The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY’S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (1851)

“TO THE TROY [N. Y.] PRESBYTERY. 

“Dear Brethren, 

“Permit me to make a few remarks upon your report on the subject of Christian perfection. I have read with attention most that has come to hand upon the subject of your report, and have thought it of little use to reply, until some opponent of our views should throw his objections into a more tangible form than any one had hitherto done. Your report embraces, in a condensed form, almost all that has been said in opposition to our views. For this reason, as well as for the reason that I have a high respect and fervent love for those of your number with whom I am acquainted, I beg leave to be heard in reply. 

“What I have said was prepared for, and should have been published in the ‘New York Evangelist.’ I wrote to the editor, making the request to be heard through his columns; to which he made no reply. I still hope he will not fail to do me, yourselves, and the church the justice to give this article a place in his columns. The truth demands it. (Since changed Editors.) For no other reason, I am sure, than to subserve the interests of truth would I say one word. Without further preface, I quote your statement of the real point at issue. You say,– 

“‘That there is some issue, admits of no doubt. What is it? It is not, whether by the requirements of the moral law, or the injunctions of the gospel, men are commanded to be perfectly holy; not whether men are under obligations to be thus holy; not whether as moral agents, such a state is to them a possible state; not whether the gospel system is competent to secure actual perfection in holiness, if its entire resources be applied; not whether it is the duty and privilege of the church to rise much higher in holy living, than it has ever yet done in this world. To join issue on any, or all of these points, is to make a false issue; it is to have the appearance of a question without its reality. Some, or all of these points, form a part of the scheme of ‘Christian perfection;’ but certainly they do not invest it with any peculiar character, for they involve no new sentiment differing from the ground taken by the great body of orthodox Christians in every age. It cannot be supposed ‘that their advocacy has led to the various and fearful solicitudes of learned and pious men, in regard to the truth and tendency of this system. It must, therefore, be fraught with some other element. What is that element? The assertion that Christian men do attain in some cases, during the present life, to a state of perfect holiness, excluding sin in every form, and that for an indefinite period may remain in this state.’ 

“Upon this I remark:– 

“1. You have made a false issue. Proof:– 

“(1.) What our position is. It is, and always has been, that entire sanctification is attainable in this life, in such a sense as to render its attainment a rational object of pursuit, with the expectation of attaining it. 

“This proposition, it would seem, you admit; but on account of ‘the various and fearful solicitudes of learned and pious men,’ you take it for granted, there must be a heresy somewhere, and accordingly proceed to take issue with us, upon one of the arguments we have used in support of our proposition; and reply to our other arguments, as if they had been adduced by us in support of the proposition, upon which you have erroneously made up the issue. 

“(2.) Some of the arguments by which we have attempted to establish this proposition are– 

“(i.) That men are naturally able to obey all the commandments of God. 

“(ii.) That this obedience is without qualification demanded of men in this life. 

“(iii.) That the gospel proffers sufficient grace to secure their entire sanctification in this life; and that nothing is wanting but ‘appropriative acts,’ on the part of Christians, to realize this result. 

“(iv.) That the entire sanctification of Christians in this life was made the subject of prayer by inspired men, and also that Christ taught his disciples to pray for it. 

“(v.) That this state has actually been attained. 

“These are among our arguments; and as they are the only ones to which you have professed to reply, I will mention no others. 

“(3.) I will put our arguments in the form of syllogisms in their order. 

“(i.) Whatever is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability, may be aimed at with a rational hope of success. A state of entire sanctification in this life is attainable, on the ground of natural ability. Therefore, it may be aimed at with a rational hope of success. 

“Again. Whatever men are naturally able to do in this life, they may aim at doing, with a rational hope of success. Men are naturally able to do all their duty, which is to be entirely sanctified. Therefore, they may aim at entire sanctification with a rational hope of being entirely sanctified. 

“You admit both the major and minor premises in these syllogisms. Can the conclusion be avoided? 

“(ii.) Whatever God commands to be done by men in this life, may be done by them. God commands men to be entirely holy in this life. Therefore, a state of entire holiness in this life is possible. You admit both the major and minor premises. Can the conclusion be avoided? 

“(iii.) Whatever attainment the gospel proffers sufficient grace to secure in this life, may be made. The gospel proffers sufficient grace, should any one ‘apply its entire resources,’ to secure a state of entire sanctification in this life. Therefore this state may be secured, or this attainment may be made. Here again you admit both premises. Can the conclusion be denied? 

“(iv.) Whatever was made the subject of prayer by the Spirit of inspiration may be granted. The entire sanctification of the saints in this life was prayed for by the Spirit of inspiration. Therefore, Christians may aim at and pray for this state, with the rational expectation of being entirely sanctified in this life. 

“Again. What Christ has made it the universal duty of the church to pray for, may be granted. He has made it the duty of all Christians to pray for the entire sanctification of the saints in this life. Therefore, these petitions may be presented, and Christians may expect to be entirely sanctified in this life. Both premises in these syllogisms are admitted. Are not the conclusions inevitable? 

“(v.) Whatever men have done, men can do. Men have been entirely sanctified in this life. Therefore they may be so sanctified. The minor premise in this syllogism you deny; and, strange to tell, you affirm, over and over again, that this one argument of ours is the main proposition to be established! And you reply to all our other arguments in support of the main proposition, as if they had been adduced to prove this! Now it would have been equally fair, and just as much in point, so far as our argument in support of the main proposition is concerned, if you had made an issue with us on any other argument adduced by us in support of that proposition–insisted that that was the main question–and replied to our arguments as if they had been adduced in support of that. 

“You misrepresent our logic. Assuming that the fact of actual attainment is the main proposition which we are labouring to establish, and in support of which we adduce the fact of actual attainment only as an argument, you misrepresent our reasoning. To put this matter in the clearest light, I will place side by side, the syllogisms which you put in our mouths, and our own syllogisms. 

“YOUR SYLLOGISMS IMPUTED TO US. 

” 1. ‘Whatever is attainable in this life, is actually attained in this life. A state of perfect holiness is attainable in this life; therefore it is actually attained.’ 

“OUR OWN SYLLOGISMS. 

“1. Whatever is attainable in this life, may be aimed at, with the rational hope of attaining it: entire sanctification is attainable in this life; therefore the attainment of this state may be aimed at with a rational hope of success. 

“YOUR SYLLOGISMS IMPUTED TO US. 

” 2. ‘Whatever is possible by the provisions of the gospel in this life, will take place in this life; the perfect sanctification of all believers is possible by those provisions; therefore it will actually take place in this life.’ 

“OUR OWN SYLLOGISMS. 

“2. Whatever attainment is possible, by the provisions of the gospel, in this life, may be aimed at by those under the gospel, with a rational hope of attaining it; the perfect sanctification of believers is possible by these provisions; therefore believers may aim at making this attainment, with a rational hope of success. 

“YOUR SYLLOGISMS IMPUTED TO US. 

” 3. ‘In relation to the commands it will be sufficient to say, that although the Bible does command a state of perfect holiness in the present life, it does not follow that the command is in any instance obeyed fully on earth. Before we can arrive at this conclusion, we must adopt the following principle; that is, that whatever is commanded in the Bible is actually performed by the subjects of that command.’ 

“The syllogism would stand thus: 

“Whatever is commanded by God, is actually performed; perfect holiness is commanded; therefore all men are perfectly holy. 

“OUR OWN SYLLOGISMS. 

“3. Whatever the Bible commands to be done in this life, may be done; the Bible commands Christians to be perfect in this life; therefore they may be perfect in this life. 

“Now, brethren, I ask if you will deny the major premise, the minor premise, or the conclusion in either of the above syllogisms? You cannot deny either. I beseech you then to consider what injustice you have done to yourselves, to us, your brethren, and to the cause of truth, by such an evasion and misrepresentation of our logic. 

“(4.) What your logic must be to meet our argument as we have stated it. If you would state in syllogistic form an argument that shall meet and set aside our reasoning, it must stand thus: That a thing is attainable in this life, is no proof that it can be attained. This must be assumed as a major premise, by any one who would answer our logic. But who does not see, that this amounts to a denial of an identical proposition? The same as to say, that a thing being attainable in this life, is no proof that it is attainable in this life. But to waive this consideration, and state the argument as it must stand in syllogistic form; to meet and refute our logic, it must stand thus: ‘That a thing is attainable in this life is no proof that it can be attained. Entire sanctification is attainable in this life. Therefore, its attainability is no proof that it can be attained.’ Who does not see, that the major premise is false, and that therefore the conclusion is? Now observe: we admit, that its attainability is no proof that it will be attained. But we insist, that its attainability is proof that the attainment may be aimed at, with a rational hope of success. 

“Again: would you meet our second argument with a syllogism, it must stand thus: ‘That God commands a state of entire sanctification in this life, is no proof that such a state is attainable in this life. God does command a state of entire sanctification in this life. Therefore the command is no proof that such a state is attainable.’ Brethren, this argument would have the attribute of logical conclusiveness, if the major premise were not false. The very same course must be pursued by you, would you meet and set aside our reasoning in respect to our other arguments. This is so manifest, that I need not state the syllogisms. 

“2. In respect to our inference in favour of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, drawn from the prayers of inspiration, and the fact that all Christians are commanded to pray for the entire sanctification of believers in this life, you say as follows:– 

“‘Similar defects characterize the arguments drawn from the prayers which the Bible records, as well as those which it authorizes Christians to make. It is true, that Christ prayed for his disciples in language the most elevated: ‘Sanctify them through the truth.’ The same may be said of the great Apostle, when he prayed: ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly.’ We are directed to pray that God’s will may be done on earth as in heaven, and in general authorized to pray for a perfect victory over all sin at every time. These are the facts. Now, what is the inference? The advocate of ‘perfection’ responds–that some believers are perfectly sanctified in the present life. These, and kindred facts we offer, to prove this conclusion. Is there then between the two a certain connexion? If we admit the one, must we logically admit the other? Facts speak a very different language. Were those included in the prayer of Christ thus sanctified, and that from the moment of its utterance? Was the same true of all the Christians of Thessalonica? Has the will of God yet been done on earth as perfectly as in heaven? Has every believer who has hungered and thirsted after righteousness, attained to sinless perfection in this life? Did not Paul most fervently pray for the salvation of Israel, and have not thousands of Jews since died in their sins? Did he not pray that the thorn in his flesh might be removed, and was it removed? The grand mistake in this reasoning is, that it fixes what the nature and terms of prayer do not fix; that is, the time when, and the place where, the sought blessing shall be obtained.’ 

“On this I remark:– 

“This appears to me a most remarkable paragraph. Here you quote a part of 1Th_5:23. ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly,’ and then stop, assuming that nothing can be affirmed in respect to the time when the apostle prayed that this blessing might be granted. Now, beloved brethren, why did you not quote the whole passage, when it would have been most manifest, that the apostle actually prayed for the blessing to be granted in this life? I will quote it, and see if this is not so: “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

“As the sanctification of the ‘body,’ as well as the soul and spirit, is prayed for, and that the whole being may be ‘preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ how can you say as you do–‘The grand mistake in this reasoning is, that it fixes what the nature and the terms of prayer do not fix, that is, the time when, and place, here, the sought blessing shall be obtained?’ Does not this prayer contemplate the bestowment of this blessing in this life? Who can reasonably deny it? Again: You say, ‘We are directed to pray that God’s will may be done on earth as in heaven, and in general authorized to pray for a victory over all sin at every time.’ Now, how can you make this admission, and still add the assertion just quoted, that ‘prayer does not fix the time when this blessing is to be expected?’ Certainly, the time when, is, in this prayer, limited to this life. In order to meet our argument, based upon the prayer of the apostles and the injunction of Christ, to pray for the entire sanctification of believers in this life, you must argue as follows. Here again I put the syllogisms into separate columns, that you may see them in contrast. 

“YOUR REASONING PUT IN SYLLOGISTIC FORM. 

“That the Spirit of inspiration prayed for the entire sanctification of believers in this life, is no evidence that an answer to this prayer may be expected by saints in this life. Paul, under the spirit of inspiration, did pray for the entire sanctification of the saints in this life. Therefore, this prayer is no evidence that saints may aim at being entirely sanctified in this life, with a rational hope of being so sanctified. 

“OUR SYLLOGISMS. 

“Whatever state was prayed for by the Spirit of inspiration, Christians may aim at with a rational hope of attaining; the Spirit of inspiration prayed for the entire sanctification of saints in this life. Therefore, Christians may aim at this attainment with the expectation of success. 

“YOUR REASONING PUT IN SYLLOGISTIC FORM. 

“Again: That Christ has made it the universal duty of saints to pray for the entire sanctification of Christians in this life, is no evidence that they may offer this prayer, with a rational expectation of being answered. Christ has made it the universal duty of Christians to pray for entire sanctification in this life. Therefore, this is no evidence that they may offer this prayer with the rational hope of being heard and answered. 

“OUR SYLLOGISMS. 

“Again: Whatever state Christians are required to pray for in this life, they may pray for with the expectation of being heard and answered. Christians are required to pray for a state of entire sanctification in this life. Therefore, they may pray for this attainment with the expectation of being heard and answered in this life. 

“Now, brethren, whose logic is most conclusive? 

“3. In one paragraph of your report, you admit and deny at the same breath, that entire sanctification is promised in this life. You say– 

“‘It is a glorious truth, that God has promised to all believers a final victory over sin, which undoubtedly will be accomplished in some period of their history. But does it follow, that because believers are to be perfectly sanctified at sometime and somewhere, the present life will be the time and place of this perfect sanctification? Let a promise be adduced, if it can be, that fixes the period of this event to the present life. The divine promises, like the provisions of the gospel, are conditioned as to the degree of their results, by appropriative acts on the part of the believer. Hence, the fallacy of the argument is apparent, in that it takes for granted that some believers in the present life do fully comply with all the conditions contemplated in the promises themselves. Without this assumption it proves nothing.’ 

“In the first part of this paragraph, you deny that God, anywhere in the Bible, promises a state of entire sanctification in this life, and request that one promise be adduced, that fixes this event to the present life. And then you seem immediately to admit that the blessing is promised, on the condition of ‘appropriative acts on the part of the believer.’ This you must intend to admit, inasmuch as you have before admitted, that ‘should a believer avail himself of all the resources of the gospel, he might make this attainment.’ Certainly you will not pretend to have any authority for such an admission, unless the promises when fairly interpreted do proffer such a state to Christians upon condition of ‘appropriative acts.’ How shall we understand such a denial and admission at the same breath, as this paragraph contains? 

“But you request that one promise may be adduced that fixes the period of entire sanctification to the present life. I might quote many: but as you ask for only one, I will quote one, and the one, a part of which you have quoted–1 Thess. ii. 23, 24. ‘The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless, unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.’ 

“That this prayer and promise relate to this life, I think cannot consistently be questioned. The prayer is, that the ‘body,’ as well as the ‘spirit and soul,’ be wholly sanctified, and ‘be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Then the promise–‘Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it.’ Does not this relate to this life? 

“4. You deny that Christians can know that they are in a state of entire sanctification. 

“You say, ‘If a case of perfection were admitted to be real, still it is impossible, in the present state of our faculties, to find and predicate certain knowledge of it.’ 

“Here, assuming as you do, that the main proposition respects the fact of actual attainment, you insist that this fact, did such cases exist, would be entirely insusceptible of proof. Indeed! Does God command man to do what he cannot know that he does, even if he does it? This would be passing strange. You admit that God requires men to be entirely sanctified, condemns them if they are not, but yet deny that they could know that they obeyed, if they did. This would indeed be a singular requirement–to command a man on pain of eternal death to do that which he could not possibly know that he did, even if he did it. This denial of ability to know, whether we are in a state of entire sanctification, is a total denial of the doctrine of natural ability, as I presume it is held by every member of your body. Does not every one of you, my brethren, hold that natural ability to obey a command is the sine quà non of moral obligation to obey it? Do not you hold that a man cannot be under a moral obligation to do what he cannot understand–to use a power which he does not know himself to possess–to employ his faculties in any kind or degree of service, which he cannot know to be his duty? Now if a man does all that he is able to know himself capable of doing, is he under a moral obligation to do anything more? But if he is unable to know that he falls short of his duty, does he fall short of it? Brethren, will you give us light upon this subject? Do you, will you seriously maintain, that a man is naturally unable to know whether he obeys the commands of God, and yet, that he is condemned and liable to be damned for coming short, when he could not know that he came short? Brethren, will you maintain this? 

“5. Your answer to our proof-texts is a very summary one. It consists simply in affirming that we have misapplied them–that we regard certain terms as proofs of perfection, which are only distinctive of Christian character,–and, that we interpret them in an absolute and unrestricted sense–without so much as naming one of them. You have, indeed, quoted one passage, and affirmed that ‘a better proof-text cannot well be conceived.’ But we have never regarded nor quoted it as a proof text at all. Your disposal of our proof-texts is really a short-hand method of getting over them. But there was one difficulty in the way of your quoting and answering them–which was that had you quoted them, it would have appeared to everybody, that they were used by us to prove another proposition than that which you were controverting. 

“6. Our arguments in support of the fact of attainment you have passed over almost in silence. At the same time, you have taken our arguments adduced to prove the practical attainability, and replied to them, as if adduced to prove the fact of actual attainment. Brethren, we think we have reason to feel grieved with this. 

“7. You find yourselves obliged to be exceedingly indefinite in regard to the measure of attainment which Christians may rationally hope to make in this life. You say, ‘The question is not whether it is the duty and privilege of the church to rise much higher in holy living than it has ever yet done in this world.’ Now, brethren, I ask how much higher attainments Christians may make in this world, than they have ever yet made? This is, with us, and must be with the church, a question of all-absorbing interest. Do you answer to this question, that Christians may make indefinitely higher attainments than they have yet made? I ask again, on what authority is this affirmation made? Do you argue it from the fact, that the gospel has promised sufficient grace to Christians on condition of appropriative acts, to secure in them a higher state of holiness than has yet been attained? But if Christians may rationally hope to attain a higher state of holiness, than has ever yet been attained, by appropriating to themselves promises which proffer entire sanctification in this life, why may they not rationally aim at attaining all that the gospel has promised to them? Brethren, will you answer this question? 

“Appended to your report is a resolution, expressing ‘regret and sorrow at the ground taken on this subject by the theological professors at Oberlin.’ Will you permit us to reciprocate your regret and sorrow, and express our deep grief, that the presbytery of Troy have taken such ground upon this subject, and so misapprehended, and of course misrepresented the arguments of their brethren? 

“I must close this communication with a few 

“REMARKS. 

“1. We admit you had a right to take issue with us on the question of actual attainment, if you were dissatisfied with our course of argument on that position. But you had no right to represent our argument in support of another position as you have done. You had no right to represent our argument in favour of the practical attainability, as having been adduced in support of the fact of actual attainment. This you have done, and by so doing, you have done your brethren and the cause of truth great injustice. 

“2. To what I have said in this article, you may reply, that you never denied the practical attainability of a state of entire sanctification, and that therefore on that question you have no controversy with us. Why, then, my brethren, did you not admit that in our main position you agree with us, and that you only deny one of the arguments by which we attempted to support that position? This, as Christian men, you were bound to do. But instead of this, you have said nothing about admitting our main position; but made the transfer of our arguments to the support of the one upon which you take issue, and thus represent our logic as absurd and ridiculous. We shall be happy to discuss the question of actual attainment with our brethren, when they ingenuously admit, that the main position we have taken, namely, the practical attainability of a state of entire sanctification in this life, is a truth of the Bible. 

“3. Permit me to ask, my brethren, what opponent or course of argument might not be rendered ridiculous by the course you have taken, that is, by stating another proposition than that intended to be supported, and then representing the whole course of argument as intended to support the substituted proposition? 

“4. Should you say that your report was not intended as a reply to our argument, I ask, who has ever argued in support of this doctrine in the manner you represent? Who ever inferred, that because men have natural power to obey God, therefore they do obey him? I have read with attention almost everything that has come to hand upon this subject, and I never saw or heard of any such mode of argumentation as that to which you profess to reply. 

“5. Will your presbytery, in reply to what I have written, excuse themselves by saying, that their treatment of our argument was an oversight–that they had supposed us to reason in the way they have represented us as reasoning? To this I must reply, that you were bound to understand our argument before you replied to it, in your public or any other capacity. And especially were you under this obligation, inasmuch as I had twice written to a leading member of your body, beseeching him, in the bowels of Christian love, to examine this subject, and to be sure he did it in a spiritual frame of mind, before he committed himself at all upon the question. 

“6. Will you, dear brethren, permit me to ask how long the opposers of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, expect to retain the confidence of the church, and prevent their understanding and believing this doctrine, by such a course of procedure as this? You are no doubt aware, that your course is not a novel one, but that it has been substantially pursued by several other opposers of this doctrine. 

“And now, beloved brethren in the Lord, do not understand me as entering into a war of words with you, or as entertaining the least unkind feeling in my heart towards you. I most cheerfully leave to your deliberate and prayerful consideration, the remarks I have freely made on your report. I cannot, however, refrain from saying, that when I saw the name of one whom I greatly loved, and with whom I had often taken sweet counsel, attached to that report, my heart felt a kind of spontaneous gushing, and I almost involuntarily exclaimed, ‘Et tu, Brute!’ 

“Yours in the bonds of Christian love, 

“C. G. FINNEY.” 

Since these replies were published, nothing worthy of notice has appeared in opposition to them that has fallen under my observation, but the policy seems to have been adopted of preventing further inquiry upon the subject. Nevertheless the agitation of the question in the minds and hearts of private Christians and of many ministers, is going steadily, and, in many places, rapidly forward, as I have good reason to know. Indeed it is manifest, that there is increasing light and interest upon the subject, and it is beginning, or, I should say, fast coming to be better understood, and its truthfulness and its importance appreciated. No thanks, however, are due to some of the leading journalists of the day, if this blessed and glorious truth be not hunted from the world as a most pernicious error. Nothing could have been more unfair and unjust than the course pursued by some of them has been. May the blessed Lord bring them to see their error and forgive them, not laying this sin to their charge. 

It may doubtless appear unaccountable to the public in general, both in this country and elsewhere, that no objection was made to the doctrine of entire sanctification, when published in the “New York Evangelist,” and afterwards in the form of a volume, and so extensively circulated, and that the same doctrine should excite so much alarm when published in the “Oberlin Evangelist.” It may also appear strange, that such pains should have been taken to confound our views with those of antinomian perfectionists, when every one can see, that there is no more analogy between their views, as set forth in their Confession of Faith, and our views, than between them and anything else. This they have all along alleged, and consequently have been amongst our bitterest opposers. Perhaps it is not desirable that the public should be made acquainted with the springs of influence that have stirred up, and put in motion all this hurricane of ecclesiastical and theological opposition to Oberlin. It is unpleasant to us to name and disclose it, and perhaps the cause of truth does not, at present at least, demand it.