A careful study of the Holy Scriptures is the best apologetic for the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification. Here, however, we must limit this study to the more prominent proof texts, which we shall arrange according to the following classification: (1) those which speak of Holiness as the New Testament Standard of Christian Experience; (2) those which specifically teach that Entire Sanctification Is a Second Work of Grace; (3) the Tense Readings of the Greek Testament; and (4) Scripture Texts used in Opposition to the Doctrine. For the sake of brevity, texts properly belonging to more than one division, will not generally be duplicated.

Holiness as the New Testament Standard of Christian Experience. Here we shall notice those scriptures which refer to the will of God, His promises and His commands.

1. It is the will of God that His people shall be holy. (1) Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding
 

2. God has promised to sanctify His people. (1) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Isa. 1:18). Scarlet is known as one of the most indelible of the dyes, and is here used to designate the stain of sin in the soul. The guilt of actual sin, and the pollution of inbred sin, can be cleansed only by the blood of Jesus Christ. (2) Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you (Ezek. 36:25). The work of the Holy Spirit is here represented by the symbol of water as a cleansing agent. It is to this scripture doubtless that St. Paul refers in II Cor. 7:1. (3)

For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap: and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness (Mal. 3:2, 3). Christ is portrayed by the prophet as the Great Refiner of His people. It should be noted (a) that it is the sons of Levi who are to be purged; and (b) the purpose of this purging is to enable them to make an offering in righteousness. This is a reference doubtless to the baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire. (Matt. 3:11, 12). (4) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me . . . . he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:11, 12). Nothing can be more evident than that (a) the baptism with the Holy Ghost effects an internal and spiritual cleansing which goes far deeper than John's baptism. One was for the remission of sins, the other for the removal of the sin principle. (b) This baptism is applicable to Christians only, not to sinners. (c) The separation is not between the tares and the wheat, but between the wheat and the chaff, or that which clings to it by nature. Sinners are never regarded as wheat, but always as tares. (d) The wheat thus separated, will be gathered into the garner and preserved; the chaff will be burned, or destroyed with unquenchable fire. The chaff referred to here is not the wicked, but the principle of sin which cleaves to the souls of the regenerate, and which is removed by Christ's purifying baptism.

3. God commands His people to be holy. These commands embrace the three terms commonly applied to entire sanctification - holiness, perfection, and perfect love. (1) Be ye holy; for I am holy (I Peter 1:16). This text is a reference to Lev. 19:2. God requires His people to be holy and enjoins it by precept and example. Evangelical holiness is positive and real, not merely typical or ceremonial. There is a relative aspect of holiness as we shall show later, but it is never separated from that

which is inwrought by the Spirit. Holiness in God is absolute, and in man is derived, but the quality is the same in God and man. (2) The Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect (Gen. 17:1); Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48). This is the perfection of love, which comes from the purging of all the antagonisms of the soul, which war against it. (3) And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment (Mark 12:30). 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, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live (Deut. 30:6). Dr. Adam Clarke says that "the circumcision of the heart implies the purification of the soul from all unrighteousness." The love mentioned here is not merely natural human love or friendship (filia), but holy love (agape), or the love created and shed abroad in the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5).

Entire Sanctification as a Second Work of Grace. Of the numerous texts which could be cited in this connection, we limit ourselves to three only. (1) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God (Rom. 12:1, 2). Nothing can be clearer than (a) that this exhortation is addressed to those who were at the time
 
 

Tense Readings of the Greek Testament. Dr. Daniel Steele in his Milestone Papers has an excellent chapter on this important subject (cf. STEELE, Milestone Papers, Chapter V). He points out the contrast between the use of the present tense, as I am writing, or the imperfect

as denoting the same continuity in the past, as I was writing, with the aorist tense, which in the indicative expresses simple momentary occurrence of an action in past time, as I wrote. In all other moods, the aorist is timeless, or what is styled "singleness of act." When, therefore, the present tense is used, it denotes continuous action; but when the aorist is used, it denotes a momentary, completed act without reference to time. There is in the English no tense like it, and hence the translators found it difficult to translate it without circumlocution. . . . . A proper understanding of this will greatly aid in the interpretation of important texts. We shall mention but a few of these. (1) Sanctify [aorist imperative] them (once for all) through thy truth: [that is, through faith in the distinctive office and work of the Comforter] . . . . And for their sakes I sanctify [present tense - am sanctifying or consecrating] myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth (or truly sanctified) (John 17:17, 19). Dr. C. J. Fowler points out, that in the Greek text, verse 17 reads en ta aletheia (en th alhqeia), through the truth, or in the use of the truth; but verse 19 omits the tei (th) and reads en aletheia (en alhqeia) which means in truth, since omitting the article makes it equivalent to an adverb. (2) Purifying [aorist - instantaneously] their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). "This verse," says Dr. Steele, "is a key to the instantaneous sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit wrought in the hearts of believers on the day of Pentecost, since the words, even as he did unto us, refer to that occasion." (3) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present [aorist - a single act not needing to be repeated] your bodies a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). (4) Put ye on [aorist - a single definite act] the Lord Jesus Christ, and make [present tense] not provision [that is, quit making provision] for the flesh (Rom. 13:14). (5) Now he which stablisheth [present - who is continually establishing] us with you in Christ, and hath [aorist, as a single definite act] anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us [aorist], and given [aorist - gave as a single definite act] the

earnest of the Spirit in our hearts (II Cor. 1:21, 22). Here the establishing is constant, or continuous, while the anointing, the sealing and the earnest of the Spirit are momentary and completed acts of the one experience of entire sanctification. (6) And they that are Christ's have crucified [aorist - a single definite and completed act] the flesh [sarx not swma or body] with the affections and lusts (Gal. 5:24). A distinction is made here between the carnal mind as the principle of sin, and the works of the flesh which flow from it. These works of the flesh are put off in conversion. But now the carnal mind itself, as the underlying principle of sin (the flesh or sarx with its inordinate affections and outreachings, which though existing are not allowed to express themselves in works, or actual sinning) is to be crucified (from staurow implying destruction accompanied with intense pain). (7) In whom also after that ye believed, [aorist] ye were sealed [aorist] with that holy Spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13). Here both the believing and the sealing are definite, completed acts. (8) Mortify (aorist - kill outright) therefore your members which are upon the earth (Col. 3:5). "Let nothing live inimical to your true life, hidden in Christ. Kill at once (aorist) the organs and media of a merely earthly life." - Bishop Ellicott (cf. STEELE, Milestone Papers, p. 80). (9) Put on [aorist] the new man (Col. 3:10). Put on, . . . . [aorist] as the elect of God. . . . . bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering (Col. 3:12). Dr. Steele says that all these excellencies of character are assumed at once, through the incoming of the Comforter. This represents the positive side of entire sanctification, as mortification represents the negative. (10) And the very God of peace sanctify [aorist] you wholly; and. . . . your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved (initial aorist, to mark the beginning of the power which is to preserve the believer) (I Thess. 5:23). (11) That he might sanctify [aorist] the people with his own blood, suffered [aorist] without the gate (Heb. 13:12). (12) If we confess [present tense] our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive [aorist] us our sins, and

to cleanse [aorist] us from all unrighteousness (I John 1:9). Here both the forgiveness and the cleansing are spoken of as completed acts, and there is no more reason grammatically for believing in a gradual sanctification than in a gradual justification.

The doctrine of Christian perfection has come down to us from apostolic days as a sacred and uninterrupted tradition through all the Christian centuries. The different ages have been frequently characterized by a difference in terminology, which the student of history must be quick to discern, but in no age has this glorious truth suffered eclipse. "The essentials of the doctrine have been preserved, though with many minor differences, from the beginning, clearly discernible through all the ascetic, fanatical, ultra-mystical, semi-Pelagian veils which have obscured them" (POPE, Compend. Chr. Th., III, p. 61). We shall trace the subject briefly through the following periods, in order to furnish a historical basis for further discussion.

1. The Apostolic Fathers are definite in their teaching upon this important subject. The last words of Ignatius before his martyrdom were "I thank Thee, Lord, that Thou hast vouchsafed to honor me with a perfect love toward Thee." Polycarp, speaking of faith, hope and charity, says, "If any man be in these, he has fulfilled the law of righteousness, for he that has love is far from every sin." Clement of Rome states that "those who have been perfected in love, through the grace of God, attain to the place of the godly in the fellowship of those who in all ages have served the glory of God in perfectness."

2. The Later Fathers bore the same testimony. We note first the words of Augustine, who at times rose to sublime heights in his conception of grace, and at others, seemed to shrink from the full truth of his positions. He declares that "no one should dare to say that God cannot destroy the original sin in the members, and make Himself so present to the soul, that the old nature being

entirely abolished, a life should be lived below as life will be lived in the eternal contemplation of Him above." Yet he believed that evil concupiscence remains throughout the natural life. Apart from this, however, he taught a full deliverance from all sin in this life. We have also the word of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (d. 386) who says, " "But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be invested with power from on high. Receive it in part now; then shall ye bear it in its fullness. For he who receives often possesses the gift but in part; but he who is invested is completely enfolded by His robe." Macarius the Egyptian (c. 300-391) wrote a series of homilies on Christian experience in which the idea of perfect love is given a prominent place. He says, "In like manner Christians, though outwardly they are tempted, yet inwardly they are filled with the divine nature, and so nothing injured. These degrees, if any man attain unto, he is come to the perfect love of Christ and to the fullness of the Godhead" (Homily 5). "By reason of the superabundant love and sweetness of hidden mysteries, the person arrives to such degrees of perfection as to become pure and free from sin. And one that is rich in grace at all times, by night and by day, continues in a perfect state, free and pure" (Homily 14).

3. The Mystics, notwithstanding their numerous errors and extravagances, served to preserve evangelical religion during the Middle Ages. Their contribution to this department of theology has been peculiarly rich, in that the central idea of all mysticism is entire consecration to God. It demands a separation from the creature, and perfect union with the Creator in love. Mosheim the historian, says, "If any sparks of real piety subsisted under this despotic empire of superstition they were to be found only among the mystics; for this sect, renouncing the subtlety of the schools, the vain contentions of the learned, and all the sects and ceremonies of external worship, exhorted their followers to aim at nothing but internal sanctity of heart and communion with God, the center and source of holiness and perfection (MOSHEIM, History, p. 390). Those forms of mysticism

4. The Roman Catholic doctrine was eclectic, and existed in a variety of forms, such as that of the Jansenists, the Mystics, the Ascetics and the Scholastic Fathers of the Middle Ages. It took the form of German semi-pantheism, French Quietism, and Spanish Illuminism. The Church laid a good foundation for this doctrine in its creed, but it erred greatly in building upon it a false superstructure. Thus the Tridentine Decrees in referring to the perfection of obedience, maintain that negatively there is no bar to an entire conformity to law; and that positively, a complete satisfaction of its requirements is necessary to salvation. Mohler asks the question, `"How shall man be finally delivered from sin, and how shall holiness in him be restored to perfect life?" In his reply, he attacks the idea of a deliverance from sin through the death of the body, as held by some of the Protestant formularies. He attributes this error to the reformed doctrine of complete passivity in regeneration. "But the Catholic," he says, "who cannot regard man other than as a free, independent agent, must also recognize this free agency in his final purification, and repudiate such a mechanical process as inconsistent with the whole
 

moral government of the world. If God were to employ an economy of this nature, then Christ came in vain." He sums up his position by saying that "the Redeemer will at the day of judgment have fulfilled the claims of the law outwardly for us, but on that very account inwardly in us. The consolation, therefore, is to be found in the power of the Redeemer which effaces as well as forgives sin." But it is at this point that the doctrine of purgatory is injected. This purification is to be accomplished in a twofold way. "With some it consummates purification in this life; with others it perfects it only in the life to come. The latter are they who by faith, love, and a sincere penitence, have knit the bond of communion with the Lord, but only in a partial degree, and at the moment of their quitting life were not entirely pervaded by His Spirit; to them will be communicated the saving power, that at the day of judgment they also may be found pure in Christ." The first error in the Roman Catholic Church, as it touches this doctrine of purity, is the failure to recognize the present power of the atoning blood of Christ, for full and complete cleansing. Thus while rejecting the mechanical idea of purification by death, they very inconsistently substitute a mechanical process of cleansing after death. The second error in the doctrine of holiness is concerned with the positive aspect of divine love as the consecrating power of entire sanctification. It is held that love not only fulfills the law, but that it may more than fulfill it by keeping those counsels of perfection which are recommended though not imposed by our Lord. This position leads directly to the belief that love may achieve works of supererogation, and consequently to an undue emphasis upon good works, through an obedience which is above law.

5. The Reformers in their reaction against the erroneous position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning justification, adopted a theory of the atonement, which through a misplaced emphasis upon its substitutionary aspect, gave rise to the various theories of imputation. These have been previously discussed in the

chapters on the Atonement and Christian Righteousness, and it is sufficient here, to mention them briefly in their relation to the doctrine of Christian perfection. As there are erroneous theories of imputation concerning justification, so also the same theories are erroneously applied to sanctification. Since Christ is our substitute, the Reformers held that not only a complete justification, but also an entire sanctification was thus provided for the believer, and applied to him as a gift of covenant grace. But there is here an emphasis upon objective soteriology, or what Christ has done for us, to the minifying of the importance of subjective soteriology, or what He has wrought in us by the Spirit. Thus with their peculiar form of a substitutionary atonement, they held to a belief in the imputation to Him of our sins, and to us of His righteousness for our justification, and for our sanctification also, in so far as it applied to the cleansing from guilt. But sin itself cannot be done away by imputation; hence in the Calvinistic system it is necessary to deny that it is actually done away. It is not imputed and, therefore, not reckoned to the believer. Thus he is sanctified by imputation, that is by his "standing" in Christ, although as to his actual "state," he still has the carnal mind or inbred sin, which imputation cannot take away. This will be clearer when it is recalled that the extreme substitutionary theory of the atonement not only held, (1) that Christ's death, or passive righteousness was imputed for the remission of sins; but that (2) His active righteousness, or His life in holiness was also imputed as a substitute for the believer's imperfect obedience. Hence sin is not abolished as a principle or power, but instead, Christ's righteousness is imputed as a substitute, and inbred sin is thereby hidden under the robe of an imputed righteousness. Here is the basis of the "standing and state" theory which forms such a prominent part in some of the modern theories of sanctification. The standing of the believer is in Christ, that is by imputation; the actual state is one in which sin is repressed, and, therefore, does not reign; while sanctification is the process of bringing the principle of sin

into subjection to the life of righteousness. Sanctification, therefore, according to this theory is merely progressive while the soul dwells in the body, and is completed only at death. The subtlety of a doctrine which holds that man can be instantaneously sanctified by an imputed standing, but not actually sanctified by an impartation of righteousness and true holiness, makes the error more dangerous. Anything which falls short of an actual cleansing from all sin or the death of the "old man" is anti-Wesleyan and anti-scriptural. The Reformation, however, led to other movements of a spiritual nature, which served to further the work of true holiness. Spener founded the Pietists who emphasized holiness, and organized societies in Frankfort for its promotion, much as Mr. Wesley did in London. Wesley was in some measure indebted to the Moravians for the beginning of his spiritual life, although he disagreed with Count Zinzendorf on his doctrine of imputation, and also rejected his idea that purification or sanctification took place at conversion.

6. The earlier Arminians wrote much on Christian perfection also, and their statements contain the germ of that which was later developed in Wesleyanism. Arminius defined holiness as follows: "Sanctification is a gracious act of God by which He purifies man, who is a sinner, and yet a believer, from ignorance, from indwelling sin, with its lusts and desires, and imbues him with the spirit of knowledge, righteousness and holiness. . . . . It consists of the death of the old man, and the quickening of the new man." Episcopius says, "The commandment may be kept with what he regards as a perfect fulfillment in the supreme love which the gospel requires according to the covenant of grace, and in the utmost exertion of human strength, assisted by divine help." Limborch states that there is a "perfection in being correspondent to the provisions and terms of the divine covenant. It is not sinless or an absolutely perfect obedience, but such as consists in a sincere love of piety, absolutely excluding every habit of sin." The doctrine,

however, was more fully developed by John and Charles Wesley and their coadjutors.

7. The Wesleyan movement which resulted in the organization of the Methodist Church, marks a revival of the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification in the eighteenth century. To the question, "What was the rise of Methodism?" Mr. Wesley replied, "In 1729 my brother Charles and I, reading the Bible, seeing we could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others to do so. In 1737 we saw that holiness comes by faith. In 1738 we saw that men are justified before they are sanctified, but still holiness was our pursuit - inward and outward holiness. God then thrust us out to raise up a holy people." Two years before his death, Mr. Wesley wrote, "This doctrine is the grand depositum which God has lodged with the people called Methodists; and for the sake of propagating this chiefly He seems to have raised us up." John Wesley was the founder of Methodism, and his Sermons and Notes, together with the Twenty-five Articles, form the standards of doctrine. Charles Wesley was the hymn writer of the movement, and John Fletcher, a member of the Anglican Church, its saint and chief apologist. The names of Dr. Coke and Bishop Asbury are prominent in the organization of American Methodism. During the nineteenth century, a fresh impetus was given to the doctrine and experience of holiness by the great national campmeetings. The Wesleyan Methodist Connection was organized in 1843, the Free Methodist Church in 1860, and the National Association for the Promotion of Holiness in 1866. In order to both promote and conserve the truth of holiness, the latter part of the century witnessed
 
 

the organization of the Church of the Nazarene by Dr. Phineas F. Bresee, the Pentecostal Association of Churches in the East, and a number of holiness movements in the South. These were later combined into one body, known as the Church of the Nazarene. This period witnessed also the combining of a number of other groups into the Pilgrim Holiness Church. These churches have sought to conserve the doctrine and experience of entire sanctification; and have persistently opposed the various fanatical groups that have obscured the pure truth, and brought into ill-repute the glorious doctrine and experience of full salvation.

8. Among the more modern developments, aside from Wesleyanism, may be mentioned the following: (1) The Oberlin Position; (2) The Theory of the Plymouth Brethren; and (3) The Keswick Theory.

(1) The Oberlin position is represented by President Asa Mahan, Charles G. Finney, and President Fairchild. According to this theory, there is a simplicity of moral action which makes sin to consist solely in an act of the will, and consequently maintains that it is impossible for sin and virtue to exist in the same heart at the same time. It accepted but one definition of sin, namely, "Sin is the transgression of the law." Several erroneous positions followed immediately - (1) It denied inbred sin as a state or condition of the soul, and held instead, to an "intermittent," "vibratory," or "alternating" theory of moral character. Of this position, Dr. A. M. Hills, himself a student at Oberlin, says, "To hold that a Christian believer in every moral act is as good or bad as he can be, and that the least sudden sin of a warm-hearted Christian plunges him to the level of the worst sinner, is too great a tax on credulity to be accepted" (HILLS, Fundamental Chr. Th., II, p. 253). (2) It confused consecration with sanctification. Sanctification was made to consist in such an "establishment in consecration" as to prevent further "alternation of the will." (3) It made sanctification a matter of growth and development. Thus President Fairchild begins his chapter on sanctification with these words, "The growth and

establishment of the believer, the development in him of the graces of the gospel, is called sanctification." (FAIRCHILD, Elements of Theology, p. 280). President Mahan later came into the clear experience of entire sanctification, and advocated practically the Wesleyan position.

(2) The Plymouth Brethren originated in Dublin, Ireland, and almost simultaneously in Plymouth, England. In England their growth was very rapid, and hence they soon came to be known as the Plymouth Brethren. Their leading mind, if not their founder, was
 

and stressing those which appeal to the Calvinists, the errors of this movement are adapted to become widespread in both of these great branches of so-called orthodoxy. The principal error of this system, and that upon which most if not all the others depend, is a false view of the Atonement, or the mediatorial work of Christ. The Plymouth conception of the Atonement, is that of the old commercial theory, or so much suffering as an atonement for so much sin. They regard sin as having been condemned on the cross of Christ; and consequently hold that all sin - past, present and future, has by this act been done away - not provisionally, nor actually, but by imputation of men's sins to Christ. Having been done away by imputation to Christ, men are no longer responsible either for their sinful state or sinful acts. A distinction is made between the believer's "standing" and his actual "state" or condition. Believers are accounted righteous or holy by their "standing" in Christ. God does not take account of their actual "state" for He sees them only through Christ. Sin is not actually removed from the heart and life, but only covered over with the robe of Christ's imputed righteousness. Holiness and righteousness are only imputed, never imparted. In this system, faith becomes, not the condition of personal salvation, but simply a recognition of what was done by Christ on the cross. Justification likewise is not an act in the mind of God by which the sinner is forgiven, but
 

a wholesale transaction on Calvary, centuries ago, only just now recognized and accepted. Regeneration is regarded, not as an impartation of life to the soul, but as in some sense the creation of a new personality which existed alongside the old, both natures remaining unchanged
 

until death. The person, or that which in man says "I," may put itself under the direction of either the "new man" or the "old man" without any detriment to his standing in Christ, except that in the latter case, communion will be interrupted. The "standing" is eternal, and remains unchanged, regardless of the actual "state" of the professed believer. Furthermore, the doctrine of the two natures is not fully understood until it is seen, that neither of these natures is responsible for the other. Whatever may be the deeds of the "old man," the believer is not held to be accountable for them - they were condemned on the cross. The Plymouth idea of sanctification, like that of justification, is purely Antinomian. The believer is not only made righteous in Christ, he is made holy also. The one act, viewed as righteousness, is justification; viewed as holiness, it is sanctification. One of their own writers states this position as follows: "He who is our Great High Priest before God is pure and without stain. God sees Him as such, and He stands for us who are His people, and we are accepted in Him. His holiness is ours by imputation. Standing in Him, we are in the sight of God, holy as Christ is holy, and pure as Christ is pure. God looks at our representative, and He sees us in Him. We are complete in Him who is our spotless and glorious
 

Head." His holiness, is purely in the "standing" which man has in Christ, that is, it is imputed only. As to the "state" or actual condition of his heart, there is no personal holiness inwrought by the Spirit. Sin continues until death, but this in nowise affects the "standing" of the believer. "We must never measure the standing by the state," says Mr. McIntosh, "but always the state by the standing. To lower the standing because of the state, is to give the death-blow to all progress in practical Christianity." Commenting upon this, Dr. Daniel Steele says, "that is to say, the fruit must always be judged by the tree; to judge the tree by the fruit, is to give the death blow to pomology."

It can easily be seen why the teachers of this doctrine have a special hostility to the Wesleyan and scriptural teaching concerning Christian perfection. The former holds to an imputed holiness; the latter to an imparted holiness. The former holds that we are merely reckoned holy; the latter that we are actually made holy. The former base everything on a logical syllogism - Christ is holy; we are in Christ; therefore we are holy. Christ is indeed holy, but the fact is overlooked, that no man is in Christ in the fullest sense of new covenant privilege, until he is cleansed from all sin by the baptism with the Holy Ghost. The intellectual assertion that a man is in Christ, does not make it so in fact; this is accomplished by an inner work of the Spirit of God. Ethically, this Antinomian doctrine breaks down all the restraints that would hinder men from sin, as set up in Arminianism and the older Calvinism. Logically, it has its issue in the doctrine of final perseverance, or what in more modern times is wrongly known as eternal security.

(3) The Keswick Movement was founded for "the promotion of scriptural holiness" as stated in the invitation to the original meeting, held in Oxford in 1874. The following year, a second convention was held at Keswick, from which the movement took its name. Here the invitation stated that the convention was for

the "promotion of practical holiness." It has been popularized by a number of nationally known evangelists and has in it many sincere and earnest Christians. They believe in the lost condition of the race, and are zealous in their efforts for the salvation of men. They insist upon the abandonment of all known sin, and a definite and complete consecration to Christ. They emphasize the necessity of an appropriation by faith, of the power of God through Christ, for both holy living and Christian service. This enduement for service is known among them as the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and is generally regarded as being subsequent to conversion. It is not, however, in the strict sense, a work of grace, for there is no cleansing from inbred sin. Their position in regard to inbred sin is essentially that of the Plymouth Brethren. It is regarded as a part of the believer's humiliation, and in a sense defiling his best deeds. It involves continuous suppression, and will continue to exist until death delivers from its defilement. The enduement of the Spirit counteracts in some measure, the carnal mind, and assists the believer in repressing its manifestations. It will be seen from these statements, that apart from other differences in theology, the power of sin is merely broken, which Wesleyanism maintains takes place in conversion. It is in no sense entire sanctification as Wesleyanism defines this term. It is rather, more closely related to the idea of positional holiness as taught by the Plymouth Brethren. The believer is holy in his "standing" but not in his "state." Holiness is thus a matter of imputation instead of impartation. Actual cleansing from all sin is rejected as being out of harmony with their general principles. The "standing" is eternal, and hence, like the former theory, logically issues in the so-called doctrine of "eternal security."
 

We have in the two previous divisions indicated in a general way the meaning and scope of sanctification, but the subject demands a more thorough study. The term holiness, as it is used in this connection, refers to man's moral or religious state, and sanctification, to the act by which he is made holy. The idea of the divine holiness necessarily underlies our conception of human holiness - the former being absolute, the latter, relative or derived. The concept of the divine holiness was given careful attention in our study of the Moral Attributes of God (Chapter XIV); we must now study the question of human holiness in relation to our former positions. The terminology of the Greek New Testament will furnish the best approach to this subject, but must be limited solely to those words and their derivatives, which in the English translation are rendered holiness or sanctification. Other words referring to this experience will be given consideration later. In the study of these Greek words, however, we must bear in mind that the Greeks had no clear idea of holiness, such as the Christian religion demanded, and hence St. Paul was under the necessity of reading into these words, a deeper meaning, than that which they ordinarily conveyed to the Greek mind.

We shall notice, at this time, the following Greek terms. (1) Hagios (agioV), holy. This word occurs frequently in the Scriptures, but is rarely used outside of Holy Writ. It means (a) reverent, or worthy of veneration, and is applied to God (Luke 1:49); to things on account of their connection with God (Acts 6:13; 7:33); and to persons whose services God employs
 

(Eph. 3:5). (b) To set apart to God, to be exclusively His (Mark 1:24; Luke 2:23). (c) It is used of sacrifices and offerings prepared for God with solemn rite (Rom. 11:16; 12:1; I Cor. 7:14; Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Col. 1:22). (d) In a moral sense, pure, sinless, upright and holy (Rom. 7:12; 16:16; I Cor. 7:14; 16:20; I Peter 1:16; II Peter 3:11). (2) Hagion (agion), neuter gender of agioV and used generally to designate a holy place (Heb. 9:24, 25; 10:19). (3) Hagiadzo (agiazw) a verb meaning to separate, to set apart, to render or to declare holy. It means (a) to hallow (Matt. 6:9); (b) to separate from the profane and dedicate to God - things (Matt. 23:17; II Tim. 2:21); persons (John 10:36; 17:19); (c) to purify - externally (Heb. 9:13; I Tim. 4:5), by expiation (I Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12), internally (John 17:17, 19; Rom. 15:16; I Cor. 1:2; I Thess. 5:23; Jude 1; Rev. 22:11). (4) Hagiasmos (agiasmoV) is a word used only by biblical and ecclesiastical writers. It is derived from the perfect passive (hgiasmai) of agiazw, and is translated sanctification or holiness. It is found in I Thess. 4:3 this is the will of God, even your sanctification: Heb. 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, (agiasmon) (or the sanctification wrought by the Holy Spirit, agiasmw PneumatoV); and again, ye have your fruit unto holiness (agiasmon) (Rom. 6:19, 22). (5) Hagiotes (agiothV), sanctity, or in the moral sense, holiness. It refers especially to the property of moral natures, and is applicable to both God and sanctified men (Heb. 12:10). (6) Hagiosune (agiwsunh), sanctity, sanctification, holiness. The word is generally regarded as synonymous with the preceding term, but restricted more especially in its application to men. As such it signifies emphatically, a personal purification. It is used but three times in the New Testament, (a) Rom. 1:4, where the contrast is made between Christ according to the flesh (kata sarka), and according to the spirit of holiness (kata pneuma agiwsunhV); (b) II Cor. 7:1, perfecting holiness (agiwsunhn); and (c) I Thess. 3:13,
 

stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness (agiwsunh).

From this brief study of Hagios (agioV) and its derivatives, it will be clearly seen, that while the primary meaning is a setting apart, or a separation, this in the New Testament takes on the deeper significance of a cleansing from all sin. This is the dominant meaning of the terms used in the Scriptures, and from this authority there can be no appeal. The word hagnos (agnoV) and its derivatives, on the other hand, while implying inward purity (cf. I John 3:3), refer primarily to external or ceremonial purity, the sanctification of the body, and the general qualities of purity and chastity (John 11:55; Acts 21:24, 26; II Cor. 11:2; Phil. 4:8; Titus 2:5; James 3:17).

Definitions of Entire Sanctification. We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of
 

is an instantaneous deliverance from all sin, and includes an instantaneous power then given always to cleave to God." Mr. Watson defines entire sanctification as a complete deliverance from all spiritual pollution, all inward depravation of heart, as well as that, which, expressing itself outwardly by the indulgence of the senses, is called filthiness of the flesh and spirit" (WATSON, Institutes, II, p. 450). Adam Clarke defines it as "the cleansing of the blood, that has not been cleansed; it is the washing of the soul of a true believer from the remains of sin" (CLARKE, Christian Theology, p. 206). Dr. Pope's definition is as follows: "Sanctification in its beginnings, process and final issues is the full eradication of the sin itself, which reigning in the unregenerate, coexists with the new life in the regenerate, is abolished in the wholly sanctified." Dr. Phineas F. Bresee in his sermon on Divine Power says, "It is evident that the baptism with the Holy Ghost is the conveyance into men and through men, of the 'all-power' of Jesus Christ - the revelation of Him in the soul"; and again, "The baptism with the Holy Ghost is the baptism with God. It is the burning up of the chaff, but is also the revelation in us and the manifestation to us of divine personality, filling our being" (DR. P. F. BRESEE, Sermons, p. 193). It will be noticed, that while Dr. Bresee never undervalued the cleansing aspect of entire sanctification, his chief emphasis was always upon the divine infilling - the unfolding of the entire being in "loyal relation to the divine." Dr. Edward F. Walker defined sanctification as a "personal cleansing from sin, in order to a holy life. Made pure in order to sustain devotion to God. A pure heart, full of holy love. Beyond this we cannot go in this world; but short of this we ought never to rest. . . . . Perfect purity plus perfect love in the heart by the efficiency of Christ and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit equal personal sanctification" (WALKER, Sanctify Them, pp. 42, 49). Dr. John W. Goodwin gives us this definition: "Sanctification is a divine work of grace, purifying the believer's heart from indwelling sin. It is subsequent
 

to regeneration, is secured in the atoning blood of Christ, is effected by the baptism with the Holy Ghost, is conditioned on full consecration to God, is received by faith, and includes instantaneous empowerment for service."
 

Justification and Sanctification. Our previous study of Christian righteousness has given us the general characteristics of justification; it remains for us now to contrast these briefly with sanctification, in order to set forth more clearly the distinctions between them. (1) Justification in a broad sense has reference to the whole work of Christ wrought for us; sanctification, the whole work wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. (2) Justification is a forensic and judicial act in the mind of God; sanctification, a spiritual change wrought in the hearts of men. (3) Justification is a relative change, that is, a change in relation from condemnation to favor; sanctification, an inward change from sin to holiness. (4) Justification secures for us the remission of actual sins; sanctification, in its complete sense, cleanses the heart from original sin or inherited depravity. (5) Justification removes the guilt of sin, sanctification, destroys its power. (6) Justification relieves the soul from exposure to the penalty of violated law; sanctification prepares it for the gracious rewards of virtue. (7) Justification makes possible adoption into the family of God; sanctification restores the image of God. (8) Justification gives a title to heaven, sanctification, a fitness for heaven. (9) Justification logically precedes sanctification, which in its lowest or initial stage,
 

is concomitant with it. (10) Justification is an instantaneous and completed act, and therefore does not take place ad seriatim, or by degrees; sanctification is marked by progressiveness, that is, it has stages and degrees. There is a partial sanctification which is concomitant with justification, and there is an entire sanctification which is subsequent to it. But both initial and entire sanctification are instantaneous acts, wrought in the hearts of men by the Holy Spirit.

Regeneration and Sanctification. The relation existing between regeneration and sanctification is set forth in an able and unique manner by Bishop Jesse T. Peck in his Central Idea of Christianity. He says, "Just as natural life and the condition of the living being are distinct, spiritual life and the moral condition of the spiritually alive are distinct. Certain invariable coincidences between these two things, in no respect interfere with their essential difference. Now, two things so entirely distinct, as the fact of spiritual life and the moral state of the spiritually alive, ought to have different names. Regeneration appropriately designates the former, sanctification the latter. . . . . The word sanctification just as appropriately denotes certain treatment of the soul, which God has brought to life, as regeneration does the fact of bringing it to life. Sanctify is from sanctus, holy, and facio, to make. Sanctification is literally the act of making holy, and this is its essential meaning in systematic divinity. Now here are two things totally distinct from each other, as much so as a fact and a quality of a fact, a thing and an accident of a thing can be; and here are two terms, of entirely different import, completely adapted to represent these two things respectively - regeneration, the production of spiritual life; sanctification, the treatment of the soul spiritually alive - neither of which can, without violence
 

Concerning Sin in the Regenerate. It has been the uniform belief of the church, that original sin "continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until eradicated by the baptism with the Holy Spirit" (Creed, Art. V). As stated in the Thirty-nine Articles, "this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek fronhma sarkoV, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe, yet this lust hath of itself the nature of sin" (Art. IX). "By sin," says Mr. Wesley, "I here understand inward sin; any sinful temper, passion, or affection; such as pride, self-will, love of the world, in any kind or degree; such as lust, anger, peevishness; any disposition contrary to the mind which was in Christ" (Sermon: Sin in Believers). The condition of the regenerate, therefore, previous to entire sanctification, is in a modified sense, a mixed state. There is
 

within the heart of the believer, both grace and inbred sin, but there is not, nor can there be any commingling or blending of these antagonistic elements. They exist in the heart without admixture or composition. Otherwise we should have an adulterated holiness. Those who hold to the erroneous idea of regeneration as a making over of the old life, instead of an impartation of the new, find difficulty in accounting for a second work of grace.

Entire Sanctification as Subsequent to Regeneration. Theologians of the Wesleyan type frequently speak of the incompleteness of regeneration, and of the necessity of entire sanctification in order to complete or perfect the redemptive process. Thus Dr. Miley states that "the doctrine of an incompleteness of the work of regeneration underlies entire sanctification, particularly in its Wesleyan form" (MILEY, Syst. Th., II, p. 357). There
 

is a sense in which this is true, but the form of the statement is unfortunate. Regeneration considered in itself is not an imperfect work. It is the bestowal of divine life, and as an operation of the Spirit, is complete in itself. But regeneration is only a part of the grace embraced in the New Covenant, and in this sense only may be said to be incomplete - incomplete as not in itself representing the totality of New Covenant blessings. Again, regeneration is frequently represented in Wesleyan theology, as the beginning of sanctification - a work which comes to its perfection in entire sanctification. Here, also, discriminating thought is necessary. Regeneration is the beginning of sanctification in this
 

sense only, that the life bestowed in the new birth is a holy life. This new life, being one of "holy love" may be said to be the beginning of holiness. But we are not to infer from this that the expanding of this new life by growth, or the increase and development of this love, will bring the soul to entire sanctification. Failure to discriminate here, leads inevitably to the "growth theory" of sanctification. Sanctification is an act of cleansing, and unless inbred sin be removed, there can be no fullness of life, no perfection in love. In a strict sense, regeneration is not purification. Initial sanctification accompanies regeneration, as does also justification and adoption, but regeneration is the impartation of life, and initial sanctification is the cleansing from guilt and acquired depravity. Closely related to both of the foregoing is another statement that needs to be qualified also. We refer to the expression that sanctification is not something new, but a perfecting of that which we already possess. It is indeed true that there is a substratum which is common to both regeneration and entire sanctification, that is, a life of moral love. But regeneration is the impartation of this life of love, and entire sanctification is such a purification of the heart as makes love sole and supreme in experience. The two works are separate and distinct, and consequently the latter is something more than the mere finishing touches of the former.

There are two questions which immediately arise in this connection, (1) Why is redemption not comprehended in a single work of grace: and (2) What length of time must elapse between regeneration and entire sanctification?
 

1. Concerning the first question, it is impossible to say what God may or may not do; we can form our deductions only from what He has revealed to us in His Word. We may say then that God does not justify and entirely sanctify His people by a single work of grace, (1) Because it is not so revealed in His Word. God has system and method in His works, and the work of grace is always bestowed in the same manner, although the manifestations may vary. (2) The sinner does not realize his need of sanctification. His guilt and condemnation at first occupy his attention, and only later does he come to see the need of further cleansing. (3) Life must be given in regeneration before that life can be consciously treated in entire sanctification. (4) Justification and sanctification deal with different phases of sin; the former with sins committed, or sin as an act; the latter with sin inherited, or sin as a principle or nature. It appears to be impossible to discover the latter condition without having experienced the former. Then, too, these works of the Spirit are in some sense antipodal, or directly opposite - the one being an impartation of life, the other a crucifixion or death (cf. C. W. RUTH, Entire Sanctification, p. 48; also LOWREY, Possibilities of Grace, p. 205).

2. As to the time which must elapse between the two works of grace, this depends wholly upon the experience of the individual. "This progressive work," says Luther Lee, "may be cut short and finished at any
 

moment. When the intelligence clearly comprehends the defects of the present state, and faith, comprehending the power and willingness of God to sanctify us wholly, and do it now, is exercised" (LEE, Elements of Theology, p. 214). Any delay beyond the period necessary to learn the nature and conditions of its attainment, must be charged to human weakness. God's time is the present moment. Frequently, also, there are those who