IV. SHOW WHAT THE REAL QUESTION NOW AT ISSUE IS.

1. It is not whether a state of present full obedience to the divine law is attainable in this life. For this has I trust been clearly established in former lectures.

2. It is not whether a state of permanent, full obedience has been attained by all or by any of the saints on earth.

3. But the true question at issue is: Is a state of entire, in the sense of permanent sanctification, attainable in this life. If in this discussion I shall insist upon the fact that this state has been attained, let it be distinctly understood that the fact that the attainment has been made, is only adduced in proof of the attainability of this state; that it is only one of the arguments by which the attainability of this state is proved. Let it also be distinctly borne in mind that if there should be in the estimation of any one a defect in the proof that this state has been attained, still the integrity and conclusiveness of the other arguments in support of the attainability will not thereby be shaken. It is no doubt true that the attainability of this state in this life may be abundantly established entirely irrespective of the question whether this state has ever been attained.

Let me, therefore, be distinctly understood as maintaining the attainability of this state as the true question at issue, and that I regard the fact that this state has been attained only as one method of proving or as a fact that demonstrates its attainability. Dr. Woods admitted the attainability of a state of entire sanctification in this life, and contested only the fact of its actual attainment. But he should not have admitted the attainability with his idea of what is implied in it, as has been shown. For example, if, as he supposed, entire sanctification is a state in which no farther progress in grace or holiness is possible or in which there is and can be no christian warfare or struggle with temptation, he had no right to admit that any such state as this is attainable in this life. I do not admit, but utterly deny that any such state is at all attainable in this life, even if it is in any state of existence whatever.

But again: While Dr. Woods admitted that entire sanctification is attainable in this life, he denied that it is attainable in any practical sense, in such a sense that it is rational to expect or hope to make the attainment. He says we may attain it, but holds it to be dangerous error to expect to attain it. We may or might attain it, but we must not hope to attain

it in this life. But how does he know? Does the Bible reveal the fact that we never shali? We shall see.

The true question is, Is a state of entire, established, abiding consecration to God attainable in this life in such a sense that we may rationally expect or hope to become thus established in this life? Are the conditions of attaining this established state in the grace and love of God such that we may rationally expect or hope to fulfil them and thus become. established or entirely sanctified in this life? This is undoubtedly the true and the greatly important question to be settled.

Let no one throw fog and embarrass our enquiries by doing as Dr. W. has done, that is, by admitting and denying the attainability of this state at the same breath; admitting it, to save his orthodoxy with the New School, who maintain the doctrine of natural ability, and denying it as a practical or practicable thing, to save himself from the charge of perfectionism. It is certainly a grave and most important question whether we may rationally hope or expect ever in this life to attain to such an established state of grace and faith and love, or, which is the same thing, to such an established state of entire consecration as to have done with slipping and falling and sinning against the blessed God. Certainly the bleeding, yearning, agonized spirit of the saint recently recovered from a fall, ought not to be tantalized with metaphysical or theological quibbles when it asks with agonizing interest, How long, Lord? Is there no hope that I can or shall arrive, in this life, at a state in which, through mighty reigning grace, I shall have done with abusing thee? It appears to me monstrous and barbarous to answer such a soul, as has been done by saying to him, You may attain such a state, but it is dangerous error to expect ever to cease abusing God while you live in this world. I can conceive of no temptation to take one's own life greater than this. The almost irresistible reply of the soul to such an announcement under such circumstances would be, Why then, in the name of the Lord I will cease to live. If I may not hope to live without abusing God, I will not live at all.

LECTURE LVI.

SANCTIFICATION.

V. THAT ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION IS ATTAINABLE IN THIS

LIFE.

I will here introduce some things which I have said under this head in former lectures on this subject.

1. It is self-evident that entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this, is to deny that a man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.' Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and as the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is of course forever settled that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life on the ground of natural ability.

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

such as his powers are, they should all be used with the ut most perfection and constancy for God. And to use again the language of a respected brother, "If we could conceive of a moral pigmy, the law levels its claims to his capacities, and says to him, 'Love the Lord thy God with all THY heart, and with all THY strength." And should a man by his own fault render himself unable to use one of his hands, one eye, one foot, or any power of body or mind, the law does not say to him in such a case, use all the powers and all the strength you might have had, but only use what powers and what strength remain. It holds him guilty and condemns him for that act or neglect which diminished his ability; but it no longer in any instance requires the use of that power of body or mind which has been destroyed by that act.

For a fuller development of this truth see Lectures on Ability, No. xlvi, xlvii, xlviii, of this course. Also Lecture i, on Moral Government, pp. 5-—11.

2. The provisions of grace are such as to render its actual attainment in this life, the object of reasonable pursuit. It is admitted that the entire sanctification of the Church is to be accomplished. It is also admitted that this work is to be accomplished "through the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth." It is also universally agreed that this work must be begun here; and also that it must be completed before the soul can enter heaven. This then is the inquiry: Is this state attainable as a matter of fact before death?

It is easy to see that this question can be settled only by a reference to the word of God. And here it is of fundamental importance that we understand the rules by which scripture declarations and promises are to be interpreted. I have already given several rules in the light of which we have endeavored to interpret the meaning of the law. I will now state several plain common sense rules by which the promises are to be interpreted. The question in regard to the rules of biblical interpretation, is fundamental to all religious inquiries. Until the Church are agreed to interpret the scriptures in accordance with certain fixed and undeniable principles, they can never be agreed in regard to what the Bible teaches. I have often been amazed at the total disregard of all sober rules of biblical interpretation. On the one hand the threatenings, and on the other the promises, are either thrown away, or made to mean something entirely different from that which was intended by the Spirit of God. At present, I will only mention a few plain, common-sense, and self

evident rules for the interpretation of the promises. In the light of these, we may be able to settle the inquiry before us, viz: whether the provisions of grace are such as to render entire and permanent sanctification, in this life, an object of reasonable pursuit.

(1.) The language of a promise is to be interpreted by a reference to the known character of him who promises, where this character is known in other ways than by the promise itself; for example:

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

[2] His character for hyperbole andextravagance in the use of language should be taken into the account in interpreting his promises. If it be well understood that the promisor is in the habit of using extravagant language-of saying much more than he means, this circumstance should, in all justice, be taken into the account in the interpretation of the language of his promises. But on the other hand, if he be known to be an individual of great accuracy, and to use language with great circumspection and propriety, we may freely understand him to mean what he says. His promise may be in figurative language and not to be understood literally, but in this case even, he must be understood to mean what the figure naturally and fully implies.

[3.] The fact should be taken into the account, whether the promise was made deliberately or in circumstances of great but temporary excitement. If the promise was made deliberately, it should be interpreted to mean what it says. But if it was made under great but temporary excitement, much allowance is to be made for the state of mind which led to the use of such strong language.

(2.) The relation of the parties to each other should be duly considered in the interpretation of the language of a promise; for example, the promise of a father to a son admits of a more liberal and full construction than if the promise were made to a stranger, as the father may be supposed to