An Answer to the Rev. Mr. Dodd 1. YoU and I may the more easily bear with each other, because we are both of us rapid writers, and therefore the more liable to mistake. I will thank you for showing me any mistake I am in; being not so tenacious of my opinions now, as I was twenty or thirty years ago. Indeed, I am not fond of any opinion as such. I read the Bible with what attention I can, and regulate all my opinions thereby, to the best of my understanding. But I am always willing to receive more light; particularly with regard to any less common opinions, because the explaining and defending of them takes up much time, which I can ill spare from other employments. Who ever, therefore, will give me more light with regard to Christian perfection, will do me a singular favour. The opinion I have concerning it at present, I espouse merely because I think it is scriptural. If therefore I am convinced it is not scriptural, I shall willingly relinquish it. 2. I have no particular fondness for the term. It seldom occurs either in my preaching or writings. It is my oppo nents who thrust it upon me continually, and ask me what I mean by it. So did Bishop Gibson, till by his advice I publicly declared what I did not mean by it, and what I did. This I supposed might be best done in the form of a sermon, having a text prefixed, wherein that term occurred. But that text is there used only as an occasion or introduction to the subject. I do not build any doctrine thereupon, nor undertake critically to explain it. 3. What is the meaning of the term perfection? is another question; but that it is a scriptural term is undeniable. Therefore, none ought to object to the use of the term, whatever they may do to this or that explication of it. I am very willing to consider whatever you have to object to what is advanced under the first head of that sermon. But I still At what time this answer was written, it is perhaps impossible exactly to ascertain. It appears to have been sent as a private letter to Mr.

It appears to have been sent as a private letter to Mr. Dodd, before he had become a Doctor of Divinity; and not to have been published till the year 1782, when it was inserted in the Arminian Magazine.-EDIT. think that perfection is only another term for holiness, or the image of God in man. "God made man perfect," I think is just the same as, "He made him holy," or "in his own image;" and you are the first person I ever read of or spoke with, who made any doubt of it. Now this perfection does certainly admit of degrees. Therefore, I readily allow the propriety of that distinction,-perfection of kinds, and perfection of degrees. Nor do I remember one writer, ancient or modern, who excepts against it. 4. In the sermon of Salvation by Faith, I say, "He that is born of God sinneth not," (a proposition explained at large in another sermon, and everywhere either explicitly or virtually connected with, "while he keepeth himself,") "by any sinful desire; any unholy desire he stifleth in the birth." (Assuredly he does, "while he keepeth himself") "Nor doth he sin by infirmities; for his infirmities have no concurrence of his will; and without this they are not properly sins." Taking the words as they lie in connexion thus, (and taken otherwise they are not my words but yours,) I must still aver, they speak both my own experience, and that of many hundred children of God whom I personally know. And all this, with abundantly more than this, is contained in that single expres sion, "the loving God with all our heart, and serving him with all our strength." Nor did I ever say or mean any more by perfection, than thus loving and serving God. But I dare not say less than this; for it might be attended with worse consequences than you seem to be aware of. If there be a mistake, it is far more dangerous on the one side than on the other. If I set the mark too high, I drive men into needless fears; if you set it too low, you drive them into hell-fire. 5.

5. We agree, that true "Christianity implies a destruction of the kingdom of sin, and a renewal of the soul in righteous mess; which even babes in Christ do in a measure experience, though not in so large a measure as young men and fathers." But here we divide. I believe even babes in Christ, "while they keep themselves, do not commit sin." By sin, I mean, outward sin; and the word commit, I take in its plain, literal meaning. And this I think is fully proved by all the texts cited Sermon III., from the sixth chapter to the Romans. Nor do I conceive there is any material difference between committing sin, and continuing therein. I tell my neighbour here, "William, you are a child of the devil, for you commit sin; you was drunk yesterday." "No, Sir," says the man, "I do not live or continue in sin" (which Mr. Dodd says is the true meaning of the text); "I am not drunk continually, but only now and then, once in a fortnight, or once in a month." Now, Sir, how shall I deal with this man? Shall I tell him he is in the way to heaven or hell? I think he is in the high road to destruction; and that if I tell him other wise his blood will be upon my head. And all that you say of living, continuing in, serving sin, as different from com mitting it, and of its not reigning, not having dominion, over him who still frequently commits it, is making so many loop holes whereby any impenitent sinner may escape from all the terrors of the Lord. I dare not therefore give up the plain, literal meaning either of St. Paul's or St. Peter's words. 6. As to those of St. John, cited Sermon V., I do not think you have proved they are not to be taken literally. In every single act of obedience, as well as in a continued course of it, rous Buxaloavyw: And in either an act or a course of sin Troisi aplapriav. Therefore, that I may give no countenance to any kind or degree of sin, I still interpret these words by those in the fifth chapter, and believe, "he that is born of God" (while he keepeth himself) "sinneth not;" doth not commit outward sin. 7.

7. But "it is absolutely necessary," as you observe, "to add sometimes explanatory words to those of the sacred penmen." It is so; to add words explanatory of their sense, but not subversive of it. The words added to this text, "Ye know all things," are such; and you yourself allow them so to be. But I do not allow the words wilfully and habitually to be such. These do not explain, but overthrow, the text. That the first Fathers thus explained it, I deny; as also that I ever spoke lightly of them. 8. You proceed: "You allow in another sermon, in evident contradiction to yourself, that the true children of God could, and did, commit sin." This is no contradiction to anything I ever advanced. I everywhere allow that a child of God can and will commit sin, if he does not keep himself. "But this," you say, "is nothing to the present argument." Yes, it is the whole thing. If they keep themselves, they do not; otherwise, they can and do commit sin. I say nothing contrary to this in either sermon. But "hence," you say, "we conclude that he who is born of God, may possibly commit sin:" An idle conclusion as ever was formed; for who ever denied it? I flatly affirm it in both the sermons, and in the very paragraph now before us. The only conclusion which I deny is, that "all Christians do and will commit sin, as long as they live." Now this you yourself (though you seem to start at it) maintain from the beginning of your Letter to the end; namely, that all Chris tians do sin, and cannot but sin, more or less, to their lives' end. Therefore I do not "artfully put this conclusion;" but it is your own conclusion, from your own premises. Indeed were I artfully to put in anything in expounding the word of God, I must be an arrant knave. But I do not; my conscience bears me witness, that I speak the very truth, so far as I know it, in simplicity and godly sincerity. 9. I think that all this time you are directly pleading for looseness of manners, and that everything you advance natu rally tends thereto.

I think that all this time you are directly pleading for looseness of manners, and that everything you advance natu rally tends thereto. This is my grand objection to that doc trine of the necessity of sinning: Not only that it is false, but that it is directly subversive of all holiness. The doctrine of the Gnostics was, not that a child of God does not commit sin, that is, act the things which are forbidden in Scripture, but that they are not sin in him, that he is a child of God still; so they contend, not for sinless, but sinful, perfec tion; just as different from what I contend for, as heaven is from hell. What the Donatists were, I do not know ; but I suspect they were the real Christians of that age; and were therefore served by St. Augustine and his warm adherents, as the Methodists are now by their zealous adversaries. It is extremely easy to blacken; and could I give myself leave, I could paint the consequences of your doctrine, in at least as dark and odious colours as you could paint mine. 10. The passage of St. Peter, mentioned Sermon XII., I still think proves all which I brought it to prove. "But you allow, (Sermon XIV.,) that Paul and Barnabas did commit sin. And these were, without all controversy, fathers in Christ." That is not without controversy,-that either Barnabas when he left Paul, or Peter when he dissembled at Antioch, was at that time a father in Christ in St. John's sense; though by office undoubtedly they were. Their example, therefore, only proves what no one denies, namely, that if a believer keeps not himself, he may commit sin. Would the conclusions here drawn "be made only by a very weak opponent?" Then you are a weak opponent; for you make them all, either from these or other premises: For you believe and maintain, (1.) That all the other Apostles committed sin sometimes. (2.) That all the other Christians of the apostolic age sometimes committed sin. (3.) That all other Christians, in all ages, do and will commit sin as long as they live. And, (4.) That every man must commit sin, cannot help it, as long as he is in the body. You cannot deny one of these propositions, if you understand your own premises. I am, Rev.

I am, Rev. Sir, Your affectionate brother,