Is this the language of truth, or of fulsome flattery? Do the saints tell the Lord that they would give him a thousand hearts if they had them, and yet not give him the whole of the single heart they really have? We believe they tell him the simple truth, and that, therefore, they are not in sin when this is their natural language. We might, as every one knows, quote much more Christian, devotional poetry in the same strain; but we have quoted enough to show what is the breathing of the hearts of God's saints in spite of preposterous theories.

OBJECTIONS.

1. We shall first consider the passages of scripture which are supposed to be against the doctrine defended in this article. The doctrine with which we are at present concerned is not that of the simplicity of moral actions, nor that of the constant sinlessness of such as have been converted, but simply this, that nothing short of present entire conformity to the divine law is accepted of God. Now, we admit, that if it could be made out that the Scriptures represent the saints as constantly sinful, this would be fatal to our view, though then we should be at a loss to interpret the numerous texts we have cited so as to make them harmonize with the texts ad

duced against us. But no texts proving or appearing to prove that converted persons sometimes sin or that they always continue to possess some degree of holiness, would lie at all against the views we defend in this article.

We think that candid, impartial persons, after reading and pondering the multitude of seemingly decisive texts which we have cited, would conclude that it was beforehand improbable that passages should be found in the word of God declaring beyond the possibility of mistaking their meaning the continual sinfulness of the saints. Such minds would naturally inquire whether the laws of interpretation would not admit of a different explanation of such passages, especially as, at least at first view, it appears much more consonant with the character of God that he should forgive only such as put away all their sin.

·

(1.) In 1 Kings 8: 46, we find the passage, If they sin against thec, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them and deliver them to the enemy,' &c. This text cannot teach the perpetual sinfulness of the saints; for (v. 48,) the offenders are supposed to repent with all their heart and with all their soul' of the very sin here spoken

of. It is therefore ridiculous to quote such a text in support of that dogma. Besides, the conditional particle if at the be ginning, shows that the sin is not spoken of as what would certainly take place, and favors the view of those who think that the parenthesis ought to be rendered, for there is no man who may not sin,' a translation which the Hebrew equally admits. And finally, the very terms of this passage itself incontestably show, that while men continue in such sin as is here spoken of, God is angry with them, so that they are lia ble to be delivered up to their enemies; and Solomon asks that they may be restored to the divine favor only if they return to God from such sin "with all their heart and with all their soul." How far does such a passage as this prove that the saints are in a state of acceptance even when polluted with present sin?

(2.) There is not a just man that liveth on the earth that doeth good and sinneth not.' Ec. 7: 20. Gesenius, in his Lexicon (p. 858, Prof. Robinson's translation) explains "There is not a just man on the earth that doeth good and never sinneth. Thus understood, (and who can show that the interpretation is not sound?) the text is far distant from opposition to the doctrine of this article.

(3.) I know it is so of a truth; but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.'-Job 9: 2, 3. These are the

words of Job, not speaking by inspiration, but expressing his opinion, as any pious man of the present day might do. If therefore the words meant all that the objector supposes they do, they would possess no more authority than the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, or Zophar the Naamathite, or Bildad the Shuite, except as he was a better and wiser man than any of them; for he too could darken counsel by words without knowledge.' The sayings of each of these worthies are not seldom quoted as if they possessed divine authority, and even the sayings in the Bible of a less respectable personage, whe shall be nameless. The doctrine of the Book of Job taken as a whole, is of divine authority, but the utterances of the different interlocutors, except God himself, are no more divine than the words of Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, or Wesley. Thus much in general on citations from Job. But the words cited say nothing at all on the question of constant sinfulness. They speak only of the numberless sins of which every man in the course of his life has been guilty, so that on the ground of law, which requires sinless perfection from the commence

ment of moral agency, no man can be just with God. The words might be properly employed by a saint who had been a thousand years in heaven.

In a similar manner we are to interpret Ps. 130: 3, 'If thou Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness in thee that thou mayest be feared.' Who, uninfluenced by a theory in need of support, would resort to such a text as this? Not a syllable is dropped from which we could gather that the Psalmist refers to present sin. Is it for present, and of course, unrepented sin, that there is forgiveness with the Lord?

'May one be pardoned and retain the offence?'

Ps. 143: 2, Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.' What word is here which tells us that the suppliant speaks of present sin? It is God's way to grant mercy to those who 'confess and forsake their sins;' does the Psalmist ask the Holy One to deal with him, as to part of his sin, on an opposite principle?

6

(4.) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.'-Is. 64: 6. The prophet here speaks in the name of the backslidden Jews, who, as he says in the immediate context, were all fading like a leaf, and whose iniquities, like the wind, had taken them away-from whom God had hidden his face, and whom he had consumed because of their iniquities.' Does such a passage as this prove that the saints are always more or less in sin? Yet in this sense it is often cited, and it is deemed orthodox for those who, like Enoch, walk with God, to say, 'All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags! Nothing can be plainer than it is that the prophet is speaking, not of those who enjoy God's favor, but of such as suffer the most terrific judgments for their sins. On the other hand vs. 4, 5, speak of the manner in which God deals with those who obey Him according to his requirement. For from the beginning men have not heard, nor given ear to, nor hath eye seen a god besides Thee, who doeth such things for those who trust in Him. Thou makest peace with him that rejoices to practice righteousness, those that remember Thee in Thy ways.'-(Barnes on v. 4, Gesenius on v. 5.) Thus this text, instead of disproving the doctrine we advocate, appears, when taken with its context, decidedly to sustain it.

(5.) And it [see vs. 36, 37,] shall be upon Aaron's forehead that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things

which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts.'-Ex. 28: 38. The true meaning of this text may be more satisfactorily ascertained by comparing Nu. 18: 1; Lev. 10: 17; Isa. 53: 6, 11; Jn. 1: 29; Heb. 9: 28; 1 Pet. 2: 24. We adopt the interpretation suggested by these references found in Bagster's Bible. According to this, the iniquity of the holy things,' is not the iniquity practised in of fering them, but the iniquity for which, by means of them, typical atonement was to be made. The priests and the victims were both necessary to constitute a type of the Great High Priest and Sacrifice who makes real atonement for the people of God, and they were both therefore said to bear the iniquity of the congregation of the Lord.' The iniquity of the sanctuary and the iniquity of the priesthood,'-Nu. 18: 1, may be likewise the iniquity for which the rites of the Sanctuary and the services of the priests made atonement. Other references in Bagster's middle column indicate another interpretation, namely, that, as Aaron and his sons offered the holy things in behalf of the people, if they sinned in so sacred a service, with Holiness to the Lord' written on their foreheads, they must bear their iniquity, that is, be visited with judgments for it, even if they repented. But while this explanation suits well Nu. 18: 1; Lev. 22: 9; Ex. 29: 43, and other similar passages, we think the other is much preferable for Ex. 28: 38. But neither explation gives the least support to the doctrine of the constant sinfulness of the saints. The passage contains no intimation that sin is always mixed with holy duties. When, therefore, persons pray 'Forgive us the iniquity of our holy things,' meaning iniquity mixed even with the utterance of these very words, they pray thus without warrant from the word of God.

(6.) Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?'-Prov. 20: 9. This text sounds as if it were much more in point than any other text which we have ever heard quoted. No one can intelligently deny that such interrogative sentences are often intended as a form to express a universal negative, including an appeal for the universal negative answer to the common sense and common candor of the reader. But that this is not always the import of such questions is plain from an example in this very book, 31: 10, Who can find a virtuous woman?' The context renders it plain that the writer did not mean to intimate that there were no virtuous women, nor even that there were not many, but that they were scarce in comparison with the multitude of

women of a different character. In like manner the passage we are considering, may not mean that there are no persons in the world who have 'cleansed their hearts and washed their hands in innocency,' (Ps. 73: 13,) but only that such persons are comparatively rare-that 'strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.' In other very emphatic ways the prophets set forth the fewness of the righteous, especially in times of declension. Thus Jeremiah, at a time when certainly a few righteous might have been found in Jerusalem, says, 'Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.'

Another explanation may be suggested. There is a sense in which none but God is good, and certainly the goodness of the saints, though it be sinless, is in this world but a frail, weak thing compared with what it will be ages hence. The hurt done by sin to the adjustments of the passions and appetites, the power of habit, and the associative and cognitive nature, must be great and must take long to heal. Fact shows how often good men are tempted and fall into sin--the dangers which lodge in them and beset them are imminent. It is not for them yet to sing the song of everlasting triumph, and, as if a final victory, certainly never to be followed by the least disaster, were achieved, to shout, 'I have made my heart clean-I am pure from my sin!' The Red Sea is crossed-Jordan is passed-the last Canaanite is slain-and I am settled in eternal peace in the promised land.

We have heard another explanation still, which supposes that the sacred writer refers to the obligations of God's saints to grace--to the fact that God is the great author of their purification and not they themselves. Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am [therefore] pure from my sin?' Were the emphatic I in the original, this explanation would have much to recommend it. We do not say that the absence of the emphatic pronoun is decisive against it; but to us it seems less probable than either of the preceding interpretations. Any one of the three which we have given, renders the passage entirely consonant with our views.

(7.) If I justify myself my own mouth shall condemn me; if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.'-Job 9: 20. The observations made on a passage previously cited from Job, apply also here, that did the citation mean what