scriptures which Mr. Hill is so ready to produce when he defends Calvinian perseverance? " As for God, his work is perfect: being confident of this very thing, that he who hath begun a good work in you (who have always obeyed, Phil. ii, 12) will perform, or sirsλs will perfect it," if you continue to obey. "The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me. Praying exceedingly that we as workers together with God might perfect that which is lacking in your faith. Looking unto Jesus, the author, and (reλsrn) the perfecter of our faith; for he is faithful that promised." How can the Lord be faithful, and yet never perfect the repentance and faith of his obedient people? Will he sow such a blessed seed as that of faith, hope, and love to our enemies, and never let a grain of it either miscarry or bring forth fruit to perfection? Is not this a flat contradiction? How can a pregnant woman never miscarry, and yet never bring forth the fruit of her womb to any per. fection? Such, however, is the inconsistency which Mr. Hill obtrudes upon us as Gospel. If his doctrine of Calvinian perseverance be true, no believer can miscarry; no grain of true faith can fail of producing fruit to perfection: and if his doctrine of Christian perfection be true, no believer can be perfect; no grain of faith, repentance, hope, and love for our husbands and wives, can possibly grow to perfection. How different is this doctrine from that of our Lord, who, in the parable of the sower, represents all those who do not "bear fruit unto perfection," as miscarrying professors!

XIX. If impatience were that bodily disorder which is commonly called the heart burn; if obstinacy were a crick in the neck; pride an imposthume in the breast; raging anger a fit of the toothache; vanity the dropsy; disobedience a bodily lameness; uncharitableness the rheumatism, and despair a broken bone; there would be some sense in the doctrine of Christian imperfection, and reason could subscribe to Mr. Hill's creed: for it is certain that death effectually cures the heart burn, a crick in the neck, the toothache, &c. But what real affinity have moral disorders with bodily death? And why do our opponents think we maintain a "shocking" doctrine, when we assert that death has no more power to cure our pride, than old age to remove our covetousness? Nay, do we not see that the most decrepit old age does not cure men even of the grossest lusts of the carnal mind? When old drunkards and fornicators are as unable to indulge their sensual appetites as if they actually ranked among corpses, do they not betray the same inclinations which they showed when the strong tide of their youthful blood joined with the rapid stream of their vicious habit? Is not this a demonstration that no decay of the body,-no, not that complete decay which we call death, has any necessary tendency to alter our moral habits? And do not the ancients set their seal to this observation? Does not Solomon say, that "in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be?" And has Mr. Hill forgotten those remarkable lines of Virgil ?—

Quæ cura nitentes

Pascere equos, eadem sequitur tellure repostos?

«Disembodied souls have, in the world of spirits, the very same dispositions and propensities which they had when they dwelt in the body."

XX. If God hath appointed death to make an end of heart pollution, and to be our complete saviour from sin, our opponents might screen their doctrine of a death purgatory behind God's appointment; it being certain that God, who can command iron to swim, and fire to cool, could also command the filthy hands of death to cleanse the thoughts of our hearts. But we do not read in our Bible either that God ever gave to indwelling sin a lease of any believer's heart for life; or that he ever appointed the king of terrors to deliver us from the deadly seeds of iniquity. And although the Old Testament contains an account of many carnal ordinances adapted to the carnal disposition of the Jews, we do not remember to have read there, "DEATH shall circumcise thy heart, that thou mayest love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Death shall sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness death will cleanse you. Death will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and (when you are dead) ye shall keep my judgments and do them." And if death was never so far honoured under the Mosaic dispensation, we ask where be has been invested with higher privileges under the Gospel of Christ? Is it where St. Paul says that "Christ hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel?" It appears to us that it is a high degree of rashness in the Calvinists, and in the Romanists, to appoint the pangs of death, and the sorrows of hell, to do the most difficult, and, of consequence, the most glorious work of Christ's Spirit, which is powerfully to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, [not full of all inbred unrighteousness, but 'dead to sin, free from sin, pure in heart,' and] zealous of good works." And we shall think ourselves far more guilty of impertinence, if we nominate either death or hell to do the office of the final purifier of our hearts, than if we ordered a sexton to do the office of the prime minister, or an executioner to act as the king's physician. With respect to salvation from the root, as well as from the branches of sin, we will therefore "know nothing," as absolutely necessary, "but Jesus Christ and him crucified," risen again, ascended on high, that he might send the Holy Ghost to perfect us in love, through a faith that purifies the heart, and through a hope which, if any man hath, he will purify himself, even as God is pure.'

66

XXI. To conclude: if Christian perfection implies the perfect use of "the whole armour of God," what can be more absurd than the thought that we shall be made perfect Christians in heaven or at death? How will Mr. Hill prove that we shall perfectly use the helmet of hope, perfectly wield the shield of faith, and perfectly quench the fiery darts of the devil in heaven, where faith, hope, and the devil's darts shall never enter? Or, how will he demonstrate that a soldier shall perfectly go through his exercise in the article of death, that is, in the very moment he leaves the army, and for ever puts off the harness?

Mr. Baxter wrote, in the last century, a vindication of holiness, which he calls, "A Saint, or a Brute." The title is bold; but all that can be said to defend iniquity cannot make me think it too strong, so many are the arguments by which the Scriptures recommend a holy life. And 1 own to thee, reader, that when I consider all that can be said in defence of Christian perfection, and all the absurdities which clog the doctrine

of Christian imperfection, I am inclined to imitate Mr. Baxter's positive. ness, and to call this essay, A Perfect Christian in this World, or a Per. fect Dupe in the next.

1

SECTION XIII.

Containing a variety of arguments to prove the mischievousness of the doctrines of Christian imperfection.

THE arguments of the preceding section are produced to show the ABSURDITY of Mr. Hill's doctrine of Christian imperfection; those which follow are intended to prove the MISCHIEVOUSNESS of that modish tenet.

1. It strikes at the doctrine of salvation by faith. "By grace are ye saved through faith," not only from the guilt and outward acts of sin, but also from its root and secret buds. "Not of works," says the apostle, "lest any man should [Pharisaically] boast;" and may we not add, Not of DEATH, lest he that had the power of death, that is, the devil, should [absurdly] boast? Does not what strikes at the doctrine of faith, and abridges the salvation which we obtain by it, equally strike at Christ's power and glory? Is it not the business of faith to receive Christ's saving word, to apprehend the power of his sanctifying Spirit, and to inherit all the great promises by which he saves his penitent, believing people from their sins? Is it not evident that if no believers can be saved from indwelling sin through faith, we must correct the apostle's doctrine, and say, "By grace are ye saved from the remains of sin, through death?" And can unprejudiced Protestants admit so Christ. debasing, death-exalting a tenet, without giving a dangerous blow to the genuine doctrines of the reformation?

II. It dishonours Christ as a Prophet: for, as such, he came to teach us to be now "meek and lowly in heart:" but the imperfect gospel of the day teaches that we must necessarily continue passionate and proud in heart till death; for pride and immoderate anger are, I apprehend, two main branches of indwelling sin. Again; my motto demonstrates that he publicly taught the multitudes the doctrine of perfection, and Mr. Hill insinuates that this doctrine is "shocking," not to say "blasphemous."

III. It disgraces Christ as the Captain of our salvation: for St. Paul says, that our Captain furnishes us with "weapons mighty through God to the pulling down of Satan's strong holds, and to the bringing of every

*Here, and in some other places, St. Paul by "works" means only the deeds of a Christless, anti-mediatorial law, and the obedience paid to the Jewish covenant, which is frequently called "the law," in opposition to the Christian covenant, which is commonly called "the Gospel," that is, the Gospel of Christ, because Christ's Gospel is the most excellent of all the Gospel dispensations. The apostle, therefore, by the expression, "not of works," does by no means exclude from "final" salvation, the law of faith, and the works done in obedience to that law: for, in the preceding verse, he secures the obedience of faith when he says, "Ye are saved, [that is, made partakers of the blessing of the Christian dispensation,] by grace through faith." Here then the word "by grace" secures the first Gospel axiom, and the word "through faith" secures the second.

thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." But our opponents represent the devil's strong hold as absolutely inpregnable. No weapons of our warfare can pull down Apollyon's throne. Inbred sin shall maintain its place in man's heart till death strike the victorious blow. Christ may indeed fight against the Jericho within, as "Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon:" but then he must send for death, as Joab sent for David, saying, "I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city of waters: now, therefore, gather the rest of the people together, encamp against the city, and take it, lest I take the city, and it be called after my name," 2 Sam. xii, 27, 28.

IV. It pours contempt upon him as the Surety of the new covenant, in which God has engaged himself to deliver obedient believers "from their enemies, that they may serve him without [tormenting] fear, all the days of their lives." For how does he execute his office in this respect, if he never sees that such believers be delivered from their most oppressive and inveterate enemy, indwelling sin? Or if that deliverance take place only at death, how can they, in consequence of their death freedom, "serve God without fear all the days of their lives?"

V. It affronts Christ as a King, when it represents the believer's heart, which is Christ's spiritual throne, as being necessarily full of indwelling sin, a spiritual rebel, who, notwithstanding the joint efforts of Christ and the believer, maintains his power against them both during the term of life. Again: does not a good king deliver his loyal subjects from oppression, and avenge them of a tyrannical adversary, when they cry to him in their distress? But does our Lord show himself such a king, if he never avenge them, nor turn the usurper, the murderer, sin, out of their breasts? Once more: if our deliverance from sin depend upon the stroke of death, and not upon a stroke of Christ's grace, might we not call upon the king of terrors, as well as upon the King of saints, for deliverance from the remains of sin? But where is the difference between saying "O death, help us!" and crying, "O Baal,

save us?"

VI. It injures Christ as a Restorer of pure, spiritual worship in God's spiritual temple, the heart of man. For it indirectly represents him as a Pharisaic Saviour, who made much ado about driving, with a whip, harmless sheep and oxen out of his Father's material temple; but who gives full leave to Satan, not only to bring sheep and doves into the believer's heart, but also to harbour and breed there during the term of life, the swelling toad, pride; and the hissing viper, envy; to say nothing of the greedy dog, avarice, and the filthy swine, impurity; under pretence of "exercising the patience, and engaging the industry" of the worshippers, if we may believe the Calvin of the day. (See the argument against Christian perfection at the end of this section.)

VII. It insults Christ as a Priest; for our Melchisedec shed his allcleansing blood upon the cross, and now pours his all-availing prayer before the throne; asking, that, upon evangelical terms, we may now be "cleansed from all unrighteousness, and perfected in one. But if we assert that believers, let them be ever so faithful, can never be thus cleansed and perfected in one till death comes to the Saviour's assistance,

do we not place our Lord's cleansing blood, and powerful intercession, and of consequence his priesthood, in an unscriptural and contemptible light? **

Should Mr. Hill attempt to retort this argument by saying, "that it is our doctrine, not his, which derogates from the honour of Christ's priesthood, because we should no longer need our High Priest's blood, if we were cleansed from all sin:" I reply:

if

(1.) Perfect Christians need as much the virtue of Christ's blood, to prevent the guilt and pollution of sin from returning, as imperfect Christians want it to drive that guilt and pollution away. It is not enough that the blood of the true paschal Lamb has been sprinkled upon our souls to keep off the destroyer; it must still remain there to hinder his coming back "with seven other spirits more wicked than himself." (2.) Mr. Hill is in the dark; he calls for a light; and when it is brought, he observes, The darkness of the room is now totally removed. "Is it so, sir?" replies his footman; "then you need these candles no more; they have totally removed the darkness of your apartment, you have no more need of them." Mr. Hill smiles at the absurdity of his servant's argument; and yet it is well if he does not admire the wisdom of my opponent's objection. (3.) The hearts of perfect Christians are cleansed, and kept clean by faith; and Christian perfection means the perfection of Christian faith, whose property it is to endear Christ and his blood more and more; nothing then can be less reasonable than to say that, upon our principles, perfect believers have done with the atoning blood. (4.) Such believers continually "overcome the accuser of the brethren through the blood of the Lamb; there is no moment, therefore, in which they can spare it: they are feeble believers who can yet dispense with its constant application; and hence it is that they continue feeble. None make so much use of Christ's blood as perfect Christians. Once it was only their medicine, which they took now and then, when a fit of fear, or a pang of guilt, obliged them to it; but now it is the Divine preservative, which keeps off the infection of sin. Now it is the reviving cordial, which they take to prevent their "grow. ing weary, or faint in their minds." Now it is their daily drink; now it is what they sprinkle their every thought, word, and work with. In a word, it is that blood which constantly speaks before God and in their consciences "better things than the blood of Abel," and actually procures for them all the blessings which they enjoy or expect. To say, therefore, that the doctrine of Christian perfection supersedes the need of Christ's blood, is not less absurd than to assert that the perfection of navigation renders the great deep a useless reservoir of water. Lastly: are not the saints before the throne perfectly sinless? And who are more ready than they to extol the blood and sing the song of the Lamb: "To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood, be glory," &c? If an angel preached to them the modern Gospel, and desired them to plead for the remains of sin, lest they should lose their peculiar value for the atoning blood; would not they all suspect him to be an angel of darkness, transforming himself into an angel of light? And shall we be the dupes of the tempter, who deceives good men, that they may deceive us by a similar argument?

VIII. It discredits Christ as the Fulfiller of the Father's promise, and