4. Resolved, That we view with regret and sorrow, the ground taken on this subject by the Theological Professors at Oberlin.

5. Resolved, That we hail with joy every improvement in human opinion that conforms to the Bible and promises, in its practical tendency, to decrease the sins or increase the moral purity of the church.

6. Resolved, That the above statement and resolutions be signed by the Moderator and Stated Clerk, and published in the New York Evangelist, New York Observer, the Christian Observer, and the Presby

Permit me to make a few remarks upon your report on the subject of Christian perfection. I have read with attention most that has come to hand upon the subject of your report, and have thought it of little use to reply, until some opponent of our views should throw his objections into a more tangible form than any one had hitherto done. Your report embraces, in a condensed form, almost all that has been said in opposition to our views. For this reason, as well as for the reason that I have a high respect and fervent love for those of your number with whom I am acquainted, I beg leave to be heard in reply.

f

What I have said was prepared for, and should have been published in the New York Evangelist. I wrote to the editor, making the request to be heard through his columns; to which he made no reply. I still hope he will not fail to do me, yourselves, and the church the justice to give this article a place in his columns. The truth demands it. For no other reason, I am sure, than to subserve the interests of truth, would I say one word. Without further preface. I quote your statement of the real point at issue.-You say:

66

That there is soine issue, admits of no doubt. What is it? It is not, whether by the requirements of the moral law, or the injunctions" of the gospel, men are commanded to be perfectly holy; not whether men are under obligations to be thus holy; not whether as moral agents, such a state is to them a possible state: not whether the gospel system is competent to secure actual perfection in holiness, if its entire resources be applied; not whether it is the duty and privilege of the church to rise much higher in holy living, than it has ever, yet done in this world. To join the issue on any, or all of these points, is to make a false issue; it is to have the appearance of a question without its reality. Some, or all of these points, form a part of the scheme of Christian Perfection;" but certainly they do not invest it w th any peculiar character, for they involve no new sentiment differing from the ground taken by the great body of orthodox Christians in every age. It cannot be supposed that their advocacy has led to the va

rious and fearful solicitudes of learned and pious men in regard to the truth and tendency of this system. It must therefore be fraught with some other element. What is that element? The assertion that Christian men do obtain in some cases, during the present life, to a state of perfect holiness, excluding sin' in every form, and that for an indefinite period they remain in this state."

Upon this I remark:

1. You have made a false issue. Proof:

1. What our position is. It is, and always has been, that entire sanctification is attainable in this life, in such a sense as to render its attainment a rational object of pursuit, with the expectation of attaining it.

This proposition, it would seem, you admit; but on account of “the various and fearful solicitudes of learned and pious men," you take it for granted, there must be a heresy somewhere, and accordingly proceed to take issue with us, upon one of the arguments we have used in support of our proposition; and reply to our other arguments, as if they had been adduced by us in support of the proposition, upon which you have erroneously made up the issue.

2. Some of the arguments by which we have attempted to establish this proposition are➡

(1.) That men are naturally able to obey all the commandments of God. (2.) That this obedience is unqualifiedly demanded of men in this life, (3.) That the gospel proffers sufficient grace to secure their entire sanctification in this life; and that nothing is wanting but " appropriative acts," on the part of Christians, to realize this result.

(4.) That the entire sanctification of Christians in this life was made the subject of prayer by inspired men, and also that Christ taught his disciples to pray for it.

(5.) That this state has actually been attained.

These are among our arguments: and as they are the only ones to which you have professed to reply, I will mention no others.

3. I will put our arguments in the form of syllogisms in their order. First Argument. Whatever is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability, may be aimed at with a'rational hope of success. A state of entire sanctificaton in this life is attainable on the ground of natural ability. Therefore, it may be aimed at with a rational hope of success. Men are naturally able to do all their duty, which is to be entirely sanctified. Therefore, they may aim at entire sanctification with a rational hope of being entirely sanctified.

You admit both the major and minor premises, in these syllogisms. Can the conclusion be avoided?

Second Argument. Whatever God commands to be done by men in this life. may be done by them. God commands men to be entirely holy in this life. Therefore a state of entire holiness in this life is possi ble. You admit both the major and minor premises. Can the conclusion be avoided?

Third Argument. Whatever attainment the gospel proffers sufficient grace to secure in this life, may be made. The gospel proffers sufficient grace, should any one "apply its entire resources, to secure a state of entire sanctification in this life. Therefore, this state may be secured, or this attainment may be made. Here again, you admit both premises. Can the conclusion be denied?

Fourth Argument. Whatever was made the subject of prayer by the Spirit of inspiration may be granted. The entire sanctification of the saints in this life was prayed for by the Spirit of inspiration. Therefore, Christians may aim at and pray for this state, with the rational expectation of being entirely sanctified in this life.

Again. What Christ has made it the universal duty of the church to pray for, may be granted. He has made it the duty of all Christians to pray for the entire sanctification of the saints in this life. Both premises in these syllogisms are admitted. Are not the conclusions inevitable?

Fifth Argument. Whatever men have done, men can do. Men have been entirely sanctified in this life. Therefore they may be so sanctified. The minor premise in this syllogism you deny; and, strange to tell, you affirm, over and over again, that this one argument of ours is the main proposition to be established! And you reply to all our other arguments in support of the main proposition as if they had been adduced to prove this! Now it would have been equally fair, and just as much in point, so far as our argument in support of the main proposition is concerned, if you had made an issue with us on any other argument adduced by us in support of that proposition-insisted that that was the main question-and replied to our arguments as if they had been adduced in support of that.

You misrepresent our logic. Assuming that the fact of actual attainment is the main proposition which we are laboring to establish, and in support of which we adduce the fact of actual attainment only as an argument, you misrepresent our reasoning. To put this mattter in the clearest light, I will place, side by side, the syllogisms which you put in our mouths, and our own syllogisms.

YOUR SYLLOGISMS IMPUTED TO US.

1.

"Whatever is attainable in this life, is actually attained in this life. A state of perfect holiness is attainable in this life; therefore it is actually attained."

OUR OWN SYLLOGISMS.

1. Whatever is attainable in this life may be aimed at, with the rational hope of attaining it; entire sanctification is attainable in this life; therefore the attainment of this state may be aimed at with a rational hope of success.

2. "Whatever is possible by the 2. Whatever attainment is posprovisions of the gospel in this life, sible, by the provisions of the goswill take place in this life; the per-pel in this life, may be aimed at by fect sanctification of some believers those under the gospel, with a rais possible by those provisions; | tional hope of attaining it; the pertherefore it will actually take place | fect sanctification of believers is in this life."

possible by these provisions; therefore believers may aim at making this attainment, with a rational hope of success.

3. Whatever the Bible commands to be done in this life may

that although the Bible does command a state of perfect holiness, in the present life, it does not follow that the command is in any instance obeyed fully on earth. Before we can arrive at this conclusion, we must adopt the following principle: that is, that whatever is commanded in the Bible is actually performed by the subjects of that command,"

The syllogism would stand thus:

Whatever is commanded by God, is actually performed; perfect holiness is commanded; therefore all men are perfectly holy.

be done; the Bible commands Christians to be perfect in this life; therefore, they may be perfect in this life.

Now, brethren, I ask if you will deny the major premise, the minor premise, or the conclusion in either of the above syllogisms? You cannot deny either. I beseech you then, to consider what injustice you have done to yourselves, to us, your brethren, and to the cause of truth, by such an evasion and misrepresentation of our logic.

5. What your logic must be to meet our argument as we have stated it. If you would state in syllogistic form, an argument that shall meet and set aside our reasoning, it must stand thus: That a thing is attainable in this life, is no proof that it can be attained. This must be assumed as a major premise, by any who would answer our logic. But who does not see, that this amounts to a denial of an identical proposition? The same as to say-that a thing being attainable in this life, is no proof that it is attainable in this life. But to waive this consideration, and State the argument as it must stand in syllogistic form: to meet and re fute our logic, it must stand thus: That a thing is attainable in this life is no proof that it can be attained. Entire sanctification is attainable in this life. Therefore, its attainability is no proof that it can be attained. Who does not see, that the major premise is false, and that therefore the conclusion is? Now observe, we admit, that its attainability is no proof that it will be attained. But we insist, that its attainability is proof that the attainment may be aimed at, with a rational hope of success.

Again, would you meet our second argument with a syllogism, it must stand thus: That God commands a state of entire sanctification in this life, is no proof that such a state is attainable in this life. God does command a state of entire sanctification in this life. Therefore the command is no proof that such a state is attainable.' Brethren, this argument would have the attribute i logical conclusiveness, if the major premise was not false. The very same course must be pursued by you, would you meet and set aside our reasoning in respect to our other arguments. This is so manifest, that I need not state the syllogisms.

・

II. In respect to our inference in favor of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, drawn from the prayers of inspiration, and the fact that all Christians are commanded to pray for the entire sanctification of believers in this life you say as follows:

"Similar defects characterize the arguments drawn from the prayers which the Bible records, as well as those which it authorizes Christ

ians to make. It is true, that Christ prayed for his disciples in language the most elevated: Sanctify them through the truth,' The same may be said of the great Apostle, when he prayed: · And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly.' We are directed to pray that God's will may be done on earth as in heaven; and in general authorized to pray for a perfect victory over all sin at every time. These are the facts. Now, what is the inference? The advocate of Perfection' responds that some believers are perfectly sanctified in the present life. These and kindred facts we offer, to prove this conclusion. Is there then between the two a certain connection? If we admit the one must we logically admit the other? Facts speak a very different language. Were those included in the prayer of Christ, thus sanctified, and that from the moment of its utterance? Was the same true of all the Christians of Thessalonica? Has the will of God yet been done on earth as perfectly as in heaven? Has every believer, who has hungered and thirsted after righteousness, attained to sinless perfection in this life? Did not Paul most fervently pray for the salvation of Israel,* and have not thousands of Jews since died in their sins? Did he not pray that the thorn in his flesh might be removed, and was it removed? The grand mistake in this reasoning is, that it fixes what the nature and terms of prayer do not fix; that is, the time when and the place where, the sought blessing shall be obtained.",

On this I remark:

This appears to me a most remarkable paragraph. Here you quote a part of 1 Thess. 5: 23: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, "and then stop, assuming that nothing can be affirmed in respect to the time when the Apostle prayed that this blessing might be granted. Now, beloved brethren, why did you not quote the whole passage? when it would have been most manifest, that the Apostle actually prayed for the blessing to be granted in this life. I will quote it and see if this is not so: "The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

As the sanctification of the "body" as well as the "soul and spirit" is prayed for, and the whole being may be "preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," how can you say as you do"The grand mistake in this reasoning is, that it fixes what the nature and the terms of prayer do not fix, that is, the time when and place where the sought blessing shall be obtained." Does not this prayer contemplate the bestowment of this blessing in this life? Who can reasonably deny it? Again: You say, "We are directed to pray that God's will may be done on earth as in heaven, and in general authorized to pray for a victory over all sin at every time." Now how can you make this admission, and still add the assertion just quoted, that" prayer does not fix the time when this blessing is to be expected?" Certainly, the time when is, in this prayer, limited to this life. In order to meet our argument, based upon the prayer of the Apostles, and the injunction of Christ, to pray for the entire sanctification of believers in this life, you must argue as follows. Here again I put the syllogisms into separate columns, that you may see them in contrast.