Scriptural Sanctification - Media Sabda Org

the truth of his teaching concerning it. And the Doctor says that his own failure to secure this
blessing when he earnestly sought it tended to weaken his faith in the doctrine. And then we are
reminded that comparatively few members of any Church make profession of this "high grace."
In reply to this objection we would say, First, that the value of experience as an argument depends
very much on the circumstances under which and the influences by which it has been developed. The
fact that not one of the hundreds of millions of heathen who have never heard the gospel has
experienced conversion, in the New Testament sense, has not a feather's weight against the Bible
theory of regeneration, and the testimony of millions who have in their experience tested that theory.
Neither should the lack of experience in this matter of sanctification by the great mass of professed
Christians have the slightest weight against this doctrine; for they have heard but little more of the
possibility and conditions of instantaneous sanctification than the heathen have of conversion. We
should remember the mistake of the king of Siam, who protested to some travelers from a cold
climate that their story about snow and ice could not be true because contradicted by the experience
or observation of himself and all his subjects, who lived in the torrid zone. The conditions for
developing snow and ice did not exist there. Nor do those for developing instantaneous sanctification
exist in the Church at large.
Secondly, in many cases where the light has been given, men have failed to improve it and
perform the conditions of sanctification. It is so with regeneration. Thousands who have been trained
in Christian homes, and have heard the gospel in the sanctuary from their childhood, are still unsaved
because they neglect or reject the conditions of salvation. And how many, like Dr. Whitehead says
of himself and sanctification, say they have earnestly sought pardon but failed to find it. Would the
Doctor adduce their failure as evidence that no one has been forgiven, or that these may not be?
Rather, would he not insist that there has been some defect in their instruction or consecration or
faith? We may apply these illustrations to Dr. Whitehead's case without reflecting on his intelligence
or sincerity or piety; for, after saying "long effort was made, along the line of this teaching, to obtain
the coveted blessing ... but there was at best no assurance that entire sanctification had been wrought
in the soul," he gives what seem to us are some of the reasons for his failure. He says: "In the process
of this seeking and heart-searching there were always these impediments suggested to the cordial
reception of the theory taught as above stated." He then enumerates five of these "impediments" or
objections to this theory, those we have been trying to remove or answer. No wonder he failed to
"obtain the coveted blessing." There were in his mind these "impediments" or obstacles in the way
of his "cordial reception of the theory" of sanctification. His faith in the doctrine was defective.
Reliable writers on this subject give cases of intelligent, cultivated, and pious ministers of the
gospel in different Churches who have for years unsuccessfully sought this blessing, because there
was some defect in their views of the matter, their consecration, or their faith. When that defect was
removed they have obtained the coveted blessing. Having tested the matter more fully than the
Doctor did, their testimony ought at least to be as strong in favor of the theory as his is against it.
Thirdly, as to Mr. Wesley's case, we have already given reasons for believing that he experienced
and professed "perfect love." It may be sufficient for others to answer Dr. Whitehead's objection by
saying that other eminent men have given it as their conviction that Mr. Wesley did profess it.
Among them is the very able and accomplished Dr. J. M. Buckley, editor of the New York Christian