Mr. Mahan (Disc. p. 33) quotes the prayer of Christ, that all believers "may be one," and "may be made perfect in one." He says, "the union here prayed for is a union of perfect love;" which I think very obvious. He then argues, that this love will exist among believers, or that Christ prayed for what God will not bestow. The latter he does not for a moment admit. Of course he holds that this "union of perfect love will exist among believers." Will exist! I ask you, when? You doubtless remember that Christ offered up this prayer eighteen hundred years ago. And now, after fifty generations, you say, the prayer will be answered, and that perfect love "will exist among believers!" Pray, my dear brother, why don't you say, it has been answered, that union of perfect love, for which Jesus prayed, has existed ever since Christ offered up the prayer, and does now exist? As to the prayers of common Christians, you may say, there is a deficiency;-they are wanting in faith, or in fervor. But you cannot say this of the prayer of Jesus. It was a prayer entirely, and in the highest degree, pleasing to God. Do you say, God has answered it? No. You say, he will answer it. And thus you virtually acknowledge that the faithfulness of God, in answering prayer, did not require him fully to answer the prayer even of Jesus, during his life, or during the life of fifty generations of his followers. You virtually acknowledge, that God may be truly said to hear and answer prayer, even the prayer of his beloved Son, though he does not fully grant the blessing desired for thousands of years. On what pretence then can you any longer maintain, that God cannot properly be said to answer the prayers of believers for perfect holiness, unless he makes them perfectly holy at the present time, or, at farthest, during some part of the present life?

One word more on this point. Prayer for any good plainly implies that the good is not already obtained. For if obtained, why should it be prayed for? The prayers of prophets and apostles for their own complete sanctification, or that of others, had a manifest reference to a future good, a blessing not yet received. Jesus prayed thus for his disciples: "Sanctify them through thy truth." They had been sanctified in part. What Jesus prayed for was, that they might be sanctified in a higher degree, yea, completely; a blessing which he looked upon as future. So the apostle prays for believers at Thessalonica: "the Lord make you to increase and abound in love."

Their

1

love existed in an imperfect degree, and needed increase. He prayed, too, that the Lord would, establish their hearts "unblamable in holiness before God, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." He prayed for a future good, and he fixed his eye upon the second coming of Christ, as the time when it was to be completely accomplished. Again, he prayed for believers," that God would fulfil in them all the good pleasure of his goodness, and make them perfect in every good work, always implying, that the blessing prayed for had not yet been fully obtained. And does not every Christian feel this to be the case, when he hungers and thirsts for righteousness, and cries earnestly to God for complete sanctification? Not long since, I heard, with great delight, the fervent prayers of my brother Mahan, for the entire subjection of all the powers of the soul to Christ, for entire sanctification. Doubtless he prays in the same manner still. And when he thus prays, he doubtless looks upon perfect holiness as a blessing to be bestowed upon him by the grace of God, not as already bestowed. For if already bestowed, it should be made the subject not of petition, but of thanksgiving. And in that case, I should expect that my brother, instead of crying to God and wrestling with God for perfect holiness of heart and life, would stand forth with devout confidence, and say: God, I thank thee that I am perfectly free from sin, and perfectly conformed to the holy image of Christ. But does he pray thus? And would he like to hear any other man pray thus? No. Whatever may be the speculative notions of true believers, when they come before a holy, heartsearching God in prayer, they will follow the promptings of their own humble, contrite spirits, and will beseech God to cleanse them from all sin, and make them perfect in holiness. And, however advanced they may be in the divine life, they will continue to pray thus as long as they live, always feeling, as the apostle did, that they are "not already perfect," and always reaching after it, and beseeching the God of all grace to bestow the long desired and precious blessing upon them in all its fulness.

Here I must close the discussion for the present. And in a review of the ground over which I have passed, I request Mr. Mahan, and every other advocate of "the doctrine of perfection," seriously to consider whether they have not, however unintentionally, claimed or seemed to claim various important principles as peculiar to them, which are equally held by evan

gelical ministers and Christians generally; whether they have not in this way made a wrong impression upon the less intelligent and less cautious members of the religious community; and whether they have not thus been laboring to establish and propagate their opinions by means which are evidently wanting, I would not say in honesty, but in candor and fairness. I now very cheerfully leave them, and all who read these pages, to judge, whether any valid argument in support of "the doctrine of perfection" can be drawn from any of those points which I have examined; that is, from the provisions of the gospel, from the attainableness of perfection, or from the promises of God, or the prayers of his people. The arguments which Mr. Mahan derives from these considerations are the principal arguments on which he rests the truth of his system. And I am greatly mistaken if these principal arguments of his do not prove to be altogether inconclusive and fallacious. And I shall be greatly disappointed if my respected brethren, who have recently advocated the doctrine of perfection, do not feel themselves bound in truth to abstain from any farther attempt to uphold their scheme by the arguments which have here been noticed.

There are several other topics introduced by Mr. Mahan, to which I wish to give a particular and respectful consideration; but this I must defer to another opportunity.

ARTICLE X.

EXPOSITION OF ROMANS 8: 18-23.

By Edmund Turney, Theol. Sem., Hamilton, N. Y.

THE sense of this passage depends principally upon the word xrious. Before attempting to give its meaning, we will notice a few facts in relation to the object designated, which will aid us in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.

1. Krious seems to designate a definite, individual object. The collective sense, generally assigned to the term in this passage, is unsatisfactory and improbable. Except when used to express the act of creating, it commonly takes, in the New Testament,

the sense of xzíoua; and properly denotes a created thing, a creature. "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight." Heb. 4: 13. The same use occurs in Rom. 8: 39, 2 Cor. 5: 17, 1 Pet. 2: 13, Mark 16: 15; and also, we think, in Col. 1: 15, 23, Gal. 6: 15, Rom. 1: 25. The use of πᾶσα in verse 22 is worthy of notice. If xrious denotes the creation in general, nãoα is employed merely to give emphasis to the expression, and this verse is to be regarded as little more than a repetition of the preceding context. But if xzíois designate an individual object, and nãoα i xzioís denotes the whole community* to which it belongs, we can account for the different expressions. The compound form of the verbs employed in verse 22 ought not to be overlooked. The argument of the apostle appears to be this: The ríos (the particular xzios alluded to) is at present "subjected to vanity," and is "waiting for" deliverance: nor is this surprising; "for we know that every xríois—in common-is groaning and travailing in pain until now."

2. The xríos is destined to experience a renovation at the resurrection. A careful examination of the passage will make this perfectly obvious.

3. The xríois has a personal interest and participation in the glory of the saints. It is represented as awaiting, not merely a renovation coincident with, and similar to "the manifestation of the sons of God," but the same manifestation. Besides, the apostle directly asserts that the xrious "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God."

4. The xrious is an object possessing life and sensation. It is represented as longing-waiting-willing-groaning-travailing in pain. These expressions can hardly have been used in reference to a senseless and inanimate object. None but the strongest reasons should lead us to adopt such an interpretation.

5. There is a manifest distinction between the xzríois and the Christian. The simple expression xai avτn ý xríois, even the creature itself, is sufficient to show that it is distinguished from the sons of God, and is something inferior to them. A comparison of verses 22 and 23 will place the fact beyond dispute.

* Пãoa is here taken, not in the sense of έxaστos, each, every one indifferently, but as denoting an entire class—the whole in distinction from a part. See Butt. 127: 6. Comp. Mark 16: 15, Phil. 1:3, Eccl. 3: 17.

We are now prepared to inquire into the particular application of this term. In what are these conditions fulfilled? We cannot understand by xríois, the human race, men in general. This collective sense cannot be reconciled with the supposition that it designates an individual object. And such an explanation is inconsistent with the fact that the xrious is looking forward to the resurrection for its deliverance; and is destined to participate in the glory of the saints. Will all men, indiscriminately, be "introduced into the liberty of the glory of the children of God?" And is it true that men in general are not willingly subjected to vanity?

1

For similar reasons, we cannot understand by xzíois the material universe, the inanimate creation. The opinion, that the material universe will finally be renovated, is more a matter of conjecture than of revelation. The only passage which can be urged with any confidence in favor of this sentiment, is 2 Pet. 3: 13. But, the apostle's particular conception of a new heaven and a new earth, we are unable to determine. Yet, no one can imagine the actual participation of inanimate nature in the glory of the children of God. And not only the description of the xríois as a sensitive object, but the peculiar subjection to which it is doomed, shows conclusively that the material universe cannot be intended. In what way the various elements and objects of nature are subjected to vanity—τῇ ματαιότητι-in any authorized sense of that term, has never been shown. Vanity, however, is not the only evil to which the xríos is subjected. Bondage and corruption pertain to its present condition. But how can inanimate nature be regarded as in bondage-especially in the bondage of corruption? Is the fact that the ground was cursed for man's sake, so as not spontaneously to yield its productions, a sufficient reason for applying to it the expressive language of the apostle?

Is there any object, then, within the range of our knowledge, in which the necessary conditions of the xrious are fulfilled? Such an object, we think, is the animal part of the human constitution-the body (the Christian) regarded as the subject of instinct and sensation. To maintain this interpretation, it is necessary simply to show, that the proposed application of xríois is natural and authorized, and that it meets the exigencies of the passage.

I. Is this sense of xzíois natural and authorized? It will be admitted, we presume, this use of the term is not unnatural in