At the close of Matt. xviii. we have a parable which teaches us that a man who asserts his rights is ignorant of the true character and proper effect of grace. The servant was not _unrighteous_ in demanding what was due to him; but he was _ungracious_. He was totally unlike his master. He had been forgiven ten thousand talents, and yet he could seize his fellow by the throat for a paltry hundred pence. What was the consequence? He was delivered to the tormentors. He lost the happy sense of _grace_, and was left to reap the bitter fruits of having asserted his _rights_, while being himself a subject of _grace_. And, observe further, he was called "a _wicked_ servant," not because of having owed "ten thousand talents," but because of not having forgiven the "hundred pence." _The master_ had ample grace to settle the former, but _he_ had not grace to settle the latter. This parable has a solemn voice for all Christians going to law; for although in the application of it, it is said, "so shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you from your heart, forgive not every one _his brother_ their trespasses," yet is the principle of general application, that a man acting in righteousness will lose _the sense_ of grace. In Hebrews ix. we have another sense of the term "perfect." Here, too, the context settles the import of the word. It is "perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." This is a deeply important use of the term. The worshipper under the law never could have a perfect conscience, for the simplest reason possible, because he never had a perfect sacrifice. The blood of a bullock and a goat did well enough _for a time_, but it could not do _forever_, and therefore could not give a perfect conscience. Now, however, the weakest believer in Jesus is privileged to have a perfect conscience. Why? Is it because he is a _better man_ than the worshipper under the law? Nay; but because he has gotten a _better sacrifice_. If Christ's sacrifice is perfect forever, the believer's conscience is perfect forever. The two things necessarily go together. For the Christian not to have a perfect conscience is a dishonor to the sacrifice of Christ. It is tantamount to saying that his sacrifice is only temporary, and not eternal in its effect; and what is this but to bring it down to the level of the sacrifices under the Mosaic economy. It is very needful to distinguish between perfection in the flesh and perfection as to conscience. To pretend to the former, is to exalt _self_; to refuse the latter, is to dishonor Christ. The babe in Christ should have a perfect conscience; whereas St. Paul had not, nor could have, perfect flesh. The flesh is not presented in the word as a thing which is to be perfected, but as a thing which has been crucified. This makes a wide difference. The Christian has sin in him, but not _on_ him. Why? Because Christ who had no sin _in_ him, ever, had sin on him when he was nailed to the cross.