common doctrine. I cannot now enter into the controversy respecting this passage. Highly respectable writers are found on both sides. I can only say, that I agree with those who consider the Apostle as setting forth his own state, and the state of others, as true believers. The reasons which satisfy me, are briefly given by the two most recent expositors in our own country, Hodge and Barnes. The considerations which are of most weight are these. 1. This is the sense which appears the most obvious and natural to common readers. 2. The language of the Apostle is well suited to express the exercises of the best men with whom I have ever been acquainted. And, so far as I know, those who have made the highest attainments in piety, have spoken of themselves most freely in the very language of the Apostle. 3. Some of the expressions cannot, without difficulty, be made to apply to the unrenewed. 4. The same conflict, which is here described, is set forth very plainly, and in similar language, in Gal. 5: 17, a passage which, by common consent, is applied to Christians.

Now if the other evidence in support of the common doctrine were in any way deficient, the passage from Rom. 7, would, in my view, supply the deficiency, and would at once make known the real doctrine of the Scriptures. According to this passage, the state of Christians in this life is one of constant conflict between sin and holiness, the old and the new man ; a state of high aims and endeavors, but of comparatively low attainments; and while, in view of the power and grace of Christ, they rejoice, and give thanks, and are confident of a final and speedy victory; they have reason also, when they look at the remains of sin in their own hearts, to abhor themselves and repent in dust and ashes.

Consider how different the result of this examination would be, if we had found all the evidence which exists in support of the common doctrine, to be on the other side, going directly to confirm the doctrine of "Perfection." The question is: How are we to understand those texts which seem at first view to assert the present perfection of believers? Suppose we had found nothing, either in the texts themselves, or in any other part of the Bible, to show that the terms employed are ever to be taken in any other than the most absolute sense: suppose we had found that the current representations of the sacred writers clearly imply, that believers in general, at least the better part of them, are now without sin, that their piety, instead

of being progressive, comes to perfection at once: suppose we had found, that believers, instead of desiring and panting after complete holiness, have always been in the habit of congratulating themselves as already possessing it; and that, instead of earnestly praying for it, they have habitually thanked the Lord, that he had already bestowed it upon them: suppose we had found that their struggle with indwelling sin is past, their warfare ended; that they have no more chastisement, and of course no faults that call for it: and suppose it to be the belief, the inward consciousness of Christians, especially of those most distinguished for their piety, that they have already attained to a state of sinless perfection: suppose all this to be true, how different would be our conclusion! We should at once agree to give all the texts referred to the largest and most absolute sense. And instead of disputing against "the doctrine of Christian Perfection," we should carry it much higher than its present advocates do. But what shall we say, and what will the advocates of the doctrine say, when it is seen that the evidence is all on the other side?

As to the many remaining topics of remark introduced by Mr. Mahan and his associates, I shall confine myself to those which seem to be of chief consequence, and shall dispose of them as briefly as possible.

PAUL AND OTHERS HELD UP AS EXAMPLES.

It is mentioned as a proof of Paul's complete sanctification, that he exhorts Christians to copy his example-to be followers of him as he was of Christ. The argument is, that he could not have held himself up as an example, had he not been perfectly free from sin.

On this I remark, that Paul speaks of the Thessalonian Christians much in the same manner in this respect, as he does of himself: "Ye became followers of us and of the Lord, so that ye became ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia." He also speaks with approbation of the Thessalonians as followers of the churches in Judea, implying that those churches were worthy of imitation. This argument then would prove that the mass of believers in Thessalonica and Judea were perfectly sanctified; which is much more than any man will assert.

My next remark is, that Paul and the Thessalonians and other Christians being held up as examples, does not necessa

any

rily imply more than that they were distinguished for piety in general, or for some particular branch of it. It is the same at the present day. If any man, a parent, a minister, or other Christian, exhibits the character of goodness more uniformly and conspicuously than is common; who hesitates to speak of him, as an example of goodness, and to exhort others to the duty of imitation? Our meaning is, not that he is without fault-far from it--but that he is a good example in the main, or as to the prominent traits of his character, or as to what is visible. Thus Leighton, Baxter, Doddridge, Edwards, Brainerd, Payson and others are often spoken of as safe and useful examples. But who has any idea that they were perfectly sanctified? Who knows not that they were conscious of many sinful imperfections? Undoubtedly the sacred writers were accustomed to speak in the same qualified sense. Nothing can be more manifestly contrary to all just principles of interpretation and of reasoning, than to force the sense of a Scripture word or phrase to the highest possible pitch, and then to argue from that extreme sense, as though it were the true sense, in support of some uncommon opinion.

PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PERFECTION, AND OF THE COMMON DOCTRINE.

Mr. Mahan thinks much of the practical effect of his doctrine; and he represents those who do not embrace it, as making void God's law by their traditions. He seems to think (Disc. pp. 44-46, etc.) that the most eminent saints on earth have done nothing effectually towards their own sanctification, because they have not been in possession of the grand secret of efficient holy action. He says: "Who would expect an army to fight under the impression of inevitable defeat?"-thus misrepresenting our views, and taking advantage of the misrepresentation to discredit our doctrine, and to give plausibility to his own. Again, not seeming to be at all sensible how strangely and totally he misrepresents the great body of ministers and Christians, he first asserts (Repos. pp. 418-19) that his doctrine involves the principle which is considered essential to efficient action, and then says: "The belief that, as a matter of fact, we never shall attain to a certain state, renders it impracticable to aim at it ;" and he speaks of it as " the testimony of universal consciousness, that no man ever did or can aim, or intend to reach a point, which he fully believes to lie beyond the line of all

expectation." And he asks, what more effectual means a parent could take to prevent the obedience of a child, than to require that child to believe that he will never render that obedience. When Mr. Mahan talks thus, it must be understood that he means to put down the doctrine of his opponents. But who among them believes any thing like what he thus implicitly charges upon them? Can he say, and does he mean to say, that we believe we never shall attain to perfect holiness; and that perfect holiness is entirely beyond our expectation? He certainly does not mean to say this. He only intends to say, we do not expect to attain it during the present life. Then why does he not take care to say just what he means to say ? And why does he, by misstating our doctrine, give an appearance of strength to his arguments, when a true statement would leave his arguments, not only without strength, but without any appearance of it? He is right in saying, we cannot aim at a thing which we believe we shall never attain. And if his readers suppose that such is our belief,—and his language would naturally lead them to this supposition,-they will conclude at once that we are wholly in the wrong, and are in a very sad condition. But it is surely a very different thing to say, we believe we never shall attain to perfect holiness, from what it is to say, we do not expect to attain to it in a day, or during the short period of the present life. The fact is, that Christians in general believe and expect that they shall attain to complete holiness, as really as the advocates of Perfection. And I undertake to say, that our expectation is far more confident and certain, than that which our opponents indulge. If we are true Christians, we can say: "We know, that when he shall appear, we shall be like him." Here is a hope which has no mixture of doubt or uncertainty, and is rightly called knowledge. Though Mr. Mahan signifies that complete holiness is entirely beyond our expectation, we do expect it, and expect it soon. We believe that we shall, in a little while, be free from all remains of sin, and be completely changed into the image of Christ. We hope to reach this blessed state shortly, perhaps to-morrow. "We now groan, being burdened;" and we often cry out: "Who shall deliver us from the body of this death?" But we confidently look for deliverance. Yet a little while, and the day of victory will come. Has Mr. Mahan still to learn what joy, yea, what ecstasy of joy, devout Christians often experience, from the hope of speedily attaining

to perfect holiness in heaven; and how they reach forward and press on towards it, putting forth their highest efforts in the pursuit? He thinks the perfection, which Paul speaks of as the object of his desire, was the heavenly state, and not any thing he could reach in the present world; and yet he sees that this circumstance did not prevent him from exerting all his powers in the pursuit of it. Had he adopted the same principle here, as in the case under consideration, he would have said: the apostle must have expected to attain to the perfect state he aimed at, in the present life, or he could have had no motive to pursue it. He would have said too, that Paul believed he never should attain to it, because he did not expect to attain to it here below, and, therefore, that he could put forth no vigorous endeavors after it, being destitute of the only principle of efficient action. If he allows that Paul had a faith which gave reality to future glory, and brought it near, and that, under the influence of such a faith, he made great exertions to obtain it; why not allow the same to be true with Christians generally, in regard to that complete moral purity, which they look upon as an essential part of future glory? Why may they not exert all their energies in the pursuit, although, in their view, it is not to be fully attained within the short space of the present life? The apostle John brings out the principle concerned in this matter with perfect plainness, and speaks of it familiarly, as a thing well understood in his day. He tells us what the assured hope of believers is: "We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him;" and then adds: "And every man that hath this hope in him, (the hope of being perfectly like Christ in heaven,) purifieth "The object was not to be reached himself, even as he is pure.' in this life. But did this circumstance prevent primitive believers from laboring to purify themselves, and to become like Christ? Far from it. And it is my persuasion, that this future perfection in holiness, connected as it is with all the unseen glories of the upper world, has a far more commanding influence upon devout Christians, and rouses them to higher efforts after complete sanctification, than the expectation which Mr. Mahan and his associates indulge, of obtaining perfect holiness in the present world. In the first place, the object of our hope is far higher and nobler than the object of theirs. They are led, by the position they take, to lower down their object, that is, Christian Perfection, so as to bring it within their reach,