3. There is no moral character in anything but generic volitions, or those purposes which terminate on an ultimate end. There is no moral character in feeling, and much less in states of mind not determined by the will. When a man's purpose is to promote the happiness of the universe he is perfectly holy ; when it is anything else, he is perfectly sinful.
4. Every man, in virtue of being a free agent, has pLenary ability to fulfil all his obligations. This principle, though mentioned last, is the root of the whole system.
The Relation between these Theories of Perfection,
The Pelagian and the Oberlin theories agree as to their views of the nature of sin ; the ability of man ; and the extent of the obligation of the law.
They differ as to their views of the nature of virtue or holi- ness. The Pelagian system does not assume that disinterested benevolence, or the purpose to promote the highest good of the universe, is the sum of all virtue ; t. e., it does not put the universe in the place of God, as that to which our allegiance is due. They differ also in that, while the Oberlin divines maintain the plenary ability of man, they give more importance to the work of the Holy Spirit ; and in that, it is generally admitted that although men have the ability to do their whole duty, yet that they will not exert it aright unless influenced by the grace of God.
The Romish and Arminian theories agree, (1.) In that both teach that the law to which we are bound to be conformed is not " ideal excellence ; " not the Adamic law ; not the moral law in its original strictness ; but a milder law suited to our condition since the fall. (2.) That by freedom from sin is not meant freedom from what the law in its strictness condemns, and what in its nature needs expiation and pardon, but from everything which the milder law, " the law of Christ," condemns. (3.) They agree in denying to men since the fall ability perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but attribute the ability and disposition to obey to the grace of God ; or the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit.
They differ as to the mode in which this grace is communicated, in that the Romanists say that it is only through the sacraments ; whereas Arminians say that sufficient grace is given to all men, which, if duly improved, secures such larger measures of grace as will enable the believer to become perfect. They differ also as to the nature of good works in so far as Romanists include under that category many things not commanded in the Scriptures ; and
vou in. 17
258 part m. ch. xvni. — sanctification.
as they teach the possibility of performing works of supereroga- tion, which the Arminians deny. The Romanists also teach that good works merit eternal life, which evangelical Arminians do uot.
These theories, however, all agree in teaching that the law of God has been lowered in so far that its demands are satisfied by a less degree of obedience than was required of Adam, or of man in his normal state ; and therefore in calling that perfection which in fact is not perfection, either in the sight of God or of an en- lightened conscience. It is a contradiction to say that a man is perfect whose acts and shortcomings need expiation and the pardoning mercy of God.
It may be safely assumed that no man living has ever seen a fellow-man whom, even in the imperfect light in which a man re- veals himself to his fellows, he deems perfect. And no sound- minded man can regard himself as perfect, unless he lowers the standard of judgment to suit his case. And here lies one of the special dangers of the whole system. If the law of God can be relaxed in its demands to suit the state of its subjects, then there is no limit to be assigned to its condescension. Thus perfection- ism has sometimes, although not among the Methodists, lapsed into antinomianism.