5. If it can be proved that any of those, who rank among our martyrs, died full of indwelling sin, I will not scruple to say, that he died a bigot, and not a martyr: for, to die full of indwelling sin is to die full of secret obstinacy and uncharitableness, and St. Paul declares, that, were an apostle himself to give his body to be burned in such a disposition, it would profit him nothing.

6. As many brave Englishmen have laid down their lives in the field of battle, to defend their country against the French, without being properly acquainted with the liberties and boundaries of the British empire; so many Protestants have laid down their lives in Smithfield, to defend their religion against the Papists, without being acquainted with all the land-marks, which divide the land of spiritual Israel from that of the Philistines, and perfect Christianity from Antinomian dotages.

7. The Jews can produce their martyrs as well as the Protestants. The Maccabees, for example, died entirely satisfied with the Mosaic covenant, and strangers to the transcendent glory of the Christian dispensation. But is this a sufficient reason for preferring Judaism to Christianity?-Yes, if Mr. Hill is in the right, when he decries the doctrine of perfect faith and perfect love, and imposes upon us the doctrine of a death-purgatory, because some good men formerly died without having clear views of the doctrine of Christian perfection; though like men that eat honey in the dark, they tasted its sweetness, and delightfully experienced its power.

8. To conclude: I am persuaded, that, were all our reformers and martyrs alive, none of them would object to this argument, which sums up the doctrine of the Church of England with respect to purgatory. If death cleanses us from indwelling sin, it is not Christ's blood applied by the Spirit through faith.-But The only purgatory wherein we [Christian men] trust to be saved, is the death and blood of Christ, which if we apprehend with a true and stedfast faith, it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our sins. The blood of Christ, saith St. John, hath cleansed us from all sin. Hom. on Prayer, Part III.— Therefore, the doctrine that death, &c. cleanseth us from indwelling sin; or the doctrine of a death-purgatory, is as contrary to the doctrine of our Church, as that of St. John.

SECTION V.

When Mr. Hill has so unadvisedly brought the Church of England against us, it is not surprising to see him press four Apostles "Peter, Paul, James, and John," into the field to "cut up" (as he calls it,) "root and branch, my favourite doctrine of perfection." Never were these holy men set upon a more unholy piece of work. Methinks I hear them say, Let Mr. Hill rank us with the Gibeonites: let him make us hewers of wood to the congregation for ever; but let him not set us upon cutting up root and branch the lovely and fruitful tree of Christian perfection.-Happily for that rare tree, Mr. Hill produces only the name of the apostolic woodmen, while we produce their axe, and show that they lay it at the root of Antinomianism;-a deadly tree this, which is to our favourite tree, what the fatal tree in paradise was to the tree of life. Mr. Hill appeals first to Peter: Let then Peter first answer for himself.

I. Where does that Apostle plead for Christian imperfection, and a

death-purgatory? Is it where he says, "As he who has called you is holy; so be ye holy in all manner of conversation:-Seeing you have purified your souls, love one another with a pure heart fervently— Christ-left us an example, that ye should follow his steps; who did no sin-who bare our sins, that we, being dead to sin, should live to righteousness: forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind; for he that has suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sin.-The God of all grace, &c. after that ye have suffered awhile make you perfect?" Had Peter been against our doctrine, is it probable that he would thus have excited believers to attain perfection; wishing it them as we wish our flocks the peace of God which passeth all understanding?

If that Apostle pleads not for the necessary indwelling of sin in his first epistle, doth he do it in the second? Is it were he says, that "Exceeding great and precious promises are given us, that by these we might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the pollution that is in the world through lust?" Is there indwelling sin in the Divine Nature? And can those people, whose heart is still full of sin and indwelling corruption, be said to "have escaped the pollution that is in the world through lust?" Might not a man whose lungs are still full of dangerous ulcers, be said with as much propriety to have escaped the misery that is in the world through consumptions?—Is it where St. Peter describes Christian perfection, and exhorts believers to attain it, or to rise higher in it, by adding with all diligence, "to faith, virtue, to virtue, knowledge,-temperance,-patience,-godliness, brotherly kindness,-and charity," the key of the arch, and bond of perfection? Is it where he states the difference between fallen believers, weak believers, and perfect Christians; hinting, that the first lack these things, i. e. Christian graces: that these things are in the second-and that they abound in the third? Or is it where he bids us "be diligent, that we may be found of God without spot and blameless?" For my part, I do not see here the shadow of a plea for the root of every evil in the heart of believers till they die, any more than for the fruit of adultery, murder, and incest in their life till they go hence.

But what principally strikes us in Mr. Hill's appeal to St. Peter is, that although Peter was naturally led by his subject to speak of the necessary indwelling of sin in our heart during the term of life, if that doctrine had been true; yet he does not so much as drop a hint about it. The design of his first epistle is undoubtedly to confirm believers under the fiery trials which their faith meets with. "You are kept" (says he,)" by the power of God, through [obedient] faith unto salvation, wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season (if need be) ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." What a fair opportunity had Peter to say here, without an "if need be, "You must be in heaviness, not only through manifold temptations, but also through the remaining corruptions of your hearts: the Canaanites, and the wild beasts must still dwell in the land, to be goads in your sides and thorns in your eyes, or you would grow proud and careless: your heart-leprosy must cleave to you, as Gehazi's leprosy cleaved to him. Death radically cured him, and nothing but death can radically cure you. Till then your heads must remain full of imputed righteousness, and your hearts full of indwelling sin." But happily for the honour of Christianity, this Antinomian, this impure gospel has not the least countenance from St. Peter; and he cuts up the very

root of it where he says: "Who shall harm you, if you be followers of that which is good?-Commit the keeping of your souls unto God in well-doing. [The very reverse of sinning.]-You are his daughters [the daughters of him to whom God said, Walk before me, and be thou perfect,] so long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement,' i. e. so long as your conduct and tempers become the gospel. And every body knows that a man's tempers are always as his heart; and that, if his heart is full of evil, his tempers cannot be full of goodness. Rom. xv. 14.

II. If St. Peter, the first of Mr. Hill's witnesses, does not say one word to countenance Antinomianism, and to recommend Christian imperfection; let us see if St. James pleads for Baal in the heart, any more than for Baal in the life of perfect believers. Turn to his epistle, O ye that thirst after holiness; to your comfort you will find, that in the first chapter he shews himself a bold assertor of Christian perfection. Let patience (says he) have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect, and entire, wanting nothing."-He speaks the same language in other places. "Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty and continueth therein, he, being a doer of the work, shall be blessed in his deed." And again :-" If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man." Nor is it difficult to demonstrate from his second chapter, that established believers, or perfect Christians, "keep the royal, perfect law of liberty;" and that those who break it in one point are in a deplorable case.

If Mr. Wesley had written an epistle to Antinomian believers, to make them go on to Christian perfection, could he have expressed himself in a stronger manner than St. James does in the following passages? "Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned [or damned,] James v. 9. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that judgeth his brother judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy [those believers, who keep or break his royal law.] James iv. 11. 12.-Again: If ye fulfil the royal law, according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: but [if ye do not fulfil it ;] if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend [i. e. commit sin] in one point, he is guilty of all, &c. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James ii. 8, &c.

What follows demonstrates, that fallen believers, if they do not repent and rise to the state of Christian perfection, will be condemned for one sin. St. James properly instances in the sin of uncharitableness, because it is directly contrary to our Lord's "new commandment of loving one another as he has loved us, and because charity is the fulfilling of the royal law, and the bond of perfection. Can faith save him" (the uncharitable believer, says St. James ?) "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you [believers] say, Be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so, faith if it hath not works (and of consequence, the fallen believer, if he has sin unrepented of) is dead.”—Such a one "is of the devil, for he committeth sin, and sin is the transgression of the law of liberty, by which he shall be judged," yea, by which" he shall have judgment without mercy, that has (thus) shewed no mercy" whether he sinned negatively by not relieving his poor broVOL. II.

F

ther in deed, though he gave him good words: or whether he did it positively, by having respect to persons, or by grudging against his brother. Compare James ii. 13, &c. with John iii. 3, &c. to the end of both chapters, which are two strong batteries raised on purpose to defend the doctrine of Christian perfection, and to demolish the doctrine of Christian imperfection, which is all one with Antinomiauism.

says,

"In many

Should it be objected, that," at this rate, no Christian believer is safe, till he has attained Christian perfection;" We reply, that all Christian believers are safe, who either stand in it, or press after it. And if they do neither, we are ready to prove, that they rank among fallen believers, and are in as imminent a danger of being spued out of Christ's mouth as the Laodiceans were. Let Mr. Hill candidly read the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the first of St. John, and let him doubt of it if he can. Should Mr. Hill object, that "St. James himself things we offend all;" and that this one saying abundantly proves that he was a strong Imperfectionist:" I beg leave to involve my honoured opponent in the following dilemma. Are the offences, of which St. James speaks, involuntary? or are they voluntary? If Mr. Hill says, They are involuntary, I answer, then they are not proper breaches of the law of liberty, which St. James preached; because the law curses us for no involuntary offences; and therefore, such offences [like St. Paul's reproving of the High Priest more sharply than he would have done, had he known what high dignity his unjust judge was invested with] such offences, I say, are not sins according to royal and evangelical law of our Melchisedec; and therefore they do not prove, that all believers remain full of indwelling-sin till death. If Mr. Hill replies that, "The many offences, of which St. James speaks, are voluntary offences, and therefore real branches of the law of liberty; I answer, that this genuine sense of the words taken in connexion with the context, confirms our doctrine of Christian perfection, and our opposition to Antinomianism; and I prove it thus:

The text and context run thus: "My brethren, be not many masters; [i. e. lord it not one over another:] knowing that we [who do so] shall receive the greater condemnation (or damnation) if we do not learn humility." I say we, because I would not have you to think that God our judge is a respecter of persons, and will spare an Apostle, who breaks the law of liberty and does not repent, any more than he would spare you. For if I represented God as a partial judge, Judas's greater condemnation would prove me mistaken. And I insist the more upon this awful doctrine, because in many things we offend all, especially in word, till we are made perfect in love, in the love which is the fulfilling of the law, and enables us to keep our tongue as it were with a bridle all the day long.-If Mr. Hill asks by what means I can shew, that this is really St. James's meaning: I reply; by the plain rule of Divinity and Criticism, which bids us take the beginning of a verse in connexion with the end. And if we do this here, we find the doctrine of Christian perfection in this very text, thus: We shall receive the greater damnation if we do not repent and cease to be many masters: for in many things we [from time to time] offend all, [especially by our words till we are perfected in love.]" If any man offend not in word, the same is [what each of us should be] a perfect man, and able also to bridle his whole body;"

James iii. 1, 2. So certain therefore, as there are men able to bridle their tongue, and their whole body, there are men perfect in the body-perfect before death, according to the doctrine contained in the controverted passages of St. James.

"But St. James says also, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy.” James iv. 5.

I reply: 1. It is usual for modest teachers to rank themselves with the persons of whom they say something disagreeable and this they do to take away the harshness of their doctrine, and to make way for the severity of their charges. Thus Peter writes, "The time past of our life may suffice us, to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:" though it is evident that Peter, a poor, industrious, godly Jew, never walked in abominable idolatries, working the will of the Gentiles. Now the same delicacy of charity, which made St. Peter rank himself with heathens, who walked in drunkenness, whoredom, and gross idolatry, makes St. James rank himself with the carnal Christians, who are possessed by an envious spirit.

1. Nay, St. James himself using the same figure of speech, says, "The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, &c. therewith curse we men, who are made after the similitude of God." But would it be reasonable to infer from these words, that his tongue was still full of deadly poison, and that he therewith continued to curse his neighbour? Therefore all that is implied in his words about envy, is, that till we are made perfect in the charity which "envieth not, and is not puffed up, the spirit that is in us lusteth to envy and pride." And that we, who have not yet attained Christian perfection, need not be always envious and proud, is evident from the very next words, "But he giveth more grace," wherefore he says, "God resisteth the proud [envious man] but giveth grace to the humble ;Resist the devil and he will flee from you :-purify your hearts, ye double minded: Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness" so severe was St. James to those adulterers and adultresses, those gentile believers, who stopped short of Christian perfection, loved the world, and envied one another! Therefore, to press him into the service of solifidianism, is as rash an attempt, as to call his Epistle an Epistle of straw, worthy of being committed to the flames: and (if the preceding remarks are just) Mr. Hill is as much mistaken, when he appeals to St. James, as when he quotes St. Peter, in defence of Christian imperfection.

SECTION VI.

St. Paul's name appears upon Mr. Hill's list of witnesses against Christian perfection; but it is without the Apostle's consent; for Peter and James did not plead more strenuously for the glorious liberty of God's children than St. Paul. Nay he professed to have attained it, and addressed Fathers in Christ as persons that were partakers of it together with himself. "We speak wisdom, says he, among them that are perfect, 1 Cor. ii. 6.-" Let us, as many as be perfect be thus minded, Phil. iii. 15.”

Nor did Paul fancy that Christian perfection was to be confined to

་