which we do not hold in common with other evangelical denominations. The doctrine is essential to the integrity of Wesleyan Methodism. Consequently, any innovation upon this great distinguishing doctrine should be guarded against with the utmost vigilance. And believing, as I do, that the theory which identifies justification and entire sanctification, in point of time, not only wars against, but utterly subverts, the Scripture doctrine of sanctification, as taught by our standard writers; and, as I love Methodism, in all its original beauty and simplicity; I deprecate the introduction of this dogma, that one who has saving faith is in all cases free from sin. A great pity it is that these novel and unscriptural notions had not been left to expire with Count Zinzendorf, Thomas Maxfield, and George Bell. Why have they had a resurrection? And would it not be a sad indication of the degeneracy of Methodism in this country, if what Mr. Wesley, under God, our great founder, considered heresy, and opposed with all his might, should be cherished as the very marrow of the gospel by the ministers and people of the Methodist Episcopal Church? It is to be hoped that the day is far distant when such will be the fact. The true Wesleyan system cannot be mended—at least it will gain nothing by the accession of the foreign and antagonist element opposed in this lecture. It will bring us no nearer the teachings of the Bible: it will not facilitate our great mission," the spread of Scriptural holiness throughout the land." Let us not mix water with our excellent "old wine," but abide in our calling, and urge all believers to "go on to perfection ;" and may our God, and our fathers God, go with us, and bring us, as a people, into the possession of that goodly inheritance prepared and promised by the great Captain of our salvation.

LECTURE XVII.

DIRECT SCRIPTURE PROOFS.

"This is the will of God, even your sanctification," 1 Thess. iv, 3.

THE purpose of the present lecture shall be to present the direct Scripture evidence of the attainableness of a state of entire sanctification in this life.

But before I proceed to state the proofs, I wish to direct attention to the results at which I have arrived in the preceding lectures. A review of these will show that I now approach the direct Scripture proof of the main question with a strong probability in its favour. This probability, it will be seen, has accumulated with every successive step in the progress of the argument.

I have first shown that persons in a gracious state are urged to proceed to higher attainments. In the next place, these attainments, as clearly defined in the New Testament, are found to imply a state of holiness above the common grade-implying, a death to sin and a life to righteousness: then it is shown that many learned and pious divines agree in the attainableness of a state of Christian perfection. After this a brief review of the history of the controversy is attempted; in which it is found that the Wesleyan system of evangelical perfection had not been embraced by the ancient or modern heretics, and, of course, had never been condemned by the orthodox; and when this system was brought into question, divines equally zealous for the doctrines of original sin, human impotency, the influences of the Spirit, the holiness of the law, the change of the covenants-that the covenant of grace supersedes that of works, as the ground of

human acceptance-and for many other points of Christian doctrine, were divided upon this question; one party asserting, and the other denying, the attainableness of such a state of perfection: then the objections against the doctrine are duly weighed and found untenable. And, finally, several theories upon the subject of the time when we are authorized to expect entire sanctification are examined, and the position taken by our opponents, that sin necessarily continues in the soul until the death of the body, is shown to be unsup ported either by Scripture or sound philosophy.

If then I have succeeded in clearing the ground so far as I have proceeded in the argument; if the great elements of the doctrine are settled in the word of God, and no valid objection stands against it; and if the opposite theory is grossly absurd and anti-scriptural, is it not highly probable that our theory is the true one? I say, then, that I approach the direct Scripture proof with a very strong probability in my favour. Indeed, it is scarcely possible that a theory against which there is no Scripture testimony, or solid objection founded in the nature of things, or God's established plan of action, and in favour of which there are so many probabilities, should be false; and it is not at all possible that it should be a dangerous error. So that if we had not a single explicit proof to allege from the Bible, our doctrine at least might be presumed to be safe, and not liable to the charge of heresy.

But we have ample Scripture testimony which we suppose directly in point. This I shall now proceed to adduce.

1. I first urge, that God commands us to be perfect. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," Matt. v, 48. Again, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect." "Thou shalt love

the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength," Mark xii, 30. "Having, therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God," 2 Cor. vii, 1.

I need add no further instances of this class, because if the argument which I base upon these is valid, the evidence they afford is perfectly conclusive, but if unsound, a multitude of passages of the same class would give it no additional strength.

But before I proceed further I must examine the position taken upon all such passages as contain the words perfection, blameless, entire, &c. When we urge these terms, either found in precepts or examples, our opponents claim the right so to qualify them, as to make them mean little or nothing.

Dr. Snodgrass disposes of these terms thus :-"It is not denied, that there are words and phrases employed in Scripture, which, if understood in the greatest latitude of meaning of which they are susceptible, would imply that not a few both of the Old and New Testament saints were without sin. These are such as the words 'perfect,' 'entire,' 'complete,' 'blameless.' It is said of Noah, Job, and others, that they were perfect-of all Christians, that they are complete -of Zachariah and Elisabeth, that they walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. But, it is granted on all hands, that these and other terms of similar import are often used in a qualified and restricted sense; and therefore no decisive proof can be drawn from their appearance in this connection."*

Dr. Woods takes the same ground. After consider

* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 33, 34.

ing several of the passages alleged in this argument, he comes to this result:-"As a limited sense clearly belongs to some of the passages which seem, at first view, to favour the doctrine of 'perfection,' it is quite possible it may belong to others, and it would be going too fast and too far, to decide at once, that any of that class of texts must be taken in the highest and most absolute sense.'

Now, if these learned divines have taken legitimate ground upon the passages in question, we must admit that they do not certainly prove our theory of perfection. But they proceed upon a false principle of interpretation. Their ground is this:-That as the terms perfection, blameless, &c., are often used in a qualified sense, therefore they are not decisive-we are not permitted to give them their full literal sense when employed in connection with Christian experience and character, as they are often used in a qualified sense in other connections. And I will now show that the principle of exegesis here assumed is contrary to all good authority, is rejected by themselves in the consideration of other topics, and, if generally adopted would lead to the most dangerous results.

The sound principle of exegesis here violated, and which I say is sustained by the best authority, is, that language is always to be understood in its literal and natural sense, unless there is something in the nature of the subject to which it is applied which requires the restricted meaning. Hooker says:-"I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that when a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as

* Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection, pp. 69, 70.