To Miss H——

XLIII. — TO MISS II-Duhlin, April 5, 1758.

It is with great reluctance that I at length begin to write: first, because I abhor disputing, and never enter upon it but when I am, as it were, dragged into it by the hair of the head; and, next, because I have so little hope that any good will arise from the present dispute. I fear your passions are too deeply interested in the question to admit the force of the strongest reason. So that, were it not for the tender regard I have for you, which makes your desire a motive I cannot resist, I should not spend half an hour in so thankless a labour, and one wherein I have so little prospect of success.

“The doctrine of perfection,” you say, “has perplexed you much, since some of our preachers have placed it in so dreadful a light; one of them afiirming, ‘A believer, till perfect, is under the curse of God, and in a state of damnation:’ another, ‘If you die before you have attained it, you will surely perish.’”

By perfection, I mean, perfect love, or the loving God with all our heart, so as to rejoice evermore, to pray without ceasing, and in every thing to give thanks. I am convinced every believer may attain this; yet I do not say, he is in a state of damnation, or under the curse of God, till he does attain. No, he is in a state of grace, and in favour with God, as long as he believes. Neither would I say, “If you die without it, you will perish;” but rather. Till you are saved from unholy tempers you are not ripe for glory. There will therefore more promises be fulfilled in your soul, before God takes you to himself.

“But none can attain perfection, unless they first believe it attainable.” Neither do I affirm this. I know a Calvinist in London, who never believed it attainable tiU the moment she did attain it; and then lay declaring it aloud for many days, till her spirit returned to God.

“But you yourself believed, twenty years ago, that we should not put off the infection of nature, but with our bodies.” I did so. But I believe otherwise now, for many reasons, some of which you afterward mention. How far Mr. Roquet or Mr. Walsh may have mistaken these, I know not: I can only answer for myself.

“The nature and fitness of things” is so ambiguous an expression, that I never make use of it. Yet if you ask me, “Is it fit or necessary, in the nature of things, that a soul should be saved from all sin before it enters into glory?” I answer. It is. And so it is written, “No imclean thing shall enter into it.” Therefore, whatever degrees of holiness they did, or did not, attain, in the preceding parts of life, neither Jews nor heathens, any more than Christians, ever did, or ever will, enter into the New Jerusalem, unless they are cleansed from all sin before they enter into eternity.

I do by no means exclude the Old Testament from bearing witness to any truths of God, Nothing less; but I say.

the experience of the Jews is not the standard of Christian experience; and that therefore, were it true, the Jews did not love God with all their heart and soul, it would not follow, therefore, no Christian can; because we may attain what they did not.

“But,” you say, “either their words do not contain a promise of such perfection, or God did not fulfil this promise to them to whom he made it.” I answer. He surely will fulfil it to them to whom he made it; namely, to the Jews, after their dispersion into all lands: and to these is the promise made; as will be clear to any who impartially considers the thirtieth chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein it stands.

I doubt whether this perfection can be proved by Luke vi, 40. From 1 John iii, 9, (which belongs to all the children of God,) I never attempted to prove it; but I still think it is clearly described in those words, “As he is, so are we in this world.” And yet it doth not now appear “what we shall be,” when this vile body is “fashioned like unto his glorious body;” when we shall see him, not in a glass, but face to face, and be transformed into his likeness.

Those expressions, John xiii, 10, “Ye are clean, clean every whit,” are allowed to refer to justification only. But that expression, “If we walk in the light as he is in the light,” cannot refer to justification only. It does not relate to justification at all, whatever the other clause may do. Therefore, those texts are by no means parallel, neither can the latter be limited by the former; although it is sure, the privileges described in both belong to every adult believer.

But not only abundance of particular texts, but the whole tenor of Scripture declares, Christ came to “destroy the works of the devil, to save us from our sins;” all the works of the devil, all our sins, without any exception or limitation. Indeed should we say, we have no sin to be saved or cleansed from, we should make Him come in vain. But it is at least as much for his glory to cleanse us from them all before our death as after it.

“But St. James says, ‘In many things we offend all ;* and whatever we might mean, if alone, the expression, we eUl, was never before understood to exclude the person speaking.” Indeed it was. It is unquestionably to be understood so as to exclude Isaiah, the person speaking, “We are all as an unclean thing; we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away,” lxiv, 6. For this was not the case with Isaiah himself. Of himself he says, “My soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation; he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,” lxi, 10. Here the prophet, like the apostle, uses the word we instead of you, to soften the harshness of an impleasing truth.

In this chapter the apostle is not cautioning them against censuring others, but” entering upon a new argument; wherein the second verse has an immediate reference to the first, but none at all to the thirteenth of the preceding chapter.

1 added, “. ‘We offend all,’ cannot be spoken of all Christians; for immediately there follows the mention of one who offends not, as the we before mentioned did.” You answer, “His not offending in word will not prove that he does not offend * in many things.’” I think St. James him!*elf proves it in saying, “He is able to bridle also the whole body;” to direct all his actions as well as words, according to the holy, perfect will of God; which those, and those onh% are able to do who love God with all their hearts. And yet these very persons can sincerely say, “Forgive us our trespasses.” For as long as they are in the body they are liable to mistake, and to speak or act according to that mistaken judgment. Therefore they cannot abide the rigour of justice, but still need mercy and forgiveness.

Were you to ask, “What if I should die this moment?” I should answer, I believe you would be saved, because I am persuaded none that has faith can die before he is made ripe for glory. This is the doctrine which I continually teach, which has nothing to do with justification by works. Nor can it discourage any who have faith, neither weaken their peace, nor damp their joy in the Lord. True believers are not distressed hereby, either in life or in death; unless in some rare instance, wherein the temptation of the devil is joined with a melancholy temper.

Upon the whole, I observe your great argument turns all along on a mistake of the doctrine. Whatever wann expressions may drop from young men, we do not teach that any believer is under condejnnation. So that all the inferences drawn from this supposition fall to the ground at once.

Your other letter I hope to consider hereafter, though I have great reason to apprehend your prejudice will still be too strong for my arguments. However, whether you expect it or not, I must wish for your perfection. You of all people have most need of perfect love, because this alone casts out fear.

I am, with great sincerity,

Yom- affectionate brother and servant.