And, (2.) Upon all her feeble children :-"Though your power be weak," says she to them, "yet Christ is risen again to strengthen you in your battle: his Holy Spirit shall help your infirmities. In trust of his mercy take you in hand to purge the leaven of sin, that corrupteth and soureth the sweetness of our life before God; that ye may be as new and fresh dough, void of all sour leaven of wickedness; so shall ye show yourselves to be sweet bread to God, that he may have his delight in you." (Hom. on the Resur.)

All the preceding arguments support our sense of the ninth and fif teenth articles; and if Mr. Hill urge that our Church contradicts herself, and sometimes pleads for Christian imperfection and a death purgatory; we reply, that, supposing the charge were well grounded, yet we ought rather to follow her, when she soberly follows Scripture, than when she hastily follows inconsistent. Augustine. But we would rather hope that when she speaks of human depravity in a manner which seems to bear hard upon the preceding quotations, it is either when she speaks of human depravity in general, or when she inculcates the perfection of humility; or when she opposes the feigned perfection of those whom she ironically calls "proud, just, perfect, and holy Pharisees." (Hom. on the Misery of Man.) From these and the like words, therefore, we have as much reason to conclude that she renounces true Christian holiness, as to infer that she decries true Christian perfection. Beside, the delusion of those Pharisees, who have missed a perfection of evangelical righteousness and humility, and have attained a perfection of self righteousness and pride, is so horrible and so diametrically opposite to the spirit of Christianity, that our reformers deserve to be excused, if they have sometimes opposed that error in an unguarded manner; especially as they have so clearly and so frequently asserted the glorious liberty of God's children.

I shall close this vindication of the Church of England with some remarks upon her "martyrs," whom Mr. Hill produces also in his creed, to keep the doctrine of Christian imperfection in countenance.

1. If any of our martyrs, speaking of his converted, renewed, and sanctified state, said, "I am all sin," or words to that purpose, he spoke the words of unguarded humility, rather than the words of evangelical soberness: for a man may have grace and zeal enough to burn for one truth, without having time and prudence enough properly to investigate and state every truth.

2. In our state of weakness, the very perfection of humility may betray an injudicious martyr into the use of expressions which seem to clash with the glorious liberty of God's children; just as an excessive love for our friends may betray us into an injudicious and teasing officiousness.

3. When a martyr considers himself in his fallen state in Adam, or in his former state of disobedience, he may say, "I am all sin," in the very same sense in which St. Paul said, "I am the chief of sinners." But allow him time to explain himself, and he will soon give you to understand that he " rejoices in the testimony of a good conscience, purged from dead works to serve the living God;" and that, far from harbouring any sin in himself, he is determined to "strive against sin in

others; resisting unto blood.". And is not such a disposition as this one of the highest steps in the ladder of Christian perfection?

4. Hence it appears that the unguarded expressions of our martyrs were levelled at Pharisaic pride, or at absolute perfection, and not at Christian perfection. Like some pious Calvinists in our days, they embraced Christian perfection in deed, while, through misapprehension, they disclaimed it in word. And therefore their speeches against the glorious liberty of God's children, show only that Christian perfection is a perfection of humility and love, and not a perfection of wisdom and knowledge.

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 pro. perly 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 landmarks 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 be 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 who 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 cleanseth 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 it with a true and steadfast faith, purgeth and cleanseth us from all our sins. The blood of Christ,' says St. John, 'hath cleansed us from all sin.'" (Homily on Prayer, part iii.) There. fore, the doctrine, that "death, &c, cleanseth us from all indwelling sin," or the doctrine of a death purgatory, is as contrary to the doctrine of our Church as to that of St. John.

SECTION V.

Mr. Hill intimates that the apostles were imperfectionists-St. Peter and St. James, far from pleading for a death purgatory, stand up for Christian perfection.

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,) Never were "root and branch, my favourite doctrine of perfection." 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 only produces the names 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.

1. 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, &c, 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 hath suffered in the flesh, hath ceased from sin. The God of all grace, &c, after " Had Peter been that ye have suffered awhile, make you PERFECT. 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 passes 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 where 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 hearts are 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 the 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 in peace, 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 hearts of believers till they die, any more than for the fruit of adultery, murder, and incest in their lives 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 hearts during the term of life, if that doctrine had been true, yet he does not so much as drop one hint about it. The design of his first epistle was, 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 heavi. ness, not only through manifold temptations, but also through the remaining corruptions of your hearts: the Canaanites and 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 roots 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," that is, 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 be "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 hearts, any more than for Baal in the lives 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 shows himself a bold asserter 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 coN. TINUETH 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 delorable 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, for

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) showed no mercy;" whether he sinned negatively by not relieving his poor brother 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 1 John iii, 4, &c, to the end of both chap. ters, 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 Antinomianism.

Should it be objected, that, "at this rate, no Christian believer is safe, till he has obtained 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 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 says, In many 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 preaches; because that 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 the royal and evangelical