is the great blessing promised throughout the Bible." "4. The perfect sanctification of believers is the very object for which the Holy Ghost is promised." "5. If it is not a practicable duty to be perfectly holy in this world, then it will follow, that the devil has so completely accomplished his design in corrupting mankind, that Jesus Christ is at a fault, and has no way to sanctify his people but to take them out of the world." 6. If perfect sanctification is not attainable in this world, it must be either from a want of motives in the Gospel, or a want of sufficient power in the Spirit of God."

Were it allowable in so grave a subject to give advice respecting the perfection of a discourse, we should not hesitate to refer the author for his improvement to some good treatise on homiletics. In testimony however, of his difficulty in procuring evidence to sustain the doctrine of perfection in this life, it is proper to say, that of the eleven particulars of proof under the last two heads, three are precisely the same. "God requires it." "It is commanded." "God wills it." In the preceeding extracts, perfect sanctification is only another name for perfection. In these two branches of the discourse very little Scripture is cited except under the declaration, that "perfect sanctification is the great blessing promised throughout the Bible." In his citations he seems not to have considered, that there is a difference between justification and sanctification, that the former is immediately completed, and that it is an act of God, by which, on the ground of the righteousness and death of Christ, he pardons all our sins, accepteth us as righteous in his sight, and releases us from suffering the penalty of the law, so that, "there is no condemnation to them, that are in Christ Jesus." But the latter, instead of being an act, is a work of God, begun indeed at the same time with our justification, and completed only when the soul is made perfect in glory. In its very nature it is progressive; and hence Christians, whatever be their present degree of sanctification, are commanded to "grow in grace," and to add to their faith virtue, and to virtue, knowledge, brotherly kindness and charity. The Scripture uniformly rejects as untrue the statement, that any are perfect in this life, and shows that all pretenders to it are loathsome in the sight of God. The doctrine of justification is sustained by its appropriate representations in the Scriptures. If any individual were to set forth, that it is a progressive work, he would be likely to confound the pas

sages which relate to justification with those that pertain to sanctification, and to sustain his position chiefly by the latter. Thus on the other hand, to support the doctrine of perfect sanctification in this life, a similar resort is had to the passages which pertain to justification. Hence a great portion of those on which Mr. Finney, in common with Mr. Wesley,relies to sustain perfect sanctification, belong solely to justification, or redemption. To the unlearned and superficial they may appear completely to establish his doctrine, but by those accustomed to theological investigations, they will be seen at a glance to be irrelevant to his purpose and a perversion of the Scriptures.

Mr. Finney proceeds next to the removal of objections. These are, 66 1st. The power of habit is so great, that we ought not to expect to be perfectly sanctified in this life." "2d. Many physical difficulties have been created by a life of sin, which cannot be overcome or removed.""3d. The Bible is against this doctrine, where it says "there is not a just man on the earth, that liveth and sinneth not."" "Answer. Suppose the Bible does say, there is not one on earth,' it does not say there cannot be one. Or it may have been true at that time, or under (that) dispensation, that there was not one man in the world who was perfectly sanctified; and yet it may not follow, that at this time, or under the gospel dispensation, there is no one who lives without sin. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did,' Heb. 7: 9, i. e., the gospel did." "4th. The apostles admit that they were not perfect." Answer. I know the apostle Paul says, in one place, 'not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect.' But it is not said he continued so till his death, or that he never did attain to perfect sanctification, and the manner in which he speaks. in the remainder of the verse, looks as if he expected to become so. But I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.' Nor does it appear to me to be true, that in this passage he is speaking of perfect sanctification, but rather of perfect knowledge. And the apostle John speaks of himself as if he loved God perfectly. But whatever may be the truth, as to the actual character of the apostles, it does not follow, because they were not perfect, that no others can be.” *

5th. But is it not presumption for us to think we can be better than the apostles and primitive Christians? Answer.

6:

What is the presumption in the case? Is it not a fact, that we have far greater advantages for religious experience, than the primitive churches?" Of these he mentions "the benefit of their experience," "the complete Scriptures," "the state of the world," the near approach of the millenium." "6th. But so many profess to be perfect who are not so, that I cannot believe that any are perfect in this life. Answer. "How many profess to be rich, who are not?" "7th. So many who profess perfection have run into errour and fanaticism, that I am afraid to think of it." ****" 8th. But do you really think that any body ever has been perfectly holy in this world?" Answer. I have reason to believe there have been many. It is highly probable that Enoch and Elijah were free from sin, before they were taken out of the world. And in different ages of the Church there have been numbers of Christians, who were intelligent and upright, and had nothing that could be said against them, and have testified that they themselves lived free from sin."

In this section of his discourse, Mr. Finney informs us, of what we had all along suspected, that he had recently read Mr. Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection; that he "finds some expressions in it to which he objects," but "believes it to be rather the expressions than the sentiments." With this abatement, he pronounces it an "admirable book," and wishes every member of his church to read it. We have made these extended quotations, partly because so many do not believe Mr. Finney to have inculcated the actual perfection of any in this life, and partly because it is desirable fully to exhibit the first theological offspring of the system which he preached while an Evangelist. This is Perfectionism. Its features will be easily discovered by every attentive reader; but those who have been acquainted with its practical operations, will recognise in these extracts, the early conversations of those, who have eventually rejected the Law, the Gospel, and the ordinances of Christ. The doctrine of a new dispensation, in which some shall be perfect, is here distinctly intimated. An attempt is made to counteract the declarations of the apostles respecting their own imperfections, and to hold them forth as perfect. Under the consciousness of failure in this project, it is demanded, where is the presumption of supposing, that we can we be better than the apostles and primitive Chris

tians? And finally, the author declares his unqualified belief, that many are perfectly holy in this world. His course is precisely the same as that, which has been adopted by others in former times, who have denied that human nature is depraved, and rejected its correlative doctrines. In addition to those mentioned in preceding articles, it is proper here to say that, according to the fourth article of the Errours of the Anabaptists, "set down by Pontanus and Bullinger," "they rejected the doctrine of original sin, and those doctrines that depend upon it;""also that children, whereas they do neither good nor evil, are under grace and without sin." And according to the ninth article, "they separated themselves from all other churches, accounting themselves only pure and holy, without sin."*

Here we are anxious to know, whether the original system of doctrine which brought Mr. Finney to believe and inculcate, that perfect holiness is attained by many in this life, is capable of working any further changes in his views. It is well known, that Mr. Wesley stopped on the ground where Mr. Finney stood at the close of his lecture on perfection. He inculcated, indeed, some remarkable notions of the witness of the Spirit, and then contented himself with believing that Christian perfection is compatible with errours in opinion and practice. With the exception of these abatements in the demands of the moral law, he pressed on men their obligation to obey it, and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. If it be asked, why his system carried him no further? We reply, that in his own mind it was a compound system, a species of semiPelagianism. When it had brought him to this point, it had spent its force. By variations in its proportions, it early wrought things more remarkable in some of his disciples, than it had done in himself. But after compelling him to adopt the doctrine of perfection, does Mr. Finney's system leave him in the quiet possession of the views of obligation, which he had previously held? Is he still found pressing on men the duty of immediate obedience? Does he now vehemently urge them to work out their salvation? Ah!

no.

Now he complains and says, "it is all work, work, WORK." Instead of urging men by the consideration of Heresiography, by E. Plagitt, London, 1646, p. 13, 14.

+ Plain Account of Christian Perfection, pp. 14, 15. Lectures to Christians, p. 269.

their responsibility, as he used to do, almost to the exclusion of dependence on God;-instead of saying, "your salvation or damnation is as much suspended on your choice, as if God neither knew nor designed any thing about it;" he now transfers the work to God: and instead of the obligation of the saints to obey Christ, he teaches the responsibility of Christ for their conduct. His mode of stating this doctrine will be seen in the following extracts:

"It is just so with regard to sanctification and redemption. I cannot dwell on them so particularly as I wished. Until an individual receives Christ, he does not cease from his own works. The moment he does that, by this very act, he throws the responsibility on Christ. The moment the mind does fairly yield itself up to Christ, the responsibility comes upon him just as the person who undertakes to lead a blind man is responsible for his safe conduct. The believer, by the act of faith, pledges Christ for his obedience and sanctification. By giving himself up to Christ, all the veracity of the Godhead is put at stake, that he shall be led aright, or made holy.' ***"And if the wife does not obey her husband, she has it in her power to bring him into great trouble, disgrace, and expense. In like manner, Jesus Christ is Lord over his Church; and if he does not actually restrain his Church from sin, he has it to answer for, and is brought into great trouble and reproach by the misconduct of his people. *** Every believer is so a part of Jesus Christ, and so perfectly united to him, that whatever any of them may be guilty of, Jesus Christ takes upon himself to answer for. This is abundantly taught in the Bible." "Oh, if believers would only throw themselves wholly on Christ, and make him responsible by placing themselves entirely at his controul, they would know his power to save, and would live without sin."‡

The strongest avowal of Antinomianism made in the first number of the Perfectionist, a paper recently published in New-Haven, Connecticut, by those who openly rejected the law as the rule of life, and also the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, is the declaration, that they had rolled the responsibility of their future and eternal obedience on an everlasting arm. This idea of rolling the responsi bility on Christ, and of making him answerable for the con

Lectures to Christians, p. 294. + Ibid. p. 240. * Ibid. p. 345.