will of thy Father may be done on earth as it is in heaven." Walk of Faith, vol. i., page 227, &c.

I do not produce this excellent quotation to insinuate that the Rev. Mr. Romaine is a perfectionist; but only to edify the reader, and to show that the good, mistaken men who are most prejudiced against our doctrine, see it sometimes so true and so excellent, that, forgetting their pleas for indwelling sin, they intimate that our "daily petition may be answered," and that "the will of our Father may be done on earth as it is in heaven,"-an expression this, which includes the height and depth of all Christian perfection.

SECTION X

66

THE scripture declares that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles; Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone:" and St. Paul being deservedly considered as the chief of the apostles, and, of consequence, as the chief stone of the foundation on which, next to the corner-stone, our holy religion is built, who can wonder at the pains which our opponents take to represent this important part of our foundation as carnal," "wretched," and "sold under sin ?" Does not every body see that such a foundation becomes the antinomian structure which is raised upon it? And is it not incumbent upon the opposers of antinomianism, to uncover that wretched foundation, by removing the heaps of dirt in which St. Paul's spirituality is daily buried; and, by this means, to rescue the holy apostle, whom our adversaries endeavour to sell under sin as a carnal wretch? This rescue has been attempted in the four last sections. If I have succeeded in this charitable attempt, I may proceed to vindicate the holiness of St. John, who is the last apostle that Mr. Hill calls to the help of indwelling sin, Christian imperfection, and a death-purgatory.

Before I show how the loving apostle is pressed into a service which is so contrary to his experience, and to his

doctrine of perfect love, I shall make a preliminary remark. To take a scripture out of the context, and to make it speak a language contrary to the obvious design of the sacred writer, is the way of butchering the body of scriptural divinity. This conduct injures truth as much as the Galatians would have injured themselves if they had literally pulled their eyes out, and given them to St. Paul. An edifying passage thus displaced may become as loathsome to a moral mind, as a good eye, torn out of its bleeding orb in a good face, is odious to a tender heart.

Among the passages which have been thus treated, none has suffered more violence than this: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John i. 8. "That is enough for me," says an hasty imperfectionist: "St. John clearly pleads for the indwelling of sin in us during the term of life; and he is so set against those who profess deliverance from sin, and Christian perfection, in this life, that he does not scruple to represent them as liars and selfdeceivers !

Our opponents suppose that this argument is unanswerable; but to convince them that they are mistaken we need only prove that the sense which they so confidently give to the words of St. John is contrary, 1. To his design; 2. To the context; and, 3. To the pure and strict doctrine which he enforces in the rest of the epistle.

I. With respect to St. John's design, it evidently was to confirm believers who were in danger of being deceived by antinomian and antichristian seducers. When he wrote this epistle the church began to be corrupted by men who, under pretence of knowing the mysteries of the gospel better than the apostles, imposed upon the simple Jewish fables, heathenish dreams, or vain philosophic speculations; insinuating that their doctrinal peculiarities were the very marrow of the gospel. Many such arose at the time of the reformation, who introduced stoical dreams into protestantism, and whom bishop Latimer, and others, steadily opposed under the name of "gospellers."

The doctrines of all these gospellers centred in making Christ, indirectly at least, the minister of sin; and in representing the preachers of practical, self-denying Christianity, as persons unacquainted with Christian liberty. It does not, indeed, appear that the "gnostics," or "knowing ones," for so the ancient gospellers were called, carried matters so far as openly to say, that believers might be God's dear children in the very commission of adultery and murder, or while they worshipped Milcom and Ashtaroth; but it is certain that they could already reconcile the verbal denial of Christ, fornication, and idolatrous feasting, with true faith; directly or indirectly "teaching and seducing" Christ's "servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Rev. ii. 20. At these antinomians, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude levelled their epistles. St. Paul strongly cautioned Timothy, Titus, and the Ephesians against them. See Eph. iv. 14; v. 6. And St. John wrote his first epistle to warn the believers who had not yet been seduced into their error;-a dreadful, though pleasing, error this, which, by degrees, led some to deny Christ's law, and then his very name: hence the triumph of the spirit of antichrist. Now, as these men insinuated that believers could be righteous without doing righteousness; and as they supposed that Christ's righteousness, or our own knowledge and faith, would supply the want of internal sanctification and external obedience; St. John maintains, against them, the necessity of that practical godliness which consists in not committing sin, in not transgressing the law, in keeping the commandments, and in walking as Christ walked; nay, he asserts that Christ's blood, through the faith which is our victory, purifies "from all sin, and cleanses from all unrighteousness." To make him, therefore, plead for the necessary continuance of indwelling sin, or heart-unrighteousness, till we go into a death-purgatory, is evidently to make him defeat his own design.

II. To be more convinced of it, we need only read the controverted text in connexion with the context; illustrating both by some notes in parentheses. St. John opens his commission thus: "This is the message which we

have received of him,” (Christ,) "and declare unto you, that God is light," (bright, transcendent purity,) "and in him is no darkness" (no impurity) "at all. If we" (believers) "say that we have fellowship with him," (that we are united to him by an actually living faith,) "and walk in darkness," (in impurity or sin,) "we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light," (if we live up to our Christian light, and do righteousness,) we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John i. 5-7. For, "let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he" (Christ) "is righteous and in him is no sin." 1 John iii. 7, 5. So far we see no plea either for sin, or for the Calvinian purgatory.

66

Should Mr. Hill reply, that, "when St. John says, 'The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin,' the loving apostle

means all but indwelling sin; because this is a sin from which death alone can cleanse us;" we demand a proof, and, in the mean time, we answer, that St. John, in the above-quoted passages, says, that "he who doeth righteousness," in the full sense of the word, "is righteous as Christ "is righteous;" observing, that "in him" (Christ) "is no sin." So certain, then, as there is no indwelling sin in Christ, there is no indwelling sin in a believer who "doeth righteousness," in the full sense of the word; for he is "made perfect in love," and is cleansed from all sin. Nor was St. John himself ashamed to profess this glorious liberty; for he said, "Our love is made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he " (Christ) "is" perfect in love, and, of consequence, without sin, "so are we in this world." 1 John iv. 17. And the whole context shows that the beloved apostle spake these great words of a likeness to Christ with respect to the perfect love which fulfils the law, abolishes tormenting fear, and enables the believer to stand with "boldness in the day of judgment," as being forgiven, "and conformed to the image of God's Son."

If Mr. Hill urges, that "the blood of Christ, powerfully applied by the Spirit, cleanses us, indeed, from the guilt,

but not from the filthiness, of sin; blood having a reference to justification and pardon, but not to sanctification and holiness;" we reply, that this argument is not only contrary to the preceding answer, but to the text, the context, and other plain scriptures. 1. To the text, where our being cleansed from all sin is evidently suspended on our humble and faithful walk: "If we walk in

66

the light, as he is in the light, the blood of Christ cleanses us," &c. Now, every novice in gospel grace knows that true protestants do not suspend a sinner's justification on his walking "in the light, as God" is in the light." 2. It is contrary to the context; for in the next verse but one, where St. John evidently distinguishes forgiveness and holiness, he peculiarly applies the word cleansing" to the latter of these blessings: "He is faithful to forgive us our sins," by taking away our guilt, "and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," by taking away all the filth of indwelling sin. And, 3. It is contrary to other places of scripture, where Christ's blood is represented as having a reference to purification, as well as to forgiveness. God himself says, "Wash ye; make you clean; put away the evil of your doings; cease to do evil; learn to do well." The washing and cleansing here spoken of have undoubtedly a reference to the removal of the filth, as well as of the guilt, of sin. Accordingly we read, that all those who "stand before the throne have" both "washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb;" that is, they are justified by, and sanctified with, his blood. Hence our church 66 prays, "that we may so eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed" (that is, made clean, also) "through his most precious blood." To rob Christ's blood of its sanctifying power, and to confine its efficacy to the atonement, is therefore an antinomian mistake, by which our opponents greatly injure the Saviour, whom they pretend to exalt.

Should Mr. Hill assert, that when St. John says, "If we walk in the light," &c.," the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin," the loving apostle's meaning is not, that