It is not necessary to suppose, that perfectionism in the community should have pervaded the entire mass before it can do mischief; or that it cannot have a surreptitious influence on individuals, in regard to particular subjects and in particular applications, while they disclaim the doctrine, and that very sincerely. In this way a man may be an Abolitionist, yet not a perfectionist in general. The doctrine of perfectionism may be much safer as a theological than as a political notion, for individuals than for society; inasmuch as the religious perfectionist keeps two separate moral reckonings: one for his virtues, the other for his faults. When he happens to be guilty of a fault, he is in a state of _lapse_; at other times in a state of _perfectionism_. We hope his faults are rare; but when he happens to get into them unavoidably, society holds him up. But alas! when society _lapses_, who and what will hold that up? This single question brings the whole subject before the mind’s eye, in its political bearings, and suggests the folly and madness of that doctrine, which attempts to introduce perfectionism into the social system. As the religionist professes respect for the Bible, and for Divine authority, it may be well to refer him to these examples on this particular point. We say, then, that, although God is an _immediatist_ in the authoritative force of his law over the conscience of individuals, he is not an immediatist as the Governor of the world. Clearly, it cannot be denied, that God could have made human society perfect _at once_; but for some good reason he has not done so. If it should be replied: “It is because men do not _obey_”--Very well. We speak of a _great fact_, under God’s administration of the world. Moreover, if the _Divine_ legation of Moses be allowed, we have the authority of the Saviour, that he enacted a certain law of divorcement “for the hardness of their hearts;” that is, as we suppose, on account of the bad state of society, and not because it was right: “for it was not so from the beginning.”[8] For the same reason, as _we_ hold, though we have not the same authority for saying it, Moses _legalized_ slavery. If it was _not_ for that reason, then the slave holders have the highest authority for the institution. It is impossible to get off from this dilemma by the plea of _different forms_, while the _principle_ stares us in the face. Forms of society are _accidental_, and never agree exactly, and often differ widely, under the same name, in different ages and countries. [Footnote 8: Matth. 19: 8. Mark 10: 5.]