furnishes no conclusive evidence that, could our theory have been presented to them unincumbered with Pelagian or Popish errors, they would have rejected it as essentially erroneous. These specimens are sufficient to show the true ground occupied by the two parties in this controversy, and the manner of attack and defense which charac terized its prosecution. And as this is all that I de signed to accomplish, I will here close this branch of the history of the controversy. LECTURE IX. CONTROVERSIES-CONTINUED. "To the law and to the testimony." Isa. viii, 20. In the present lecture I shall notice briefly the controversy upon the subject of Christian perfection now in progress among our Presbyterian and Congregational brethren in this country. President Mahan and Professor Finney, of the Oberlin Theological Institute, with several others, have published views upon the subject which are deemed by most of their brethren as novel, and injurious to the interests of religion. As the works of these gentlemen, and those of their opponents, are before the public, and can be easily obtained, I shall not occupy much space in quoting their language. Messrs. Mahan and Finney, in their systematic statements of the doctrine, tell us both what it is and what it is not. The following is the first part of President Mahan's statement: "My design in the present discourse is to answer this one question: What is perfection in holiness? In answering this inquiry, I would remark, that perfection in holiness implies a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all existing obligations in respect to God and all other beings. It is perfect obedience to the moral law. It is loving the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength, and our neighbour as ourselves.' It implies the entire absence of all selfishness, and the perpetual presence and all-pervading influence of pure and perfect love. Love is the fulfilling of the law.'"* Professor Finney's is as follows:-"By entire sanctification, I understand the consecration of the whole being to God. In other words, it is that state of devotedness to God and his service required by the moral law. The law is perfect. It requires just what is right, all that is right, and nothing more. Nothing more nor less can possibly be perfection or entire sanctification, than obedience to the law. Obedience to the law of God in an infant, a man, an angel, and in God himself, is perfection in each of them. And nothing can possibly be perfection in any being short of this, nor can there possibly be any thing above it."+ It will be perceived that these statements differ from those of our standards upon the point of legal obedience. They assert "perfect obedience to the moral law," whereas Wesleyans deny the practicability of any such obedience. Their theory is understood by their opponents to differ in this respect from the Wesleyan theory. Hence they set them down as a distinct class of perfectionists, holding to a legal perfection, which some think a * Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, pp. 7, 8. much better, and others a much worse, system than that of the Methodists.* My object at present is not so much to controvert the views of these brethren, as to call particular attention to a feature in their statements which has no place in our standards. This however seems to be somewhat modified by their negative propositions. As a specimen of this, I give the following from Mr. Mahan's negative statement: "Hence I remark, that perfection in holiness does not imply, that we now love God with all the strength and intensity with which redeemed spirits in heaven love him. The depth and intensity of our love depend, under all circumstances, upon the vigour and reach of our powers, and the extent and distinctness of our vision of divine truth. Here we see through a glass darkly; there face to face.' Here our powers are comparatively weak; there they will be endowed with an immortal and tireless vigour. In each and every sphere, perfection in holiness implies a strength and intensity of love corresponding with the reach of our powers and the extent and distinctness of our vision of truth in that particular sphere. The child is perfect in holiness who perpetually exercises a filial and affectionate obedience to all the divine requisitions, and loves God with all the powers which it possesses as a child. The man is perfect in holiness who exercises the same supreme and affectionate obedience to all that God requires, and loves him to the full extent of his knowledge and strength as a man. The saint on earth is perfect, when he loves with all the strength * See Dr. Pond's article, Biblical Repository, January, 1839, p. 45; and "The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification stated, and defended against the Errors of Perfectionism, by W. D. Snodgrass, D. D," pp. 98, 99. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" and intensity rendered practicable by the extent of his knowledge and reach of his powers in his present sphere. The saint in heaven will be favoured with a seraph's vision, and a seraph's power. To be perfect there, he must love and adore with a seraph's vigour, and burn with a seraph's fire."* Upon the two parts of the statement, Dr. Snodgrass remarks as follows:-"It [Christian perfection] is defined by a recent writer, as involving 'perfect obedience to the moral law.' It implies, he says, 'a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty in respect to God and all other beings.' And, if this definition were allowed to stand unqualified and unimpaired, we should desire no other. But it falls out, in immediate connection with this language, that the demands of the law of God upon us depend upon our 'circumstances'—that 'our powers are comparatively weak'-and that what is required of us is holiness 'corresponding with the reach of our powers.' We are thus driven at once from what seemed to be safe and tenable ground, and thrown upon the radical error, that the extent of our powers, fallen as we are, is the ground and measure of our obligation."+ Professor Finney, among a multitude of negative propositions, has the following:-"It [Christian perfection] does not imply the same degree of knowledge that we might have possessed, had we always improved our time in its acquisition. The law cannot require us to love God or man as well as we might have been able to love them, had we always improved all our time in obtaining all the knowledge we could, in regard to their nature, character, and interests. If this were implied in the requisition of the law, there is not a saint on * Scripture Doctrine of Christian Perfection, p. 9. + Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, &c., pp. 22, 23 earth or in heaven that is or ever can be perfect What is lost in this respect is lost, and past neglect can never be so atoned for as that we shall ever be able to make up in our acquisitions of knowledge what we have lost. It will, no doubt, be true to all eternity, that we shall have less knowledge than we might have possessed, had we filled up all our time in its acquisition. We do not, cannot, nor shall we ever be able to love God as well as we might have loved him, had we always applied our minds to the acquisition of knowledge respecting him. And if entire sanctification is to be understood as implying that we love God as much as we should, had we all the knowledge we might have had, then I repeat it, there is not a saint on earth or in heaven, nor ever will be, that is entirely sanctified. "It does not imply the same amount of service that we might have rendered, had we never sinned. The law of God does not imply or suppose that our powers are in a perfect state; that our strength of body or mind is what it would have been, had we never sinned But it simply requires us to use what strength we have. The very wording of the law is proof conclusive that it extends its demands only to the full amount of what strength we have. And this is true of every moral being, however great or small. "It does not require the same degree of love that we might have rendered, but for our ignorance. We certainly know much less of God, and therefore are much less capable of loving him; that is, we are capable of loving him with a less amount, and to a less degree, than if we knew more of him, which we might have done but for our sins. And as I have before said, this will be true to all eternity; for we can never make amends by any future obedience or diligence for this |