Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

shrink from the awful mystery and the supposed pain of death, he is absolutely free from any "fear"
of its consequences. His love to God is not mixed with any of the fear or dread of him that has in it.
And Dr. Whitehead's charge that Dr. Carradine's claim of a "witness of the Holy Ghost" to such
a state "is presumptuous and vain, and smacks of an ill-regulated enthusiasm," is alike applicable to
the fathers of Methodism and others who have been eminent for ability, learning, and piety. Such
"high proficients both in philosophy and religious experience" as Drs. Mahan and Upham, of the
Congregational Church, and Bishops McKendree and Foster, and Drs. Lovick Pierce and Daniel
Steele, with many others, of the Methodist Church, have made a like claim. And, if we may add our
humble testimony, we would say that we have no more doubt of the genuineness of such direct and
indirect witness than we have of such witness of the Spirit to our adoption. Indeed, if there is any
difference, we believe the former testimony is clearer and more satisfactory. We are very sure that
it is more uniform. See closing paragraphs of Chapter 12.
2. There is such lack of harmony in the views of those who advocate this theory. It has been noted
that Dr. Mudge says there is a "monumental muddle" in the use of terms by Methodist writers on this
subject, and Dr. Boland represents the "modern fathers" as being "in trouble" over their divergent
views. It must be admitted that there has been some looseness in the use of terms, and that some
measure of confusion and misconception has resulted. For example, we think that it is quite unwise
to confound purity with maturity, perfect love with perfect development, entire sanctification with
the perfection of character that results from growth, health of soul with ripeness of soul, etc.
And yet these writers are pretty well agreed on what is fundamental and vital to this theory. They
may differ on some other minor points, but most or all of them insist, ( 1) that, as a rule, this work
is wrought after regeneration; (2) that it is instantaneous, and involves a thorough cleansing from
spiritual depravity; (3) that the work is witnessed to and by the consciousness of the subject; (4) that
it involves such an empowering of the soul that it may abide in this state; (5) that the subject of it
is much happier and much more useful than he was before.
And we might turn this objection against the objector; for there is marked difference of opinion
with the opposers of this theory. As already noticed, they do not agree in their definitions of
depravity. Nor are they in harmony as to the nature, time, conditions, and results of the sanctification.
Dr. Barbee says it consists chiefly in the soul's separation from the world and its consecration to God,
and that it comes before regeneration, the latter thoroughly cleansing the heart, the soul from that
time gradually growing into "perfect love," and receiving assurance of the fact when it reaches that
point. Drs. Crane and Boland claim that it comes at regeneration, and implies a thorough cleansing
from depravity, as well as a full consecration to God, the soul then gradually growing up to Christian
perfection or maturity. Dr. Tillett seems to hold that we are not thoroughly saved from depravity in
regeneration, but that we gradually grow into entire sanctification or perfect love, without, however,
knowing when we are thus thoroughly saved. While Dr. Mudge insists that we are "sanctified up to
knowledge" in regeneration, but that we are neither then nor at any other time during this life entirely
saved from depravity, and, of course, have no witness to the fact.
Here is very decided "vagueness and indefiniteness," as well as difference of opinion, touching
this matter of sanctification. One says that sanctification, regeneration, and perfect love are all