"As another reason the light that was shining in the heart has disclosed a yet more inward, profound and concealed light, insomuch that the whole man being absolved in that sweetness and contemplation, was master of himself no longer, but was to this world as a mere fool and barbarian, by reason of the superabundant love and sweetness of the hidden mysteries; so that the person being for that time set at liberty arrives at such degrees of perfection as to become pure and free from sin. But after all this grace has withdrawn itself and the veil of the adverse power has come upon him; it appears in part, however, and he stands in one of the lower bounds of perfection. And one that is rich in grace, at all times, by night and by day, continues in a perfect state, free and pure, even captivated with love and elevated to God."

HOMILY 10.-"Concerning the treasures of Christians; that is Christ and the Holy Spirit variously exercising them toward perfection."

"Whoever therefore possesses with himself this heavenly treasure of the Spirit, he fulfils in this Spirit all the righteousness of the commandments and the complete practice of the virtues, without blame, and in purity; moreover without compulsion, or difficulty. Then let us beseech God and seek diligently unto Him, and pour out our supplications before him, that he would freely grant unto us the treasure of his Spirit, that we may be enabled to walk in all his commandments without reproof and without blemish and fulfil all the righteousness of the Spirit in purity and perfection.

It behooves every one therefore to oblige himself by force to petition the Lord, that he may receive the heavenly treasure of the Spirit, so as without difficulty to be able to perform all the commandments of the Lord, blameless and in purity; which before even with violence he could never do. For being poor and destitute of the communication of the Spirit, how should it come by such spiritual possessions? But the soul, which by faith and much patience, hath found the Lord, the true treasure, produceth the fruits of the Spirit and performs all the righteousness and commandments of the Lord, which the Spirit hath commanded, in and by her, with purity, and free from blame."

HOMILY 14.-Concerning the truth and excelling of the Lord; and how it is tempted by Satan and obtains deliverance.

Ques.-Is the natural concupiscences rooted out by the coming of the Spirit?

Aus.-Sin is rooted out and man receives the original formation of Adam in his purity. Through the power of the Spirit he comes up to the first Adam; yea is made greater than him.

"Christians are clothed with the Spirit and are at rest. And the war ariseth from without, they are inwardly fortified with the power of the Lord, and are no more concerned for Satan. Just so when he tempts our Lord in the wilderness 40 days; what real hurt was it that he could approach outwardly this body? For within was God. In like manner Christians, though outwardly they are tempted, yet inwardly are they filled with the Divine nature, and so nothing injured. These degrees if any man attain to, he is come to the perfect love of Christ; and to the fullness of the Godhead. But he that is not so, still inwardly retains the man. He is one hour refreshed in prayer and another in a state of affliction. And there springs up in him both light and darkness, and rest and affliction. And that whatever gifts he hath; for many of the brethren have had the gifts of healing and revelation and prophecy, however not having attained to perfect charity, the war came upon them and they fell. Indeed, if any one comes to perfect love, he is forever after bound and captivated by grace. But if any oue make but small advances towards this, he is in bondage to fear and to war and to falling."

The reader will notice the following characteristics of the above extracts. The writer does not, at all, speak of the doctrine of perfection, as a question in controversy in the

church, but as an admitted truth. In a similar manner do the ancient fathers generally speak upon the subject. Now if our brethren in Princeton, in holding up this doctrine, as the belief of enthusiasts, fanatics and heretics in all ages, had also informed their readers, that it was the received faith of the wisest and best men in the church from the time of the apos. tles down to the Reformation, if while they informed us that it was held by the French prophets, they had also confessed that it was the doctrine held by the immortal Fenelon of the same nation, and by him demonstrated to have been the standing faith of the wise and good in the church in all preceding ages, they would simply have done justice to a doctrine which they have attempted to bring into general contempt, by an unrighteous appeal to prejudice. Taking the facts as they are, how evident is it that the idea of Perfection, instead of being a delusion held only by a few, has in fact, from the beginning been one of the great ideas of universal humanity, an idea held alike by Heathen, Mahommedans, Heretics and Christians. Such an idea surely deserves our profound respect whether ever realized in actual experience or not. induced, or attempted to induce in their readers the desired attitude of mind relative to this doctrine, our brethren now proceed to a direct argumentation of the subject. In doing this, they propose the following method:

Having

"We shall begin with noticing the principal arguments, which are common. ly adduced by perfectionists of different descriptions, in support of their views of this subject. We shall next exhibit direct evidence of the sinful imperfection of the heart of the saints, in this life; and lastly, we shall show the great practical importance of the doctrine for which we contend, in opposition to the error which it controverts."

In their reply to the "arguments of the perfectionists," they begin with the commands of Christ, and thus state our argument on this point:

swer.

"The command of God requires perfection, is one of their arguments. AnIt is doubtless true, that the Most High does command us to be perfect, and to enjoin anything less than perfection, would be inconsistent with his own purity, and those eternal principles of rectitude, according to which he governs the universe. The law expresses his feelings towards moral objects; but it leaves wholly undetermined the question, whether his rational creatures will acknowledge, or reject his authority. His command, in any instance, neither supposes that it will be obeyed, nor implies any insincerity in him, provided he foresees that it will not be obeyed. The contrary supposition would be incompatible with some of the most undeniable facts of revealed religion. Does the divine command to be perfect, prove that some may, or will obey this righteous precept? Then, for the same reason, the divine prohibition of all sin in mankind equally proves that some of them may pass through a long life without a single act of transgression."

We are weary of correcting our brethren on this one point. We have never in any single instance, argued from the fact,

that all are required to be perfect, that therefore some will be. The argument which we do urge, (we repeat what we have often asserted and re-asserted, and what our opponents seem determined not to know, that we have asserted at all,) is this: The fact that God requires perfection of all, proves not only that some, but that all may render the required obedience. This is the only form in which we have ever argued the question from the mere commands of God. Why will not our opponents in their replies to us, consent to meet the argument just as we present it?

There is another and different form of the argument based upon the commands of God, which our opponents universally refuse to look at, the very form on which we avowedly place the chief reliance. It may be thus stated: There are certain circumstances and connections in which a precept is never given, when obedience to it is not expected. Christ, for example, in the sermon on the mount, tters the command, "Be perfect," and then referring to the same precept among other of his sayings adds, "Whosoever therefore heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man who built his house upon a rock." "And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man who built his house upon the sand." Now we affirm, that our Savior never did issue a command, and then immediately, and without any qualification, affirm that any one who should hear that command and obey it should be saved, and every one who should hear and disobey it should be damned, when he as peremptorily required all men to believe, as a revealed truth of God, that no man ever did or will obey that command for a single day, or hour, or moment of his life. What would that be but teaching the doctrine of universal damnation? We cite but one passage more, together with our comment upon the same, which has been long unanswered before the public:

" 1 Timothy vi: 13, 14-"I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." The commad here referred to, as any one will see, who will read the context, includes every thing required of Christians. Let us suppose that Timothy had answered this epistle, informing Paul that he had read his charge with solemn interest, and that, by the grace of God, he expected to keep it. What should we think, if, in Paul's second epistle, such a rejoinder as this were found? "Timothy, your letter to me has filled me with amazement and sorrow of heart. You have become a wild fanatic-a Perfectionist. How could you have misunderstood me so much, as to suppose, that I ever dreamed, that you would expect to keep that awful charge?" Why should we be shocked at such a reply? Simply because we cannot believe

that such a charge could be dictated by the Spi.it of God, not only in the absence of all expectation that it would be kept, but with the intention of impressing the subject with the opposite belief."

Why have our opponents universally evaded this argument in this form, instead of taking it directly by the horns, that they might see with what force it would push them? The manner in which this argument is evaded in this essay is very singular. They quote the first sentence of the paragraph from which the above extract is taken, omitting the following sentence, in which we explain the form in which we wish to be understood, and thus attribute an argument to us, totally different from the one which we really urged. "Mr. Maban says," they say, "I infer that a state of perfect holiness is attainable in this life, from the commands of scripture addressed to christians under the new covenant." Here they stop, and thus present us to the public as arguing simply from the mere fact that perfection is required, that it may or will be attained. If they had only cited the following sentence, their readers would have seen, that they were required to answer a very different argument from that which they have attributed to us. The sentence wrongfully omitted is this: "I re fer here, not mainly to the fact, that perfect holiness is required of christians, but to the manner and circumstances in which these commands are given." We ask our reviewers, in their rejoinder, to meet the argument in the form in which we have presented it.

The reply of the reviewers to our argument based upon the revealed provisions of grace for the entire sanctification of believers, was quite unexpected to us. We have laid down the proposition that such provisions are revealed, and have fortified the position by the citation of many passages of scripture, bearing directly upon the subject. Our brethren of the Old School have always charged those of the New with the greatest inconsistency in admitting the facts of revealed provisions for this end, and then denying the conclusion which is based upon it, to wit, the truth of our doctrine. We expected therefore, that when called upon themselves to meet the argument, our brethren of the Old School would boldly deny the fact upon which our conclusion is based, to wit, the revelation of provisions for the entire sanctification of believers in this life, and would then attempt at least to explain the passages cited by us, in consistency with such denial. But they do no such thing. Their only reply is that they know not what we mean, when we assert the existence of such provisions. As we have

not defined our terms, no particular reply is demanded. They never complained of obscurity in our language, when fastening the charge of inconsistency upon the New School. But when called upon themselves to meet the argument, what is their reply? Why this. "The loose manner in which Mr. Mahan expressed himself, makes it difficult to say what he' does mean," &c. Why did they not suppose, that we used the term provision in the same sense in which they themselves have done, when they have charged inconsistency and absurdity upon the New School, for admitting, with us, the existence of such provisions, and then denying our conclusion based upon that admission? And on that obvious assumption, why did they not attempt to show that the passages cited by us, do not prove our proposition? It is in this identical sense that we have ever used this term, and as our brethren now know what our meaning is, we ask them to meet the argument as we have presented it.

The following is their reply to our argument from the promises of grace:

"Mr. Mahan also affirms that 'perfection in holiness is promised to the Christtian in the new covenant under which he is placed,'

"If it be true that God has promised that his people shall become perfect in this life, the question is settled. But what are the proofs adduced of this fact? Why, he cites a number of passages, which, if they are at all relevant to his design, prove that all Christians become completely holy at the moment of their regeneration. The promises he mentions belong to all under the new covenant.These are contained in such passages as Jer. xxxi. 31-34, and Heb. viii, 8-11; Deut. xxx. 6; Jer. L. 20; Ezek. xxxvi. 25–27; Isaiah lix. 21, and Luke i. 74, 75, &c.

The apostle informs us that it is by the promises that we are to be "made partakers of the divine nature" and "escape the corruptions that are in the world through lust." But we are here told that when we pray for grace to do what is required of us, there are no promises whatever on which our faith can fasten, as the ground of hope in respect to an answer to our petitions. All that is promised in the passages above referred to are accomplished in every one "at the moment of their regeneration." Let us examine one or two of these passages and see if this sentiment is correct. The fulfilment of promise recorded in Deut. 30: 6. "The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the hearts of thy seed, to love the Lord with all thy heart, and with all thy soul," the fulfilment of this promise, we say, is conditioned expressly, as we learn from verses 2 and 10, of the same chapter, upon the fact, that we "turn to the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul." "Circumcising the heart" as here