he says, "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, [or whose fruit never grows to any perfection, see Luke viii, 14,] my Father taketh away," far from imputing to it his perfect fruitfulness?

7. In the nature of things can Christ's perfection supply the want of that perfection which he calls us to? Is there not a more essential dif ference between Christ's perfection and that of a believer, than there is between the perfection of a rose and that of the grass of the field? between the perfection of a soaring eagle, and that of a creeping insect? If our Lord is the head of the Church, and we are the members, is it not absurd to suppose that his perfection becomes us in every respect? Were I allowed to carry on a Scriptural metaphor, I would ask, Ís not the perfection of the head very different from that of the hand? And do we not take advantage of the credulity of the simple, when we make them believe that an impenitent adulterer and murderer is perfect in Christ; or, if you please, that a crooked leg and cloven foot are perfectly handsome, if they do but somehow belong to a beautiful face?

8. Let us illustrate this a little more. Does not the Redeemer's personal perfection consist in his being GOD and MAN in one person; in his being eternally begotten by the Father as the "Son of God;" and unbegotten in time by a father, as "the son of man ;" in his having " given his life a ransom for all;" in his having "taken it up again; and his standing in the midst of the throne, able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God through him?" Consider this, candid believer, and say if any man or angel can decently hope that such an incommunicable perfection can ever fall to his share.

9. As the Redeemer's personal perfection cannot suit the redeemed, no more can the personal perfection of the redeemed be found in the Redeemer. A believer's perfection consists in such a degree of faith as works by perfect love. And does not this high degree of faith chiefly imply uninterrupted self diffidence, self denial, self despair? A heartfelt, ceaseless recourse to the blood, merits, and righteousness of Christ? And a grateful love to him, "because he first loved us," and fervent charity toward all mankind "for his sake?" Three things, these, which, in the yery nature of things, either cannot be in the Saviour at all, or cannot possibly be in him in the same manner in which they must be in believers.

10. Is not the doctrine of our being perfect in Christ's person big with mischief? Does it not open a refuge of lies to the loosest ranters in the land? Are there none who say, We are perfect in Christ's person? In him we have perfect chastity and honesty, perfect temperance and meekness; and we should be guilty of Pharisaic insolence if we patched his perfection with the filthy rags of our personal holiness? And has not this doctrine a direct tendency to set godliness aside, and to countenance gross Antinomianism?

Lastly. When our Lord preached the doctrine of perfection, did he not do it in such a manner as to demonstrate that our perfection must be personal? Did he ever say, "If thou wilt be perfect, only believe that I am perfect for thee?" On the contrary, did he not declare, "If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast ; [part with all that stands in thy way;] and follow me" in the way of perfection? And again: "Do good to them that hate you, that ye may be the children of your Father

who is in heaven; for he sendeth rain upon the just and the unjust, &c. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is per. fect?" Who can read these words and not see that the perfection which Christ preached, is a perfection of holy dispositions, productive of holy actions in all his followers? And that, of consequence, it is a personal perfection, as much inherent in us, and yet as much derived from him, and dependent upon him, as the perfection of our bodily health? The chief difference consisting in this, that the perfection of our health comes to us from God in Christ, as the God of NATURE; whereas our Christian perfection comes to us from God in Christ, as the God of GRACE.

SECTION IV.

Mr. Hill's first argument against Christian perfection is taken from the ninth and fifteenth articles of the Church of England-These articles, properly understood, are not contrary to that doctrine-That our Church holds it, is proved by thirteen arguments-She opposes Phari. saic, but not Christian perfection-Eight reasons are produced to show that it is absurd to embrace the doctrine of a death purgatory because our reformers and martyrs, in following after the perfection of humility, have used some unguarded expressions, which seem to bear hard upon the doctrine of Christian perfection.

In the preceding sections I have laid the axe at the root of some prejudices, and cut up a variety of objections. The controversial field is cleared. The engagement may begin : nay, it is already begun; for Mr. Hill, in his Creed for Perfectionists, and Mr. Toplady, in his Caveat against unsound Doctrines, have brought up, and fired at our doctrine, two pieces of ecclesiastical artillery ;-the ninth and fifteenth articles of our Church: and they conclude that the contents of these doctrinal cannons absolutely demolish the perfection we contend for. The report of their wrong-pointed ordnance, and the noise they make about our subscriptions are loud; but that we need not be afraid of the shot, will, I hope, appear from the following observations :

The design of the fifteenth article of our Church is pointed out by the title, "Of Christ alone without Sin." From this title we conclude that the scope and design of the article is not to secure to Christ the honour of being alone cleansed from sin; because such an honour would be a reproach to his original and uninterrupted purity, which placed him far above the need of cleansing. Nor does the article drop the least hint about the impossibility of our being "cleansed from sin" before we go into the purgatory of the Calvinists: I mean the chambers of death. What our Church intends, is to distinguish Christ from all mankind, and especially from the Virgin Mary, whom the Papists assert to have been always totally free from original and actual sin. Our Church does this by maintaining, (1.) That Christ was born without the least taint of original sin, and never committed any actual transgression. (2.) That all other men, the Virgin Mary and the most holy believers not excepted,

are the very reverse of Christ in both these respects; all being conceived in original sin, and offending in many things, even after baptism,* and with all the helps which we have under the Christian dispensation to keep us "without sin" from day to day. And, therefore, (3.) That "if we say we have no sin;" if we pretend, like some Pelagians, that we have no original sin; or if we intimate, like some Pharisees, that "we never did any harm in all our lives," that is, that we have no actual sin, "we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;" there being absolutely no adult person without sin in those respects, except our Lord Jesus Christ.

That this is the genuine sense of the article appears, (1.) By the absurdity which follows from the contrary sentiment. For if these words, "Christ alone without Sin," are to be taken in an absolute and unlimited sense; if the word alone entirely excludes all mankind, at all times; if it is levelled at our being cleansed from sin, as well as at our having been always free from original and actual pollution; if this is the case, I say, it is evident that not only fathers in Christ, but also Enoch and Elijah, St. John and St. Paul, are to this day tainted with sin, and must to all eternity continue so, lest Mr. Hill's opinion of Christ alone without sin should not be true.

2. Our sentiment is confirmed by the article itself, part of which runs thus:-"Christ, in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit. He came to be a Lamb without spot; and sin, as St. John says, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, [i. e. although we have from our infancy all the helps that the Christian dispensation affords men to keep them without sin,] yet we offend in many things, [after our baptism,] and if we say, [as the above-mentioned Pelagians and Pharisees,] that we have no [original or actual] sin, [i. e. that we are like Christ, in either of these respects; our conception, infancy, childhood, youth, and age, being all taken into the account,] we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Having thus opened the plain, rational, and Scriptural sense in which we subscribe to our fifteenth article, it remains to make a remark upon the ninth.

Some bigoted Pelagians deny original sin, or the Adamic infection of our nature; and some bigoted Papists suppose that this infection is entirely done away in baptism in opposition to both these, our Church prudently requires our subscription to her ninth article, which asserts, (1.) That "the fault and corruption of our nature" is a melancholy reality and, (2.) That this "fault, corruption, or infection doth remain in them who are regenerated;" that is, in them who are "baptized, or made children of God," according to the Christian dispensation. For

The Rev. Mr. Toplady, in his Historic Proof, p. 235, informs us that a popish archbishop of St. Andrews condemned Patrick Hamilton to death, for holding among other doctrines, "That children incontinent after baptism are sinners," or, which is all one, that baptism does not absolutely take away original sin. This anecdote is important, and shows that our Church levels at a popish error the words of her articles, which Mr. Hill and Mr. Toplady suppose to be levelled at Christian perfection.

every person who has attentively read our liturgy, knows that these expressions, baptized, regenerated, and made a member of Christ, and a child of God, are synonymous in the language of our Church. Now, because we have acknowledged, by our subscription to our ninth article, that "the infection of our nature" is not done away in baptism, but "does remain in them which are regenerate," or baptized, Mr. Hill thinks himself authorized to impose upon us the yoke of indwelling sin for life; supposing that we cannot be fair subscribers to that article, unless we renounce the glorious liberty of God's children, and embrace the Antinomian gospel, which is summed up in these unguarded words of Luther, quoted by Bogatsky in his Golden Treasury:* "The sins of a Christian are for his good, and if he had no sin, he would not be so well off; neither would prayer flow so well." Can any thing be either more unscriptural or absurd? What unprejudiced person does not see we may, with the greatest consistency, maintain that baptism does not remove the Adamic infection of sin, and that nevertheless this infection may be removed before death?

Nevertheless, we are willing to make Mr. Hill all the concessions we can, consistently with a good conscience. If by "the infection of nature," he understand the natural ignorance which has infected our understanding; the natural forgetfulness which has affected our memory; the inbred debility of all our mental powers, and the poisonous seeds of mortality which infect all men from head to foot, and hinder the strongest believers from serving God with all the fervour they would be capable of, were they not fallen from paradisiacal perfection, under the curse of a body sentenced to die, and "dead because of sin:" if Mr. Hill, I say, understand this by the "infection of nature," we believe that such an infection, with all the natural, innocent appetites of the flesh, remains, not only in those whom the Scriptures call "babes in Christ," but also in "fathers;" there being no adult believer that may not say, as well as Christ, Adam, or St. Paul, "I thirst. I am hungry. I want a help. meet for me. I know but in part. I see darkly through a glass. I groan, being burdened. He that marrieth sinneth not. It is better to marry than to burn," &c.

But if Mr. Hill, by "the infection of nature," mean the sinful lusts of the flesh, such as drunkenness, gluttony, whoredom, &c; or, if he understand unloving, diabolical tempers, such as envy, pride, stubborn. ness, malice, sinful anger, ungodly jealousy, unbelief, fretfulness, impa tience, hypocrisy, revenge, or any moral opposition to the will of God: if Mr. Hill, I say, understand this by "the infection of nature ;" and if he suppose that these evils must radically and necessarily remain in the hearts of all believers (fathers in Christ not excepted) till death comes to "cleanse the thoughts of their hearts" by the inspiration of his illsmelling breath, we must take the liberty of dissenting from him; and we produce the following arguments to prove that, whatever Mr. Hill may insinuate to the contrary, the Church of England is not against the doctrine of evangelical perfection which we vindicate.

I. Our Church can never be so inconsistent as to level her articles against what she ardently prays for in her liturgy: but she ardently prays for Christian perfection, or for perfect love in this life. Therefore * See the edition printed in London in 1773, p. 328.

she is not against Christian perfection. The second proposition of this argument can alone be disputed, and I support it by the well-known collect in the communion service," Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Here we see, (1.) The nature of Christian perfection; it is perfect love. (2.) The seat of this perfect love, a heart cleansed from its own thoughts. (3.) The blessed effect of it, a worthy magnifying of God's holy name. (4.) Its author, God, of whom the blessing is asked. (5.) The immediate mean of it, the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. And, lastly, the gracious procurer of it, our Lord Jesus Christ.

II. This vein of godly desire after Christian perfection runs through her daily service. In her confession she prays: "Restore thou them that are penitent, according to thy promises, &c, that hereafter we may live a godly, righteous, and sober life, to the glory of thy holy name.' Now, godliness, righteousness, and sobriety, being the sum of our duty toward God, our neighbour, and ourselves, are also the sum of Christian perfection. Nor does our Church absolve any but such as desire "that the rest of their lives may be pure and holy, so that at the last they may come to God's eternal joy ;" plainly intimating that we may get a pure heart, and lead a pure and holy life, without going into a death purga. tory; and those who do not attain to purity of heart and life, that is, to perfection, are in danger of missing God's eternal joy.

III. Hence it is that she is not ashamed to pray daily for sinless purity in the Te Deum :-" Vouchsafe, O Lord, to keep us this day without sin," that is, sinless; for, I suppose, that the title of our fifteenth article, “Of Christ alone without Sin," means, of Christ alone sinless from his conception to his last gasp. This deep petition is perfectly agreeable to the collects for the ninth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth Sundays after Trinity: "Grant to us the Spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful, that we may be enabled to live according to thy will,” i. e. to live without sin. "We pray thee, that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us to be continually given to all good works," &c. "Grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee." "Mercifully grant that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts." Again: "May it please thee, that by the wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by him, [Luke, the evangelist and physician of the soul,] all the diseases of our souls may be healed," &c. (St. Luke's Day.) Mortify and kill in us all vices, [and among them envy, selfishness, and pride,] and so strengthen us by thy grace, that by the innocency of our lives, and constancy of our faith unto death, we may glorify thy holy name," &c. (The Innocents' Day.) "Grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed." (First Sunday after Trinity.) "Direct, sanctify, and govern both our hearts and bodies, in the ways of thy laws, and in the works of thy commandments, that we may be preserved [in these ways and works] in body and soul." "Prevent us in all our doings, &c, and farther us with thy continual help; that in all our works, begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name." (Communion Service.) Once more: "Grant that in all our

66