might be difficult, logically, to prove, but, in our minds, there is no doubt that this is in a great degree owing to a holy emulation caused by the labors and the success of the ministry of our church. Now, while we would not have this ardor in any degree cooled, nor this zeal one jot abated, we would have our ministry able to cope with that of any other branch of Christ's church, in directing that zeal according to knowledge, in defending peculiarities of doctrine, in influencing, swaying, and molding the public mind. We hold that man unworthy of his vocation, we doubt, indeed, whether he has not mistaken his calling, who is willing that the church, of which he is a minister, should be thrown into the back ground, or should rank anywhere but FIRST in its influence, its power, and its success.

Do we really believe in the peculiarities of our creed? Are we convinced that there is more of truth and less of error in the doctrines of our own than in those of our sister churches? Are we satisfied that the "sect everywhere spoken against" is destined to embrace every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, when the millennial reign of Christ shall fill the earth with his glory? We profess all this. That we are Methodists, is evidence that such is our belief and our expectation: and can any labor be too great, or any toil unnecessary that shall tend to enable the ministry of our church to show by their works that this is their faith?

Again, the tendency of our economy is evidently and unavoidably to concentration. Keeping pace with the population, and losing sight of territorial limits, the district becomes a conference; and what, in many instances, was once a circuit, is now the boundary of a district. Stations are multiplying everywhere; and within a section of country where formerly we could do little more than fire a random shot at different places once a month, or once in six weeks, now, the citadel of error is to be attacked by a continued and incessant bombardment. To say nothing of the qualifications that are requisite to enable our ministry to appear in places like these, creditably, when compared with the talent and eloquence in the pulpits by which they are surrounded, the wants of our own people demand from them qualifications that they cannot have without diligent study and faithful mental discipline. They cannot be satisfied with tedious repetitions and reiterated dulness: they will not be satisfied with awkwardness or monotony. Hence the anxiety

of our people to secure the services of such men as they suppose are best furnished, intellectually, for the pastoral office, is pardonable, nay, praiseworthy. The fact that a man is a Methodist minister, in good standing, is satisfactory evidence of his piety; but they ask, with solicitude which does them credit, Is he qualified to meet the opposition that we have to contend with? Can he feed the lambs of our flock? Is he able to retain our congregations, to withdraw which the efforts of our neighbors are skilful and unceasing?

It is a question which we do not intend to answer, but which we would commend to those who are loudest in their denunciations of what is called the "petitioning system," whether, in most instances, that practice does not arise, on the part of our people, from a sincere and ardent desire for the honor and the advancement of Methodism? It is a yet graver question, and one still more pertinent to the subject before us, whether the fault complained of in this respect may not be traced to the door of the ministry? For whom do the people petition? Is there any good reason why all may not, in a greater or less degree, acquire those qualifications for which the church asks as a favor, while other denominations demand them as a right? In fact, the embarrassments of our executive do not arise so much from the number of petitions, with which, in some conferences, their tables groan, as, from the fact, that comparatively but a few men are petitioned for.

Here we pause for the present. If the motives urged fail to effect the object for which we have written, the fault is not in them, but in us. In ourselves, we mean, because we have not presented them with sufficient vividness and energy; or, in ourselves still, for we are one among our brethren, because we will not allow these motives to have their due influence. The glory of God, and, if we have no higher object, even our own interest for this world, as well as for that which is to come, demand from every minister of our church the unceasing improvement of the talents committed to his stewardship that Methodism may be urged on to the accomplishment of her destiny-the publication and the embracement of a FREE and a FULL salvation to the ends of the earth.

F.

ART. VII.-1. Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, with other kindred Subjects, illustrated and confirmed in a Series of Discourses, designed to throw light on the Way of Holiness. By Rev. ASA MAHAN, President of the Oberlin Collegiate Institute. Fourth edition. Pp. 193. Boston: published by D. S. King. 1840.

2. Christian Perfection. By ENOCH POND, D. D., Bangor Theological Seminary. American Biblical Repository, second series. Vol. I, pp. 44-58.

3. Review of Mahan on Christian Perfection. By Rev. NATHANIEL S. FOLSOM. Providence, R. I. American Biblical Repository, second series. Vol. II, pp. 143–166.

4. Strictures on Mr. Folsom's Review of Mahan on Christian Perfection. By Rev. ASA MAHAN, President, &c. American Biblical Repository. Vol. IV, pp. 408-428.

5. Examination of the Doctrine of Perfection, as held by Rev. ASA MAHAN, President of the Oberlin Collegiate Institute, Rev. CHARLES FITCH, and others agreeing with them. By LEONARD WOODS, D. D., Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. American Biblical Repository. Vol. V, pp. 166-189.

THE discussion of the subject of Christian perfection, now pending in the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, is a matter of no small interest to the church of Christ in general. And at present, we rejoice to say, it seems to be assuming a tone which augurs a favorable result. The best talents are called into requisition, and a becoming gravity and brotherly feeling characterize the parties engaged in the investigation.

We are not at all disposed to intermeddle with questions of difference among other denominations, so far as these questions are merely local or only interesting to them. But this question is one of general interest, and such is the relation which is held to it by all the followers of Wesley, that it cannot be supposed they will look on with indifference. Especially as the views of Wesley and the Methodists frequently come into question; and, as we think, are sometimes but badly represented, it ought not to be taken amiss that we should interpose at this time a brief review of the controversy.

We have read Mr. Mahan's book with great interest and satis

faction. Though it is not to be maintained that he expresses himself Methodistically upon all the points of this great doctrine, we are satisfied that the thing which we mean by Christian perfection is truly set forth in that work. The failure to express the Wesleyan theory, if in any point, is in not sufficiently distinguishing between legal and evangelical perfection. This we merely hint by the way, being by no means certain that there is any real difference between his conceptions of the subject and our own.

The point upon which we feared, when we took up his book, we should find him to have failed, is the distinct and proper recognition of divine influence as the efficient cause of the work of sanctification. But his language upon this point seems sufficiently explicit.

We should be happy, had we room, to give a complete analysis of this work, but after what we have said, we must leave those who wish further information with regard to its character, to procure and read it for themselves.

We shall next notice Dr. Pond's article, in opposition to the doctrine of Christian perfection. This writer first gives us his views of the different schemes of "the pretenders to Christian perfection;" secondly, he attempts to meet the arguments by which its abettors labor to support it; and, thirdly, he brings against it several objections.

"The question," Dr. P. says, "is one of fact." He does not deny that the doctrine is taught in the Bible: admits that we are commanded to be perfect; that the apostle prayed that his Christian brethren might be made perfect, that this state is matter of promise, and that we are bound ever to aspire to it; but then it turns out to be a "fact" that none ever are so. That no man since the fall, while living, ever attained to this state, nor will any in future to the end of time. We shall not, at present, controvert this point, nor attempt an answer of the author's arguments, but shall merely undertake to set him right in some things in which he has failed to represent what the "fact" really is in the case. In this controversy, as a matter of course, Mr. Wesley must come in for a share of praise on one side, and of blame on the other. But we are sorry that a writer of so much character as is Dr. P. should have been so very careless a reader of Mr. Wesley's writings, and should so represent his views upon important points connected with this question, as to leave a false and an injurious impression.

"Mr. Wesley did not intend, perhaps, to depress the standard of duty; but he held to the repeal of the Adamic law,' and thought it very consistent with perfection that persons should fall into great errors and faults. See his Plain Account, pp. 93, 94."

"Great errors and faults" are not Mr. Wesley's words, but words which perhaps suit Dr. P. a little better than any he could find in the author upon whom he palms such obnoxious doctrines.

Dr. P. seems entirely to have overlooked the explanatory clause included, in the copy before us, in a parenthesis, but which originally was inserted in a foot note. Having said that "Christ is the end of the Adamic, as well as of the Mosaic law," that "by his death he hath put an end to both: nor is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the Mosaic law," Mr. Wesley adds this explanation: "I mean, it is not the condition either of present or future salvation." Now, had Dr. P. noticed this very important qualification, he could not consistently have stated, unqualifiedly, that Mr. Wesley "held to the repeal of the Adamic law." His simple view is nothing more nor less than this: that present and future salvation are suspended upon the condition of faith, without the works of the law. But if Dr. P. takes the converse of this proposition, and, contrary to the doctrine of the Confession of Faith of his own church, believes in salvation by the law as a covenant of works, let him come out and say so.

There is still another injurious and erroneous representation of Mr. Wesley's language in this article. After saying some things of those who profess to have attained Christian perfection, not highly imbued with charity, the writer adds in a note,—

"In illustration of what is here said I cannot forbear quoting a few sentences from Mr. Wesley's Plain Account' of some of his perfect followers in London."

He now quotes several paragraphs of what Mr. Wesley says of "those in London who seem to have been lately renewed in love,' but who were evidently wanting in the characteristics of perfect Christians; being deficient in "gentleness, goodness, fidelity," &c. And in the conclusion of his remarks Mr. Wesley says, “You have not what I call perfection. If others will call it so, they may. However, hold fast what you have, and earnestly pray for what you have not." But how Dr. P. could quote this language of Mr. VOL. I.-20