So many are the volumes treating of the theme to which this book relates that whoever purposes to perpetrate another instinctively feels that some sort of an apology is due. He knows that people not a few will exclaim: “Why more talk? We have had a surfeit of discussion and speculation, What we need is better practice, not more elaborate and fine-spun theories.” Large numbers, also, of devout souls will make haste to declare: “We are perfectly satisfied with the doctrine of the fathers. Modern teachers cannot understand the Bible better than did John Wesley. His Plain Account of Christian Perfection clearly answers all questions. It has stood the test of a century and a quarter. Let us be content with it and have done with further theologizing, which can only be a thrashing out of old straw.”

There is force in this suggestion. And yet there is certainly another side for which something can be said. Dr. Daniel Steele, who has been one of the most prolific and useful of recent writers on this theme, expresses the opinion that “all systematizers have hitherto failed to construct out of the Bible and experience a consistent and symmetrical science of Christian perfection.” Dr. D. D. Whedon said in the Methodist Quarterly Review, as long ago as January, 1871, ‘So rapid, during even the last ten years, has been the progress of thought upon the very fundamentals of theology, ... that our whole body of divinity needs reconstruction.’” Many testimonies similar to this could be quoted. They embody our own emphatic belief. We yield to no man in admiration for John Wesley and the grand work he did, not only by his unrivaled administrative ability and tireless evangelistic labors, but by his vigorous, fearless thinking and his valuable contributions to theology. Nevertheless, it is too much to claim that he exhausted the possibilities of discovery in all doctrinal directions and fathomed or explored all the oceans of truth. It is not given to any one man, however able, to do this. We do not reflect at all upon Wesley when we say that his investigations in this field left something still to be desired. He himself, it seems to us, would have been the first to admit it. He did not set up to be a pope. He did not demand or expect from all who, in the main, should follow him a slavish adherence to his every form of expression. He certainly did not himself make the mistake of turning back more than a century into the past to find, in the views of some distinguished man, an adamantine mold in which to cast his own opinions and those of his posterity. He departed widely from the views of his ancestors on many points, venturing out boldly on the sea of knowledge and making discoveries that were a great blessing to his own soul and a benediction to us. We do not think he would have been disposed to deny us the same privilege.

But, however that may be, we are of those who deem it a duty to use our own minds. Nor do we consider that all wisdom died when the fathers fell asleep. It seems to us that their descendants, even if inferior in original ability (which is by no means proved), standing on their shoulders and having in many respects better opportunities, may see further than did they. The human intellect has not lain dormant for a hundred years. Theology is a progressive science, not stereotyped or sterile. Certainly, a century of experience, observation, and investigation must have yielded some beneficent results. And restatements of truth, in language closely adapted to the present age, are surely called for from time to time. No age can compare with our own in the amount of study that has been put upon the Scripture and in the variety of lights from many sources that have been made to converge upon its pages. The ancient languages are better understood than they used to be. The principles of correct exegesis are more thoroughly comprehended. A sounder philosophy is in vogue. And if modern teachers do not understand the Bible any better than did the ancients, then they are utterly unworthy to be the descendants of the fathers, which we do not believe.

We hold that there should be the largest freedom in nonessentials, and that no cry of “heretic” or “unsound in the faith” should be raised because some preacher has too much respect for his own mind to put fetters on his processes of thought or content himself with repeating certain shibboleths. It seems to us the height of the absurd to demand, under penalty of excommunication, that we should not advance a single inch beyond where the founders of Methodism stopped in the musty past. In our Saviour’s day there were some who held very rigidly to “the traditions of the elders” and substituted the “precepts of men”’ for the “commandments of God.” He condemned their course in severest terms and did his utmost to emancipate the minds of his followers. So did St. Paul, declaring that, though in malice babes, in mind we were to be men, and that it is our business to prove all things, that we may hold fast only the good. It is still our duty to stand firm in the intellectual liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and refuse to thrust our necks under any yokes of bondage. They who spend their time in building and adorning the sepulchers of the prophets, praising their greatness, and declaring that no such men ever lived before, or ever can live again, on the earth, are the very ones who, had they been alive in the ancient days, would have stoned the prophets for daring to be prophets and thus making an advance on what was previously taught.

Wesley is not to be blamed because he did not strike out at a blow, or even with many repeated blows, a perfectly consistent and satisfactory theory of Christian perfection, one that is at the same time scriptural, reasonable, harmonious with itself in all its parts, and inclusive of all the facts of experience. The difficulties in his way were very great and are not always sufficiently considered. He groped eagerly for the light; but the fog was thick about him, and he never quite emerged. He experimented, now with this form of words, now with that, modifying his modes of expression ever and anon in the earnest endeavor to reach something solidly conclusive; but he never did, and it is no real detraction from his fame to make the admission. He trod a comparatively untried path, and it is not to be wondered at if his steps were somewhat crooked. Whoever has critically examined that miscellaneous compend of essays, tracts, hymns, reflections, and conversations, produced at various times from 1725 to 1777 and never thoroughly revised, called the Plain Account of Christian Perfection, must have been impressed with the fact that it was a work of development, and must have discovered many evidences of considerable change of views, so much so that on some points it is not possible to tell what Wesley really held. And other passages scattered through the sermons can in no way be reconciled with some of the deliverances of this book.

The fact is that he and his co-laborers were not in a position to do full justice to the theme. They were in the thick of a heavy fight with most provoking antagonists, and could not always maintain the serene composure necessary for alluring truth from her deep well. They were also surrounded by a mass of very ignorant followers, whose crude, unreliable, undiscriminating testimonies on the subject they felt bound to accept in lieu of anything better, and to whose rudimentary comprehension they felt bound to adapt their teaching. That they did so well under all the circumstances is matter of marvel. But for us to do no better, with all our superior advantages, would be disgraceful. We do more honor to the memory of Wesley by imbibing his spirit of freedom than by conforming absolutely to the letter of his writings. Since so long as he lived he continued to perfect his theories and, also, to vary their modes of expression, nothing can be surer than that, if he lived at the present time, when such great changes have been made in the language of theology and philosophy, he would modify many of his statements very considerably. It is better to hold what there is every reason to suppose Wesley would hold were he now living than what he held more than a century ago. They have no right to consider themselves legitimate followers or sons of the great founder who, conscious of their own mental weakness and averse to laborious inquiry, indeed, having no opinions that can properly be called their own, merely repeat certain formulas parrotlike and brand as error all departures from them. This is not true Wesleyanism or Methodism, however loudly it may be trumpeted as such, or however close the outward resemblance may be.

As will be inferred from the previous paragraphs, we are of those who think that a fresh putting of the doctrine of Christian perfection is decidedly called for. Everybody knows that there is at present great diversity of opinion on this subject among Methodists. But this extensive lack of agreement is, after all, more in appearance than in reality. It pertains not so much to the essential substance of the doctrine, as to its terminology. Its nomenclature never was scientifically formulated. And the demand for such a treatment, it is safe to say, is very much greater now than it was three or four generations ago. For this is peculiarly a scientific age. People are being trained, as never before, to observe with minutest accuracy and to make statements that exactly fit the facts. Vague guesswork and slipshod methods are not allowed to pass. Theologians, as well as physicists, are held to strict account for their language and are expected not to deviate, by so much as a hair’s- breadth, from the precise truth.

In Wesley’s day a far less close watch was kept for inaccuracies in verbiage. Methodist authors, in their carefulness to cling to Wesley’s skirts, and in their timidity about departing, ever so little, from his language, have not kept up with the times. They have followed one another with the utmost closeness, chiefly anxious, it would seem, not to be accused of heterodoxy, and so never stopping to inquire whether the terms they used were the best ones or were used in scriptural and rational meanings.

For example, Wesley himself says, in his Plain Account; “We grant. . . that: the term ‘sanctified’ is continually applied by St. Paul to all that were justified; that by this term he rarely, if ever, means ‘saved from all sin;’ that, consequently, it is not proper to use it in that sense, without adding the word ‘wholly,’ ‘entirely,’ or the like.” (P.51.) But everyone familiar with his works knows that in his subsequent writings he paid no attention to this distinction, but violated the rule almost continually, thus inextricably confusing all his readers and leading them inevitably to suppose that no one could be sanctified unless he was entirely sanctified. And Methodist writers, without exception, so far as we are aware, have followed him in this inexcusable practice. Simpson’s Cyclopedia of Methodism, under the heading “ Sanctification,” says, and with truth, “The term is used interchangeably in the Methodist Church for holiness and Christian perfection.’’ Under the heading “ Perfection’’ it adds: “This state is also expressed in Scripture by the words ‘ holiness,’ ‘ sanctification,’ ‘purity,’ ‘perfect love,’ ‘fullness of God, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘full assurance of faith.’ In addition to these, the words “entire sanctification,” higher life,” “rest of faith,” and “full salvation” are used by Christians to express the same idea.” A distinguished writer in the Methodist Quarterly Review not long ago, near the beginning of an article on entire sanctification, said: “In writing and speaking on this subject we are accustomed, as a Church, to use the words ‘entire sanctification,’ ‘holiness,’ ‘purity of heart,’ ‘perfection,’ or ‘perfect love,’ as referring to the same state of experience.”

Evidently to these men, and those for whom they speak, one word seems as good as another for all practical or theoretical purposes, and any attempt at nice discrimination or definition would be considered entirely out of place. Indeed, one of the most pretentious of our modern authorities expressly says, in the preface to his volume of 472 pages: “I have not adopted the rigid and frigid style of writers on systematic divinity. I have not aimed to be specially critical.” Such has been the almost universal spirit in which the theme of the highest possibilities of grace has been taken up. It has been thought that glow and fervor and eloquent exhortation were the main thing, and anything like nice and curious inquiry into words, in a theme so warmly spiritual, would be decidedly out of place. Hence, language has been employed by these men with a looseness that has made it utterly impossible to tell what were their real sentiments on a number of fundamental points, since what they said at one time, strictly interpreted according to the generally recognized laws of expression, was far from harmonizing with what they said at another. This kind of writing did fairly well for an age when men disdained to follow any rules in spelling, but used their liberty and put down their own name in half a dozen different ways, just as the fancy took them. But for the present age such freedom will scarcely answer. Its evils have become so glaring that people of even moderate education or intelligence are beginning to pause and inquire if there is not some better way.

We believe there is, and that it should be adopted. The importance of definitions is coming to be better and better understood, and the demand for them in all cases where clear thought is required is waxing louder. Bishop Foster, in his Philosophy of Christian Experience (pp. 8, 9), has well said: ‘ Definition must include all that is essential to the object defined ...and exclude everything else. If more is put into the definition than is included in the thing defined the object is not before the mind, but some other object — a distortion. The included error may be such as to be utterly misleading and involve fatal misdirection . . . Truth is exact ; and to reach it the utmost possible precision is necessary in. the use of significant terms, never more so than in a discussion like the present.” Dean Stanley, in a most valuable address to the students of St. Andrew’s some years ago, gave as one of the main grounds of hope in theological progress “the increasing consciousness of the importance of definition.” He quoted Cardinal Newman as saying, “ Without definition controversy is either hopeless or useless.” He also mentioned a learned Scotchman’s sagacious remark that “ the vehemence of controversy has been chiefly in proportion to the emptiness of the phrases used.” All history illustrates and enforces this truth. Very simi-arly, the Rev. Dr. Spring, of Newburyport, once said that the younger President Edwards was the ablest man in conversational debate he had ever known; that even with the strongest debaters he would end a discussion almost at once, often in a few words silencing the most confident opposer. When Dr. Spring’s son, to whom the remark was made, asked how it was done, what was the secret of this remarkable success, the reply was, ‘‘ He made his opponent define his terms, and then held him to his definitions.” That this was also the secret of Socrates’s great power in conversational debate all readers of Plato’s dialogues will readily recall.

It cannot have escaped the notice of those who have read the principal works that are standard among us on the subject of Christian perfection that scarce any of them gives much attention to the matter of definition or takes pains, even after defining a word, to use it uniformly in that sense. Nothing is more common, for instance, than the word “ sin” in all this discussion. But it is almost never defined, in spite of the fact that it has a number of distinct significations; and, even when defined, it is almost never consistently employed. Here, again, we must quote Wesley, as having set an example in the latter of these two faults which has been but too obsequiously or recklessly followed throughout the century. In his famous sermon “On Perfection,” written in 1785, he says: “Why should any man of reason and religion be either afraid of or averse to salvation from all sin? ... By sin I mean a voluntary transgression of a known law.” By a perfect Christian, then, according to this, he would mean simply one who does not voluntarily transgress a known law. But all readers of his works know that he very frequently teaches in them that all believers, as soon as they are justified, are so far saved that they do not voluntarily transgress any known law, but live without condemnation. In many sermons, among which the first, tenth, and nineteenth may be mentioned, he greatly emphasizes the words of John, ‘‘Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin,” saying, “By sin I here understand outward sin, according to the plain, common acceptation of the word, an actual, voluntary transgression of the law, of the revealed, written law of God, of any commandment of God, acknowledged to be such at the time that it is transgressed.”’ (Sermons, vol. i, p. 164.) Should we not be justified from these two quotations, as well as from others that might be given, in saying that Wesley believed that all the regenerate were also scripturally perfect? Yet, of course, this would not fairly represent the position which he takes in the greater part of his writings. He very frequently uses the word “sin” with quite another and far deeper meaning, as will be seen from the words already quoted that the term ‘sanctified ” is not, by itself, equivalent to “saved from all sin.”

Another illustration, out of a great multitude easily accessible, of the ambiguity and confusion that has arisen from the lack of careful definition and scrupulous, self-consistent use of language, is found in the fact that Wesley says (Sermons, vol. i, p. 358): “Christian perfection . . . is only another name for holiness. They are two names for the same thing. Thus, everyone that is holy is, in the Scripture sense, perfect.” But on page 113 of the same volume he says, “‘Every babe in Christ is holy.” He does not mean, however, as might naturally be inferred from this, that every babe in Christ is perfect, for he says in another place (vol. i, p. 110), commenting on 1 Cor. iii, 1, “Every believer is, in a degree, carnal while he is only a babe in Christ;” and in his Plain Account he repeatedly speaks of “the sanctified” as “adults ” and “fathers in Christ.”

These verbal contradictions admit of explanation and excuse in Wesley’s case, because he wrote and spoke at such different times, under such different circumstances, at periods fifty years apart; and never set himself to the difficult task of revising and harmonizing the whole for transmission to posterity. He was a pioneer, dealing with what may be called a new subject and obliged to rely on a mass of testimony that could not readily be sifted, and that subsequently was proved to be far less trustworthy than he had supposed. He did much, more than any other one man, to make the matter understood and popularly effective; but no one man, even though a Wesley, could possibly do, under such very unfavorable conditions, what some of his unwise eulogists of the present day are disposed to claim for him. No one man could so formulate the doctrine, in all the minutiae of its terminology and all the intricacies of its philosophical statement, as that nothing should be left for other generations to accomplish in the way of amendment or completion. There is still need for thinking on this theme. And the writers of our own day, who have not had Wesley’s difficulties of composition and utterance to contend against, who have been able to embody their mature thought in a single well-considered treatise, are in no way justifiable for contenting themselves with repeating and defending Wesley’s inaccurate statements.

This little book is not designed primarily for polemics; neither will it be occupied largely with hortations. Some influence, it is to be hoped, will emanate from it such as may help to produce the highest style of Christian living. For this, after all, is the ultimate end which all good people are seeking — to make out of nominal Christians real Christians, to bring the professed followers of Jesus to a sense of their deficiencies, and to stir them to take immediate steps to have all their wants supplied. But it has seemed to us that, before direct persuasions could properly or effectively be applied, there was a deeper work to be done. Something lies back of incitement. It is instruction. Unless people know clearly and definitely just what it is they can obtain, it is of comparatively little use to press them to make endeavor. Hence, our chief effort will be to free the subject from the mass of ambiguities that have gathered around it, and to eliminate as many as possible of the fallacies that have become fixtures in its ordinary discussion. These lurk in ambush at every step and hide behind the most innocent-looking bushes. Were they once cleared away and fully expelled from the whole territory, there would be good hope that even the simple-minded and defenseless pilgrim could make his way in safety to the land of Beulah.

It may be thought that he can do so now, and that it is only the warrior who gets into trouble; in other words, that the questions with which this volume will be largely occupied are more nice and curious than practical and profitable, and that the average Christian will get more harm than good by meddling with them. We do not believe it. Our firm conviction is that error of any kind, however minute, even though for the time it may seem harmless or positively beneficial, will inevitably do damage, and that in the long run only truth is safe. It seems to us that this has been most amply illustrated in the subject under consideration. The doctrinal errors of the so-called ‘‘holiness’” or, as it is sometimes termed, “the second blessing” movement, which will be distinctly pointed out in the course of this treatise, we hold to be directly responsible for the many evils which have, in practice, attended its course among the churches, and which all good men most sincerely deplore.

Among these evils may be briefly mentioned the tendency to schism, to censoriousness, and to the perversion of Scripture. It is well known that large numbers who have become involved in this movement have separated themselves from the Church, some in body, and some simply in spirit; in the latter case retaining their membership, but refusing to cooperate with the authorities, being, indeed, thoroughly estranged from the ministry, whom they look upon as greatly inferior to themselves in piety and illumination. They segregate themselves from the rest of God’s children with a special shibboleth, of which they are very tenacious, with special meetings, special leaders, and special literature, being thus to a very large degree a divisive, disturbing, and disloyal element, by which the pastor is continually hampered if, in the exercise of his godly judgment, he finds himself unable to fall in with their narrow methods and peculiar ways. The harsh judgments that are constantly meted out by some of the most prominent leaders of this party or faction to those who differ from them in opinion might easily be illustrated by liberal quotations from current publications and from standard volumes; but the task is a very unpleasant one, and we are unwilling to call any more prominent and permanent attention than is really necessary to these glaring weaknesses and evident departures from perfect love of so many who claim to possess it. Especially to be deplored is the continual tendency, which, indeed, the theory itself makes a practical necessity, to depreciate the work of grace wrought in the soul at the time of conversion. The “merely justified” are spoken of in a tone which smacks of pity and sometimes savors of contempt. They are practically denied any portion in or title to the precious words “holy” and “holiness ” with which the Bible is filled. They are regarded as given over to sin as a matter of course, until a further work has been wrought upon them.

But worst of all, in our opinion, are the wholly indefensible and unwarrantable perversions of Scripture to which the special advocates of this theory find themselves driven and in which they unrestrainedly indulge. The utmost violence is continually done both to the text and to the context, in the interests of the doctrine under consideration, examples of which by the dozen will occur to all who have any familiarity with this kind of literature and any acquaintance with the recognized principles of interpretation. Dr. Curry said, in the Methodist Review for January, 1885: “They have a peculiar dialect; and words and phrases as used by them have come to have special and somewhat technical significations. ‘Sanctification,’ and ‘holiness,’ and many like terms, that in Holy Scripture and in general religious discourse are used to designate the ordinary fruits of the Spirit in believers, are narrowed down so as to indicate only a specific and ultimate work of grace.” If the word of God is to be thus deceitfully handled by those professing greatest reverence for it, what safeguards of doctrine or defense against the wildest vagaries remain? Anything whatever, no matter how unreasonable, can be proved from Scripture if the methods used by most of the writers on this theme are to be justified.

If it be said that these evils are inherent in human nature and are not peculiar to or dependent on any form of doctrine, this may be admitted in part. But it does not do away with our persuasion that the remaining part of the mischief, a very large part in many cases, is directly owing to the fact that the pure and perfect truth has not been adhered to. In spite of all seeming gains and temporary advantages and widely heralded results, the total outcome of anything that savors of the false will be found to be essentially flawed and distinctly below what would have been wrought had the false thing not been touched. “ By their fruits ye shall know them” is a good rule; but considerable time is necessary for its complete application.

This book will not be chiefly a conglomerate of quotations compiled from previous works which are accounted standard. This, we know, is a frequent and favorite way of constructing such a volume. It is the custom to transfer bodily scores of paragraphs or pages from Wesley’s Plain Account, and other such authorities, which is, indeed, a saving of thought and an avoidance of responsibility. But it seems to us that this extreme caution to tread exactly in the footsteps of those who have gone before, and this anxiety above all things to be accounted orthodox, however admirable in point of humility, are unworthy of truth seekers and not quite fair to the men of the present day, who want fresh food. Why should a new book be written if there is nothing new to be said? Great names on which to lean, as a kind of prop to one’s own weakness, are exceedingly useful, and it is becoming to be modest; but, after all, if one has anything like a mandate from on high and feels a ‘‘Thus saith the Lord” reverberating in his soul, why should he not speak out what God has given him in a straightforward way, trusting that it will find an echo in other hearts and commend itself as true to other minds? The book will be smaller for not being padded with long extracts, | and it will be more genuinely a fresh contribution to the needs of the hour than if it were simply a rehash of what has been already written.

We shall do our best to avoid another pit into which falling is easy. To one who is at all disputatious and who thinks he sees clearly the fallacies of his predecessors, the temptation is strong to fill dozens of pages with an exposure of these errors, going into the minutiae of controversy and showing up, without mercy, ad libitum, if not ad nauseam, the strange mistakes which men both good and great will sometimes perpetrate. This course, while excellent as a mental gymnastic and, to a slight degree, occasionally necessary by way of clearing the ground, does not minister to much profit or get the traveler on a great way in his journey. A positive presentation of the theme is much better than a negative one. We shall hope to enunciate so clearly and establish so firmly the principles we deem to be true, that he who comes into possession of them will be able for himself to detect the sophistries he may meet and demolish all structures of error.

Every endeavor will be made to keep clear of ambiguity, and of those familiar figures of speech under which authors have frequently succeeded in covering up, from themselves and their readers, the real indefiniteness of their ideas. The technical language of theological systems which have come down from past generations often serves but to conceal poverty of understanding. Much of such technical language has really outlived its usefulness, and there is no reason why it should be retained. A set of well-worn phrases, from which the original inscriptions have been all rubbed off, is too often largely made to do duty instead of newly stamped coins fresh from the mint of thought. Metaphors and similes need to be sharply looked into; for they often lead the mind far astray and completely cover up the literal meaning. Naturalness — all cant expressions rigidly excluded — is of incalculable worth in religious communications. If we can really get behind the word to the thing signified and set it forth in a simple, common sense way that shall be intelligible to the average reader, we are persuaded that a genuine service will have been performed.

This, of course, will be very difficult; and it is probable we shall only partly succeed in what we planned. There are those who flatly say it cannot be done. Several writers we have noticed who deny the possibility of defining, for instance, such a word as “depravity.’ Dr. Miner Raymond, in his Systematic Theology (vol. ii, p. 383), says: “We do not attempt what we regard as impossible, namely, a definite designation of that in which Christian perfection consists.’’ Bishop Foster, in the revised part of his volume on Christian Purity (pp. 117, 118), addressing himself with utmost carefulness to the task of showing just what entire sanctification is, confesses that ‘‘the subject is one of manifold difficulty, and about which there is great confusedness of thought. I find evidences of obscurity in all the writings about it. The most eminent divines are not clear. . . . Possibly it belongs to that class of occult subjects which refuse to be brought into the categories of clear thought.” Possibly it does; but in our opinion a large part of the trouble has been that those who have attempted the solution of the problem have approached it from the wrong standpoint. They deemed it absolutely essential that they should depart in no degree from the phrases of the fathers, lest their orthodoxy be impeached; and, being thus hampered by the necessities of strictly conforming to a preconceived system, they have been unable to work out anything satisfactory or consistent. To him who will venture to swing clear at this point the path is much more open and the result much more gratifying.

If, then, the reader of these pages shall find, in some matters of nomenclature especially, a considerable departure from that to which he is accustomed, let him not be alarmed, as though grave heresy or some other equally serious crime had been committed. The time has come, we think, for a change in certain of our popular statements. The system of philosophy and ethics at present accepted imperatively demands it. Our terminology, so far as the doctrine of Christian perfection is concerned, is in a state anything but creditable to us as a denomination. No theologian can view the condition of things with complacency or equanimity. The chief reason why there is so little unanimity among us, and why the subject is avoided by such large numbers of our ministry and membership, is that they instinctively feel that it has been muddled by a vast number of words without knowledge; and they wait for some presentation that shall be plain. The minds of the people never can become properly established on the subject, so long as the chief writers content themselves with echoing what was said more than a century ago and what has proved itself unsuited to bring about harmony.

That harmony is broken by contentions which are almost wholly about words. In the things themselves we are persuaded there is very general agreement. Hence, the demand of the hour is preeminently for a different set of words, that shall not admit of such a variety of discordant meanings and shall not so inevitably provoke strife. It may be impossible to find such words; but we do not yet despair. It ought to be within the compass of human skill; if not, no clear thought on this subject is attainable.

The present writer does not expect to satisfy everybody or present a perfect solution of the problem. But he hopes to contribute a little toward that solution and make, perhaps, a trifle lighter the labors of that master mind which is to come and set all things in order. At least, it seemed good to him, forasmuch as so many others had taken in hand to give forth their thoughts concerning these matters, and forasmuch as the subject had been to him for thirty years one of peculiar fascination, to try if perchance the Lord might work some deliverance for Israel even through his pen. He makes no pretense to infallibility or canonical inspiration. Ever advancing light may cause him hereafter to modify some of the details of the statements he now makes. But of the essential truth of the positions taken he has no doubt, since the reflection, experience, and observation of a lifetime are behind them.

The pages that follow will certainly not suit everybody. They will not suit those, for example, who do not care or dare to exercise their own minds, but prefer to have all their thinking done for them by the appointed guards of right doctrine. Nor will they find any use for this book who substitute emotion for intelligence and consider that the Holy Spirit is all the teacher about spiritual things that any person needs. For, of course, if one has only to kneel in prayer before an open Bible to have every doctrine touched upon therein made perfectly plain in all its parts to his untutored understanding, it would be labor lost to study and time thrown away to go to school. For the few, rather than for the many, the succeeding chapters have been prepared; that is, for those interested in clear statements and careful definitions, for those who like philosophy, and are pleased to see a great doctrine set out in such shape that its several elements shall harmonize and its relation to other doctrines shall be adequately shown.

We trust that those who read this little volume will find it free from harshness and undue dogmatism, especially from that dogmatism which worships terms and excommunicates with merciless rigor whoever dissents from its declarations. We trust that its spirit will commend itself to the devout reader as one of Christian love, tending to uplift and help. And we ask that those who feel obliged to oppose the positions here taken may do us the justice to sincerely endeavor, at least, to understand them, quoting our exact words if quoting any, and giving us credit for an honest purpose to promote the glory of God and the welfare of the Church.

Thus we commit our labor to the care of the Master, solicitous only that his truth may be maintained, wishing that our qualifications for the difficult task attempted were more adequate, but laying them all, such as they are, gladly at the Saviour’s feet.

DONATE TO THIS SITE

The information and opinion on this site is free, however donations are appreciated. If this site is of value to you, please let me know by your support. Donations are handled through PayPal, please click the “donate” button below.