A critical review of Wesleyan perfection

Front matter

A

CRITICAL REVIEW

OP

Preface

1. The multiplicity of works on sanctification and Christian perfection, and consequently the various opinions that exist as to these Scriptural terms, one would think should elicit an apology for undertaking to offer the Christian world an additional volume. This supposition, also, we should regard as just, did we presume to sustain some old theory that has been long enough in existence to prove itself neither truly Biblical nor practical. No apology, therefore, do we offer, except this Review itself.

2. No effort has been attempted whatever, or desire felt, for authorship in writing these arguments. He who would write a book merely for the sake of authorship is not more likely to gain his end than he is to beget a thing in his own likeness. This may account for the fact that there are now more authors than authorities on this very subject.

3. A work setting forth a clear theory and a possible practice of sanctification we have felt since the beginning of our study of theology to be a desideratum^ not only of our own Church, but perhaps even more so of other denominations. Our humble effort has had its origin in necessity and in our personal knowledge of that necessity. For, as far as we are able to say, even the Christian ministry, at

the present day, is in need of more light on the doctrine

PREFACE.

herein considered. This is to be inferred from many considerations -^-hich might be given, most of which the reader can discover in the body of our work. Tlieoretically, the views of authors on perfection have been so obscure that their readers have generally expressed much dissatisfaction concerning them — a fact well known. Practically, out of the many professing regeneration, we scarcely ever find one professing entire sanctification, as held and taught by our ^vriters. Well did Bishop Hamline, in his recommendation of Dr, Peck's work on Christian perfection, say, "In a word, every cardinal doctrine embraced in our creed and in our pastoral ministrations seems to be extensively and encouragingly practical, except that of Christian perfection. This seems to be a mere speculation in the Church, so far as forty-nine-fiftieths of her members are concerned."

4. Our design has been to teach, as far as possible, what the Bible says concerning sanctification. Accordingly, we have begun our work with the beginning of Divine revelation. The true starting point is in the Abrahamic covenant, where it is manifestly taught and represented to be a part essentially connected with that covenant. It will appear from our work that Moses, David, the prophets, Christ and the apostles taught it either directly or indirectly referring to the compact with Abraham. He who does not teach the doctrine as considered in that covenant, does not take it up in its proper theological relation ; and he who takes a text over in the Epistles as his motto^ and thus begins the wrong end of Scriptural research, betrays his misunderstanding of the whole subject. We have tried faithfully to adhere to what is Scriptural in all cases. We did not set out to

PREFACE.

try to establish any uninspired man's opinion. It is true we are largely indebted to the writings of others, but these are brought in in an incidental manner as having said things exactly suitable to sustain our view primarily taken from the Bible. They did not say them with a direct intention to sustain a view the same as our own, for this they had not.

5. In Part I of the work, embraced in the first ten Arguments, we have exhibited mostly those difficulties which attend the commonly -received theory of perfection. In Part II we have taken up the proof-passages which have usually been held to sustain what is called entire sanctification. Such words as occur in important proof-passages have been examined wherever they occur, their radical meaning being first assumed, and by fair comparison of essential points of review we have settled down on our conclusions.

6. The manner of our arguments and exegesis has been, in all instances, what we call fair. Our rules of interpretation are such as are established by the able writers which our Church and other orthodox denominations acknowledge. While we have quoted all our commentators, we have chiefly relied on Dr. Adam Clarke, as himself being an entire sanctificationist, to settle the meaning of such words and texts as he held suitable to our arguments. It would have been vain for us to labor to prove what the advocates of the theory in review acknowledge. In our review of texts much relied upon by all who have written before us, we have strongly asserted our propositions and points of debate, and have then been careful to argue them cogently. In such cases we have inquired for the scope and the context; things

PREFACE.

which our writers have scarcely mentioned at all on any proof-passage. A weak argument we regard as worse than none at all, on any subject; therefore we have tried always to advance such plain and strong points as will meet the approval of the true theologian.

7. The entire Review is presented in twenty-four consecutive Arguments. These depend, like the books of Geometry, to some extent on one another. It seemed best to us to argue under leading propositions in order to elicit such points in review as would bring out the truth in its strongest colors, and thereby enable us to come to fair conclusions.

8. This necessary investigation, by propositions and the examination of each word having an essential bearing on our Review, has required a more voluminous work than would otherwise have been needed. It is hoped, therefore, that these remarks will be a sufficient apology for writing as extensively. For one undertaking to write a new theory, however Scriptural he may be, coming into competition with views of long standing and from reputable sources, would prefer the imputation of prolixity, though he might not justly deserve it, to the charge of not having accomplished his undertaking, and thus render himself liable to unjust and severe censure, simply in failing, through brevity, to adduce the arguments within his reach, and absolutely necessary to strength and clearness.

9. It is hoped that the criticisms which we have offered from the original languages of the Holy Scriptures will not be regarded as unnecessary or pedantic. The Bible being our Hule of Faith," we have found it proper to appeal to the originals, not from choice, but from a

PREFACE.

necessity pertaining to perspicuity. As to those who think a writer's cause hopeless, when he is obliged to go to the originals, let them bear in mind that such has been the custom with all theologians and commentators where a difference of opinion exists. Those who have written on this very subject have done the same. Such a course actually forms a part of a critical review.

10. We are not unaware of the fact that our undertaking renders us liable to satire, most likely from those who are inclined to regard truth as depending more on antiquity than on close investigation. Should we have such readers, we respectfully suggest that an honorable refutation of our arguments may appear more timely than an unsolicited accusation. " Human authority is often put in the place of Divine. The mind, conscious of its weakness, and averse to laborious inquiry, is prone to repose confidence in the authority of great names." (Bishop E. Thomson.) Truth can never be marred of its luster by the friction of rigid investigation.

11. The fact that we have differed from reputable authors chiefly as to sanctification being external and the fruit of regeneration, instead of its being an additional distinct work within, may at first appear novel and perhaps averse to some. But it is well to observe, that, in the course of the following arguments, we have, upon the whole, quoted our eminent Methodist writers perhaps more than any recent writer on the subject of perfection has done, or could possibly do in support of another theory. As already mentioned, we have appealed to them in many instances to prove the position which is now presented to the public. AVhile our behef of the questions, upon the whole, is sui generis^ it is a remarkable fact that their

PREFACE.

writings, generally, so well support our position. In truth, so far as our view seems to depart from theirs, we do not say that this disagreement is not as much a departure from them as it is a want of consistency on their own part with themselves. He who will carefully read our authors, as to their theory of perfection, and reason on its difficulties on all sides, and then duly consider this Review, we are inclined to think, will regard us as doing more to reconcile their theory with themselves and with reason than any thing else. For we think their ideas of regeneration every-where are too strong to be compatible with the necessity and the posBihility of a greater work in the soul.

12. It is hoped that no one will impugn our motives. We have truly had a pure intention. We have written for the glory of God and the benefit of man. Of course we expect to pass through the furnace of unrelenting pubhc criticism ; but supposing our metal pure we fearlessly commit it to the flames. It has been our object to treat our excellent commentators and critical writers with that profound and merited respect which is justly theirs. Ko man living desires to esteem them more highly than we do. Perhaps no men ever deserved more credit for their beneficial labors to mankind than those very men who aimed to teach pure Scriptural holiness. We are always sorry to find a Methodist family, in respectable circumstances, who are not in possession of those instructive and holy writings. Such men are scarcely fit for any office of profit to the Church. They can hardly be supposed as devout in their families. The works of Mr. Wesley, Dr. Adam Clarke, Rev. Richard Watson, and Mr. Benson, should, in whole or in part, be found in

PREFACE.

every Christian family in our Cliiircli. We have not presumed to review those great and good men under the idea of refutation, but for the justification of our position in part. In scores of instances they incidentally speak out the very doctrine that we have advocated in this work. On the other hand, our intention has been to give hght and instruction on the important doctrine of internal purity and external holiness. The work now offered to the reader, however imperfect it may seem, is the result of several years of almost incessant toil. No one but he who has tried the like can form a proper idea of the labor it requires. We hope to be understood in all that we have done. However strongly we may have argued, and set forth our sincere belief, let the whole be reo-arded as suo-orestive. Our Review we offer as a humble and unassuming volume. The Bible is the common property of us all. If we are incorrect, we shall be glad at any time to find our errors refuted, and the way to eternal life more clearly pointed out. If we have erred our difficulty is in the head and not in the heart. Of this the reader will please take due notice and govern himself accordingly. May truth, intelligence, and true piety be promoted in the behever, and our blessed Lord AND Savior Jesus Christ be glorified, in this the firstfruits of the author's pen ! then shall he feel that his labor is not in vain in the Lord, and that he has an ample reward.

S. FRANKLIN.

Cincinnati, 0., May 1, 1866.

OOE"TENTS.

PAGE.

Pebfacb 5

Part I. Justification And Regeneration

ARGUMENT I.

That regeneration, which always accompanies justification, is a sinless state of the soul. Argued on the ground that Abraham fills his part in the covenant. We infer, 1. That God did his part in the covenant; also, 2. Christ is given ; 3. He was a sacrifice for all men ; 4. AllsuflBcient ; 5. Abraham had all the benefits of Christ's blood ; 6. But Abraham's moral condition was simply justification; 7. Let us take the hypothesis that sin does remain in one justified ; 8. Abraham had perfect faith, and why should sin remain ? 19

ARGUMENT II.

"We continue to argue. That regeneration is a sinless state : 1. Argument from Acts xiii, 38, 39 ; 2. Col. ii, 13 ; 3. Gal. ii, 20, 21 ; 4. The results of justification argued from Rom. v, 1 32

ARGUMENT III.

We still argue that regeneration is a sinless state : 1. Eph. iv, 24 ; 2. The idea of a creation implies sinlessness j 3. Sinlessness implied Mr. Watson's definition ; 4. Regeneration contrasted with a fallen state ; 5. Certain theological writers 46

ARGUMENT IV.

Sinless regeneration admits further Scripture proof: I. St. Paul no where in Romans teaches entire sanctification, so called, each chapter being examined. II. The blessing taught, being the new truth, is held to be sinless : 1. The apostle's confidence ; 2. The regenerated are excused from further preparation to meet God ; 3. Christ's blood is represented as applied, which cleanses from all sin ; 4. Regeneration saves the soul eternally ; 5. The manner in which the prophets

14 CONTENTS.

PAGE.

spoke of regeneration ; 6. Actual case of David ; 7. "Water baptism is the sign of a sinless state, which is regeneration ; 8. Our " old man" is crucified ; 9. The regenerated are the elect; 10. The kingdom of God excludes the so-called entire sanctification ; 11. The want of regeneration is the damnation of the soul ; 12. The verb to sanctifij and the noun sanctification, as teaching a second work, are not found in the Epistle to the Romans 56

ARGUMENT V.

Regeneration the only blessing promised in this life: 1. Isa. liii, 11; 2. Jer. xxxi, 33, 34 ; 3. Micah vii, 18; 4. Rom. v, 19; 5. Gal. iii, 8; 6. Rom. iv, 13; 7. Rom. xiv, 17, 18 101

ARGUMENT VI.

Regeneration is the only inward work incidentally taught in the Bible : 1. It is regarded as God's peculiar mode of saving man ; 2. He imputea no other; 3. It has ministers ; 4. It has fruits ascribed to it ; 6. We . are represented as serving justification and not sanctification ; 6. We are persecuted for justification; 7. It is the theme of the minister; 8. God's people exult in it; 9. It is the point from which one backslides; 10. The 7iame should decide the blessings 118

ARGUMENT YII.

The atonement contemplates regeneration only: 1. John iii, 14, 15; 2. Rom. iii, 25 ; 3. 2 Cor. v, 21 ; 4. Gal. ii, 21 ; 5. Gal. iii, 13, 14 ; 6. 1 Pet. ii, 24 129

ARGUMENT VIII.

Regeneration is sufficient for man's salvation without any second or additional blessing. Argued from, 1. The unintentional writings of entire sanctificationists themselves. Peck, Wesley, Clarke, Watson ; 2. Scripture, John i, 12, 13, and iii, 3, etc. ; 3. Phil, iii, 7-9. Two observations, (n) The apostle speaks of the new birth only; (6) Its sufficiency to save; 4. Gal. v, 5, 6 ; 5. Luke xv, 7 134

ARGUMENT IX.

Regeneration is the only blessing, as a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, that ever Christ preached during his whole public ministry. 1. Christ's preaching always implied the covenant made with Abraham ; 2. The very terms of that covenant are mentioned 151

ARGUMENT X.

Entire sanctification, as an inward blessing subsequent to regeneration, is objectionable. Here eight objections arise 162

CONTENTS. 15

Part II. Christian Perfection And Sanctification

PAGE.

PRELIMinAET TO PaRT II. OUR ViEWS STATED 213

ARGUMENT XI.

Hebrew word tamin, " perfect," examined ; Scriptural texts cited and explained; what is signified by "perfect" in the passages quoted. ..217

ARGUMENT XII.

The word tarn considered : Its scope and meaning as in Psa. xxxvii, and

ARGUMENT XIII.

Tamam, " to make perfect," explained. The argument enforced by its use iD such texts as Josh, iii, 17 ; v, 8 ; 1 Kings vi, 22 ; vii, 22 ; Ezek. xxiv, 10 ; Job xxii, 3, and Psa. xviii, 25 248

ARGUMENT XIV.

This argument merely notices kadhash, the Hebrew verb io mnctify : Does not mean inward holiness. For this purpose talier is used in Scripture. Nor does its derivative, hodlieaJi, holiness, mean moral, internal purity 252

ARGUMENT XV.

This argument is on the adjective kadhosh, holi/ : Its etymology — its use in the Old Testament, and its equivalent in the New 254

ARGUMENT XVI.

The Greek word hagios, holy, is now in hand : 1. Applied in New Testament to many objects ; 2. We use it here as applied to man ; 3. Luke vi, 20, i, 70, ii, 23, Ex. xiii, i, 2, are quoted; 4. Opinion of Wesley and Hibbard supports us ; 5. The sum of the whole matter proved by Lev. xx, 25, 26 ; 6. 2 Cor. vii, 1, misinterpreted by authors.202

ARGUMENT XVII.

We here consider the Greek verb hagiazo, to sanctify: 1. It occurs twenty-nine times in New Testament ; 2. Is a Hebrew word in a Greek dress, because found only in the Ecclesiastical dialect; 3. Each passage where it occurs is carefully and critically examined. It does not mean to take away sin from the heart; that is, to cleanse morally 273