chap. viii, verses 2, 3, where the apostle teaches expressly that the νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος της ζωης, supplies that which neither the law of Moses nor any other law ever yet furnished or can furnish."

Dr. Bloomfield, on Rom. vii, 14, says :

"In the interpretation of these words commentators differ. Augustine, and most of the early modern ones, (especially those of the Calvinistic school,) maintain that the apostle here speaks of himself, and of regene- . rate Christians, and means this as the language of penitent remorse. But after all that has been urged in favour of this interpretation by Doddridge, Teller, and especially by Carpzov, (to whose note I refer the reader,) it may justly be considered as untenable."

Professor Stuart, in his learned commentary upon this much-contested passage, supposes "the apostle tobe here speaking of himself when in a legal state, or under the law, and before he was united to Christ." And he says, "The most ancient fathers of the church, without a dissenting voice, so far as we have any means of ascertaining their views, were united in the belief, that an unregenerate, unsanctified person is described in Rom. vii, 5-25. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. In this state the views of the church remained down to the time of Augustine."

After giving the names of the principal commentators who follow Augustine, he proceeds :-"On the other hand, besides all the ancient Greek, and some of the Latin fathers, there are many distinguished men who have defended the sentiment which has been above exhibited. Such are, Erasmus, Raphel, Episcopius, Limborch, Turretine, Le Clerc, Heumann, Bucer, Schomer, Franke, G. Arnold, Bengel, Rienhard,

* See Bloomfield's Critical Digest, also his Greek Testament will English notes.

Storr, Flatt, Knapp, Tholuck, and, as far as I know, all the evangelical commentators of the present time on the continent of Europe. Most of the English Episcopal Church, also, for many years, and not a few of the Scotch, Dutch, and English Presbyterian and Congregational divines, have adopted the same interpretation. I cannot but believe, that the time is not far distant when there will be but one opinion. among intelligent Christians about the passage in question; as there was but one before the dispute of Augustine with Pelagius. In this respect there is ground of trust, that the ancient and modern churches will yet fully harmonize." For the argument at length see "Stuart's Commentary" in loc.

I need not here insert the expositions and arguments of Messrs. Wesley and Fletcher, and the Wesleyan commentators. These are so generally read, that a simple reference to them will be sufficient.*

I have now considered the leading passages of Scripture which are adduced in proof of the necessary continuance of indwelling sin through life. I now leave it to the candid to determine whether these scriptures afford that doctrine the smallest support. Can any one go so far as to allege that in these proof-texts there is sufficient evidence to make the doctrine which they are brought to prove an article of faith, and to brand the opposite view as heresy? So far as this many have gone; and the position is maintained by distinguished and learned ministers at the present day. How any right-minded Christian divine can stake so much upon a theory so slenderly sustained is indeed strange, and must be left without judgment upon our part. But

* Those who may wish to consult these authorities, I would refer to Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, Fletcher's Last Check to Antinomianism, Clarke's, Coke's, and Benson's Commentaries.

as for us, let us make our appeal to the law and the testimony, and then abide the result. If we hold no doctrine which is condemned by Christ or his holy apostles, we may well forego the good opinion of men who judge of our doctrinal views a priori, without law or evidence. We must not, however, treat them uncharitably. They think themselves right. What they allege in favour of their views looks to them like proof, and all we can adduce on the other hand has. with them no weight. Well, here we must rest the matter until God shall give more light, or perhaps until the light of eternity, which will correct all errors, shall dawn upon the darkened understanding.

LECTURE XV.

PERIOD WHEN BELIEVERS MAY BE ENTIRELY SANCTIFIED ERRORS CONCERNING.

"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid ! How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?" Rom. vi, 1, 2.

I SHALL next proceed to an examination of opposing theories. Our opponents do not merely deny the attainableness of entire sanctification in this life, but, on the other hand, maintain that sin cannot be wholly removed until death comes in to complete the work of its destruction. As we have seen, the Rev. Dr. Snodgrass maintains "that the dissolution of the body, as followed by its resurrection, is one of the appointed means of sanctification.”

So those who oppose us have a theory to maintain. And after answering the leading objections which they

have seen proper to urge against us, it will be in place to carry the war into their camp. I shall now proceed to offer reasons against this notion of the necessary continuance of indwelling sin until death. There will be no chance here with the class of theologians who maintain the proposition I now oppose, for a play upon the word necessary. We agree, I presume, in the sense in which the possibility or impossibility, in question, is to be understood. Calvin says, "I call that impossible which has never happened yet, and which is prevented by the ordination and decree of God from ever happening in the future." And Dr. Snodgrass says:-" As to the meaning of the word ATTAINABLE, when applied to the state described in the preceding remarks, we have no other purpose than to use it in its most obvious and popular senseas importing the practicability of the thing to which it refers. An attainable thing is something the attainment of which is practicable; an unattainable thing is something the attainment of which is not practicable.' I understand, then, Calvin and Dr. Snodgrass to agree in the doctrine that entire sanctification in this life is "impossible," being "prevented by the ordination and decree of God," "is something the attainment of which is impracticable," and this I understand logically to imply that the existence of sin in the regenerate until death is a necessary consequence of a divine arrangement. The main principle then being thus understood, I object to it for the following reasons:

1. It makes the continuance of sin in believers until death their misfortune, and not their fault.

I do not admit, nor do I see how any one can ration ally assert, that just blame can be attached to a moral agent for not attaining what is " impracticable-impos

* Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 29.

sible-prevented by the ordination and decree of God." All the explanations offered here, either by the old school or the new school Calvinists, are lost upon me, for I cannot feel their force. I can see no grounds of moral justice upon which I am blameworthy for the continuance of sin in my heart upon this principle. If it is in accordance with a divine arrangement, for the purpose of securing some good end, that believers are through life to be annoyed by their corruptions, who is in fault if those corruptions are not wholly eradicated? The argument is plain, and can scarcely be improved by illustration. And though to our opponents it may look like a mere bubble, it will probably continue to appear to us like an immoveable rock.

The simple fact, then, that all are conscious their inward corruptions, in whole and in part, all of them, are wrong, entirely unnecessary, and offensive to God, is sufficient to show the radical error of the position I oppose. For who that believes that the destruction of his inward corruptions is "prevented by the decree of God," until "the dissolution of the body," which, in the wisdom of God, is constituted "one of the appointed means of sanctification," can feel it very wrong to suffer on under the weight of "the body of sin" "all the days of his appointed time until his change come?" Who will condemn himself for the continued molestations of the brood of vipers, which God has determined to leave to nestle in his heart until the appointed remedy arrives? From this argument we are naturally led on to another, which grows out of it. 2. The doctrine that entire sanctification is unattainable in this life effectually nourishes spiritual sloth.

Who will ever make a serious effort to get rid of a necessary evil? Hooker, with an evidence of philosophical truth that no man can gainsay or doubt, says: