The Connecticut Observer, And New York Congregationalist

MISCELLANEOUS.

COMPARISON OF OBERLIN WITH NEW HAVEN PERFECTIONISM, BY PROF. COWLES.

Neither of the two schemes, in terms, abrogates the Moral Law as the standard or rule of duty, but both are in reality most decidedly antinomian in their character and tendency. Which is worst, the discerning reader shall soon judge for himself. The Oberlin brethren say, indeed, that our obligations are commensurate with our capacities, which effectually screens them from the charge of directly cutting down obligation. But mark what follows. Prof. Finney: "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." "Nor does entire sanctification imply the same strength and holy affections, that Adam may have had before the fall-before his powers were debilitated by sin. Nor does it imply that we exercise the same strength, or consistency of holy affection, that we might have done, had we never sinned. If we love him with what strength we have, be it more or less, however debilitated our powers may be, it is all that the law of God requires. The law of God requires nothing more than the right use of our powers as they are, without respect to whatever might, and would have been, had we never sinned." Another writer in the Oberlin Evangelist: "Perfect holiness does not imply the use of perfect, unimpaired powers, such as man would now have, if he had never sinned. God does not now require of us the use of such powers, for the good reason that we cannot use what we do not possess. If we had never by sin impaired our intellectual powers."

This is plainly discounting first from present capacity, and secondly, and consequently, from present obligation, in exact proportion to past disobedience. I will here only ask, where such principles lead? Next, every man is to discount for himself. In my last, I accumulated testimonies and proofs to this point, that the Oberlin brethren make men final judges of their own powers and their own performances. I quote again a single passage. "If he cannot believe his own consciousness, [as to his entire sanctification] he cannot believe anything." If man is the final judge of his own entire sanctification, he must also be of his own powers as argued in my last, and of the degree of their curtailment by past sin. All this too, before he as yet knows whether he is entirely sanctified, or not; for this is the very point to be decided. Previous to deciding this question to the individual's own mind, this doctrine tells him that "his own consciousness" is to him the "best possible evidence" touching the measure of his powers and capacities, how far they have been debilitated by his sins, what is the exact amount of his present obligation, and whether he has perfectly met and fulfilled them. I must for the present content myself with thus merely exhibiting the doctrine. It is enough for any pious mind to contemplate it, but it shall hereafter have the privilege of being discussed. I will merely add that in accordance with their doctrine concerning consciousness, the Oberlin perfectionists consider no thought, feeling, word, or deed, as sin, unless they are distinctly conscious that it is so at the time. If at the time, they acted according to the light they had, no after discovery of the non-conformity of the thought, feeling, &c., to the law, can make them believe that it was sin or sinful.

The Modern Perfectionists have been charged by the Oberlin brethren with abrogating all law. "Perfectionism in its fundamental principles is the abrogation of all law." The exact doctrine of the Modern Perfectionists concerning the Moral Law, is as follows: "The law requires present perfection, together with perpetual, uniform perfection through our whole existence."

Mr. Boyle, speaking of the Modern Perfectionists: "The great majority of those whom I have known and still know, always have esteemed the Moral Law, as a test or standard of character, to be immutable and eternal." The Perfectionist: "By the Moral Law, I suppose, you mean the law which was written and engraven in stones on Mt. Sinai, or the record of the divine will, as comprehended in the two great commandments. When I speak of the law, I mean something out of myself,—a record of what the will of God is, addressed to men through the external senses. This I call an external precept, an outward law, as distinguished from the law written in the hearts, and engraved upon the minds of those who have received the New Covenant."

This new covenant, or perfect holiness in the heart, is afterwards explained as follows: "In the new birth which I received, I have been made a 'partaker of the divine nature,' so that it is as much my nature, understanding this word in a moral, and not a physical sense, to loathe, abhor, and abstain from all sin, as it is yours to loathe and totally abstain from all spirit. No law written with pen ink, or printed with types, or engraven in stones, affects me in this matter—it is the pure, and perfect, and ever efficient law written and engraven in my heart, in my moral nature, by the spirit of the living God, which produces this aversion towards sin, which I constantly feel." Again, referring to the law of hunger and thirst, and its being so deeply implanted in our nature, as to make it absolutely certain, that none will ever voluntarily transgress it, "Now admit that the law of the New Covenant which God promised to put into the minds, and write in the hearts, of his people, is equally effectual, sure, and abiding, with the one written in our physical nature, and it must necessarily follow, that no external influence, motive, precept, or law, is at all needed to secure our obedience, as the law, or the new nature within, will answer every purpose. That the law written in the heart, effectually, uniformly, and eternally, secures the faithfulness of the recipient, is decisively urged in Heb. 8: I presume that you now understand what I mean when I say that I am free from law." Mr. Boyle: "He believes that the law was once employed, ostensibly at least, as a direct means of effecting and perpetuating the sanctification of men, but that it is no longer now thus employed, and in this sense only do we regard it as abrogated, that the law is erased from the tables of stone, by being transferred from thence to the fleshy tables of our hearts. We hold, that the law, instead of being held over the real Christian, like a lash, is written in the heart, that the law being written in the heart, there is no longer any need of external means and appearances to secure obedience, obedience being already by the very supposition secured." With regard to the law, as an influence to secure obedience, Prof. Finney appears to agree with Mr. Boyle and the Modern Perfectionists. "The old [Covenant, or Moral Law,] was a mere outward covenant, written upon tables of stone—the mere "letter that killeth." The new is an inward covenant, the indwelling of the Spirit of God, writing the law in the heart, begetting and maintaining the self-obedience required by the old covenant. The great difficulty with the old covenant was, that it had not sufficient efficiency to secure holiness. This was the very reason why God found fault with it and introduced a new one, which consisted in obedience," It is plain, then, that as an influence to secure obedience, Prof. F. agrees with Mr. B. and the modern perfectionists, that the old covenant, or moral law, is done away; and the modern perfectionists themselves, it appears, never held that it is done away in any other sense.—Prof. Finney, on Rom. 6: 14 "ye are not under law, but under grace," holds plainly, a person under grace is emancipated from "legal motives and considerations," from the "constraint of conscience and a sense of duty." In this sense he holds the entirely sanctified to be free from the law. I am totally unable to find, that the modern perfectionists hold to a freedom from the law in any other sense.

Cleveland Observer.