and it sets fire to whatever it touches.

A

piece of water without heat is solid and brittle, gently warmed it flows; further heated it mounts to the sky. An organ, filled with the ordinary degree of air which exists every where, is dumb; the touch of the player can elicit but a clicking of the keys. Throw in, not another air, but an unsteady current of the same air, and sweet, but imperfect and uncertain notes immediately respond to the player's touch; increase the current to a full supply, and every pipe swells with music. Such is the soul without the Holy Ghost, and such are the changes which pass upon it when it receives the Holy Ghost, and when it is filled with the Holy Ghost." Tongue of Fire, p. 61.

"With most persons," says Rev. L. Lee, “it may be presumed that their view of the whole subject, at the time of their conversion, may be expressed in these few words: 'I am a sinner lost; Christ is a Saviour who died to save me; able and willing to save now. Lord, for Christ's sake, save me this moment.'

Subsequently, the necessity of a deeper work is seen and felt. At any time when the intelligence comprehends what is wanting to constitute a state of entire sanctification, and faith is exercised, the work will be finished."

What we have further to say upon this point will be said in answer to objections urged against the doctrine advocated in this chapter. To these objections we call the reader's attention in the following chapter.

11*

HERE have been objections urged against

the doctrine of the last chapter, which

we now propose to answer.

pict to preach justificatio

1. It is objected, that the presentation of entire sanctification as a distinct work is cal-. culated to disparage justification.

We were never able to see the force of this objection. If sanctification, as taught in our standards of Christian doctrine, be true, it should be preached, if it should disparage other

without

doctrines. But this is not the case.

Justifica

tion is no more disparaged by a faithful presentation of sanctification, than is sanctification by an exclusive presentation of justification. Why should it be so if they are both of God?

Does the teacher disparage the alphabet by urging the pupil to leave it and proceed to combine letters into syllables, and syllables into words, and words into sentences, and sentences into discourses? Does the instructor disparage the axioms of mathematics by urging the student to leave them and proceed to construct his demonstrations? Does the architect disparage his foundation by leaving it to erect a beautiful superstructure thereon? If the objection urged against our doctrine be sound, they would be open to such charges.

It is no disparagement of the alphabet that the pupil thinks more highly of the finisheɖ discourse than of the letters of which it is composed. Still, without the letters first learned, he knows that no such discourse could have been produced. It is no disparagement of the axioms that the demonstra

tions are regarded with greater interest, for the mathematician knows that no such results could have been reached without their aid.

It is no disparagement of a foundation that the superstructure is more highly prized, when it is clearly understood that the superstructure derives much of its permanency from the foundation on which it rests.

It

So with justification and sanctification. is no disparagement of justification that sanctification occupies a place in Christian experience that God never assigned to justification. The one is to the other what the foundation is to the superstructure; what the alphabet is to the language. Sanctification completes what justification so gloriously begins, as the superstructure completes what was so well begun with the foundation.

Must we stop with the foundation, fearing that a beautiful superstructure thereon will disparage it? Shall we cease presenting the subject of sanctification, fearing that justification will suffer by the presentation?

We believe that justification is glorious,