pectation of obtaining it, how can it be shown that we are authorized to seek for any blessing promised in the Bible, with the expectation of obtaining it?

My second argument is thus stated:* "Perfection in holiness is promised to the Christian in the New Covenant, under which he is now placed. The moral law, as all admit, requires perfect and perpetual holiness. The position assumed is, that whatever is required of us by the moral law, is definitely promised to us in the gospel. In 2 Pet. 1: 4, we are informed, that it is "by the promises," that we are to be rendered "partakers of the divine nature;" that is, of the holiness and blessedness of God, and "escape the corruption that is in the world through lust." If it can be shown, that perfection in holiness is definitely pledged to us in "the promises," then I affirm, that they authorize us to expect perfection in holiness.

To show that the promises do authorize us to expect perfection in holiness, the following, among other passages of Scripture, were cited. Jer. 32: 39, 40. Ez. 36: 25. Deut. 30: 6. Jer. 1: 20. 1 Thes. 5: 23, 24.†

Let us look particularly at two or three of these passages. Deut. 30: 6, "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. In Deut. 10: 12, the following question is asked: "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul?" Now, why are we told that the phrase, “with all thy heart and with all thy soul," in the latter passage, and in all the precepts of the Bible, implies perfect holiness, while in the former passage the same phrase implies but partial holiness? If this construction is to be put upon this phrase in Deut. 30: 6, why not in all other instances?

1 Thess. 5: 23, 24, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly," &c. The original term here translated wholly, is composed of two terms, each of which means perfection. Hence Professor Robinson renders it "wholly complete, perfect." The term rendered whole in the succeeding clause, is also a strong intensive. The true meaning of the passage

* Page 22.

† Pages 83, 84.

66

may be thus expressed: The very God of peace so sanctify you, as to render you wholly perfect; and I pray God, your entire spirit, and soul, and body, be so preserved, that when your lives, as Christians, shall be reviewed at the coming of Christ, you may be found to have been blameless. If this is not a prayer for perfection in holiness, we may safely affirm, that it is not in the power of the Greek language to express that idea. But does the apostle here pray that Christians may be thus sanctified and preserved in this life; or, as Mr. F.supposes, "at the coming of Christ ?" That we ought to understand the passage in the former and not in the latter sense, I argue from these considerations: 1. The terms spirit, soul, and body," as most, if not all, admit, refer to the "immortal soul, the animal life, and the mortal body." These surely can be preserved blameless only in this life. 2. The Scriptures speak of our being presented blameless at the coming of Christ; but never of our being sanctified and preserved blameless at that day. We have, then, in this passage, 1. A prayer dictated by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God will render us, in this life, perfect in holiness, and preserve us in that state until the coming of Christ. 2. We are authorized by a positive promise, to look to God for this identical blessing, with the assurance that he will then thus sanctify and preserve us. "Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." Such is the nature of the argument based upon the promises contained in these and kindred passages. The form of the argument is this: For whatever is directly promised to us in the gospel, we are authorized to look to God with the expectation of receiving it at his hands. Perfection in holiness is definitely promised to us in the gospel. We are therefore authorized to look to God to be sanctified wholly," with the full and joyful expectation of being thus sanctified by his grace. Here Mr. F., as in the former instance, evades the question as stated by me, and replies to the argument, as if it were directed to another and different point. "This," he says, "proves nothing to the point, unless it can be proved that Christians perform every condition of the promises, and avail themselves fully of every privilege." Until Christians know what their privileges are, they will not of course avail themselves of them. To show Christians, not what their actual attainments are, but what are their privileges, is the exclusive object of the

argument under consideration. But Mr. F. maintains that the Bible affirms, that no one does, as a matter of fact, comply with these conditions. Now, what must be the influence of promising the richest blessings to us, upon certain conditions, and then requiring us to believe, that with these conditions we shall never comply? What is this, but to take the most effectual means conceivable to defeat the very end for which "the promises" were given, and practically to place us in the same relation to the attainment of the blessing, that we should be in, were its attainments known to be a natural impossibility?

"The third argument, from the commands of Scripture, only proves," says Mr. F., "human obligations, and implies capacity commensurate with obligations; but not that any man perfectly obeys, or that any will obey." But this is no reply to the argument, as stated by me. I did not argue that perfection in holiness is attainable from the mere fact, that it is required of us; but from the “manner and circumstances in which such commands are given." We find the command," be perfect," clustered with others, to which all admit that obedience is not only required, but expected. Why is this one precept selected from the midst of others, given at the same time and in the same circumstances, as the solitary command to which obedience is not expected? We find, also, the same writers presenting this and kindred precepts in the same manner and circumstances that they do others to which obedience is known to be expected. We have, then, the same evidence, that obedience to this command is expected of us, that we have, that it is expected to any precept of the Bible that can be named.*

The fourth argument is drawn from the prayer dictated by our Saviour to his disciples, together with the one put up by him in behalf of the church, on the evening preceding his crucifixion. Mr. F. replies by asking, "Can it be proved, that the period will ever come when the will of God will be done on earth as universally and as perfectly as it is done in heaven?" I suppose it can, and that the petition under consideration, as well as other passages of Scripture, contains such proof. The reasoning of Mr. F., however, does not meet the arguments as stated by me.

See 1 Tim. 6: 13, 14.

66

In respect to the prayer of Christ, John 17: 20, 23, that Christians " may be one, even as we are one," and that they may be made perfect in one," "it is mere assumption," Mr. F. says, "that the union [here] prayed for is one of absolute perfection in love." That such a union is implied in such language, he then denies, and affirms that the union referred to "has its fulfilment in that brotherly love which excludes division and strife, and draws forth the exclamation of the world: Behold how these Christians love one another!" How, then, can a union of perfect love be expressed, if such language does not express it? And how can it be shown from the Bible, that such a union exists between the Father and the Son, or among the spirits of the "just made perfect" in heaven? If, on the other hand, it is admitted that a union of perfect love is here prayed for, can we avoid the inference, that the union here prayed for will exist among true Christians, or the world will never believe in Christ? The existence of such love is declared to be the condition of such a belief. "That the world may believe;"" that the world may know that thou hast sent me."

The fifth argument is drawn from the fact, that inspired men made the attainment of this particular state the subject of definite, fervent, and constant prayer. As examples of such prayers, Col. 4: 12; Heb. 13: 20, 21; and 1 Thes. 5: 23, were cited. From the fact that such prayers are in conformity with the prayer dictated by our Saviour to the church, and with his own in her behalf, and that they were all dictated by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it was argued, that we are authorized to put up similar petitions in our own behalf, with the expectation of receiving the blessing for which we pray.

In reply to this argument, Mr. F. suggests, 1. That the phrases sanctify you wholly," that "ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God," and "make you perfect in every good work to do his will," mean simply "maturity in Christian knowledge and virtue;" or a state of mature but imperfect sanctification. 2. That "desire is prayer." According to this, Paul, in the instance referred to by Mr. F., must have prayed at one and the same time, that he might and might not depart. In the language of poetry, "Prayer is the soul's desire, unuttered or expressed." In the theological sense, it is, I suppose, asking God to grant us

what we choose, prefer, or regard as a good. Till we know what we ought to prefer, we do not know what we ought to pray for. Till we have reason to suppose that a thing is or may be "agreeable to the will of God," we cannot know that it is proper for us to pray for it. When we know that a thing is not according to the will of God, do we not know, that for that it is not proper to pray? The prayer of Christ, "if it be possible," etc., is not an exception to this principle; because in this form the petition was agreeable to the will of God. Now, according to the theory of Mr. F., we know certainly, that God has changelessly determined, not to "sanctify any of his people wholly" in this life; nor to grant any requests put up for such a blessing. How, then, can he show that, upon his theory, it is proper to pray for entire holiness in this life? What is mocking God, if asking him to do that which he requires us to believe he will not do, is not? One consideration, here, is worthy of special attention. When we pray for this, or any other blessing, do not the Scriptures authorize us to expect more than we “ask or think?" Does not the apostle, after praying for this specific blessing, expressly teach this sentiment, Eph. 3: 20? "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." But Mr. F.'s theory would require us to expect less than we "ask and think."

The sixth argument is based upon the fact, that the richest blessings are promised to us in the Bible, on the specific condition of the existence of perfect holiness in us. Mr. F. replies, 1. By saying that the argument "fails, because it is mere assumption." Whether it is so, whether such passages as Is. 26: 3; Mat. 6: 22; 2 Cor. 13: 11, and Phil. 4: 6, 7, are not cases in point, the reader must decide. Attention is also invited to the following: Mat. 5: 48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 7: 24, 25, "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him," &c. Here, surely, the richest blessings are promised on the specific condition of perfect holiness in us.

But, 2. He says, "Thousands of saints, like Payson, Brainerd, and Griffin, though they have felt conscious of not being delivered from all sin, have had these precious promises fulfilled in their hearts." To this I have only to reply, that if either of those men of God knew what it was to be