fection," are unquestionably to be taken in a qualified sense. And here I cannot but think that Mr. Mahan will agree with me. Job was a perfect man, and yet he showed plainly enough that he was not without faults. It is said of David that he followed the Lord wholly except in the matter of Uriah. But his history and his confessions leave us in no doubt, that he was chargeable with other sins, especially sins of heart. God planted Israel wholly a right seed. But it must be evident to all, that this expressed their character only in a comparative and very limited sense. "A bishop must be blameless." But neither Mr. Mahan, nor any of his associates can think it essential to the character of a gospel minister, that he should be absolutely sinless. Paul said to the Colossians: "Ye are complete in Christ." But his epistle to them shows, that he did not think them entirely without sin.

I come then to this result: As a limited sense clearly belongs to some of the passages which seem, at first view, to favor the doctrine of "Perfection," it is quite possible it may belong to others, and it would be going too fast and too far, to decide at once, that any of that class of texts must be taken in the highest and most absolute sense.

In the next step of my inquiry, I fix my thoughts directly upon several of the texts which seem, at first view, most favorable to the doctrine of " Perfection." The texts I have in view are of no small moment, and I desire Mr. Mahan to join with me in a serious and unprejudiced examination of them, that we may discover what is the mind of the Holy Spirit.

I would then first ask my brother, whether his doctrine implies, that all true believers are entirely sanctified, either now, or during the present life. I know what his answer is; but I think it proper to propose the question, for the purpose of bringing out distinctly the exact nature and extent of the doctrine. In his publications, Mr. Mahan does often enough, and plainly enough, and with too much justice, represent the great body of true Christians, as deplorably deficient in their piety; and he labors with commendable earnestness, to excite them to make higher attainments. Indeed he claims complete holiness as a privilege enjoyed at present by only a select few, a very small number. I would then invite him to join with me in a careful examination of a few passages in the first Epistle of John. Let us begin with one of the texts which he quotes: Ch. 1: 6, 7. The apostle is here speaking of all true believers,

whose character it is, not to walk in darkness, but to walk in the light. Referring to all these children of light, he says: "The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin." He now cleanseth us from all sin; for the verb is in the present tense. But my brother does not understand it to mean that all real Christians are now, in the strict sense, cleansed from all sin, that is, completely sanctified; though he thinks the text somehow favorable to his doctrine. But it is perfectly clear, that whatever the text asserts of any Christians, it asserts of all. Let us then come fairly to the point, and inquire, what the text really means. Mr. Mahan will certainly be under the necessity of finding out some qualified sense, a sense consistent with what he regards as the real present state of all believers; for the text certainly relates to all. He may perhaps say, the blood of Christ provides for the entire cleansing of all believers conditionally; or that it begins the work of cleansing now, and secures its complete accomplishment ultimately. In this way or some other way, he must give the text a restricted sense, a sense different from what would, at first glance, be suggested by the words themselves, taken alone. He must do the same with v. 9, in which the apostle says, that, "if we confess our sins," as all Christians do," he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Does it mean that he now absolutely cleanseth all who confess their sins, i. e. the whole body of believers, from all unrighteousness? Mr. Mahan will answer, no. What then can he do, but, in some way, limit the sense? Again, ch. 2: 4, 5, the apostle teaches that every true believer keeps the word of God. And then he says: "Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in him." He is evidently setting forth the character and state, not of a few, but of all, who are in Christ. Does Mr. Mahan think that the love of God is, in his sense, perfect in all true believers? No. He thinks it true of only a small number. But whatever the apostle here asserts, he asserts equally of every true Christian. Will not my brother then be compelled to find out some limitations of the sense, so as to make it apply to all true believers? Let him do this, and we shall see whether his interpretation of this text will not help us to the right interpretation of several others of a similar kind.

"Every man that even as he is pure."

hath this hope in him purifieth himself, 1 John 3: 3. To be pure as Christ is

pure is a high attainment, and is doubtless the same as is required in the command to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. I suppose that every Christian does thus purify himself; that is, pursues a course of purification which will terminate in perfect purity. The expression, in my view, denotes, not the particular degree of purification which the believer has already attained, but the gradual process of purification, and the perfect purity after which he aspires, and to which he will come in the end. As his ultimate perfection in moral purity is certain, it is spoken of as though it were already accomplished;-a manner of speaking which often occurs in Scripture. Thus, Peter, speaking of his condition in the present life, says: "Who am an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed;"-a partaker, even now, of that future glory by certain anticipation. But how will Mr. Mahan explain the purity mentioned by the apostle John, so that he may predicate it, as the apostle does, of ALL Christians, and yet make it agree with the doctrine he maintains, that only a FEW are perfectly pure, while Christians, in general, are very far from perfect purity? If he says it means complete purity; then he cannot predicate it of all Christians, nor of the greater part. If he says, it means that degree, or that gradual process of purification, which does belong to all true Christians, then he comes into the principle of limiting the sense. And if he gives a limited sense to this text, why not to all the other texts which appear to favor his doctrine?

But the most striking passage which I wish Mr. Mahan to assist me in examining, is 1 John 3: 9. "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Where, in all the Scriptures, can Mr. Mahan find another text, which seems to assert, so clearly and strongly as this, that Christians are completely sanctified,-absolutely sinless? It even declares that they are raised above the possibility of sinning. I am the more desirous of turning my brother's attention to this passage, because he seems, somehow, to have overlooked it. This oversight may be thought by some to be a matter of wonder, considering that the text, understood in the large and absolute sense, which Mr. Mahan is so fond of in other cases, would be a better proof of the complete sanctification of believers, in the present life, than any he has quoted, I had almost said, than all the texts he has quoted. The language is exceedingly plain

and forcible. Every believer, we know, is born of God. And the text asserts, that "whosoever is born of God, sinneth not, and cannot sin." True, if Mr. Mahan should introduce it, and argue from it as a proof text, it would give him trouble; because it would prove a great deal too much. It would go far beyond his scheme. Of course, if he should bring it forward, he would at once find himself in difficulty, and would be obliged to look out for some limitations of the sense. But any thing like this would hurt his argument. According to his way of interpreting other texts, this would certainly prove, that all Christians, from the time of their regeneration, are entirely without sin. But this is what he does not yet believe. He would, therefore, find it necessary to qualify the sense, and to say that it cannot be understood absolutely-that it can only mean, that those who are born of God do not sin habitually, or impenitently, as others do, or, that they cannot sin with their whole heart,—or, that they cease from sin as far as they are sanctified by the Spirit, and will, in the end, cease entirely. In one way or another, he would be obliged to limit the sense, so as to make it applicable to all Christians. But if he should do this, he would be constantly expecting to hear the question: Why not give the same limitation to other texts, which use language far less emphatical, and which will much more easily admit of limitations? So that, after all, he may have done wisely in slipping by the text.

The query has sometimes arisen in my mind, how Mr. Mahan would meet a man, who should maintain, on the ground of this text and some others, that all believers on earth are absolutely free from sin, and do at once arrive at perfection. Such a man might frame his argument thus: "The apostle Paul says of himself and of Christians generally, our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. And he says of those who are thus crucified, that they are freed from sin, and are complete in Christ. And the apostle John says, that the blood of Christ cleanseth believers from all sin, and that they purify themselves even as Christ is pure. He speaks of this as a general fact; and he says, still more plainly and forcibly, that whosoever is born of God, as every Christian is, doth not commit sin, and cannot sin. Now why should Mr. Mahan take upon him to contradict the apostles, and to hold that any man is a true be liever, who falls short of complete sanctification? Why confine

the present attainment of sinless perfection to a few extraordinary saints, when the infallible Word of God attributes it to all believers?" It would be gratifying to know what reply Mr. Mahan would make.

We will now proceed with our examination, making it our object to determine the true meaning of the texts which seem most favorable to the doctrine of "Perfection." And here, I think, we must be satisfied, that in some of the texts, the language used is intended to set forth the sincerity or uprightness of believers, in distinction from hypocrites, and also their freedom from any such offences, as would expose their public character to discredit, or their piety to suspicion. Job was perfect and upright. The two words are doubtless of the same general import, denoting real integrity or goodness. In several instances, the Psalmist uses the strong language of self-justification, and seems at first view to say, he is not chargeable with any sin, when his meaning evidently is, that he is innocent of the crimes which his enemies laid to his charge. Even if, at any time, he was not conscious of any particular sins; he was aware that he was liable to mistake, and apprehended that there might still be some concealed evil in his heart; and with a view to this, he prayed God to search him, and see if there was any wicked way in him. In some cases, pious men under the former dispensation are said to have followed the Lord wholly, when the obvious meaning is, that they kept themselves from idolatry, and adhered uniformly to the worship of the true God. When the New Testament writers speak of perfection, they often refer to a state of maturity or manhood in knowledge or in holiness, in distinction from a state of childhood, a state of advancement in piety, in distinction from the common state of new converts; and sometimes they refer to the purity and blessedness of heaven, which is the high object to which all Christians aspire. But in no case do the circumstances require that the language employed should be understood to denote complete sanctification as actually attained in the present life. Now such being the fact, Mr. Mahan surely has reason to hesitate, and to go into a thorough examination of the subject, before he relies upon any of the texts which he cites, as proofs of his doctrine.

-

But it is so indescribably important to obtain a right understanding of the Scriptures, that we cannot pursue our inquiries with too much diligence and care. Let us then go forward with our examination, and see whether the sacred writers will