which put a stop to the growth of believers, and turn them into "tem. porary monsters." Again :

Does a well-meant mistake defile the conscience? You inadvertently encourage idleness and drunkenness, by kindly relieving an idle, drunken beggar, who imposes upon your charity by plausible lies: is this loving error a sin? A blundering apothecary sends you arsenic for alum; you use it as alum, and poison your child; but are you a murderer, if you give the fatal dose in love? Suppose the tempter had secretly mixed some of the forbidden fruit with other fruits that Eve had lawfully gathered for use; would she have sinned if she had inadvertently eaten of it, and given a share to her husband? After humbly confessing and deploring her undesigned error, her secret fault, her accidental offence, her involuntary trespass, would she not have been as innocent as ever? I go farther still, and ask, May not a man who holds many right opinions, be a perfect lover of the world? And by a parity of reason, may not a man who holds many wrong opinions, be a perfect lover of God? Have not some Calvinists died with their hearts overflowing with perfect love, and their heads full of the notion that God set his everlasting, absolute hatred upon myriads of men before the founda. tion of the world? Nay, is it not even possible that a man, whose heart is renewed in love, should, through mistaken humility, or through weakness of understanding, oppose the name of Christian perfection, when he desires, and perhaps enjoys the thing?

Once more. Does not St. Paul's rule hold in spirituals as well as in temporals? "It is accepted according to what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not." Does our Lord actually require more of believers than they can actually do through his grace? And when they do it to the best of their power, does he not see some perfection in their works, insignificant as those works may be? "Remove this immense heap of stones," says an indulgent father to his children, "and be diligent according to your strength." While the eldest, a strong man, removes rocks, the youngest, a little child, is as cheerfully busy as any of the rest in carrying sands and pebbles. Now, may not his childlike obedience be as excellent in its degree, and, of consequence, as acceptable to his parent, as the manly obedience of his eldest brother? Nay, though he does next to nothing, may not his endeavours, if they are more cordial, excite a smile of superior approbation of his loving father, who looks at the disposition of the heart more than at the ap pearance of the work? Had the believers of Sardis cordially laid out all their talents, would our Lord have complained that he did not "find their works perfect before God?" Rev. iii, 2. And was it not accord. ing to this rule of perfection that Christ testified the poor widow, who had given but two mites, had nevertheless cast more into the treasury than all the rich," though they had cast in much;" because, our Lord himself being Judge, she had "given all that she had?" Now could she give, or did God require more than her all? And when she thus heartily gave her all, did she not do (evangelically speaking) a perfect work, according to her dispensation and circumstances?

We flatter ourselves that if these Scriptural observations and rational queries do not remove Mr. Hill's prejudice, they will at least make way for a more candid perusal of the following pages.

SECTION III.

Several objections raised against our doctrine. are solved merely by considering the nature of Christian perfection-It is absurd to say that all our Christian perfection is in the person of Christ.

I REPEAT it, if our pious opponents decry the doctrine of Christian perfection, it is chiefly through misapprehension; it being as natural for pious men to recommend exalted piety, as for covetous persons to extol great riches. And this misapprehension frequently springs from their inattention to the nature of Christian perfection. To prove it, I need only oppose our definition of Christian perfection to the OBJECTIONS which are most commonly raised against our doctrine.

I. "Your doctrine of perfection leads to pride." Impossible! if Christian perfection is "perfect humility."

II. "It exalts believers; but it is only to the state of the vain-glorious Pharisee." Impossible! If our perfection is "perfect humility," it makes us sink deeper into the state of the humble, justified publican. III. "It fills men with the conceit of their own excellence, and makes them say to a weak brother, Stand by, I am holier than thou." Impos. sible again! We do not preach Pharisaic, but Christian perfection, which consists in "perfect poverty of spirit," and in that "perfect charity which vaunteth not itself, honours all men, and bears with the infirmities of the weak!"

IV. "It sets repentance aside." repentance."

Impossible! for it is "perfect

V. "It will make us slight Christ." More and more improbable! How can "perfect faith" in Christ make us slight Christ? Could it be more absurd to say that the perfect love of God will make us despise God?

VI. "It will supersede the use of mortification and watchfulness; for, if sin be dead, what need have we to mortify it and to watch against it?" This objection has some plausibility; I shall therefore answer it in various ways: (1.) If Adam, in his state of paradisiacal perfection, needed perfect watchfulness and perfect mortification, how much more do we need them who find "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" planted, not only in the midst of our gardens, but in the midst of our houses, markets, and churches? (2.) When we are delivered from sin, are we delivered from peccability and temptation? When the inward man of sin is dead, is the devil dead? Is the corruption that is in the world destroyed? And have we not still our five senses and our appetite, "to keep with all diligence," as well as our "hearts," that the tempter may not enter into us, or that we may not enter into his temptations? Lastly: Jesus Christ, as son of Mary, was a perfect man: but how was he kept so to the end? Was it not by "keeping his mouth with a bridle, while the ungodly were in his sight," and by guarding all his senses with a perfect assiduity, that the wicked one might not touch them to his hurt? And if Christ our head kept his human perfection only through watchfulness, and constant self denial; is it not absurd to suppose that his perfect members can keep their perfection without treading in his steps?

VII. Another objection probably stands in Mr. Hill's way: it runs thus:-"Your doctrine of perfection makes it needless for perfect Christians to say the Lord's prayer: for if God vouchsafes to 'keep us this day without sin,' we shall have no need to pray at night, that God would 'forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.'" We answer: (1.) Though a perfect Christian does not trespass voluntarily, and break the law of love, yet he daily breaks the law of Adamic perfection through the imperfection of his bodily and mental powers: and he has frequently a deeper sense of these involuntary trespasses than many weak believers have of their voluntary breaches of the moral law. (2.) Although a perfect Christian has a witness, that his sins are now forgiven, in the court of his conscience, yet he "knows the terrors of the Lord:" he hastens to meet the awful day of God: he waits for the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the character of a righteous Judge he keeps an eye to the awful tribunal, before which he must soon "be justified or condemned by his words:" he is conscious that his final justification is not yet come; and therefore he would think himself a monster of stupidity and pride, if, with an eye to his absolution in the great day, he scrupled saying to the end of his life, "Forgive us our trespasses. (3.) He is surrounded with sinners, who daily "trespass against him," and whom he is daily bound to "forgive ;" and his praying that he may be forgiven now, and in the great day, "as he forgives others," reminds him that he may forfeit his pardon, and binds him more and more to the performance of the important duty of forgiv. ing his enemies. And, (4.) His charity is so ardent that it melts him, as it were, into the common mass of mankind. Bowing himself, therefore, under all the enormous load of all the wilful trespasses which his fellow mortals, and particularly his relatives and his brethren, daily commit against God, he says, with a fervour that imperfect Christians seldom feel, Forgive us our trespasses, &c; "we are heartily sorry for our misdoings, [my own and those of my fellow sinners;] the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burthen of them is intolerable." Nor do we doubt but, when the spirit of mourning leads a numerous assembly of supplicants into the vale of humiliation, the person who puts the shoulder of faith most readily to the common burden of sin, and heaves most powerfully in order to roll the enormous load into the Redeemer's grave, is the most perfect penitent-the most exact observer of the apostolical precept, “ Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ ;" and, of consequence, we do not scruple to say that such person is the most perfect Christian in the whole assembly.

If Mr. Hill consider these answers, we doubt not but he will confess that his opposition to Christian perfection chiefly springs from his inattention to our definition of it, which I once more sum up in these comprehensive lines of Mr. Wesley :

O let me gain perfection's height!

O let me into nothing fall!
(As less than nothing in thy sight,)
And feel that Christ is all in all !

VIII. Our opponents produce another plausible objection, which runs thus:-"It is plain from your account of Christian perfection that adult believers are free from sin, their hearts being purified by perfect faith,

and filled with perfect love. Now sin is that which humbles us, and drives us to Christ; and therefore, if we were free from indwelling sin, we should lose a most powerful incentive to humility, which is the greatest ornainent of a true Christian."

We answer, Sin never humbled any soul. Who has more sin than Satan? And who is prouder? Did sin make our first parents humble? If it did not, how do our brethren suppose that its nature is altered for the better? Who was humbler than Christ? But was he indebted to sin for his humility? Do we not see daily that the more sinful men are, the prouder they are also? Did Mr. Hill never observe that the holier a believer is, the humbler he shows himself? And what is holiness but the reverse of sin? If sin be necessary to make us humble and keep us near Christ, does it not follow that glorified saints, whom all acknowledge to be sinless, are all proud despisers of Christ? If humility is obedience, and if sin is disobedience, is it not as absurd to say that sin will make us humble, i. e. obedient, as it is to affirm that rebellion will make us loyal, and adultery chaste? See we not sin enough, when we look ten or twenty years back, to humble us to the dust for ever, if sin can do it? Need we plead for any more of it in our hearts and lives? If the sins of our youth do not humble us, are the sins of our old age likely to do it? If we contend for the life of the man of sin that he may subdue our pride, do we not take a large stride after those who say, Let us sin that grace may abound. Let us continue full of indwelling sin that humility may increase! What is, after all, the evangelical method of getting humility? Is it not to look at Christ in the manger, in Gethsemane, or on the cross; to consider him when he washes his disciples' feet; and obediently to listen to him when he says, "Learn of me to be meek and lowly in heart?" Where does the Gospel plead the cause of the Barabbas, and the thieves within? Where does it say that they may indeed be nailed to the cross, and have "their legs broken," but their life must be left whole within them, lest we should be proud of their death? Lastly: what is indwelling sin but indwelling pride? At least, is not inbred pride one of the chief ingredients of indwelling sin? And how can pride be productive of humility? Can a serpent beget a dove? And will not men gather grapes from thorns, sooner than humility of heart from haughtiness of spirit?

IX. The strange mistake which I detect would not be so prevalent among our prejudiced brethren, if they were not deceived by the plausi. bility of the following argument :-"When believers are humbled for a thing, they are humbled by it: but believers are humbled for sin; and therefore they are humbled by sin."

The flaw of this argument is in the first proposition. We readily grant that penitents are humbled for sin; or, in other terms, that they humbly repent of sin; but we deny that they are humbled by sin. To show the absurdity of the whole argument, I need only produce a sophism exactly parallel: "When people are blooded for a thing, they are blooded by it: but people are sometimes blooded for a cold; and therefore people are sometimes blooded by a cold."

X. "We do not assert that all perfection is imaginary. Our meaning is, that all Christian perfection is in Christ; and that we are perfect in his person, and not in our own."

ANSWER. If you mean by our being perfect only in Christ, that we can attain to Christian perfection no other way, than by being perfectly grafted in him, the true vine; and by deriving, like vigorous branches, the perfect sap of his perfect righteousness, to enable us to bring forth fruit unto perfection, we are entirely agreed: for we perpetually assert that nothing but "Christ in us the hope of glory," nothing but "Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith," or, which is all one, nothing but "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, can make us free from the law of sin, and perfect us in love."

But as we never advanced that Christian perfection is attainable any other way than by a faith that "roots and grounds us" in Christ, we doubt some mystery of iniquity lies hid under these equivocal phrases: "All our perfection is in Christ's person: we are perfect in him and not in ourselves."

Should those who use them insinuate by such language that we need not, cannot be perfect, by an inherent personal conformity to God's holiness, because Christ is thus perfect for us; or should they mean that we are perfect in him, just as country freeholders, entirely strangers to state affairs, are perfect politicians in the knights of the shire who represent them in parliament; as the sick in a hospital are perfectly healthy in the physician that gives them his attendance; as the blind man enjoyed perfect sight in Christ, when he saw walking men like moving trees; as the filthy leper was perfectly clean in the Lord, before he had felt the power of Christ's gracious words, "I will, be thou clean;" or, as hungry Lazarus was perfectly fed in the person of the rich man, at whose gate he lay starving; should this, I say, be their meaning, we are in conscience bound to oppose it, for the reasons contained in the following queries:

1. If believers are perfect, because Christ is perfect for them, why does the apostle exhort them to "go on to perfection?"

2. If all our perfection be inherent in Christ, is it not strange that St. Paul should exhort us to "perfect holiness in the fear of God, by cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit?" Did not Christ perfect his own holiness? And will his personal sanctity be imperfect, till we have cleansed ourselves from all defilement?

3. If Christ be perfect for us, why does St. James say, “Let patience have her perfect work," that ye may be perfect? Is Christ's perfection suspended upon the perfect work of our patience?

4. Upon the scheme which I oppose, what does St. Peter mean, when he says, "After ye have suffered awhile, the Lord make you perfect?" What has our suffering awhile to do with Christ's perfection? Was not Christ "made perfect through his own sufferings?"

5. If believers were perfect in Christ's person, they would all be equally perfect. But is this the case? Does not St. John talk of some who are perfected, and of others who "are not yet made perfect in love?" Beside, the apostle exhorts us to be perfect, not in Antinomian notions, but "in all the will of God, and in every good work;" and common sense dictates, that there is some difference between our good works and the person of Christ.

6. Does not our Lord himself show that his personal righteousness will by no means be accepted instead of our personal perfection, where