THE THIRTY TEXTS OF WESLEY

Many years ago it was discovered that John Wesley based his doctrine on entire sanctification almost entirely upon thirty texts in the Bible. Of course, it is foolish to suggest that thirty texts are not enough to establish a doctrine; for even one text would be sufficient if all obscurity were removed. Dr. W. E. Sangster has treated these texts separately in his book The Path to Perfection. The references are given here in order that students may have a compact array of scriptural evidence on the subject. It is not meant, however, to indicate my personal agreement with Wesley regarding the meaning of each text, nor would this listing rule out other texts. This list is merely given for what it is worth:

Ezek. 36:25-26, 29; Matt. 5:8, 48; 6:10; Rom 2:29; 12:1; II Cor. 3:17 ff; 7:1, Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3.14-19, Rom. 13:13; I Cor. 11:31 ff; 4:3 ff; I Thess. .10; Phil. 15; I Thess. 5. Tit. 2:11-14; Heb. 6:1, 7.25,10. 14, John 8:34 ff; 27:20-23, I John 1:5, 7; 5:8-9, 2:6, 3:3, 8-10, John 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, I John 5:13; Jas. 1:4.

ARE WE SAVED TO THE UTTERMOST?

Possibly millions of sermons have been preached on this famous text: "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). But when the preacher of today takes up his modern English translation and reads this text he finds himself at a loss, for in some modern speech versions it is translated to mean that Christ saves forever those who come to him. Thus the word which in the Authorized Version is rendered "uttermost" is made to express duration, and not completeness.

What are the facts? The Greek word here translated "uttermost" is panteles, and it occurs only twice in the New Testament -- in the passage under consideration and in Luke 13:11. In the latter passage it means "completely." "Behold there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and utterly unable to lift up herself." In their vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Moulton and Milligan cite numerous instances from the papyri in which this word is used to indicate now completeness and now duration. So this is again another one of those cases where the translator was thrown back upon his own judgment. He was not bound by the sources to take either one of these meanings, but had a choice.

It is easy to see why some of the modern translators were led to the idea of duration. In Hebrews 7, Christ is contrasted with the priests of the old law. They were priests who had infirmity; Christ was a perfected priest. They were "not suffered to continue by reason of death," but he had an unchangeable priesthood. To indicate this temporal contrast the translators interpreted the word panteles to mean "forever." But they might just as well have translated it "completely" or "utterly," in conformity with abundance of authority and a perfectly reasonable reading of the context of the passage. In that context we note other contrasts besides that of time. Christ is not only greater than the priests of the Jewish law because he lives forever, but he is also greater because he is not subject to their weakness and incompleteness. Note the weakness of the Jewish priesthood standing in contrast with Christ's perfection. They are made after the law of carnal commandments (vs. 16). Their system was weak and unprofitable (vs. 18). It made nothing perfect (vs. 19). Their priests were made without an oath (vs. 21). There were many of them, but only one Christ (vs. 23). They had to offer for their own sins (vs. 27), and they had infirmities (vs. 28). By implication they were unholy, defiled, and by nature sinners (vs. 26). These considerations show us how unnecessary it is to construe the "utterly" of verse 25 as pertaining to the time of Christ's priesthood, when it might as well be construed as pertaining to its quality, its perfectness.

In at least three modern English Testaments this word is translated "utterly," that is, as indicating that Christ's salvation is complete and perfect. Following are the names of men who have translated it thus: Dr. Ferrar Fenton, Dr. R. F. Weymouth, and a group of modern scholars who translated the Twentieth Century New Testament. And with them agrees the famous English commentator and scholar, Dean Henry Alford. On this passage he writes: "He is able to save (in its usual solemn New Testament sense, to rescue from sin and condemnation) to the uttermost. Some take this of time: 'He is ever able to save,' or, 'He is able to save forever.' But this is not the usage of the word. Bleek has shown by very many instances that completeness, not duration, is its idea." ^[56]

The many other passages of the New Testament glorifying Christ as a perfect Savior and exalting the great salvation give us ample assurance that we are safe in interpreting this term as describing a complete and perfect salvation, not only endless in duration, but perfect in its nature.

PAUL'S EXHORTATION TO THE EPHESIANS

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.... When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them" (Acts 19:2, 5-6).

Wesleyan preachers have long used Paul's question: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" as evidence that the Holy Spirit is received after the experience of believing for regeneration. When, therefore, many modern translations revised this to read, "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" this change was used as an argument against the doctrine of sanctification as a second work of grace.

Owing to its technical nature this matter has not been discussed in the text of this book. However, there can be no objection to such a discussion in an appendix, where only those interested need read it. I think, too, that it is a popular question -- not, indeed, with the godless and worldly who despise all such discussions as trivial, but with those spiritual people who are in deep earnest about holiness, even if they cannot read Greek. And such people are entitled to know that there are strong reasons for accepting the older translation of the Authorized Version, which reads "since."

In the first place, the new translation is not due to critical changes in the text. Before me there lies the newly revised sixteenth edition (1936) of Nestle's text based upon Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, B. Weiss, Von Soden, and many newly discovered manuscripts. At this point the wording is the same as the one used by the translators of the Authorized Version. As free from grammatical technicalities as possible, the discussion follows.

In the Greek the critical passage reads as literally translated into English, "Spirit Holy received ye having believed?" "Having believed" is here the aorist participle. The question is, to make this good English should we say "since ye believed" or "when ye believed"? I maintain that the sense is "having believed"; or, "After ye believed did ye receive the Holy Ghost?" The believing was first. The proof of this for the English reader is found in the fact that the same construction is used in the context in the Greek. "Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus." Here the "having passed" is likewise the aorist participle. Would you say that Paul came to Ephesus at the very same instant when he was passing through the upper coasts, or after he passed through the upper coasts? "After," of course, is the meaning of the passage.

Note again: "And having found certain disciples, he said to them." Here the "having found" is likewise the aorist participle. If we should translate that Paul said something to the disciples when he found them, we should mean actually after he found them; for he had to find them before he could say anything to them. The point insisted on here is that the real meaning is the same in all these cases. Paul came to Ephesus after he passed through the upper coasts. He spoke to the disciples after he found them, and these disciples were asked whether they had received the Holy Ghost after they had believed.

To change the form of the question: Does the main verb ("did ye receive?") refer to a time after that of the participle ("having believed") or co-incident with it? A. T. Robertson, who was one of the foremost New Testament Greek scholars of our time, taught New Testament Greek for many years and was familiar with the Papyri Manuscripts which forced a rewriting of Greek grammar and a recasting of the exegesis of the Greek New Testament. His famous and massive grammar of the Greek New Testament was written in the light of the papyri discoveries and the Koine.

It is true that Dr. Robertson thought the time of the main verb here ("did you receive?") and of the participle ("having believed") to be coincident, but in his crystal honesty he gives us good reason to think otherwise. He says, "The antecedent use furnishes the largest number of instances." Here he means that in the majority of cases in the New Testament the participle ("having believed") refers to a time antecedent to the main verb ("did ye receive?") And he quotes from J. H. Moulton: "The participle naturally came to involve past time relative to that of the main verb." ^[57] Again quoting from Dr. Robertson: "Antecedent action. This is the usual idiom with the circumstantial participle. This is indeed the most common use of the aorist participle." As examples he cites: Matt. 4:2; 27:3, 5; Mark 1:31; Col. 1:3-4; Acts 17:31; Heb. 1:3. The reader of Greek can easily find the participles and verbs here. For the English reader, here is a hint as to how to find them. Matthew 4:4 in the Greek reads "and having fasted . . . afterward he hungered.'

Examples of simultaneous action are given by Dr. Robertson as follows: Luke 5:4; Matt. 2:8; 22:1; 27:4; Acts 15:8. Scrutiny of these texts proves that the time of the main verb and participle is identical. But some texts in the New Testament seem doubtful. How shall one decide? Dr. Robertson says very candidly: "In many examples only exegesis can determine whether antecedent or coincident action is intended as in Hebrews 9:12." ^[58]

We praise the candor of a great Christian scholar who admits that the translator's beliefs must influence his translation at times. He also suggests that the decision involves a question of judgment, and not some intricacy of the Greek language. James Moffatt, another great Christian scholar, is equally candid and fair. He says in the introduction to his translation of the Bible: "A real translation is in the main an interpretation." ^[59]

And people who can read Greek prize Moffatt for his brilliant interpretations of familiar texts. Often these interpretations introduce ideas never heard of before in that connection. In the "when" translation, however, we have an interpretation fully in harmony with the modern Protestant church tradition that holds that the Holy Spirit baptism is received at the instant of regeneration. Nevertheless, this interpretation is at variance with the ancient Catholic tradition, which, as could be shown by dozens of quotations, has always held that the gift of the Holy Spirit is received after regeneration, that is, after baptism where baptism is believed to effect, or at least coincide with, regeneration. Review the history of confirmation for evidence.

The point is conceded by The Expositor's Greek Testament, which while it translates "when" instead of "since" does admit that as disciples these men were real Christians before receiving the Holy Ghost. "The question was whether they had received the Holy Ghost at their Baptism." ^[60] This is all I contend for, because the other converts received the Holy Ghost after their conversion, whether we believe with evangelical Protestants that people are first converted and then baptized or with the Catholics that baptism effects regeneration.

Even if "when" is used in this passage it still disproves the point it is used to support. It stands on the face of the narrative here that the disciples at Ephesus actually did not receive the Holy Ghost at the identical time of their believing, or conversion; for by his language Paul admits that they are believers and at the same time he prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost -- after he had admitted that they were believers.

For these reasons we may feel indifferent about the "when" translation; for it will bear a loose construction, allowing for a passage of time between the action of the main verb and the participle. As one might say, "When I went to California I bought an orange grove." Here the time is indefinite. Evidently very few people would buy an orange grove the first day they arrived; however, such an expression is quite as common as "After I went to California I bought an orange grove."

That this is the meaning of the passage in Acts 19:2 is one of the most certain points in scriptural interpretation; if doubt arises as to the exact order of the time of the reception of the Holy Ghost by the disciples at Ephesus that question is to be settled by appeal to similar instances in the Book of Acts itself, and here the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing to any unbiased reader who will accept the authority of the book. "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:4). In chapter 7 evidence amounting to proof has been given that these people were and had been definite believers long before this event. "When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. . . . Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost" (8:12-15). Here it is plainly stated that these people became believers and were baptized under the ministry of one evangelist and later received the baptism of the Holy Ghost under the ministry of two other evangelists. This was certainly after they believed or only in a very loose sense of the word when they believed. When Peter was preaching in Cornelius' house, while he "yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" (Acts 10:44). This gift of the Holy Ghost was given to people who already believed and knew the word of God concerning salvation in Christ (10:36-37).

By reference to these three definite instances in which people received the Holy Ghost after they believed, and by the clear evidence that the disciples at Ephesus actually did not receive the Holy Ghost at the identical time when they believed, we have reached the conclusion that the translation "Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed" is to be understood as "Did ye receive the Holy Ghost at that season of your life when you began your career of discipleship, that is, within a short time after your baptism?" That is the time when the others received the Holy Ghost. To these same people the Apostle Paul later wrote: "In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph. 1:13).

THE TENSE READINGS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ^[61]

By Dr. Daniel Steele, for many years professor of New Testament Greek in Boston University School of Theology.

In this age of astonishing scientific progress, when the microscope applied to living tissues reveals whole continents of evidences of design in bioplastic life, and marvelously strengthens theism in its debate with atheism, we have applied the same instrument to the Greek Testament, in the aid of exegesis, in the interest of disputed truths, and for the refutation of certain doctrinal errors. Our microscope will be directed to a long-neglected field of research, the Greek tenses, not for the purpose of discovering new truths, but for the confirmation and clear elucidation of verities as old as revelation. . . . That the English scholar may understand our argument and our illustrations we will give the following definitions: The present tense denotes what is now going on, and indicates a continuous, repeated, or habitual action, as I am writing. The imperfect denotes the same continuity or repetition in the past, as, I was writing.

"The Aorist indicative," says Goodwin, "expresses the simple momentary occurrence of an action in past time, as I wrote." The perfect denotes an action as already finished at the present time, as, I have written; my writing is just now finished. It also expresses the continuance of the result down to the present time; as the formula "It is written" is literally it has been written, and implies that it now stands on record; the door has been shut, that is, it so remains till now. The pluperfect denotes an act which took place before another past act.

The chief peculiarity lies in the aorist. We have in the English no tense like it. Except in the indicative, it is timeless, and in all the moods indicates what Krueger styles "singleness of act." This idea our translators could not express without a circumlocution in words having no representatives in the Greek. "The poverty of our language," says Alford, "in the finer distinctions of the tenses, often obliges us to render inaccurately and fall short of the wonderful language with which we have to deal." His annotations abound in attempts to bring out the full significance of the tenses. For instance, in II Corinthians 12:7, "to buffet" (pres.) me, "is best thus expressed in the present. The aorist would denote but one such act of insult." This has been noted by both Chysostom and Theophylact.

Says Buttmann: "The established distinction between the aorist, as a purely narrative tense (expressing something momentary), and the imperfect as a descriptive tense (expressing something contemporaneous or continuous), holds in all its force in the New Testament." Says Winer: "Nowhere in the New Testament does the aorist express what is wont to be." In applying these principles we make several important discoveries. We cite only a few specimens:

1. All exhortations to prayer and to spiritual endeavor in the resistance of temptation are usually expressed in the present tense, which strongly indicates persistence.

Matt. 7:7: "Keep asking [pres.], and it shall be given you; seek [pres.] again and again, and ye shall find; knock persistently, and it shall be opened unto you."

Mark 11:24 (Alford's version): "Therefore I say unto you, All things that ye perseveringly pray [pres.], and ask for [pres.], keep believing [pres.] that ye received [aor., Alford], and ye shall have them."

Luke 11:10: "For every one that asketh [pres.] perseveringly, receiveth; and he that seeketh [pres.] untiringly, findeth; and to him that persistently knocketh [pres.], It shall be opened." Verse

13: "How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that importunately ask [pres.] him." The idea implied is clearly expressed in Luke 18:1.

John 16:24: "Ask [pres.] repeatedly, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be permanently filled" [perfect].

Luke 13:24: "Persistently agonize to enter in [aor.], once for all, at the strait gate."

Luke 18:13: "But he kept smiting [imperfect] and saying, God be merciful [aor.] to me, the sinner." The conditions of pardon are persistently complied with.

James 1:5-6: 'If any of you lack wisdom, let him frequently ask [pres.] of God . . . But let him ask [pres.] repeatedly in faith, etc. Heb. 11:6: "For he that persistently comes [pres.] to God must believe [aor., definitely grasp two facts] (1) that God exists, and (2) that he is becoming a rewarder to those who diligently and repeatedly seek him."

To this use of the present tense a remarkable exception occurs in Christ's last address before his crucifixion, John 14:16. Here he for the first time directs us to pray in his name, and, as if to denote the influence of that all-prevailing name when presented to the Father in faith, the aorist tense is used when prayer is commanded, as if to teach that one presentation of the name of the adorable Son of God must be successful. See John 14:13-14, and 16:23-24. In the twenty-third verse the aorist occurs, but in verse 24 the present tense (be asking) is used, probably in view of the foreseen fact that there would be multitudes of half-believers, who must be encouraged to pray till they fully believe in the name of Jesus Christ.

2. The next fact which impresses us in our investigation is the absence of the aorist and the presence of the present tense whenever the conditions of final salvation are stated. Our inference is that the conditions of ultimate salvation are continuous, extending through probation, and not completed in any one act. The great requirement is faith in Jesus Christ. A careful study of the Greek will convince the student that it is a great mistake to teach that a single act of faith furnishes a person with a paid-up, nonforfeitable policy, assuring the holder that he will inherit eternal life, or that a single energy of faith secures a through ticket for heaven, as is taught by the Plymouth Brethren and by some popular lay evangelists. The Greek tenses show that faith is a state, a habit of mind, into which the believer enters at justification. The widespread mistake on this point is thus illustrated by Dr. John Hall, of New York:

"Have you ever seen a young girl learn to fire a pistol? I will not say, imagine a boy, for he would naturally be brave about it. I have seen young ladies acquiring this accomplishment, and it is a very curious thing. It may illustrate to you the false notion that many persons have about faith. The pistol is loaded and handed to the young lady. She takes hold of it very 'gingerly,' as if afraid it may shoot from the handle. Now, she means to go through with it; there is the mark: so she takes the pistol in her hand, and holds it out a long way, and appears to take aim with the greatest exactness, but does not shoot. She is a little afraid, trembles, and holds back. At last she screws up her courage to the sticking-point, and, as you suppose, taking the most exact aim, shuts her eyes firmly, and fires. The thing is done, and done with. Well, now, many intelligent persons are led to believe that faith is something like that -- something you end in an instant. You screw up your courage for it, then shut your eyes, and just believe once for all; then the thing is done, and you are saved. Now, that is a mistaken idea about faith itself. That real faith which is honest goes on from time to eternity."

Since we are writing for the English readers, we will refrain from quoting the Greek verbs, which would make our pages repulsive to the very class which we wish to benefit. Scholars will appreciate our argument if they accompany it with their Greek Testaments.

John 1:12: "But as many as received [aor.] him [by a momentary and definite act], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that are believing [pres.] perseveringly on his name." Here the aorist participle would have been used instead of the present, if a single act of faith secured ultimate salvation.

John 3:15: "That whosoever is continuously believing in him should not perish [aor., once for all], but be having everlasting life." Here, again, the present and not the aorist participle of the verb to believe is used, as it is again in verses 16 and 36.

John 5:24: "Verily, verily I say unto you, he that is always hearing my word, and constantly believing on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and is not coming into condemnation, but has passed over [perfect] from death unto life, and so continues." Says Alford: "So in I John 5:12-13, the believing and the having eternal life are commensurate; where the faith is, the possession of eternal life is, and when the one remits, the other is forfeited. But here the faith is set before us as an enduring faith, and its effects described in their completion. (See Eph. 1:19-20.)" Thus this great English scholar rescues this chief proof text of the Plymouth Brethren and the Moody school of evangelists from its perverted use, to teach an eternal incorporation Into Christ by a single act of faith, and he demonstrates the common sense doctrine that the perseverance of the saints is grounded on persistent trust in Jesus Christ. A wise generalship does not destroy a captured fortress, but garrisons it John 5:44: "How are ye able to put forth a momentary act of faith [aor.] who habitually receive [pres.] honor one of another, and are not constantly seeking the honor which is from God only?" This interrogatory implies the impossibility of a single genuine act of faith springing up in a heart persistently courting human applause.

John 5:47: "But if ye are not habitually believing his writings, how will ye believe my words?"

John 6:29: The received text reads thus: "This is the work of God, that ye believe [aor., once for all] on him whom he sent." When we first noticed this aorist tense, implying that the whole work required by God is summed up in an isolated act, we felt that there must be an error in this tense. By referring to Alford, Tregelles, and Tischendorf, we find that the aorist is rejected, and the present tense is restored, so that it reads: "This is the work of God, that ye perseveringly believe," etc.

John 6:35: "He that is perpetually coming [pres.] to me shall not, by any means [double negative], once hunger [aor.], and he that is constantly believing in ME [emphatic] shall never, by any means [double negative], feel one pang of thirst" (aor.).

John 6:54: "Whose eateth [pres., keeps eating] my flesh, and drinketh [keeps drinking] my blood, hath eternal life."

John 11:25-26: "He that believeth persistently [pres.] shall not, by any means [double negative], die [aor.] forever."

John 20:31: "That ye might believe [aor.; but Tischendorf has the present, continue to believe] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing constantly [pres.], ye might have life through his name."

Acts 26:30-31: "Sirs, what must I do to be instantaneously saved [aor.]? Believe instantaneously [aor.] on the Lord Jesus." This is no exception to the general use of the tenses. The jailer wished immediate deliverance from his guilt, and was directed to a definite and sharply defined act of reliance on Christ. But in Romans 1:16 where future and eternal salvation is spoken of, it is promised to every one that perseveringly believes (pres.). So also in Romans 3:22; 4:24; 9:33; 10:11; I Cor. 1:21; Eph. 1:19; I Thess. 2:10, 13; 4:14.

In II Thessalonians 1:10 we find, not in the received text, but in the best manuscripts, an exceptional instance of the use of the aorist in expressing the conditions of final salvation: "to be admired in all them that believe" (aor.). Alford says it is used because the writer is "looking back from that day on the past," probation being viewed as a point.

A similar explanation he gives to the aorist in Hebrews 4:3, saying, that the standpoint is the day of entering into the rest. We prefer to teach that the aorist is preferred to the present in this passage because the general state of trust is not under discussion as the condition of entering eternal rest in heaven, but the grasping of the definite fact of Christ's ability to be the believer's Joshua, and to bring him into soul-rest in the present life. Hence the exhortation, verse 11, "Let us labor [Greek, hasten] to enter [aor.] into that rest." Other instances of the aorist, used when some distinct saying is to be believed, are found In John 4:21; and in Matthew 8:13.

Rev. 22:14: "Blessed are they that are constantly doing his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." The best manuscripts read, "Blessed are they that are always washing their garments," etc. In both instances the present tense is used. This is the last time the conditions of final salvation are expressed in the Bible.

Hence we conclude, from a thorough examination of the above texts, that the spirit of inspiration has uniformly chosen the present tense in order to teach that final salvation depends on persevering faith.

3. But when we come to consider work of purification in the believer's soul, by the power of the Holy Spirit, both in the new birth and in entire sanctification, we find that the aorist is almost uniformly used. This tense, according to the best New Testament grammarians, never indicates a continuous, habitual, or repeated act, but one which is momentary, and done once for all. We adduce a few illustrative passages:

Matt. 8:2-3: "And behold, there came a leper, and he kept worshipping [imperfect] him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt thou canst cleanse [aor.] me once for all. And Jesus, stretching out [aor.] his hand, touched [aor.] him, saying, I will, be thou instantaneously cleansed" [aor.]. The leper prayed to be cleansed, not gradually, but instantly, and it was done at a stroke, according to his faith.

Matthew 14:36 illustrates the difference between the imperfect and the aorist: "And they kept beseeching [imp.] that they might touch just once [aor.] only the hem of his garment; and as many as only once touched [aor.] were instantaneously healed" (aor.).

Matt. 23:25-26: "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye are constantly cleansing [pres.] the outside of the cup and the platter, but within are full of extortion and injustice. Thou blind Pharisee, first cleanse [aor.] at a stroke the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside may instantly become [aor.] clean also." If Christ had commanded a gradual inward cleansing he would have used the present tense, "be cleansing by degrees."

Luke 17:14: "And it came to pass that while they were going [pres.] they were instantaneously healed" (aor.).

John 17:17-19: "Sanctify [aor., imperative] them once for all through thy truth, that is, through faith in the distinctive office and work of the Comforter. . . . And for their sakes I am consecrating [pres.] myself, in order that they in reality may have been permanently sanctified." Christ's was not a real sanctification or cleansing, inasmuch as he was never polluted; but the disciples needed sanctification in reality, or "truly." This is the suggested meaning of the words "through the truth." See Bagster's marginal reading. Compare II Corinthians 7:14. Says Winer: "In the New Testament the obvious distinction between the imperative aorist -- as sanctify, above and the imperative present is uniformly maintained. The imperative aorist denotes an action that is either rapidly completed and transient, or viewed as occurring but once. The imperative present denotes an action already commenced and to be continued, or an action going on, or to be frequently repeated." Both the aorist and the present are sometimes used in the same sentence, as in John 2:16: "Take [aor.] these things hence instantly, and be not making [pres.] my Father's house a house of merchandise." I Cor. 15:34: "Awake [aor.], and be not sinning" [pres.], or "stop sinning." Acts 15:11: "But we habitually believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we were saved [aor., by a momentary and completed act], even as they" [saved from guilt, not saved eternally]. Rom. 6:13: Here occurs a beautiful instance of this distinction, affording an undoubted proof text for instantaneous sanctification, which is not seen in the English version: "Nor render repeatedly [present imperative] your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin; but render [aor., by a final act of unreserved surrender, once for all] yourselves [not your members by a repeated and piecemeal consecration] to God [or for God's cause, says Tholuck], as alive from the dead." Says Alford: "The present imperative above denotes habit; the exhortation guards against the recurrence of a devotion of the members to sin; this aorist imperative, on the other hand, as in chap. 12:1, denotes an act of self-devotion to God once for all, not a mere recurrence of the habit." Tholuck's annotation brings out the completeness of this text as a proof of cleansing from original sin.

Rom. 12:1: "That ye present [aor.] your bodies" [as a single act, never needing to be repeated]. The body is specified, because, says Tholuck, it is the organ of practical activity, or, as Olshausen, De Wette, and Alford say, "as an indication that the sanctification of Christian life is to extend to that part of man's nature which is most completely under bondage to sin." If in Paul's conception believers were to be sinning and repenting all their days, as the best that grace could do for them, he would have used the present imperative, "Be presenting your bodies again and again." In Alford's note on I Peter 2:5, he says: "The aorist is here used, because no habitual offering, as in rite or festival, is meant, but the one, once for all, devotion of the body, as in Romans 12:1, to God as his." Both of these are proof texts of a sharply defined transition in Christian experience, called entire consecration, the human part of entire sanctification. That neither of these texts refers to justification is shown (1) by the fact that the persons addressed are already Christians; (2) by the requirement that the sacrifice be holy (Rom. 12:1), that is, accepted, as the lamb was examined by the priest, and pronounced fit for sacrifice, or acceptable to Jehovah; and I Peter 2:5 requires a holy or accepted priesthood, both of which requirements symbolize a state of justification before God.

Rom. 13:14: "Put ye on [aor., a single definite act] the Lord Jesus Christ, and make [pres.] not [that is, quit making] provision for the flesh," etc.

Acts 15:9: "Instantaneously purifying [aor.] their hearts by faith." This verse is a key to the instantaneous sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit wrought in the hearts of believers on the Day of Pentecost, since the words even as he did unto us refer to that occasion. See Acts 10:45-47.

I Cor. 5:7: "Purge out [aor.] the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump." This summary and instantaneous excision of the incestuous offender illustrates the force of the aorist in verbs signifying to purify.

I Cor. 6:11: "But ye washed yourselves [aor., middle] by submitting to outward baptism; ye were sanctified [aor.], ye were justified" [aor.]. Here the sanctification is a momentary and completed act, the same as the justification. By the figure called the inverted chiasmus the words "were justified" are placed last. The natural English order would be, "were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and were sanctified by the Spirit of our God." Rom. 6:6: "Knowing this, that our old man was crucified [aor.] once for all, that the body [being or totality] of sin might be destroyed [aor., at a stroke], that henceforth we should no longer be serving [pres.] sin. For he who once for all [aor.] died [unto sin] has been justified from sin.

The aorist here teaches the possibility of an instantaneous death-stroke to inbred sin, and that there is no need of a slow and painful process, lingering till physical death or purgatorial fires end the torment. Men are not crucified limb by limb, after one part is dead finding a hand or arm or finger alive, but the whole life is extinguished all at once. A class of interpreters, who are afraid of entire sanctification in this life, and are especially horrified at an instantaneous purification by the stroke of Omnipotence, Calvinists generally, and the Plymouth Brethren in particular -- tone down the word "destroy" to "render inoperative or powerless." The strength of this verb will be seen by studying the following texts, where it is rendered by "abolish," "consume," or "destroy." II Cor. 3:13; Eph. 2:15; II Tim. 1:10; I Cor. 6:13; 15:26; II Thess. 2:8; Heb. 2:14.

II Cor. 1:21-22: "Now, he who is continually establishing us with you, in Christ, and who once for all anointed [aor.] us, is God, who also sealed us [aor.] and gave [aor.] the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Here the stablishing is constant; the anointing, sealing, and endowment are momentary and completed acts. II Cor. 5:21: The received text reads, "That we might be made [pres., being mode] the righteousness," etc. . . . This may refer to the redemption of the whole race, or to the transition of individuals into a state of holiness. Paul's use of the we favors the latter view. I Cor. 6:13: "Be ye also enlarged [aor.] by the sudden baptism of the Holy Spirit." II Cor.

7:1: "Let us cleanse [aor.] ourselves at a stroke from every filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting [pres.] holiness in the fear of the Lord." If Paul had been exhorting to a gradual inward cleansing he would certainly have used the present tense. The chapter division is here very unfortunate, and very much obscures the writer's thought. Bengel puts this verse in the paragraph which closes the sixth chapter. The course of the argument is this: The promise of the Old Testament was that you should be sons and daughters of God. Having realized the fulfillment of this promise by adoption, let us who are sons cleanse ourselves, etc.

Cleansing is here viewed as a human work, inasmuch as our application of the purifying power is by faith, as we are to make unto ourselves new hearts by availing our selves of the regenerating Spirit. Paul uses the adhortative form, "let us cleanse," instead of the exhortatory form, "cleanse ye," simply to soften the command by including himself. This beauty of Greek rhetoric could not be quoted to prove that the writer was polluted in the flesh and in the spirit, that is, was indulging in sensual and in spiritual sins. See James 3:5-6 and I Peter 4:3. The doctrine of this passage is that the faith that appropriates the Sanctifier is a momentary act, lifting the soul out of all outward or carnal, and inward or spiritual, sin. Had the process of sanctification been like washing a mud statue, a continuous and never completed work, as some teach, Paul would not have failed to express this idea by using the present tense: "Let us be continually cleansing," etc. while the Wesleyan doctrine of instantaneous sanctification is taught by the aorist tense in this verse, the seemingly paradoxical Wesleyan doctrine of progressive sanctification is also taught by the present participle, "perfectino" holiness, etc.

This word in this passage is defined in Bagster's Greek Testament Lexicon thus, "to carry into practice, to realize." The perfect inward cleansing instantaneously wrought by the Holy Spirit through faith is to be constantly and progressively carried outward into all the acts of daily life, as the moral discrimination becomes more and more acute with the increase of knowledge.

Gal. 1:15-16: "But when it pleased God, who separated [aor.] me from my mother's womb, and called [aor.] me by his grace, to reveal [aor.] his Son in me," etc. The words rendered separated and called are aorist participles. Says Goodwin: "The aorist participle regularly refers to a momentary or single action, which is past with reference to the time of the leading verb." In this passage the leading verb is "pleased." After his birth and calling, or conversion, there was an instantaneous revelation of the Son of God within, to the spiritual eye, as there had been an objective revelation of the form of the Son of man to Paul's physical eye on his way to Damascus. Both Ellicott and Alford insist that the sequence of tenses here teaches that this inward revelation of Christ was after his conversion. This is in harmony with Christ's promise that he would manifest himself to those who already love him and evince their love by their obedience (John 14:21; 16:14). This may well be styled Paul's second blessing.

Various metaphors and phrases are employed to denote entire sanctification, as will be seen in the following texts: Eph. 4:22: "That ye put off [aor.] the old man" [the unsanctified nature]. Here the aorist is used, because the act of putting off is one and decisive, "referring," says 'Alford, "to a direct, definite, and reflexive act." Verse 24: "And that ye put on [aor.] that new man, which after God is created [aor., was instantaneously created] in righteousness," etc. "Beware," says Alford, "of rendering, with Eadie and Peile, 'that we have put off,' which is inconsistent with the context (vs. 25), and not justified by the word 'you' being expressed." This epistle is addressed to the saints and the faithful in Christ Jesus (chap. 1:1). Such undoubted Christians are exhorted by one decisive act to lay off the old man, implying that he was not yet fully laid aside, and to put on the new man, as if Christ were not fully investing and pervading the nature. Why these aorists, if only a gradual growth out of sin into holiness is contemplated?

Gal. 2:19-20: "For I through the law died [aor., quite suddenly] to the law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified [perfect] with Christ [and stay dead till now], and it is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me.' Says Alford: "The punctuation in the English version is altogether wrong." Here is a perfect answer, in Paul's testimony, to the advocates of a lingering death of the old man, continuing up to the separation of soul and body. There was a time when Paul died to sin by a crucifixion -- a short and sharp kind of death -- and the old man lived no more.

Some people are forever on the cross, always dying but never dead, because they do not grasp the sin-slaying power.

Gal. 5:24: "And they that are Christ's crucified [aor.] the flesh, together with the passions and lusts." From this it would appear that all believers are entirely sanctified as soon as they are regenerated. But Olshausen's explanation is very satisfactory. "It is remarkable here that the act of crucifying is designated as past, while it is, certainly, involved in the exhortations of Paul that it is to be continued. This is explained by the fact that Paul here presents the idea of a true Christian quite objectively, and, therefore, in its completeness; as such, the believer has entirely crucified the flesh." The only remaining question relates to the time when this completeness may be realized. Wesley says: "NOW, by faith, without doing or suffering more." Olshausen says. "In the concrete actuality, the complete idea, and, therefore, too, the crucifying of the old man, never appear completely realized." That is to say, the old man is completely crucified in the abstract, but in the concrete man he always lives! Common sense sides with the Englishman against the German.

Gal. 4:19: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed [aor.] in you." Here is a second spiritual birth, distinct from the first. All devout pastors find multitudes in their churches, rocking as old babes in the cradle of spiritual infancy, and they travail in birth for them, that the faint image of Christ enstamped upon them in their regeneration may be renewed and permanently deepened. Like coins on which the head of Liberty is but slightly impressed, they need to be placed beneath the die again, and receive a deep and clear impress. The aorist expresses the instantaneous reminting.

Eph. 1:13: "After that you believed [aor.] ye were sealed" [aor.]. Here the believing and the sealing are acts distinct, definite, and completed.

Eph. 2:5: "By grace ye have been saved" [perfect and so continue].

Eph. 3:16-19: Here we have seven aorists in four verses -- grant, be strengthened, dwell, or take up his abode, may be able, to comprehend, to know, and be filled. May we not infer that Paul chose this tense to convey most strongly and vividly the ability of Christ to do a great work in a short time, to save believers fully, and to endow them with the fullness of the Spirit? If gradual impartations of the Sanctifier had been in his thought, it is strange that he did not use one present tense to express endowment by degrees.

"The Greek perfect participles rooted and grounded," says Dr. Karl Braune, "denote a state in which they already are and continue to be, which is the presupposition in order that they may be able to know."

The same writer, in Lange's Commentary, in his note on "to comprehend" [aor.), says that "it here means more than a mere intellectual apprehension, a perception, but pre-eminently an inward experience corresponding with 'to know' (aor.) in verse 19." "The aorist tense of 'to comprehend,'" says Ellicott, "perhaps implies the singleness of the act, and the middle voice -called by Krueger a dynamic middle -- indicates the earnestness, or spiritual energy, with which the action is performed." How strongly does this grammatical examination of this passage confirm the essay of John Fletcher on the spiritual manifestation of Christ to the inward perception of the perfect believer by an instantaneous revelation!

Eph. 4:13: "Till we all attain [aor.] unto the unity of the faith and of the perfect knowledge of the Son of God, unto the full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" -- Alford's Version

The perfecting of the saints is here expressed by a definite and momentary arrival at a point where faith merges into knowledge, where a Savior believed becomes a Savior fully realized. See Olshausen's full comment. This transition from faith to full knowledge is a crisis expressed by the aorist. It is when the Paraclete purges the film of inbred sin from the eye of the soul, and Jesus, as a living, loving, glorified, and complete Savior, is manifested to the spiritual vision. Then the child, the imperfect believer, becomes a perfect man, and reaches the fullness of Christ; that is, the abundance which he has to bestow, a fullness excluding all sin, but capable of eternal increase. That this point is before death is shown by the consequences which follow in the present life, as detailed in verses 14-16.

Eph. 5:25-26: "Husbands, be constantly loving [pres.] your wives, even as Christ loved [aor.] the Church." Says Ellicott: "The pure aoristic sense is more appropriate and more in accordance with the historic aorist that follows, so that 'gave' (aor.) is a specification of that wherein this love was pre-eminently shown. The moment is seized upon when his love culminated in the gift of his life for us." "That he might sanctify [aor.] and cleanse" (aor.'. Bishop Ellicott again says: "Both sanctification and purification are dependent on the atoning death of Christ. There is thus no necessity to modify the plain and natural meaning of the verb to sanctify. Here it neither implies simple consecration, on the one hand, nor expiation, absolution, on the other, but the communication and infusion of holiness and moral purity." The tense indicates that it is a definite and momentary act.

Col. 1:9: "That ye might be filled [aor.] with the full knowledge of his will."

Phil. 3:12: "Not already perfected" (perfect), brought to the end of his course and crowned. The same word is used in the same sense in Luke 13:32. Paul and Jesus disclaim the same perfection. See Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 12:23.

Col. 3:5: "Mortify [aor., kill outright], therefore, your members which are upon the earth; fornication," etc. "Let nothing," says Bishop Ellicott, "live inimical to your true life, hidden in Christ. Kill at once (aor.) the organs and media of a merely earthly life." Here, in the very strongest terms, is the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification as a distinct and instantaneous work of the Spirit clearly set forth. A young evangelist, holding meetings in a Baptist church, preached to pastor and people entire sanctification as immediately attainable by faith. The pastor was stumbled by the English reading of this text, "Mortify"; that is, keep mortifying day by day. He thought that he must ever keep a little sin alive in his heart in order to be forever mortifying it. His mistake was (1) in overlooking the real meaning of mortify, to make dead -- and substituting the idea of repression; and (2) in disregarding the aorist tense of the command, enjoining a decisive and momentary act, to be done once for all.

Col. 3:8: "But now put off [aor.] all these: anger, wrath," etc. The aorist imperative is a broom that sweeps the heart clean at one stroke of omnipotent power.

Verse 12: "Put on [aor.], therefore," etc. By the incoming of the abiding Comforter all the excellences of the Christian character are to be at once assumed. This is the positive side of entire sanctification, the negative being the mortifying of sin in verse 5.

Verse 13: "Forbearing [pres.] and forgiving" [pres.]. There will be occasion for the constant exercise of these virtues.

Verse 15: "Let the peace of God rule [pres.] constantly, and be [pres.] ye thankful always."

Verse 16: "Let the word of God dwell [pres.] perpetually."

Verse 18: "Wives submit [pres.] yourselves constantly," etc.

Verse 19: "Husbands love [pres.] your wives at all times" -- on washing days, when breakfast is late, and the bread is sour.

Verse 20: "Children obey [pres.] your parents constantly."

Verse 21: "Fathers provoke [pres.] not at any time your children."

Thus a series of present imperatives extends through this chapter and to verse 6 in chapter 4, enjoining daily recurring duties. But the aorist imperatives are always used when the duty of putting away sin from the heart, and putting on the fruits of the Spirit, is commanded. Let the candid reader examine this chapter, and he will see that the reason for the use of the aorists is that entire sanctification and the fullness of the Spirit are viewed as a work to be finished at a stroke, while duties to our fellow men are to be constantly repeated. No other account can be given for the alternation of tenses in the imperatives in this chapter.

I Thess. 3:13: "To the end he may stablish [aor.] your hearts unblamable in holiness." Here the tense indicates a single and momentary act. The same Greek construction occurs in chapter 4:9 where the present tense is used, "to love one another," a constant duty. A similar form of expression in the Greek occurs in Hebrew 9:14: "to serve [pres.] the living God."

I Thess. 4:8: "Who also gave [aor.] unto us his Holy Spirit." Here the aorist is used, says Alford, "as being a great definite act of God by his Son." The act is just as definite whether the gift is dispensational or individual.

I Thess. 5:23: "And the very God of peace, once for all, sanctify [aor.] you wholly, and your whole spirit, and soul, and body he preserved" [initial aorist, to mark the beginning in the heart of the power that keeps the believer). The nicety of Paul's grammatical knowledge is seen in verse 25: "Brethren, pray [pres.] for us. Greet [aor.] all the brethren with a holy kiss." The praying was to be continuous, the kissing momentary.

II Tim. 2:21: "Purge" [aor.]. Sanctified and prepared are both in the perfect tense, implying the permanent result of the definite act of purging.

Titus 2:14: The verbs gave, redeem, and purify, are all aorists, indicating momentary acts. The purifying is before death, because its subjects are to be zealous of good works.

Titus 3:6: "Shed [aor.] on us abundantly": (1) To inaugurate a dispensation; (2) To sanctify and endow individuals. Personal Pentecosts have been experienced all along the ages. Paul received such a Pentecost (Rom. 5:5).

Heb. 4:2: "Let us labor [hasten, aor.], therefore, to enter into that rest." A vigorous and earnest effort is enjoined. The word labor in Greek is radically the same as haste in Joshua 4:10. "And the people hasted [aor.] and passed over."

Heb. 13:12: "That he might sanctify [aor.] the people suffered [aor.] without the gate."

I Pet. 1:15: "So become you [aor., by an all-surrendering act of faith] holy in all manner of conduct." Verse 16 (according to the received text): "Become ye [aor.] instantaneously holy, for I am holy." The aorist in these verses indicates a transition from sin to holiness, and not a progress.

I Pet. 3:15: "Sanctify [aor.] the Lord Christ in your hearts." Says Wiesinger, endorsed by Alford: "The addition of 'in your hearts' is added to the Old Testament quotation, to bring out that the sanctification must be perfected in the inner parts of a man, and so keep him from false fear." "Care only for this, that your heart may be a temple of Christ; then nothing will disturb you." This implies that there is a time when he becomes completely enthroned in the heart. Hence the precision of the aorist: Sanctify once for all a place for the Lord Christ, or Christ as Lord, in your hearts. See the critical reading of Christ for God. Verses 15-16 show the results in this life.

I Pet. 5:7: We copy Alford's note: "CASTING [aor., once for all, by an act which includes the life] ALL YOUR anxiety ['the whole of,' not every anxiety as it arises, for none will arise if this transference has been effectually made] UPON HIM." The parentheses are Alford's.

II Pet. 1:19: We have the highest authority for reading this without a parenthesis, which some put in, obscuring the sense. No passage of Scripture more strikingly describes the writer's Christian experience, first of painful doubt and then of cloudless assurance; first a spasmodic clinging of the intellect to the external evidences of miracle and prophecy, and then the sunrise -Christ manifested, the daystar in his heart. There are in this verse four verbs in the present tense, have, do, take, shineth, representing the alternation of light and darkness in early Christian experience. The lamp feebly glimmers in a gloomy, or, literally, dirty place, giving just light enough to see impurities, but not fire enough to consume them. In this twilight state doubts harass the soul, and there is an intense wishing and watching for the daydawn and the rising sun. To the patient waiter there is at last a tropical sunrise. The darkness flees, the filthy place is cleansed.

But how is this shown in the Greek text? Note the two aorist verbs dawn and arise, "putting an end," says Alford, "to the state indicated by the present participles above." What this daystar is Grotius, De Wette, and Huther best explain, who think that some state in the readers themselves is pointed at, which is to supervene upon a less perfect state. Says Huther: "The writer distinguishes between two degrees of Christian life; in the first, faith rests upon outward evidences; in the second, on inward revelations of the Spirit; in the first, each detail is believed separately as such; in the second, each Is recognized as a necessary part of the whole. And hence, being in the former is naturally called a walking in a dismal, dirty place, in the light of a lamp or candle, while the being in the latter is a walking in the morning." Alford adds: "This latter I believe to be nearly the true account." Let us see what is taught here: (1) Two states of spiritual life, symbolized by lamplight and sunlight. (2) The aorist tense marks a sharply defined emergence from the first to the second, by the glorious King of day arising in the heart. This we believe to be a correct exegesis of this highly figurative and beautiful text. It accords with the experience of all who have entered into the definite experience of perfect love.

II Pet. 2:20: "After they escaped [aor.] the pollutions of the world through the full knowledge [epignosis] of the Lord," etc. Verse 22: "The sow that was washed" [aor.].

Heb. 10:2: "Once purged [perfect], a cleansing once for all and permanent." Such have no more conscience, or consciousness, of sins.

Heb. 10:26: "For if we willfully sin [pres., enter upon a course of sin] after we receive [aor.] the full knowledge [epignosis] of the truth," etc.

Heb. 13:20: "Make you perfect" [aor., an insulated act]. The workman and not the work is to be made perfect.

I John 1:9: "If we persistently confess [pres.] our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive [aor.] us our sins, and to cleanse [aor.] us from all unrighteousness. The cleansing is just as definite, distinct, and decisive as the forgiveness. Alford cannot escape the force of these aorists. "Observe the two verbs are aorists, because the purpose of the faithfulness and justice of God is to do each as one great complex act -- to justify and to sanctify wholly and entirely." Du"sterdieck says: "The death and blood of Christ are set forth in two aspects: (1) as a sin offering for our justification, and (2) as the purifying medium for our sanctification." If the purifying is to be by degrees, the present tense would have been used instead of the aorist. He pleads for gradual sanctification, but there is no more grammatical basis for it than there is for a progressive justification,

I John 2:1: "These things I write unto you, that ye sin [aor.] not even once. And if any man sin [aor., once, not habitually], we have [pres.] constantly an advocate," etc.

I John 2:27: Received [aor.] in an instant of time. The anointing of the high priest was an act, not a process.

I John 3:6: This text in the English favors the notion that the man who loves not his brother never knew God savingly. But the perfect of this verb "to know" has acquired a present meaning. (See Winer, page 290.) Says Alford: "Have known) and many other perfects, lose altogether their reference to the past event, and point simply to the present abiding effect of it." Hence Alford's version: "Whosoever sinneth seeth him not, neither knoweth him." He may have both seen (spiritually perceived) and known him, but he does not now.

I John 3:9: "Whosoever has been born [perfect, brought into permanent sonship] of God is not habitually sinning, for his seed is abiding in him and he is not able to be sinning because he has been born [perf.] of God." If the aorist tense had been used in this verse instead of the perfect, it would have been a strong proof text for the doctrine "Once in grace always in grace." But, says Alford: "The abiding force of this divine generation in a man excludes sin; where sin enters that force does not abide; the has been born (perf) is in danger of becoming the was born (aor.); a lost life instead of a living life. And so all such passages as this, instead of testifying, as Calvin would have this one do, to the doctrine of the final perseverance of the regenerate, do, in fact, bear witness to the opposite, namely, that, as the Church of England teaches, we need God's special grace every day to keep us in the state of salvation, from which every act and thought of sin puts us in peril of falling away."

The critical reader may find aorists in the Greek Testament which must imply a state and not an insulated act. These group themselves into the following classes.

1. Where no present tense is in use in the Greek.

2. Where the signification of the verb itself implies continuance, as to live, to abide, to walk, to keep, etc. Here the aorist marks the entrance upon the state, called an "inceptive aorist." (See Hadley's Greek Grammar, sec. 708.)

3. Unconnected and sudden aorist imperatives are used both in the New Testament and in classical authors to express the strong emotion of the speaker. See II Tim. 4:2; Jas. 4:7-10.

4. Rarely in the Greek Testament an habitual act is expressed by the aorist, when the period of its continuance is long past, and the course of action is viewed as a completed whole. See Alford on II Thessalonians 1:10 and I Peter 3:6.

The aorists of verbs denoting sanctification and perfection quoted in this essay belong to no one of these exceptional classes.

We have looked in vain to find one of these verbs in the imperfect tense when individuals are spoken of. The verb hagiazo, to sanctify, is always aorist or perfect. See Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 15:16; I Cor. 1:2; II Tim. 2:21; Heb. 10:10, 29; Jude 1. The same may be said of the verbs katharizo and hegnizo, to purify. Our Inference is that the energy of the Holy Spirit in the work of entire sanctification, however long the preparation, is put forth at a stroke by a momentary act. This is corroborated by the universal testimony of those who have experienced this grace.

56 Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, Vol.11, p. 672

57 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 1112

58 Ibid., pp. 860-1

59 Page vii

60 Vol. II, p. 403

61 Daniel Steele, Mile-Stone Papers, pp. 53-90