriology lies the possibility of a present full salvation. If such a salvation meant a deliverance from the manifold infirmities which are inseparable from the present life, then, indeed, would it be impossible so long as we live; but such infirmities are not sins, and therefore are not inconsistent with a state of full salvation.
Many texts mean the privilege of a life in holiness, a very few of which may here be cited. They so mean because they cannot be properly interpreted without the truth of such a privilege. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written. Be ye holy; for I am holy” (Matthew 5:48; 1 Peter 1:15-16). The perfection and holiness here required must be possible in this life. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40). The meaning is not that such love is literally the fulfillment of every duty, but, rather, that when in its fullness it is the ruling power of the life. With the possibility and the actuality of such love, the fulfillment of all the other duties must be possible. The life would thus be in holiness. The divine commandment of such love means its possibility. “And 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” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). This prayer means the possibility of the blessings for which the supplication is made. The blessings have respect to both the nature and the life. In the first petition, “sanctify you wholly,” the life may be included, but the nature cannot be omitted; and the words of the petition express their own meaning respecting its entire sanctification. The second petition relates to the life, and has the same meaning of entirety: that ‘‘your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” A life in which this prayer is fulfilled must be a life in holiness. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). The saints in heaven were thus cleansed before their entrance into that holy place: “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:14). The prior text clearly means a cleansing in the present life ; for it is while we are walking in the light, and on that condition, that it is promised. Now there can be no question about the completeness of the cleansing of the saints in heaven. The words, “washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” can mean nothing less. But the words, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin,” are not less full of the idea of completeness. There is still a great difference between the saints in heaven and the saints on earth, in that the former are freed from the manifold infirmities to which the latter are still subject; but infirmities are not sins, and, while they remain, the completeness of the cleansing is still the meaning of the words, “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” The great prayer of St. Paul for the Christians of Ephesus is replete with the ideas of a full salvation in the present life. That it is a prayer involves no uncertainty of the privileges of gracious attainment which its petitions properly mean. In no doctrinal utterances was St. Paul ever more deeply inspired than in this prayer. Hence its petitions have the same doctrinal meaning respecting the privileges of gracious attainment that they could have if cast in the most definite forms of doctrinal expression. Further, these petitions mean for all Christians the same fullness of spiritual blessings which they meant for the Christians of Ephesus, for whom they were directly offered. With these preparatory statements, the prayer shall express its own deep meaning to such as devoutly meditate upon its petitions: “For this cause I 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, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in 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 knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God. 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, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Ephesians 3:14-21).
Wesley: Plain Account of Christian Perfection; Fletcher: Christian Perfection; George Peck: Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection; Bangs: Letters on Sanctification; Foster: Christian Purity; Jesse T. Peck: The Central Idea of Christianity; Mahan: Christian Perfection; Boardman: The Higher Christian Life; Steel: Love Enthroned; Wood: Perfect Love; Merrill: Aspects of Christian Experience, chaps. xiii-xv; Beet: Holiness as Understood by the Writers of the Bible; Lowrey: Possibilities of Grace; Crane:Holiness the Birthright of All God’s Children; Franklin: Review of Wesleyan Perfection; Boland: Problem of Methodism.