ESSAY XVII. SANCTIFICATION.* THIS judicious and excellent treatise presents, in a small compass, the substance of the modern controversy on the doctrine of entire sanctification in the present life. The author's statements are calm and clear, his method logical, his arguments conclusive, and his style simple and dignified. Though it is not long since we called the attention of our readers to this subject, especially in the form in which it is presented by the Oberlin professors, we think they will not regard the following pages as misapplied, when they consider how ceaseless are the efforts of the advocates of error to propagate a doctrine which the history of the church teaches us seldom fails to become, in one form or other, an apology for sin. The notion of the actual attainment, in some instances, of perfect virtue in this life, is so gratifying to human pride, that we need not wonder at its adoption by some in nearly every age of the world. Contrary as it is to scripture and experience, it is too deeply radicated in man's selfishness, not to find apologists and advocates among the conceited, the enthusiastic, and such as are unaccustomed to an impartial scrutiny of their own hearts. It flatters exceedingly all those pretensions to superior sanctity which are disjoined from humility, penitence, and ardent aspirations after entire assimilation to the perfection of the divine moral character. In most of the false religions of the earth, the doctrine of human perfection, manifested in at least some peculiarly favoured instances, has, if we mistake not, formed an essential article of belief; and in all countries, perhaps, individuals have been found, possessing an exemption from the common frailties of their race. A kind of perfection has been claimed for Greek and Roman sages, for Hindoo devotees, for Mahommedan saints; and even for the savage warrior, smiling in death at the impotent efforts of his enemies to extract from his agonized nature the shriek, or the groan of suffering. That Pantheism, which is the philosophical basis of most of the popular sys Published in 1842, in review of "The Scriptural Doctrine of Sanctification stated and defended against the error of Perfectionism. By W. D. Snodgrass, D.D." Philadelphia. tems of idolatry, assumes as a fundamental position, such a union of man to the Deity, as constitutes the leading principle of modern perfectionism, in its purest and most sublimated form. Hence originates the deification of men, as well as the divine worship paid to stocks, stones, rivers, mountains, wind, and all the inferior parts of the creation; Pantheism (elevating a creature of yesterday to the rank of a divinity), which is supposed by many to have been of more ancient date than the universal deluge,* was maintained in all the following ages till the time of Christ, and was not entirely relinquished even by some of his professed disciples. Holding such a principle, they were prepared to adopt other opinions equally preposterous and unchristian. To this, perhaps, should be attributed, in part, at least, the antinomianism and perfectionism of some of the heretics in the apostolic age-so the Nicolaitans and Simonians-who maintained that they were released from all obligation to the law, and that none of their actions, however contrary to the letter of the precept, were really opposed to the divine will and worthy of punishment: and how could they, who were parts of God, or rather identical with him, commit sin? "The Gnostics of the first and second centuries, and the Manichaeans of the third, believed human souls to be particles of the celestial light, of the same essential nature with God himself, and no otherwise corrupt or corruptible, than by being combined with sinful matter. The new Platonists of Egypt held substantially the same opinions. Hieronymus, in the preface to his dialogues against Pelagius, says that Manichaeus, Precillian, Evagrinus, Hyperborius, Flavinian, Origen, and the Menalians of Syria, were Perfectionists." The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit, in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, held that all things flowed by emanation from God; that rational souls were portions of the divine essence; that the universe was God; and that by the power of contemplation, they were united to the Deity, and acquired hereby a glorious and sublime liberty, both from sinful lusts, and the common instinct of nature.‡ "In the latter part of the seventeenth century, the disciples of Michael de Molinos in Spain, France, and Italy, were Perfectionists."§ It is worthy of remark, that in none of all these, during so many successive centuries, do we trace any evidence of the belief of the direct agency of the Holy Spirit on the heart, turning its affections to God, and securing the perfection of its obedience. For the most part, they asserted, that regeneration and complete deliverance from sin could be effected by contemplation, and the soul thus be so identified with God as to constitute them not two things united, but one being; and in this way, they explained the indwelling and controlling agency of the Most High in man. Of the reality and presence of See the Princeton Review, vol. xiii., p. 539. † Literary and Theological Review, vol. iii., p. 28. Lit. and Theological Review, ut supra. native moral corruption, as maintained by consistent Calvinists, they seem to have had no conception.* Pelagius and Coelestius, in the fourth century, who denied the innate sinfulness of the human heart, and the consequent necessity of efficacious grace in its renewal, maintained, with entire systematic consistency, that men might live without sin during the whole period of their life; that some had actually so lived for so many years, and that others, restored by repentance after transgression, had subsequently continued perfect in holiness to the close of their days. The primitive Quakers, the French Prophets, the Shakers, Jemima Wilkinson, Joanna Southcott, and the great body of Mystics in every communion, held to perfection in this life, as the attainment of the privileged few; and the advocates of this doctrine have usually represented the denial of it as involving great licentiousness, and a state of utter spiritual bondage. The views of the famous John Wesley, the father of Arminian Methodism, are well known to the reading part of the religious community. He affirmed, as Whitfield asserts, "that no Baptist or Presbyterian writer, whom he had ever read, knew anything of the liberties of Christ;" to which statement Whitfield replied, in his own pointed and emphatical manner "What! neither Bunyan, Henry, Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England and Scotch Divines? See, dear sir, what narrow-spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles; and then do not say aught against election any more, on account of its being destructive of meekness and love. I know you think meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend of God, and I believe also of David, the man after God's own heart." Wesley gives us an account of the steps by which he was led, during a course of many years, to embrace what he calls the doctrine of "Christian perfection," which, as he explains it, though it includes the idea of freedom from sin, implies neither perfection in knowledge nor infallibility, nor security against temptations and infirmities. According to the system of the Romish church, good men may not only attain to perfection, but perform, moreover, works of supererogation, serving as a fund of merit, for the advantage of believers of inferior spiritual attainments. It is not till lately that Perfectionism has been professed within the pale of Congregational and Presbyterian churches. By our fathers it was accounted heresy, inconsistent with the express testimony of the scriptures, contradictory to Christian experience, and subversive of the entire scheme of the Gospel. But, in consequence of certain Pelagian speculations concerning moral agency, Lit. and The. Review, vol. iii., p. 28. ↑ Lit. and The. Review, vol. iii., p. 29, where we have in a note a curious speci men of the arguments of Coelestius on this subject. Also Wigger's Hist. of Augustinism and Pelagianism. Gillies's Life of Whitfield, New Haven edition, 1812, p. 256. Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection, New York edition, 1837, pp. 3, 18, et passim. human ability, and the divine influence in sanctification-errors that have become extensively popular-individuals, once reputed most zealous for revivals of religion, have been led to join Pelagius and other kindred spirits, in their views of the attainableness of perfection in the present life. Such, as we believe, is the philosophical origin of Perfectionism, as held by the professors at Oberlin and their theological friends. That we may not misrepresent the meaning of those to whom we refer, we will state their doctrine of perfection in their own language. "What is perfection in holiness? In answer to this inquiry I would remark," says Mr. Mahan,* "that perfection in holiness implies a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all existing obligations in respect to God and all other beings. It is perfect obedience to the moral law." With respect to the attainableness of perfection in this life, the same writer says, "We have evidence just as conclusive, that perfect and perpetual holiness is promised to Christians, as we have that it is required of them." "We have the same evidence from scripture, that all Christians may, and that some of them will, attain to a state of entire sanctification in this life, that they will attain to that state in heaven." "There is positive evidence that some of them did attain to this state." Mr. Finney affirms, and in this, we suppose, he expresses the opinion of his associates at Oberlin, that sinless perfection for the time being, is implied in the lowest degree of true piety. "It seems to be a very general opinion," says he, "that there is such a thing as imperfect obedience to God, i. e. as it respects one and the same act; but I cannot see how an imperfect obedience, relating to one and the same act, can be possible. Imperfect obedience! What can be meant by this, but disobedient obedience! a sinful holiness! Now, to decide the character of any act, we are to bring it into the light of the law of God; if agreeable to this law, it is obedience-it is right-wholly right. If it is in any respect different from what the law of God requires, it is wrong-wholly wrong."+ Here we have the doctrine that all Christians are sometimes perfect, or are perfect so far as they have any true holiness; and it is a very natural inference from such premises, that believers may attain to a confirmed state of perfection in the present life. This conclusion is adopted by Mr. Finney, as well as Mr. Mahan. To disprove the perfectionism taught in the above extracts, or to show that none of the saints are entirely free from sin in the present life, will be our object in this essay. We shall begin with noticing the principal arguments, which are commonly adduced by perfectionists of different descriptions, in support of their views of this subject. We shall next exhibit direct evidence of the sinful imperfection of the heart of the saints, in this life; and lastly, we shall show the great practical importance of • Christian Perfection, pp. 4, 27, 38. † Oberlin Evangelist, vol. 1. the doctrine for which we contend, in opposition to the error which it controverts. The arguments of the perfectionists are first to be considered. The command of God requires perfection, is one of their arguments. Answer. Answer. It is doubtless true, that the Most High does command us to be perfect; and to enjoin anything less than perfection, would be inconsistent with his own purity, and those eternal principles of rectitude, according to which he governs the universe. The law expresses his feelings towards moral objects; but it leaves wholly undetermined the question, whether his rational creatures will acknowledge, or reject his authority. His command, in any instance, neither supposes that it will be obeyed, nor implies any insincerity in him, provided he foresees that it will not be obeyed. The contrary supposition would be incompatible with some of the most undeniable facts of revealed religion. Does the divine command to be perfect, prove that some may, or will obey this righteous precept? Then, for the same reason, the divine prohibition of all sin in mankind equally proves that some of them may pass through a long life without a single act of transgression. It is by no means certain, therefore, that all the human race are or have been sinners: and, of course, the doctrine of universal depravity, unequivocally and frequently as it is taught in the scriptures, may be false. It is as easy to imagine that some never sin, as that they become perfectly holy after they have acquired a sinful character. The opinion of Pelagius with regard to this subject was, therefore, more specious and more logical than is the notion of those who make God's requirement of perfect sanctification an argument that some are perfectly sanctified in this life; while, with strange inconsistency, they assert the universal moral depravity, anterior to conversion, of such of mankind as have sufficient knowledge to be moral agents. Besides, entire holiness is plainly obligatory on all rational creatures; and no strength of depraved affection or hopelessness of condition can release any from the demands of the law of God. On this principle, the devils, in their place of torment, are bound to love their Maker, and yield themselves implicitly to his authority. To say they are not thus bound, is to take their part against their Maker, and pronounce them entirely excusable and innocent in their present rebellion, rage and blasphemy. But does it follow, because they are under law, that they will, therefore, ever return to their duty? The Bible, on the other hand, assures us, that their misery, and consequently, their enmity to God, will be without end. The command of God, it is alleged, implies our ability to obey; and it is reasonable to suppose that where ability_exists, it will sometimes at least manifest itself by obedience. This argument has been strongly urged, both to account for the existence of sin (for where there is ability to obey, there is also supposed to be ability to disobey, or "the power of contrary choice "), and to show the practicability of obedience, in the highest degree, to all the di |