-d^-^7^^

'SsvYark KHishea by WnSaatamd kTM&t MSHaasau St.

LECTURES

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY,

EMBRACING

LECTURES ON MORAL GOVERNMENT,

TOGETHER WITH

ATONEMENT, MORAL AND PHYSICAL DEPRAVITT,
REGENERATION, PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES, AND ETC.
DENCES OP REGENERATION.

BY

REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY,
IV
Professor of Theology in the Oberlin Collegiate Institute.

OBERLIN : JAMES M. FITCH.
BOSTON: CROCKER & BREWSTER.
MEW YORK : SAXTQN &, MILES.
1846.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846,
By Charles G. Finhet, .
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Ohio.

OBERLIN PRESS :
JAMES M. PITCH, rnlHTEB.

PREFACE.

1. The truths of the blessed gospel have been hidden un-
• der a false; Philosophy. Of this I have been long convinced.
Nearly all the practical doctrines of Christianity have, been
embarrassed and perverted by assuming as true the dogma of
a Necessitated Will, v This has been a leaven of error that, as
we shall see, has " leavened nearly the whole lump " of gospel
truth. In the present work I have in brief attempted to prove,
and have every where assumed the freedom of the Will.
2. My principal design in publishing on Systematic The
ology at the present time is, to furnish my pupils with a class
or text book, where many points and questions are discussed
of great practical importance, but which* have not, to my
knowledge, been discussed in any system of theological in
struction extant. I have also hoped to benefit other studious
and pious minds. -<*
3. I have written for those who are willing to take the.trouble
of thinking and of forming opinions of their own on theologi
cal questions. It has been no part of my aim to splbe my
pupils or any one else the trouble of intense thought.^ Had
I desired to do so, the subjects discussed would have rendered
such an attempt abortive.
4. There are many questions of great practical importance,
and questions in which multitudes are taking a deep interest
at present, that can not be intelligently settled without insti-

IV PREFACE.

tuting fundamental inquiries involving the discussion of those
questions that lie at the foundation of morality and religion.
5. I am too well acquainted with the prejudices of the great
mass of professing Christians, and with their unwillingness
to be at the pains of studying elementary truths and of judg
ing for themselves, to expect that this book will soon find fa.
vor with the majority of them. Still I am aware that a spirit
of inquiry into the fundamental and elementary truth's of re
ligion and of all science, is abroad, and is waking up more
and more in the Church. There is a deep and growing de
mand for explanation in regard to the subjects discussed in
this work. Especially is this true of ministers and of lead
ing laymen and women. This book is a humble attempt to
meet this demand. My object has been to simplify ,and ex
plain. The book has no literary merit and claims none.
6. I fear that the book will not be understood even by some
who are willing to read and are desirous of understanding it.
The reasons are,
(1.) The book is highly metaphysical. This, however, is
owing to the nature of the, subject. The subject is, mind in
its relations to moral law. Hence, the discussion, to be any
thing to the purpose, must be metaphysical. To avoid meta
physics in such a discussion were to waive my subject, and to
write about something else.,
(2.) There is a good deal of repetition in the work. This
I judged to be indispensable to perspicuity. Perhaps the
rea|er will not agree with me in this, and may think he should
have understood me just as well if I had repeated less. But
my ex|erience upon this subject after having taught these
truths Jbr years has ripened the conviction that there is no
other'way of heing understood upon such a subject.
(3.) I fear that with all my painstaking the book will not be
understood even by many who desire' to understand it, on ac
count of my inability to simplify and explain so profound a
subject. With this thought I have been much oppressed.
(4.) Notwithstanding the repetition alluded to, I fear it is

PREFACE.

condensed too much to be understood by some. The book to
be understood must be studied and not merely read.
7. This volume is much more difficult to understand than
any of the remaining volumes will be. I have begun with
the second volume, as this was to be on subjects so distinct
from what will appear in the first volume that this volume
might as well appear first, and because it seemed especially #•
called for just now, to meet a demand of the Church and of
my classes.
8. Most of the subjects of dispute" among Christians at the
present day are founded in misconceptions upon the subjects
discussed in this volume. ' If I have succeeded in settling the
questions which I have discussed, we shall see that in future
volumes most of the subjects of disagreement among Christ
ians at the present day can be satisfactorily adjusted with
comparative ease. >;.
9. What I have said on the " Foundation of Moral Obli
gation" is the key to the whole subject. Whoever masters
and understands that can readily understand all the rest.
But he who will not possess himself of my meaning upon
this subject will not, can not understand the rest.
10. Let no one despair in commencing the book, nor stumble
at the definitions, thinking that he can never understand so
abstruse a subject. Remember that what follows is an expan
sion and an explanation by way of application of what you
find so condensed in the first pages of the book. My broth-
en, sister, friend — read, study, think, and read again. a You
were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop
your powers by study. God designed that religion should
require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly de
velop our powers of thought. The Bible itself is written in
a stvle so condensed as to require much intense study. Many
know nothing of the Bible or of religion because they will
not think and study. I do not pretend to so explain theology
as to dispense with the labor of thinking. I have no ability
and no wish to do so.

VI PREFACE.
11. I suppose that faults will be discovered in the book by
others that I have not seen myself. If so, I hope to be able
to see them and to correct them before I die.
12. But I hope if any of my brethren think to convince
me of error that they will first understand me, and show that
they have read the book through, and that they understand it, and
are candidly inquiring after truth and not "striving for mas
teries." If my brother is inquiring after truth, I will, by the
grace of God, " hear with both ears and then judge." But I
will not promise to attend to all that cavilers may say, nor to
notice what those impertinent talkers and writers may say or
write who must have controversy. But to all honest inquirers
after truth I would say, hail my brother! Let us be thorough.
Truth shall do us good.
13. This volume is designed to supercede my published
Skeletons upon the subject of Moral Government. There has
been much demand for an amplification of this subject. I
have for brevity's sake, in some few instances, quoted from
my Skeletons, but in general I have written altogether with
out reference to that work, until I come to the Atonement and
Human Government. I should have expanded these subjects
much more than I have, had there been room in this volume
for such an -amplification. Upon these questions I have trans
ferred most of what was written in my Skeletons to the pres
ent yolume, making such changes in the arrangement and
discussion as I supposed would render so brief a statement
perspicuous. 14. I perceive that the Publisher has put forth a prospectus
of this work in which he has spoken of it in terms, I fear,
decidedly too high. I knew nothing of this until some time
after the prospectus was out. All I can honestly say of the
work is, that I have intended to do good, and have done the
best that I could under the circumstances. I submit the work
to Jhe^ prayerful study of my Christian brethren, and if it
shall meet the end for which it was intended, I have not
labored in vain*. "•_*
*¦' ¦ • C.G.FINNEY.
Oberlin, July 15, 1816.

CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.

Moral Government. Page
Definition of the the term Law,  1
Distinction between Physical and Moral Law, - - - -1
The essential Attributes of Moral Law,  2
Liberty as opposed to Necessity, ------- -2
Adaptability, or Adaptation, -,  --2
Universality,  ..--3
Uniformity,  3
Impartiality, -- - - -  3
Justice,  -  3
Practicability, --  - --4
Independence, - --  --4
ImmutabiUty, -  ......5
Unity,  -  -12
Equity,  ,..,....._. 12
Expediency,   13
Exclusiveness, - - - - - -  -,. 14
Utility,  - - 15
LECTURE II.
Moral Government, — Continued.
Definition of tbe term Government  16
Distinction between moral and physical government, 16
The fundamental reason of Moral Government, - - 17
Whose right it is to govern,  - 19
What is implied in the right to govern, ----- 21
Point out the limits of this right,  22
What is implied in Moral Government,  25
Definition of Moral Obligation, '.-; -»- - „- - - - 25
The conditions of Moral Obligation,. -*.---- 25
Remarks,  --  27

Vlll CONTENTS.

LECTURE III. Page
Moral government, — Continued.
Man a subject of Moral Obligation,  29
Extent of Moral Obligation,  30
Shown by an appeal to reason, or to natural theology, to
what acts and states of mind moral obligation cannot
directly extend,  35
Shown to what acts and states of mind Moral Obliga
tion must directly extend,  ----36
To what acts and mental states Moral Obhgation indi
rectly extends,  --38
LECTURE IV.
Foundation of Moral Obligation.
Definition of Moral Obligation repeated, ... - 40
Attention called again to the conditions of Moral Obliga
tion,  -  40
What is intended by the foundation of moral obligation, 41
The extent of moral obligation, -  41
Points of agreement among the principal parties in this
discussion, --  - 41
Wherein parties differ,  --42
Shown from reason and revelation what must be the foun
dation of moral obligation,  42
Shown wherein that consists which constitutes the true
foundation of moral obligation; in other words, in
what the highest well-being or ultimate good of senti
ent beings consists,  44
The ultimate and absolute good must belong to being, or
to sentient existences, -  45
With moral agents at least the ultimate good must con
sist in a state of mind, --.----..45
The ultimate and absolute good in the sense of the in
trinsically valuable, can not be identical with Moral
Law,  45
Obedience, or the course of acting or willing required by
the law, cannot be the ultimate end aimed at by the
law or the lawgiver,  46
The absolute and ultimate good of being can not consist
in moral worth or good desert, ---.-. 47
Right Character, moral worth, good desert, meritorious-

contents. h
Page
ness, or whatever you call it, can not be or consist in a
.state of mind,  49
The ultimate or absolute good can not consist in any
thing external to mind itself,  49
Objections to this philosophy considered, - - - - 58
LECTURE V.
Foundation of moral obligation, — False theories.
That the sovereign will of God is the foundation of mor
al Obligation,  67
The theory of Paley,  70
The utilitarian philosophy,  72
LECTURE VI.
Foundation of moral obligation, — False theories.
The theory that regards right as the foundation of moral
obligation,  76
LECTURE VII.
Foundation of moral obligation, — False theories.
The theory that the goodness or moral excellence of God
is the foundation of moral obligation,  90
LECTURE VIII.
Foundation of moral obligation, — False theories.
The Philosophy which teaches that moral order is the
foundation of moral obligation,  110
The theory that maintains that the nature and relations
of moral beings is the true foundation of moral obli
gation, ---------  HI
The theory that teaches that moral obligation is found
ed in the idea of duty,  Ill
. That philosophy which teaches the complexity of the
, foundation of moral obligation,  115
Another form of the theory that affirms the complexity
of the foundation of moral obligation;* complex, how
ever, only in a certain sense, ------- 118

contents.

LECTURE IX. Page
Foundation of moral obligation. — Practical bearings
of the different theories.
The theory that regards the sovereign will of God as
the foundation ofmoral obligation,  127
The theory of the selfish school, ------- 132
The natural and necessary results of utilitarianism, - 135
LECTURE X.
Foundation of moral obligation. — Practical bearings
of the different theories, — Continued.
Practical bearings and tendency of Rightarianism, - - 139
The philosophy which teaches that the divine goodness
or moral excellence is the foundation of moral obli
gation,  143
The theory which teaches that moral order is the foun
dation ofmoral obligation,  ""." ^
The practical bearings of the theory that moral obliga
tion is founded in the nature and relations of moral
agents, -----  -- 145
The theory which teaches that the idea of duty is the
foundation of moral obligation,  146
The complexity of the foundation of moral obligation, 146
The practical bearings of what is regarded as the true
theory of the foundation of moral obligation, namely
that the highest well-being of God and of the uni
verse is the sole foundation ofmoral obligation, - 148
LECTURE XI.
Moral government,^ — Continued.
What constitutes obedience to moral law, - - - 150
Obedience cannot be partial in the sense that the sub
ject ever does or can partly obey and partly disobey
at the same time, -.-  - - -.-'.- 150
Can the will at the same time make opposite choices? 150.
The choice of an ultimate end is, and must be, the su- $
preme preference of the mind,  151
An intelligent choice must respect ends or means, - - 151
No choice whatever can be made inconsistent with the

CONTENTS. XI
Page
present choice of an ultimate end,  151
Inquiry respecting the strength or intensity of the
choice, -----  152
The law does not require the constant and most intense
action of the will,  155
An intention cannot be right and honest in kind and
deficient in the degree of intensity,  155
Examination of the philosophy of the question whether
• sin and holiness consist in supreme ultimate and op-
''jposite choices or intentions,  158
Objections to the foregoing philosophy considered, - 167
This philosophy examined in the light of the Scriptures, 171
LECTURE XII.
Moral Government — Continued.
In what sense we have seen that obedience to moral
law cannot be partial,  174
In what sense obedience to moral law can be partial, 175
The. government of God accepts nothing as virtue but
obedience to the law of God,  175
There can be no rule of duty but moral law, - - - 176
Nothing can be virtue or true religion but obedience to
the moral law,  -  177
Nothing can be virtue that is not just what the moral law
demands. That is, nothing short of what it requires
can be in any sense virtue,  178
Uses of the term Justification,  178
Fundamentally important inquiries respecting this sub
ject, - -  179
Remarks, -  187
LECTURE XIII.
Moral Government — Continued.
What constitutes obedience to moral law, ... 188
Just rules of legal interpretation,  189
That actual knowledge is indispensable to moral obliga
tion shown from scripture,  191
In the light of the above rules inquire what is not implied
in entire obedience to the law of God,  192

M» CONTENTS.

LECTURE XIV.

Moral Government — Continued. Page
Call attention to certain facts in mental philosophy as
they are revealed in consciousness, ----- 209
Point out the attributes of that love which constitutes
obedience to the law of God,  213
Voluntariness,  213
Liberty,  214
Intelligence,  214
Virtuousness,  214
Disinterestedness,  215
Impartiality,  -  216
Universality,  218
LECTURE XV.
Attributes of Love.
Efficiency,  220
Penitence,  221
Faith,  223
Complacency,  224
LECTURE XVI.
Attributes of Love — Continued.
Opposition,  229
Compassion,  -  233
LECTURE XVII.
Attributes of Love — Continued.
Mercy,  237
Justice,  239
Truth or truthfulness,  244
LECTURE XVIII.
Attributes of Love — Continued.
Patience,  . jj^g
Meekness,  252
Long-suffering, -  253
Humility,  254

CONTENTS. Xlll
LECTURE XIX. Page
Attributes of Love — Continued.
Self-denial,  256
Condescension,  260
Candor,  - - - - - - - - - 261
Stability,  262
Kindness,  2(J3
Severity,  265
LECTURE XX.
Attributes of Love — Continued.
Holiness, or Purity,  269
Modesty,  , - - - - 271
Sobriety,  272
Sincerity,  -...._... 273
Zeal,  275
Unity,  276
Simplicity,  277
LECTURE XXI.
Attributes of Love — Continued.
Gratitude,  278
Wisdom,  -  279
Economy,  281
LECTURE XXII.
Moral Government.
Revert to some points that have been settled, - - -284
Show what disobedience to moral law can not consist in, 285
What disobedience to moral law must consist in, - - 286
LECTURE XXIII.
Moral Government.
What constitutes disobedience,  292
What is not implied in disobedience to the law of God, 292
b

xiv contents.
LECTURE XXIV. Page
Attributes of Selfishness. " *_
What constitutes disobedience to moral law, - - - 298
What is implied in disobedience to -moral law, - - 298
Attributes of selfishness. Voluntariness, - - - - - 300
Liberty,  -------- 301
^Intelligence,  --- aui
Unreasonableness,  301
lnterestedness,  302
Partiality, -  303
Impenitence,  306
Unbelief,  306
LECTURE XXV.
Attributes of Selfishness — Continued.
Efficiency,  ...--. 308
Opposition to benevolence or to virtue, - - - - - - 311
k Cruelty, - - -  - - - 313
Unreasonableness,  315
Injustice, -  -.?  316
LECTURE XXVI.
Attributes of Selfishness — Continued, ,,
Oppression,  .-,----- 319
War, -  321
Unmercifulness, --  324
Falsehood or lying, ---  325
Pride,  326
LECTURE XXVII.
Attributes of Selfishness — Continued.
Enmity, - - -  329
Madness, -----  330
Impatience, --- ....... 331
Intemperance,  333
Recklessness, - : -  -. 336
Unity,  337

CONTENTS. XV
LECTURE XXVIII. Page
Attributes of Selfishness — Continued.
Egotism,  ,  340
Simplicity,  342
Total Moral Depravity implied in selfishness as one of
its attributes, --  343
The scriptures assume and affirm it, - .... 349
Remarks,  ....... 357
LECTURE XXIX.
Moral Government.
Obedience to Moral Law is and must be, under every
dispensation of the Divine Government the unaltera
ble condition of Salvation, ------ .. 364
Under a gracious dispensation, a return to full obedience
to Moral Law is not dispensed with as a condition of
salvation, but this obedience is secured by the indwell
ing spirit of Christ received by faith to reign in the
heart,  365
LECTURE XXX.
Moral Government.
What constitutes the sanctions of law, ----- 371
There can be no law without sanctions, ----- 371
In what light sanctions are to be regarded, - - - - 372
The end to be secured by law, and the execution of pe
nal sanctions, ---  -... 372
By what rule sanctions ought to be graduated, - - - 373
' God's law has sanctions,  373
• What constitutes the remuneratory sanctions of the law
of God,  - 374
The perfection and duration of the remuneratory sanc
tions of the law of God,  374
What constitutes the vindicatory sanctions of the law
of God,  374
Duration of the penal sanctions of the Jaw of God, - 374
Inquire into the meaning of the term Infinite, - - - 375
Infinites may differ indefinitely in amount, - - - - 375
I must remind you of the rule by which degrees of
guilt are to be estimated, ---  376

xvi contents. Page
That all and every sin must from its very nature involve
infinite guilt in the sense of deserving endless punish
ment, ----  - - - - 376
Notwithstanding all sin deserves endless punishment,
yet the guilt of different persons may vary indefinite
ly, and punishment, although always endless in dura
tion, may and ought to vary in degree according to the
guilt of each individual,  -- 377
That penal inflictions under the government of God must
be endless,  377
Examine this question in the light of Revelation, - 382
LECTURE XXXI.
Atonement.
I will call attention to several well established govern
mental principles, ----------- 384
Define the term Atonement, ' -  -- 338
I am to inquire into the teachings of natural theology, or
into the a priori affirmations of reason upon this
subject,  388
The fact of Atonement,  393
The design of the Atonement,  398
Christ's obedience to the moral law as a covenant of
works, did not constitute the Atonement, - - - 398
The atonement was not a commercial transaction, - 398
The atonement of Christ was intended as a satisfaction
of public-justice, -  399
His taking human nature, and obeying unto death, under
such circumstances, constituted a good reason for our
being treated as righteous, ----.... 405
LECTURE XXXII.
Extent of Atonement.
For whose benefit the Atonement was intended, - 411
Objections answered,  416
Remarks on the Atonement,  420
LECTURE XXXIII.
Human Government.
The ultimate end of God in creation, - - - - - 424
Providential and Moral Governments are indispensa
ble means of securing the highest good of the uni-

CONTENTS". XVll
Page
verse, -  424
Civil and family governments are indispensable to the
securing of this end, and are therefore really a part
of the Providential and moral government of God, 425
Human Governments are a necessity of human nature, 425
This necessity will continue as long as human beings
exist in this world,  426
Human Governments are plainly recognized in the Bi
ble as a part of the moral government of God, - - 426
It is the duty of all men to aid in the establishment and
support of Human Government,  427
It is absurd to suppose that human governments can ever
be dispensed with in the present world, - - - - 428
Objections answered,  428
Inquire into the foundation of the right of human govern
ments,  434
~ Point out the limits or boundary of this right, - 434
LECTURE XXXIV.
Human Governments — Continued.
The reasons why God has made no form of Church or
Civil Government universally obligatory, - - - 436
The particular forms of Church and State Government, ,
must and will depend upon the virtue and intelligence
of the people,  437
That form of Government is obligatory, that is best suit
ed to meet the necessities of the people,- - - - 438
Revolutions become necessary and obligatory, when the
virtue and intelligence or tbe vice and ignorance of
the people demand them, -------- 439
In what cases human legislation is valid, and in what
cases it is null and void,  440
In what cases we are bound to disobey human govern
ments,  440
Apply the foregoing principles to the rights and duties
of governments and subjects in relation to the execu
tion of the necessary penalties of law, - - - - 440
LECTURE XXXV.
Moral Depravity.
Definition of the term Depravity,  447

XVlll contents. Page
Point out the distinction between physical and moral de
pravity,  ....... 447
Of what physical depravity can be predicated, - - 448
Of what moral depravity can be predicated, - - - 449
Mankind are both physically and morally depraved, 450
Subsequent to the commencement of moral agency and
previous to regeneration the moral depravity of man
kind is universal, ------  451
The moral depravity of the unregenerate moral agents
of our race, is total, -----  453
LECTURE XXXVI.
Moral Depravity — Continued.
Proper method of accounting for the universal and total
moral depravity of the unregenerate moral agents of
our race, --'  456
Moral depravity consists in selfishness, or in the choice
of self-interest, self-gratification, or self-indulgence, as
an end,  455
Dr. Wood's view of Physical and Moral Depravity ex
amined,  ... 457
Standards of the Presbyterian Church examined, - - 461
LECTURE XXXVII.
Moral depravity — Continued.
Further examination of the arguments adduced in sup
port of the position that human nature is in itself sinful, 468
LECTURE XXXVIII.
Moral Depravity — Continued.
The proper method of accounting for moral depravity, 478
Prest. Edwards views examined, ----... 482
Summary of the truth on this subject,  484
Remarks,  485
LECTURE XXXIX.
Regeneration.
The common distinction between Regeneration and Con
version,  40q
I am to state the assigned reasons for this distinction, 491

CONTENTS. xii
\ Page
I am to state the objections to this distinction, - - - 491
What regeneration is not,  494
What regeneration is,  494
The universal necessity of regeneration, .... 496
Agencies employed in regeneration,  496
Instrumentalities employed in the work, - - - - 498
In regeneration the subject is both passive and active, 499
What is implied in regeneration,  500
LECTURE XL.
Regeneration — Continued.
Philosophical theories of regeneration,  502
The different theories of Regeneration examined, - 502
Objections to the Taste Scheme, ----.--511
The Susceptibility Scheme,  513
Theory of a Divine Moral Suasion, ------ 518
Objections to this theory,  518
Remarks,  519
LECTURE XLI.
Regeneration — Continued.
Evidences of Regeneration,  521
Introductory Remarks,  521
Wherein the experience and outward life of saints and
sinners may agree,  522
Remarks,  531
LECTURE XLII.
Regeneration — Continued.
Wherein Saints and Sinners or Deceived Professors
must differ, ---  536
LECTURE XLIII.
Regeneration — Continued.
In what Saints and Sinners differ, - - - ... 551
What is it to overcome the world?  555
Who are those that overcome the world?  558
Why do believers overcome the world? - - - - 558
LECTURE XLIV.
Regeneration— ^Continued.
Wherein Saints and Sinners differ,  571
*>

FINNEY'S LECTURES

ON

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

LECTURE I.
I. Definition of Law.
II. Distinction between Physical and Moral Law.
III. Attributes of Moral Law.
I. In discussing the subject, I must begin with defining the
term Law. '
Law, in a sense of the term both sufficiently popular and
scientific for my purpose, is A Rule of Action. In its
generic signification, it is applicable' to every kind of action,
whether of matter or of mind — whether intelligent or unin
telligent—whether free or necessary action.
II. I must distinguish between Physical and Moral Law.
Physical law is a term that represents the order of sequence,
in all the changes that occur under the law of necessity,
whether In matter or mind. I mean all changes, whether of
state or action, that do not consist in the voluntary states or
actions of free will. Physical law is the law of force, or ne
cessity, as opposed to the law of liberty. Physical law is the
law of the material universe. It is also thelaw of mind, so
far as its states and changes are involuntary^ All changes of
mental state or action, which do not consist in free and sov
ereign changes or actions of will, must occur under, and be
subject to Physical Law. They cannot possibly be accounted

2 systematic theology.
for, except as they are ascribed to the law of necessity or force.
In one word, then, Physical Law is the law of necessity or
force, and controls all changes and actions, whether of matter
or mind, except the actions of free will.
Moral Law is a rule of moral action with sanctions. It is
that rule of action to which moral beings are under a moral
obligation to conform all their voluntary actions, and is en
forced by sanctions equal to the value of the precept. It is
the rule for the government of free and intelligent action, as
opposed to necessary and unintelligent action. It is the law
of liberty, as opposed to the law of necessity — of motive and
free choice, as opposed to force of every kind that renders
action necessary, or unavoidable. Moral Law is a rule for
the direction of the action of free will, and strictly of free
will only. But less strictly, it is the rule for the direction of
the actions of free will, and of all those actions and states of
mind and body, that are connected with the free actions of
will by a Physical Law, or by a law of necessity* Thus,
Moral Law controls involuntary mental states and outward
action, only by securing conformity of the actions of free
will to its precept*
III. I must point out the essential attributes of Moral Law.
1. Subjectively. It is, and must be, an idea of the Reason^
developed in the mind, of the subject. It is an idea, or con
ception of that state of will, or course of action which is oblig
atory upon a moral agent. No one can be a moral agent, or
the subject of Moral Law, unless he has this idea developed;!
for this idea, is identical with the law* It is the law devel
oped, or revealed within himself; and thus he becomes " a
law to himself," his own reason affirming his obligation to
conform to this idea, or law.
2. A second attribute is Liberty, as opposed to Necessity, Its
precept must lie developed in the Reason, as a rule of duty — a
law of moral obligation — a rule of choice, or of ultimate inten
tion, declaring that which a moral agent ought to choose, will,
intend. But it does not, must not, can not possess the attri
bute of necessity in its relations to the actions of free will.
It must not, cannot, possess an element or attribute of force,
in any such sense as to render conformity of will to its precept
unavoidable and necessary. This would confound it with
Physical Law.
3. A third attribute of Moral Law, is adaptability, or adapta
tion. It must be the Law oiNdture, that is, its precept must pre
scribe and require just that state of the will, and that course of

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 3
action which is demanded by the nature and relations of
moral beings, and nothing more or less.
Moral Law, subjectively considered, is simply an idea of that
state of the voluntary power, that is befitting to moral agents
upon condition of their nature and relations. Their nature
and relations being perceived, the reason hereupon neces
sarily affirms that they ought to will, intend, the highest
good of being for its own intrinsic value. This is what is
meant by the law of nature. It is a law, or rule, neces
sarily imposed upon us by our own nature. It is nothing
more or less than that which reason spontaneously and ne
cessarily affirms to be ft, proper, right, in view of our nature
and relations, and the intrinsic value of the highest well being
of God and the universe. Those being given, this is affirmed
to be duty. It is an idea of that state of the heart, and that
course of hfe, that from their nature and relations, is indis
pensable to the highest good of all. By Moral Law being the
Law of Nature, is intended, that the nature and relations of
moral agents being what they are, a certain course of willing
and acting is indispensable to, and will result in their highest
well being; that their highest well being is valuable in it
self, and should be willed for that reason.
4. A fourth attribute of Moral Law is Universality. The
conditions being the same, it requires, and must require, of
all moral agents, the same things, in whatever world they
may be found.
5. A fifth attribute of Moral Law, is Uniformity. All the
conditions and circumstances being the same, its claims are
uniformly the same. This follows from the very nature
of Moral Law.
6. A sixth attribute of Moral Law is, and must be, Impartial
ity. Moral Law is no respecter of persons — knows no privi
leged classes. It demands one thing of all, without regard
to any thing, except the fact that they are moral agents. By
this it is not intended, that the same course of outward con
duct is required of all — but the same state of heart in all —
that all shall have one ultimate intention— that all shall con
secrate themselves to one end — that all shall entirely con
form in heart and life to their nature and relations.
7. A seventh attribute of Moral Law is, and must be, Jus
tice. That which is unjust cannot be Law.
Justice,asan attribute of Moral Law, must respect both the
precept and the sanction. Justice, as an attribute of the pre
cept, consists in the requisition of just that, and no more, which

4 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
is in exact accordance with the nature and relations of the
subject. Justice, as an attribute of the sanction, consists in the
promise of just such rewards and punishments as are equal to
the guilt of disobedience, on the one hand, and to the value
of obedience on the other.
Sanctions belong to the very essence and nature of Moral
Law. A law without sanctions is no law; it is only counsels,
or advice. Sanctions are — in a certain sense, to be explained
in a future lecture-r-the motives which the Law presents^ with
design to secure obedience to the precept. Consequently,.
they should always be graduated by the importance of the
precept; and that is not properly law which does not promise,
expressly or impliedly, a reward proportionate to the value
of obedience, and threaten punishment equal to the evil or
guilt of disobedience. Law cannot be unjust, either in pre
cept or sanction: and it should always be remembered, that
what is unjust, is not law, cannot be law. It is contrary to
the true definition of law. Moral Law is a rule of action,
founded in, and suited to, the nature and relations ofmoral beings,
sustained by sanctions equal to the value of obedience, and the
guilt of disobedience.
8. An eighth attribute of Moral Law is Practicability. That
which the precept demands, must be possible to the subject.
That which demands a natural impossibility, is not, and can
not be Moral Law. The true definition of law excludes the
supposition that it can, under any circumstances, demand an
absolute impossibility. Such a demand could not be in ac
cordance with the nature and relations of moral agents, and
therefore practicability must always be an attribute of Moral
Law. To talk of inability to obey Moral Law, is to talk sheer
nonsense. 9. A ninth attribute of Moral Law is Independence. It is
founded in the self-existent nature of God. It is an eternal and
necessary idea of the Divine Reason. It is .the unalterable and
eternal self-existent rule of the Divine conduct, the. law which
the intelligence of God imposes on Himself. He is a law to
Himself. Moral Law, as we shall see hereafter more fully, does
' not, and cannot originate in the will of God. It originates,
or rather, is founded in his eternal, immutable, self-existent
nature. It eternally existed in the Divine Reason. It is the
idea of that state of will which is obligatory upon God upon
condition of his natural attributes, or in other words, upon
condition of his nature. As a law, it is entirely independent

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 5
of his will, just as his own existence is. It is obligatory also
upon every moral agent, entirely independent of the will of
God. Their nature and relations being given, and their in
telligence being developed, Moral Law must be obligato
ry upon them, and it lies not in the option of any be
ing to make it otherwise. To pursue a course of conduct
suited to their nature and relations, is necessarily and self-
evidently obligatory, the willing or nilling of any being to
the contrary notwithstanding.
10. A tenth attribute ofmoral law is Immutability. Moral
Law can never change, or be changed. Moral Law always re
quires of every moral agent a state of heart and course of conduct
precisely suited to his nature and relations. Nothing more
nor less. Whatever his nature is, his capacity and relations
are, entire conformity to just that nature, those capacities and
relations, is required at every moment, and nothing more or
less. If capacity is enlarged, the subject is not thereby ren
dered capable of works of supererogation — of doing more
than the Law demands; for the Law still, as always, requires
the full consecration of his whole being to the public inter
ests. If by any means whatever, his ability is. abridged, Moral
Law, always and necessarily consistent with itself, still requires
that what is left — nothing more or less^-shall be consecrated
to the same end as before. Whatever demands more or less
than entire, universal, and constant conformity of heart and life,
to the nature, capacity and relations of moral agents, be they what
they may, is not, and cannot be, Moral Law. To suppose that it
could be otherwise, would be to contradict the true definition of
Moral Law. If therefore, the capacity is by any means abridged,
the subject does not thereby become incapable of rendering full
obedience; for the Law still demands and urges, that the heart
and life shall be fully conformed to the present existing nature,
capacity, and relations. Any thing that requires more or less
than this, whatever else it is, is not, and cannot be Moral Law.
To affirm that it can, is to talk nonsense. Nay, it is to blaspheme
against the immaculate majesty of Moral Law. Moral Law
invariably holds one language. It never changes the spirit
of its requirement. " Thou shalt love" or be perfectly benevo
lent, is its uniform, and its only demand. This demand it
never varies, and never can vary. It is as immutable as God
is, and for the same reason. To talk of letting down, or al
tering Moral Law, is to talk absurdly. The thing is naturally
impossible. No being has the right or the power to do so.
The supposition overlooks the very nature of Moral Law*
1*

6 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Should the natural capability of the mind, by any means what
ever, be enlarged or abridged, it is perfectly absurd and a
contradiction of the nature of Moral Law, to say, that the
claims of the law are either elevated or lowered. Moral Law
is not a statute, an enactment, that has its origin or its found
ation in the will of any being. It is the Law oi Nature, the law
which the nature or constitution of every moral agent imposes
on himself. It is the unalterable demand of the Reason, that
the whole being, whatever there is of it at any time, shall
be entirely consecrated to the highest good of universal being.
In other words, it is the soul's idea or conception of that state^i
of heart and course of life, which is exactly suited to its na
ture and relations. It cannot be too distinctly understood, that
Moral Law is nothing more or less, than the Law of Nature,
that is, it is the rule imposed on us, not by the arbitrary will of
any being, but by our own intelligence. It is an idea of that
which is fit, suitable, agreeable to our nature and relations for
the time being, that which it is reasonable for us to will and
do, at any and every moment, in view of all the circumstances
of our present existence,-^-just what the Reason affirms to be
suited to our nature and relations, under all the circumstances
of the case.
It has been said, that if we dwarf, or abridge our powers,
we do not thereby abridge the claims of God; that if we
render it impossible to perform so high a service as we might
have done, the Lawgiver, nevertheless, requires the same as
before, that is, that under such circumstances He requires of
us an impossibility; — that should we dwarf, or completely
derange, or stultify our powers, He would still hold us under
obligation to perform all that we might have performed, had
our powers remained in their integrity. To this I reply,
That this affirmation assumes, that Moral Law and moral
obligation, are founded in the will of God; — that His mere
will makes law. This is a fundamental mistake. God cannot
legislate in the sense of making Law. He declares and en
forces the common law of the universe, or, in other words, the
Law of Nature. This law, I repeat it, is nothing else than that
rule of conduct which is in accordance with the nature and
relations of moral beings. The totality of its requisitions are,
both in its letter and its spirit, "thou shalt love, &c, with all
thy heart, thy soul, thy might, thy strength:' That is, whatever
there is of us, at any moment, is to be wholly consecrated to
God, and the good of being, and nothing more or less. If
our nature or relations are changed, no matter by what

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 7
means, or to what extent, provided we are still moral agents,
its language and spirit are the same as before, — "thou shalt
love with all thy strength," Sac.
I will here quote from the Oberlin Evangelist, an extract
of a letter from an "esteemed brother, embodying the sub
stance of the above objection, together with my reply.
*' One point is what you say of the claims of the law, in the
Oberlin Evangelist, Vol, 2, p. 50: — ; The question is, What
does the law of God require of Christians of the present gener
ation, in all respects in our circumstances, with all the ignor
ance and debility of body and mind which have resulted from
the intemperance and abuse of the human constitution through
so many generations?' But if this be so, then the more ig
norant and debilitated a person is in body and mind, in con
sequence of his own or ancestors' sins and follies, the less the
law would require of him, and the less would it be for him to
become perfectly holy — and, the nearer this ignorance and
debility came to being perfect, the nearer would he be to
being perfectly holy, for the less would be required of him to
make him so. But is this so? Can a person be perfectly
sanctified while particularly that ' ignorance of mind,' which
is the effect of the intemperance and abuse of the human con
stitution, remains? Yea, can he be sanctified at all, only as
this ignorance is removed by the truth and Spirit of God ; it
being a moral and not a physical effect of sinning? I say it
kindly; here appears to me at least, a very serious entering
wedge of error. Were the effect of human depravity upon
man simply to disable him, like taking from the body a limb,
or destroying in part, or in whole, a faculty of the mind, I
would not object; but to say; this effect is ignorance, a moral
effect wholly, and then say, having this ignorance, the Law
levels its claims according to it, and that with it, a man can be
entirely sanctified, looks not to me like the teachings of the
Bible." (1.) Ihave seen the passage from my lecture here alluded to,
quoted and commented upon, in different periodicals, and uni
formly with entire disapprobation.
(2.) It has always been separated entirely from the exposi
tion which I have given of the Law of God in the same lec
tures; with which exposition, no one, so far as I know, has
seen fit to grapple.
(3.) I believe, in every instance, the objections that have
been made to* this paragraph, were made by those who pro
fess to believe in the present natural ability of sinners to do
all their duty.

8 systematic theology.
(4.) I would most earnestly and respectfully inquire, what
consistency there is, in denominating this paragraph a dan
gerous heresy, and still maintaining that men are at present
naturally able to do all that God requires of them?
(5.) I put the inquiry back to those brethren, — by what au
thority do you affirm, that God requires any more of any-
moral agent in the universe, and of man in his present condi
tion, than he is at present able to perform?
(6.) I inquire, does not the very language of the law of God
prove to a demonstration, that God requires no more of man
than, in his present state, he is able to perform? Let us hear
its language: " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ail thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with
all thy strength. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Now here, God so completely levels his claims, by the very
wording of these commandments, to the present capacity of
«very human being, however young or old, however maimed,
debilitated, or idiotic, as, to use the language or sentiment
of Prof. Hickok, of Auburn Seminary, uttered in my hearing
that, "if it were possible to conceive of a moral pigmy, the Law
requires of him nothing more, than to use whatever strength
he has, in the service and for the glory of God."
(7.) I most respectfully but earnestly inquire of my breth
ren, if they believe that God requires as much of men as of
angels, of a child as a man, of a half-idiot as of a Newton ? I
mean not to ask whether God requires an equally perfect
consecration of all the powers actually possessed by each of
these classes; but whether in degree, He really requires the
same, irrespective of their present natural ability?
(8.) I wish to inquire, whether my brethren do not admit
that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that every abuse
«f the physical system has abridged the capacity of the mind,
while it remains connected with this tenement of clay? And
I would also ask, whether my brethren mean to maintain, at
the same breath, the doctrine of present natural ability to
comply with all the requirements of God, and also the fact
that God now requires of man just the same degree of service
that he might have rendered if he had never sinned, or in any
way violated the laws of his being? And if they maintain
these two positions at the same time, I farther inquire, whether
they believe that man has natural ability at the present mo
ment to bring all his faculties and powers, together with his
knowledge, on to as high ground and into the same state in
which they .might have been, had he never sinned? My
brethren, is there not some inconsistency heref

moral government. y
(9.) In' the paragraph from the letter above quoted, the
brother admits, that if a man by his own act had deprived
himself of any of his corporeal faculties, he would not thence
forth be under an obligation to use those faculties, But he
thinks this principle does not hold true, in respect to the ig
norance of man; because he esteems his ignorance a moral,
and not a natural defect. Here I beg leave to make a few
inquiries: [1.] Should a man wickedly deprive himself of the use of a
hand, would not this act be a moral act? No doubt it would.
., [2.] Suppose a man by his own act, should make himself an
idiot, would not this act be a moral act?
[3.] Would he not in both these cases render himself natur
ally unable, in the one case, to use his hand, and in the other,
his reason? Undoubtedly he would. But how can it be af
firmed, with any show of reason, that in the one case his na
tural inabihty discharges him from the obligation to use his
hand, and that in the other case, his natural ability does not
affect his obligation — that he is still bound to use his reason,
of which he has voluntarily deprived himself, but not his hand?
/Now the fact is, that in both these cases the inability is a na
tural one. )
[4.J I ask, if a man has willingly remained in ignorance of
God, whether his ignorance is a moral or natural inability? If
it is a moral inability, he can instantly overcome it, by the
right exercise of his own will. And nothing can be a moral
inability that cannot be instantaneously removed by our own
volition. Do my brethren believe, that the present ignorance
. of mankind can be instantaneously removed, and their know
ledge become as perfect as it might have been had they never
sinned, by an act of volition on the part of men? If they do
not, why do they call this a moral inability, or ignorance a
moral effect? The fact is, that ignorance is often the natural
effect of moral delinquency. Neglect of duty occasions ignor
ance; and this ignorance constitutes a natural inability to do
that of which a man is utterly ignorant — just as the loss of a
hand, in the case supposed, is the natural effect of a moral act,
but in itself constitutes a natural inability to perform those duties
that might have been performed but for the loss of this hand.
The truth is, that this ignorance does constitute, while it re
mains, a natural inability to perform those duties of which the
mind is ignorant; and all that can be required is, that from the
present moment, the mind should be diligently and perfectly
engaged in acquiring what knowledge it can, and in perfectly

10 SYSTEMATIC theology.
obeying, as fast as it can obtain the light. If this is not true,
it is utter nonsense to talk about natural ability as being a sine
qua non of moral obligation. And I would kindly, but most
earnestly ask my brethren, by what rule of consistency they
maintain, at the same breath, the doctrine of a natural ability
to do whatever God requires, and also insist that He requires
men to know as much, and in all respects lo render Him the
same kind and degree of service as if they never had sinned, or
rendered themselves in any respect naturally incapable of
doing and being, at the present moment, all that they might
have done and been, had they never in any instance neglected
their duty?
(10.) The brother, in the above paragraph, seems to feel
pressed with the consideration, that if it be true that a man's
ignorance can be any excuse for his not at present doing what
he might have done but for this ignorance, it will follow, that
the less he knows the less is required of him, and should he
become a perfect idiot, he would be entirely discharged from
moral obligation. To this I answer: Yes, or the doctrine of
natural ability, and the entire Government of God, are a mere
farce. If a man should annihilate himself, would he not
thereby set aside his moral obligation to obey God? Yes,
truly. Should he make himself an idiot, has he not thereby
annihilated his moral agency; and of course his natural ability
to obey God? And will my New School brethren adopt the
position of Dr. Wilson of Cincinnati, as maintained on the
trial of Dr. Beecher, that " moral obligation does not imply
ability of any kind 1 " The truth is, that for the time beings a
man may destroy his moral agency,'by rendering himself a lu
natic or an idiot; and while this lunacy or idiocy continues,
obedience to God is naturally impossible, and therefore not
required. But it is also true, that no human being and no moral agent
can deprive himself of reason and moral agency, but for a lim
ited time. There is no reason to believe, that the soul can be
deranged or idiotic, when separated from the body. And
therefore moral agency will in all cases be renewed in a
future, if not in the present state of existence, when God will
hold men fully responsible for having deprived themselves of
power to render Him all that service which they might other
wise have rendered. But do let me inquire again, can my
dear brethren maintain that an idiot or lunatic can be a
moral agent? Can they maintain, that a moral being is the
subject of moral obligation any farther than he is in a state

moral government. 1 1
of sanity? Can they maintain, that an infant is the subject
of moral obligation, previous to all knowledge? And can
they maintain, that moral obligation can, in any case, exceed
knowledge ? If they can and do— then, to be consistent, they
must flatly deny that natural ability is a sine qua non of moral
obligation, and adopt the absurd dogma of Dr. Wilson, that
'moral obligation does not imply any ability whatever.' When
my brethren will take this ground, I shall then understand
and know where to meet them. But I beseech you, brethren,
not to complain of inconsistency in me, nor accuse me of
teaching dangerous heresy, while I teach nothing more than
you must admit to be true, or unequivocally admit, in extenso,
the very dogma of Dr. Wilson, quoted above.
I wish to be distinctly understood. I maintain, that present
ignorance is present natural inability, as absolutely as the pres
ent want of a hand is present natural inability to use it. And
I also maintain, that the Law of God requires Nothing more of
any human being, than that which he is at present naturally
able to perform, under the present circumstances of his being.
Do my brethren deny this? If they do, then they have gone
back to Dr. Wilson's ground. If they do not, why am I ac
counted a heretic by them, for teaching what they themselves
maintain? (11.) In my treatise upon the subject of entire sanctification,
I have shown from the Bible, that actual knowledge is indis
pensable to moral obligation, and that the legal maxim, " ig
norance of the law excuses no one," is not good in morals.
(12.) Professor Stuart, in a recent number of the Biblical '
Repository, takes precisely the same ground that I have taken,
and fully maintains, that sin is the voluntary transgression of a
known law. And he further abundantly shows, that this is no
new or heterodox opinion. Now Prof. Stuart, in the article
alluded to, takes exactly the same position in regard to what
constitutes sin that I have done in the paragraph upon which
so much has been said. And may I be permitted to inquire,
why the same sentiment is orthodox at Andover, and sound '
theology in the Biblical Repository, but highly heterodox and
dangerous at Oberlin?
(13.) Will my brethren of the New School, to avoid the con
clusiveness of my reasonings in respect to the requirements of
the Law of God, go back to Old Schoolism, physical depravity,
and accountability based upon natural inability, and all the
host of absurdities belonging to its particular views of or
thodoxy? I recollect that Dr. Beecher expressed his surprise

12 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
at the position takeft by Dr. Wilson, to which I have alluded*
and said he did not believe that " many men could be found,'
who could march up without winking to the maintenance of
such a proposition as that." But to be consistent, I do not
see but that my brethren, with or " without winking," are
driven to the necessity, either of " marching up " to maintain
ing the same proposition, or they must admit, that this objec
tionable paragraph in my lecture is the truth of God.
11. An eleventh attribute of Moral Law is Unity. Moral Law
proposes but one ultimate end of pursuit to God, and to all
moral agents. The whole of its requisitions in their spirit and
last analysis, are summed up and expressed in one word, love or
benevolence. This I only announce here. It will more fully
appear hereafter. Law is a pure and simple idea of the rea
son. It is the idea of perfect, universal and constant conse
cration of the whole being, to the highest good of being. Just
this is, and nofting more nor less, can be Moral Law; for
just this, and nothing more nor less, is a state of heart and
a course of life exactly suited to the nature and relations of
moral agents, which is the only true definition of Moral Law.
To suppose, that under any possible or conceivable circum
stances, the Moral Law should require any thing more or less,
were to make a supposition contrary to the very nature of
Moral Law. It were to overlook the proper definition oi Moral
Law, as has been said before.
12. Equity is another attribute of Moral Law. Equity is
equality. That only is equitable which is equal. The inter
est and well-being of every sentient existence and especially '
of every moral agent, is oisome value in comparison with the
interests of others and of the whole universe of creatures.
Moral Law, by a necessity of its own nature, demands that the
interest and well-being of every member of the universal fam
ily shall be regarded according to its relative or comparative
value, and that in no case shall it be sacrificed or wholly neg
lected without his forfeiture to whom it belongs. The distinc
tion allowed by human tribunals between law and equity does
not pertain to Moral Law, nor does or can it strictly pertain1 to
any law. _ For it is impossible that that should be law, in the sense
of imposing obligation to obey, of which equity is not an attri
bute. An inequitable law cannot be. The requirements of law
must be equal. A moral agent may, by transgression, forfeit
the protection of law and may come into such governmental
relations by trampling on the Law, that Moral Law may de
mand that he be made a public example— that his interest

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 13
and well-being be laid upon the altar, and that he be offered a
sacrifice to public justice as a preventive of crime in others.
It may happen also that sacrifices may be demanded by Moral
Law of innocent beings for the promotion of a greater amount
of good than that sacrificed by the innocent. Such was the
case with the atonement of Christ, and such is the case with
the missionary and with all who are called by the Law of
Love to practice self-denial for the good of others. But let it
be remembered that Moral Law never requires or allows
any degree of self-denial and self-sacrifice that relinquishes
a fflBod of greater value than that gained by the sacrifice. Nor
does it in any case demand or permit that any interest not
forfeited by its possessor, shall be relinquished or finally neglect
ed without adequate ultimate compensation. As has been said,
every interest is of some comparative value; and ought to be es
teemed just in proportion to its comparative value. Moral Law
demands and must demand that it shall be so regarded by all mo
ral agents to whom it is known. "Thou shalt love thy neigh
bor as thyself" is its unalterable language. It can absolutely
utter no other language than this, and nothing can be Moral Law
or Law in any sense that ought to be obeyed, or that can inno
cently be obeyed which holds any other language. Law is not
and cannot be an arbitrary enactment of any being or number of
beings. Unequal Law is a misnomer. That is, that which is
unequal in its demands is not and cannot be Law. Law must
respect the interests and the rights of all and of each member
of the universal family. It is impossible that it should Jbe
otherwise, and still be Law.
13. Expediency is another attribute of Moral Law.
That which is upon whole wise, is expedient,— -that which
is upon the whole expedient is demanded by Moral Law. True
expediency and the spirit of Moral Law are always identical.
Expediency may be inconsistent with the letter, but never with
the spirit of Moral Law. Law in the form of commandment
is a revelation or declaration of that course which is ex
pedient. It is expediency revealed, as in the case of the
commandments of the decalogue, and the same is true
of every precept of the Bible, it reveals to us what is expe
dient. A revealed law or commandment is never to be set
aside by any considerations of expediency. We may know
with certainty that what is required is expedient. The com
mand is the expressed judgment of God in the case and reveals
wtth unerring certainty the true path of expediency. When
Paul says, " All things are lawful unto me but all things
2

14 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
axe not expedient," we must not understand him as meaning
that all things in the absolute sense were lawful to him, or that
any thing was in this sense lawful to him that was not expedi
ent. But he doubtless intended that many things were inex*
pedient that are not expressly prohibited by the letter of the
Jaw, — that the spirit of the law prohibited many things not
expressly forbidden by the letter. It should never be forgot
ten that that which is plainly demanded by the highest good
of the universe is Law. It is expedient. It is wise. The
true spirit of the Moral Law does and must demand it. So, on
the ether hand, whatever is plainly inconsistent with the high
est good of the universe is illegal, unwise, inexpedient, and
must be prohibited by the spirit of Moral Law. But let the
thought be repeated, that the Bible precepts always reveal
that which is truly expedient, and in no case are we at liber
ty to set aside the spirit of any commandment upon the suppo
sition that expediency requires it. Some have denounced the
doctrine of expediency altogether as at all times inconsistent
with the Law of Right. These philosophers proceed upon the
assumption that the Law of Right and the Law of Benevolence
are not identical but inconsistent with each other. This is a
common but fundamental mistake, which leads me to remark-
that, 14. Exclusiveness is another attribute of Moral Law. That is,
Moral Law is the only possible rule of Moral Obligation. A dis
tinction is usually made between Moral, Ceremonial, Civil,
and Positive Laws. This distinction is in some respects con
venient, but is liable to mislead and to create an impression
that a law can be obligatory, or in other words that that can
be Law that has not the attributes of Moral Law. Nothing
can be Law in any proper sense of the term that is not and
would not be universally obligatory upon moral agents under
the same circumstances. It is Law because and only be
cause that under all the circumstances, of the case the course
prescribed is ft, proper, suitable to their natures, relations and
circumstances. There can be no Law as a rule of action for
moral agents but Moral Law, or the Law of Benevolence.
Every other rule is absolutely excluded by the very nature of
Moral Law. Surely there can be no Law that is or can be
obligatory upon moral agents but one suited to and founded in
their nature, relations and circumstances. This is and must
be the Law of Love or Benevolence. This is the Law of Right
and nothing else is or can be. Every thing else that claimsto
be Law and to impose obligation upon moral agents, from what-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 15
ever source it emanates, is not and cannot be a Law, but
must be an imposition and " a thing of nought."
15. Utility is also an attribute of Moral Law. Law propo
ses the highest good of universal being as its end and requires
all moral agents to consecrate themselves to the promotion of
this end. Consequently Utility must be one of its attributes.
That which is upon the whole in the highest degree useful to
the universe must be demanded by Moral Law. Moral Law
must, from its own nature, require just that course of willing and
acting that is upon the whole in the highest degree promotive
of the public good, — in other words, that which is upon the whole
in the highest degree useful. It has been strangely ahd ab
surdly maintained that right would be obligatory if it neces
sarily tended to and resulted in universal and perfect misery.
Than which a more nonsensical affirmation was never made.
The affirmation assumes that the Law of Right and of Good-
Will are not dnly distinct, but may be antagonistic. It also
assumes that that can be Law that is not suited to the nature
and relations ofmoral agents. Certainly it will not be pre
tended that that course of willing and acting that necessarily
tends to and results in universal misery can be consistent with
the nature and relations of moral agents. Nothing is or caii
be suited to their nature and relations that is not upon the
whole promotive of their highest well-being. Utility and
Right are always and necessarily at one. They can never
be inconsistent. That which is upon the whole mbst useful
is right, and that which is right is upon the whole useful.

LECTURE II.
I. Term Government defined.
II. Distinction between Moral and Physical Govern
ment. III. Fundamental Reason of Moral Government.
IV. Whose right it is to govern.
V. What is implied in the right to govern.
VI. Limits of the right to govern.
VII. What is implied in Moral Government.
VIII. Moral obligation defined.
IX. Conditions of moral obligation.
/. Define the term government.
The primary idea of government, is that of direction, guid
ance, control, by, or in accordance with rule, or law. This
seems to be the generic signification of the term government;
but it appears not to be sufficiently broad in its meaning, to
express all that properly belongs to moral government, as we
shall see. This leads me,
//. To distinguish between moral and physical government.
All government, as we shall see, is, and must be either moral
or physical; that is, all guidance and control must be exercised
in accordance with either moral or physical Law; for there
can be no Laws that are not either moral or physical. Physi
cal government, is control, exercised by a law of necessity or
force, as distitiguished from the law of free will, or liberty. It
is the control of substance, as opposed to Free Will. The only
government of which substance, as distinguished from free
will, is capable,is and must be physical. This is true, whether
the substance be material or immaterial, whether matter or
mind. States and changes, whether of matter or mind, that
do not consist in the actions of free will, must be subject to
the law of necessity. In no other way can they be ac
counted for. They must therefore belong to the department
of physical government. Physical government, then, is the
administration of physical law, or the law of force.
Thus, the states and changes of our Intellect and Sensibility,
come under the department of physical government. These
states and changes are effected by a law of necessity, as op
posed to the law of liberty, or free will. The Intellect and
Sensibility, as we shall abundantly see hereafter, are so cor
related to the will, that its free actions produce certain
changes in them, by a law of force, or necessity. Thoughts
and feelings are not, strictly moral actions, for the reason that

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 17
they are not voluntary, and must therefore belong to the de
partment of physical, as opposed to moral government. There
is a secondary sense in which thoughts and feelings, as also
outward actions, may be regarded as belonging to the depart
ment of moral government, and consequently, as possessing
moral character. As thoughts, feelings and outward actions,
are connected with, and result from free actions of the will
by a law of necessity, a moral agent must be responsible for
them in a certain sense. But in such cases, the character of
the agent belongs strictly to the intention that caused them,
and not to tiiose involuntary and necessary states and actions
themselves. They cannot strictly come under the category
of moral actions, as we shall more fully see hereafter, for the
reason, that being the result of a law of necessity, they do
not, cannot, with strict propriety, be said to belong to the de
partment of moral government.
Moral Government consists in 4he declaration and adminis
tration of Moral Law. It is the government of free will as dis
tinguished from substance. Physical government presides
over and controls physical states and changes of substance
or constitution, and all in#>luntary states and changes. Moral
Government presides over and controls, or seeks to control the
actions of Free Will: it-presides over intelligent and voluntary
states and changes of mind. It is a government of motive,
as opposed to a government of force — control exercised, or
sought to be exercised, in accordance with the Law of Liberty,
as opposed to the Law of Necessity. It is the administration
ofmoral as opposed to Physical Law.
Moral Government includes the dispensation of rewards and
punishments. Moral Government is administered by means as complicated
and vast, as the whole of the works, and providence, and
ways, and grace of God.
'. ///. I am to inquire into the fundamental reason of Moral
Government. Government must be founded in a good and sufficient
reason, or it is not right. No one has a right to prescribe
rules for, and control the conduct of another, unless there
is some good reason for his doing so. There must be a
necessity for moral government, or the administration of it is
tyranny. Is there any necessity for moral government? And
if so, wherein ? I answer, that from the nature and relations of
moral beings, virtue, or holiness, is indispensable to happiness.
But holiness cannot exist without Moral Law, and Moral Gov-
2*

18 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ernment; for holiness is nothing else than conformity- to Moral
law and Moral Government. Moral Government then, is in
dispensable to the highest well being of the universe of Moral
agents, and therefore ought to, and must exist. The universe
is dependent upon this as a means of securing the highest
good. This dependence is a good and suflicient reason for
the existence of Moral Government. Let it be understood,
then, that Moral Government is a necessity of moral beings,
and therefore rights When it is said, that the right to govern
is founded in the relation of dependence, it is not, or ought not
to be intended, that this relation itself confers ftie right to
govern, irrespective of the necessity oi Government. The
mere fact, that one being is dependent on another, does not
confer on one the right to govern, and impose upon the other
obligation to obey, unless the dependent one needs to be gov
erned, and consequently, that the one upon whom the other is
dependent, cannot fulfil to*him the duties of benevolence,
without governing or controlling him. Tbe right to govern,
implies the duty to govern. Obligation, and consequently,
the right to govern, implies, that government is a condition
of fulfilling to the dependent party Hke duties of benevolence.
Strictly speaking, the right to govern, is founded in the intrin
sic value of the interests to be secured by government; and
the right is conditionated upon the necessity of Government
as a means to secure those interests. I will briefly sum up the
argument under this head, as follows:
1. It is impossible that government should not exist.
2. Every thing must be governed by Laws suited to its nature.
3. Matter must be governed by Physical Laws.
4. The free actions of Will must be governed by motives,
and moral agents must be governed by moral considerations.
5. We are conscious ofmoral agency, and can be governed
only by a Moral Government.
6. Our nature and circumstances demand that we should
be under a Moral Government; because —
(1.) Moral happiness depends upon moral order.
(2.) Moral order depends upon the harmonious action of all
our powers, as individuals and members of society.
(3.) No community can perfectly harmonize in all their
views and feelings, without perfect knowledge, or, to say the
least, the same degree of knowledge on all subjects on which
they are called to act.
(4.) But no community ever existed, or will exist, in which
every individual possesses exactly the same amount of know-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 19
ledge, and where the members are, therefore, entirely agreed
in all their thoughts, views and opinions.
(5.) But if they are not agreed in opinion, or have not ex
actly the same amount of knowledge, they will not in every
thing harmonize, as it respects their courses of conduct.
(6.) There must therefore be in every community some
standard or rule of duty, to which all the subjects of the com
munity are to conform themselves.
(7.) There must be some head or controlling mind, whose
will shall be law, and whose decisions shall be regarded as in
fallible by all the subjects of the government.
(8.) However diverse their intellectual attainments are, in
this they must all agree, that the will of the lawgiver is right,
and universally the rule of duty.
(9.) This will must be authoritative and not merely ad^,
visory. (10.) There must of necessity be a penalty attached to,and
incurred by every act of disobedience to this will.
(11.) If disobedience be persisted in, exclusion from the
privileges of the government is the lowest penalty that can
consistently be inflicted.
(12.) The good then, of the universe imperiously requires,
that there should be a Moral Governor.
IV. Whose right it is to govern.
We have just seen, that necessity is a condition of the right
and duty to govern— that the highest well being of the
universe demands, and is the end of Moral Government. It
must therefore, be his right and duty to govern, whose attri
butes, physical and moral, best qualify him to secure the end
of government. To him all eyes and hearts should be di
rected, to fill this station, to exercise this control, to administer
all just and necessary rewards and punishments. It is both
his right and duty to govern. I will here introduce from my
Skeletons, a brief argument, to show that God has a right, and
that therefore it is bis duty, to govern, and that he is a Moral
Governor. That God is a Moral Governor, we infer —
1. From our own consciousness. From the very laws of our
being we naturally affirm our responsibility to him for our con
duct. As God is our Creator, we are naturally responsible to
Him for the right exercise of our powers. And as our
good and his glory depend upon our conformity to the same
rule, to which He conforms his whole being, he is under a
moral obligation to require us to be holy as he is holy.

20 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
2. His natural attributes qualify Him to sustain the relation
of a Moral Governor to the universe.
3. His moral character, also, qualifies him to sustain this re
lation. 4. His relation to the universe as Creator and Preserver,
when considered in connection with his nature and attributes,
confers on Him the right of universal government.
5. His relation to the universe, and our relations to Him and
to each other, render it obligatory upon him to establish and
administer a Moral Government over the universe.
6. The honor of God demands that he should administer
such a government.
7. His conscience must demand it. He must know that it
would be wrong for Him to create a universe ofmoral beings,
and then refuse or neglect to administer over them a Moral
Government. 8. His happiness must demand it, as he could not be happy
unless he acted in accordance with his conscience.
9. If God is not a Moral Governor he is not wise. Wisdom
consists in the choice of the best ends, and in the use of the
most appropriate means to accomplish those ends. If God
is not a Moral Governor, it is inconceivable that He should
have had any important end in view in the creation of moral
beings, or that he should have chosen the best or any suitable'
means for the accomplishment of the most desirable end.
10. The conduct or providence of God plainly indicates a
design tp exert a moral influence over moral agents.
11. His providence plainly indicates that the universe of
mind is governed by Moral Laws, or by laws suited to the na
ture ofmoral agents.
12. Consciousness recognizes the existence of an inward
law, or knowledge of the moral quality of actions.
13. This inward moral consciousness or conscience implies
the existence of a rule of duty which is obligatory upon us.
This rule implies a ruler, and this ruler must be God.
14. If God is not a Moral Governor, our very nature de
ceives us.
15. If God is not a Moral Governor, the whole universe, so
far as we have the means of knowing it, is calculated to mis
lead mankind in respect to this fundamental truth.
16. If there is no such thing as Moral Government, there is,
in reality, no such thing as moral character.
17. All nations have believed that God is a Moral Gov
ernor. .

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 21
18. Our nature is such, that we must believe it. The con
viction of our moral accountability to God, is in such a sense
the dictate of our moral nature, that we cannot escape from it.
19. We must abhor God, if we ever come to a knowledge
of the fact that he created moral agents, and then exercised
over them no Moral Government.
20. The connection between moral delinquency and suffer
ing is such as to render it certain that Moral Government does,
as a matter of fact, exist.
21. The Bible, which has been proved to be a revelation
from God, contains a most simple and yet comprehensive sys
tem of Moral Government.
22. If we are decived in respect to our being subjects of
Moral Government, we are sure of nothing.
V. What is implied in the right to govern.
1. From what has just been said, it must be evident, that
the right to govern, implies the necessity of government as a
means of securing an intrinsically valuable end.
2. Also that the right to govern, implies the duty, or obliga
tion to govern. There can be no right in this case, without
corresponding obhgation; for the right to govern is founded in
the obligation to govern.
3. The right to govern implies obligation on the part of the
subject to obey. It cannot be the right or duty of the gov
ernor to govern, unless it is the duty of the subject to obey.
The governor and subject are alike dependent upon govern
ment, as the indispensable means of promoting the highest
good. The governor and the subject must, therefore, be
under reciprocal obligation, the one to govern, and, the other
to be governed, or to obey. The one must seek to govern,
the other must seek to be governed.
4. The right to govern implies the right and duty to dispense
just and necessary rewards and punishments— to distribute
rewards proportioned to merit, and penalties proportioned to
demerit, whenever the public interests demand their execu
tion. 5. It implies the right and duty to use all necessary means
to secure the end of government as far as possible.
6. It implies obligation on the part of the subject cheerfully
to acquiesce in any measure that may be necessary to secure
the end of government — in case of disobedience, to submit to
merited punishment, and if necessary, to aid in the infliction
of the penalty of Law.
7. It implies the right and obligation of both ruler and ruled,

22 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
to consecrate themselves to the promotion of the great end of
government, with a single and steady aim.
8. It implies obligation, both on the part of the ruler and
ruled, to be always ready, and when occasion offers, actually to
"make any personal and private sacrifice demanded by the
higher public good — to cheerfully meet any emergency, and
exercise any degree of self-denial that can and will result in a
good of greater value to the public, than that sacrificed by the
individual, or by any number of individuals, it always being
understood, that present voluntary sacrifices shall have an ul
timate reward.
9. It implies the right and duty to employ any degree of
force which is indispensable to the maintenance of order, the
execution of wholesome laws, the suppression of insurrections,
the punishment of rebels and disorganizers, and sustaining the
supremacy of Moral Law. It is impossible that the right to
govern should not imply this; and to deny this right is to deny
the right to govern. Should an emergency occur, in which a
ruler had no right to use the indispensable means of securing
order, and the supremacy of Law, the moment this emergency
occurred, his right to govern would, and must cease: for it is
impossible that it should be his right to govern, unless it be at
the same time, and for the same reason, his duty to govern:
but it is absurd to say, that it is his right and duty to govern,
and yet at the same time, that he has not a right to use the indis
pensable means of government. It is the same absurdity, as
to say, that he has, and has not the right to govern at the same
time. If it be asked, whether an emergency like the one
under consideration is possible, and if so, what might justly be
regarded as such an emergency, I answer, that should cir
cumstances occur under which the sacrifice necessary to sus
tain, would overbalance the good to be derived from the prev
alence of government, this would create the emergency under
consideration, in which the right to govern would cease.
VI. Point out the limits of this right.
The right to govern is, and must be, just co-extensive with the
necessity of government. We have seen, that the right to
govern is founded in the necessities of moral beings. In other
"words, the right to govern, is founded upon the fact, that the
highest good of moral agents cannot be secured, but by means
of government^
It is a first truth of Reason, that what is good or valuable in
itself, should be chosen for its own sake, and that it must there
fore be the duty of moral agents to aim at securing, and so far

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

as in them lies, to use the means of securing the highest good
of the universe for its own sake, or on account of its intrinsic
value. If moral government is the only means by which this
end can be secured, then government is a necessity of the
universe, thence a duty. But under this head, to avoid mis
take, and to correct erroneous impressions which are some
times entertained, I must show what is not the foundation of
the right to govern. The boundary of the right must, as will
be seen, depend upon the foundation of the right. The right
must be as broad as the reason for it. If the reason of the right
be mistaken, then the limits of the right cannot be ascertained,
and must necessarily be mistaken also.
1. Hence the right to govern the universe, for instance,
cannot be found in the fact, that God sustains to it the relation
of Creator. This is by itself no reason why He should govern
it, unless it needs to be goyerned — unless some good will result
from government. Unless there is some necessity for govern
ment, the fact that God created the universe, can give Him no
right to govern it.
2. The fact that God is the Owner and Sole Proprietor of
the universe, is no reason why-he should govern it. Unless
either his own good, or the good pf the universe, or of both to
gether, demands government, the relation of Owner cannot
confer the right to govern. Neither God, nor any other being,
can own moral beings, in such a sense as to have a right to-
govern them, when government is wholly unnecessary, and
can result in no good whatever to God, or to his creatures.
Government, in such a case, would be perfectly arbitrary
and unreasonable, and consequently an unjust, tyrannical and
wicked act. God has no such right. No such right can, by
possibility in any case exist.
3. The right to govern cannot be founded- in the fact, that
God possesses all the attributes, natural and moral, that are
requisite to the administration erf Moral Government. This
fact is no doubt a condition of the right; for without these
qualifications He could have no right, however necessary gov
ernment might be. But the possession of these attributes can
not confer the right independently of the necessity of govern
ment: Jbr however well qualified He may be to govern, still,
unless government is necessary to securing his own glory and
the highest well-being of the universe, he has no right to gov
ern it. Possessing the requisite qualifications is the condition,
and the necessity of government is the foundation of the right
to govern. More strictly, the right is founded in the intrinsic

24 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
value of the interests to be secured by government, and con
ditionated upon the fact, that government is the necessary
means or condition of securing the^nd.
4. Nor is the right to govern conferred by the value of the
interests to be secured, nor by the circumstance of the neces
sity of government merely, without respect to the condition
just above mentioned. Did not God's natural and moral at
tributes qualify Him to sustain that relation better than any
one else, the right could not be conferred on Him by any other
fact or relation.
5. The right to govern is not, and cannot be an abstract
right based on no reason whatever. The idea of this right
is not an ultimate idea in such a sense, that our intelligence
affirms the right without assigning any reason on which' it is
founded. The human intelligence cannot say that God has a
right to govern, because he has such aright; and that this is rea
son enough, and all the reason that can be given. Our Reason
does not affirm that government is right, because it is right, and
that this is a first truth, and an ultimate idea. If this were so,
then God's arbitrary will would be law, and no bounds possi
bly could be assigned to the right to govern. If God's right
to govern be a first truth, an ultimate truth, fact and idea,
founded in no assignable reason, then He has the right to
legislate as little, and as much, and as arbitrarily, as unneces
sarily, as absurdly, and injuriously as possible; and no injus
tice is, or can be done; for he has, by the supposition, aright
to govern, founded in no reason, and of course without any'
end. Assign any other reason as the foundation of the right
to govern than the value of the interests to be secured and
conditionated upon the necessity of government, and you may
search in vain for any limit to the right. But the moment
the foundation and the condition of the right are discovered,
we see instantly, that the right must be co-extensive with the
reason upon which it is founded, or in other words, must be
limited by, and only by the fact, that thus far, and no farther,
government is necessary to, the highest good of the universe.
No legislation can be valid in heaven or earth — no enact
ments can impose obligation, except upon the condition, that
such legislation is demanded by the highest good of the Gov
ernor and the Governed. Unnecessary legislation is invalid
legislation. Unnecessary government is tyranny. It can in
no case be founded in right. It Should, however, be observed,
that it is often, and in the government of God, universally true,
that the Sovereign, and not the subject, is to be the Judge

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 25
of what is necessary legislation and government. Under no
government, therefore, are laws to be despised or rejected be
cause we are unable to see at once their necessity, and hence
their wisdom. Unless they are palpably unnecessary, and
therefore unwise and unjust, they are to be respected and
obeyed as a less evil than contempt and disobedience, though
at present we are unable to see their wisdom. Under the
government of God there can never be any doubt, and of
course any ground for distrust and hesitancy, as it respects
the duty of obedience.
VII. What is implied in Moral Government.
1. Moral Government implies a Moral Governor.
2. It implies the existence of Moral Law.
1. It implies the existence of Moral Agents as the subjects
of Moral Government
4. It implies the existence of Moral Obligation to obey
Moral Law.
5. It implies the fact of Moral Character, that is, of praise
or blame-worthiness in the subjects of Moral Government. A
Moral Agent must be under Moral Obligation, and one who
is under Moral Obligation, must have Moral Character. If
he complies with obligation, he must be holy and praise- wor
thy; if he refuse to comply with Moral Obligation, he must
be sinful and blame^worthy.
VIII.'" Definition of Moral Obligation.
Obligation is a bond, or that which binds. Moral Obli
gation is the bond, ligament, or tie that binds a moral agent to
Moral Law. Moral Obligation is oughtness.' It is a responsi
bility imposed on the moral agent by his own reason. It isa
first truth of Reason that he ought to will the valuable for its
own sake.
Moral Law is the rule in conformity with which he ought
to act, or more strictly, to will.
Obligation we express by the term ought, and say that a
moral agent ought to obey Moral Law, or that he ought to
choose that which Moral Law requires him to will.
IX. The conditions of Moral Obligatiom
1. Moral Agency. The conditions' of Moral Agency are
the attributes of Intelligence, Sensibility, and Free Will; or
in other words power or capacity to know, to feel, and to
will in conformity or disconformity with knowledge or with
moral obligation. There must be Intelligence or the fac
ulty of knowing the valuable or the good, and that the valua
ble or the good exists or is possible , that Something exists or
3

26 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
may exist which is a good in itself, or valuable on its. own ac
count. There must be reason to affirm Moral Obligation, to
will the valuable because it is valuable. Moral Obligation
cannot exist where there is no knowledge of moral relations,
of the valuable, the good, where there is no Intellect to affirm
Oughtness or Moral Obligation — to affirm the Tightness of wil
ling good or the valuable, and the wrongness of willing evil or
of selfish willing.
It is generally agreed that Moral Obligation respects strict-i
ly only the ultimate intention or choice of an end for its own
sake. Hence it follows that the idea of this end must be de
veloped as a condition of Moral Obligation. The end must be
first known or perceived. This perception must develop the
idea or affirmation of obligation to choose or will it. Thenle-
velopment of the idea of obligation necessitates the develop
ment of the ideas of right and wrong as its correlatives. The
development of these last must necessitate the affirmation of
praise and blame-worthiness as their correlatives.
The conditions of moral obligation, strictly speaking, are
tne powers ofmoral agency with the development of the
ideas of the intrinsically valuable, of moral obligation and
of right and wrong. It implies the development also of the
ideas of praise and blame-worthiness.
2. Sensibility, or the power or susceptibility of feeling.
Without this faculty the knowledge of the good or the valua
ble would not be possible; This faculty supplies the chrono
logical condition of the idea of the good or valuable. Feeling
pleasure or pain in the sensibility suggests and develops
the idea of the good or the valuable in the intelligence, just
as the perception of body suggests and develops the idea of
space, or just as beholding succession suggests and develops the
idea of tihie. Perceiving body or succession, is the chronolog
ical condition of the idea of space or time. So the feeling
of pleasure in like manner suggests or develops the idea of
the valuable. The existence then of the Sensibility or of a
susceptibility to pleasure or pain must be a condition of Moral
Agency and hence of Moral Obligation.
3. Moral Agency implies the possession of Free Will. By
Free Will is intended the power of choosing or refusing to
choose in compliance with moral obligation in every instance.
Free Will implies the power of originating and deciding our
own choices and of exercising our own sovereignty in every
instance of choice upon moral questions — of deciding or choos
ing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 27
obligation. That man can not be under a moral obligation
to perform an absolute impossibility is a first truth of reason.
But man's causality, his whole power of causality to perform or
do any thing, lies in his Will. If he cannot will, he can do
nothing. His whole liberty or freedom must consist in his
power to will. His outward actions and his mental states are
. connected with the actions of his Will by a law of necessity.
If I will to move my muscles, they must move unless there be
a paralysis of the nerves of voluntary motion, or unless some
resistance be opposed that overcomes the power of my voli
tions. The sequences of choice or volition are always under
the law of necessity, and unless the Will is free man has no
freedom. And if he has no freedom he is not amoral agent,
that is, he is incapable of moral action and also of moral char
acter. Free Will then in the above defined sense must be a
condition of moral agency and of course of moral obligation.
4'. Moral Agency implies as has been said the actual devel
opment of the idea of good, or the valuable, of obligation and of
oughtness or duty. The mind must know that there is such a
thing as the good or valuable as a condition of the obligation
to will it. Mind is so constituted that it cannot but affirm ob
hgation to will the good or the valuable as soon as the idea
of the good or valuable is developed; but the development of
this idea is the indispensable condition of moral obligation.
When the faculties of a moral being are possessed, with suffi
cient light on moral subjects to develop the idea of the good
or the valuable together with the idea of right and wrong,
the mind instantly affirms and must affirm moral obligation or
oughtness. Moral Agency commences at the instant of the
development of those ideas, and with them also commences
moral obligation and of course moral character.
REMARKS.
1. If God1s government is moral, it is easy to see how sin
came to exist; that a want of experience in the universe,
in regard to the nature and natural tendencies and results of
sin, prevented the due influence of sanctions.
2. If God's government is moral, we see that all the devel
opments of sin are enlarging the experience of the universe in
regard to its nature;and tendencies, and thus confirming the
influence of moral government over virtuous minds.
3. If God's government is moral, we can understand the
design and tendency pf the Atonement; that it is designed,
and that it tends to reconcile the exercise of mercy, with a due
administration of law.

28 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
4, If God's government & moral, we can understand the
philosophy of the Spirit's influences in convicting and sanctify
ing the soul; that this influence is moral, persuasive, and not
physical; .$. If the government of God is moral, we can understand
the influence and necessity of Mtfi. Confidenee is indispen
sable to he&nt obedience in any government. This is emphati*-
cally true under the Divine Government,
6. If God's government is moral, we can see the necessity
and power of Christian example. Example is the highegj
moral influence.
7. If God's government is moral, his natural or physical
omnipotence is no proof that all men will be saved; for sali
vation is not effected by physical power.
8. If God's government is moral, we see the importance of
watchfulness, and girding up the loins of our minds,
9, If God's government is moral, we see the necessity of a
well instructed ministry, able to wield the motives necessary
to sway mind.
12, If God's government is moral, we see tbe philosophical
bearings, tendencies, and power of the Providence, Law, and
Gospel of Gqd, in the great work of man's salvation.

LECTURE III.
I. Man a Subject of Moral Obligation.
II. Extent of Moral Obligation.
/. Man is a Subject of Moral Obligation*
Thit is a first truth of reason. A first truth has this invaria
ble characteristic, namely, all moral agents know it by a ne*
cessity of nature and assume its truth in all their practical
judgments, whatever their philosophical theories may be.
, Now who does not know that men possess the attributes of
moral agents: to wit, Intellect, (including reason, conscience,
and consciousness']) Sensibility, and Free Will. Every mor
al agent does know and cannot but know this. That man
has Intellect and Sensibility, or the powers of knowing and
feehng, has not to my knowledge been doubted. In theory^ the
freedom of the will in man has been denied. Yet the very de-
niers have, in their practical judgments, assumed the freedom of
the human will as well and as fully as the most staunch defen
ders of human liberty of will. Indeed no body ever did or
can in practice call in question the freedom of the human
will without justly incurring the charge of insanity. By a
necessity of his nature every moral agent knows himself to be
free. He can no more hide this fact from himself, or reason
himself out of the conviction of its truth, than he can speculate
himself into a disbelief of his own existence. He may in spec
ulation deny either, but in fact he knows both. That he is,
that he is free, that he is a subject ofmoral obligation are truths
equally well known, and known precisely in the same way,
namely, he intuits "them — sees them in their own light by
virtue of the constitution of his being. I have said that man is
conscious of possessing the powers of a moral agent. He has
also the idea of the valuable, of right and of wrong: of this he
is conscious. But nothing else is necessary to constitute man
or any other being a subject ofmoral obligation than the pos
session of these powers together with sufficient light on moral
subjects to develop the ideas just mentioned.
Again. Man, by a law of necessity, affirms himself to be
under moral obligation* He cannot doubt it. He affirms ab
solutely and necessarily that he is praise or blame-worthy as
he is benevolent or selfish. Every man assumes this of him
self and of all other men of sound mind. This assumption is
irresistible as well as universal.
The truth assumed then is a. first truth and not to be called
in question. But if it be called in question in theory, it still
3*

30 systematic theology.
remains and must remain, while reason remains, a truth o§
certain knowledge from the presence of which there is and can
be no escape. The spontaneous, universal, and irresistible
affirmation that men of sound mind are praise or blame-worthy
as they are selfish or benevolent, shows beyond contradiction
that all men regard themselves and others as the subjects of
moral obligation.
//. Extent of Moral Obligation.
By this is intended, to what acts and states of mind does
moral obligation extend? This certainly is a solemn and a
fundamentally important question. ^*
In the examination of this question I shall,
1. State again the conditions of moral Obligation.
2. Show by an appeal to reason or to natural theology, to
what acts and states of mind moral obligation cannot directly
extend. 3. To what acts or states of mind moral obligation must
directly extend.
4. To what acts and mental states moral obligation must
indirectly extend.
5. Examine the question in the light of the oracles of God.
1. State again the conditions of moral obligation. These
must of necessity be introduced here if, we would understand
this subject, although they have been examined in a former
Lecture at considerable length. These conditions are,
(1.) The powers and susceptibilities of moral agency. In
tellect, including Reason, Conscience, and Self consciousness.
Reason is the intuitive faculty or function of the intel
lect. It gives by direct intuition the following among oth
er truths: the absolute — for example, right and wrong; the
necessary — space exists; the infinite — space is infinite; the
perfect— God is perfect— God's law is perfect, &c. In
short it is the faculty tiiat intuits moral relations and af
firms moral obligation to act in conformity with perceived
moral relations. It is that faculty that postulates all the
a priori truths of science whether mathematical, philosoph
ical, theological, or logical.
Conscience is the faculty or function of the Intelligence that
recognizes the conformity or disconformity of the heart and life
to the Moral Law as it lies revealed in the reason, and also
awards praise to conformity and blame to disconformity to that
law. It also affirms that conformity to the moral law deserves re
ward and that disconformity deserves punishment. It also
possesses a propelling or impulsive power by which it urges

MORAL GpVERNMENT. 31
the conformity of Will to Moral Law. It does, in a certain
sense, seem to possess the power of retribution.
Consciousness is the faculty or function of self-knowledge.
It is the faculty that recognizes our own existence, mental ac
tions, and states, together with the attributes of liberty or
necessity, belonging to those actions or states.
" Consciousness is the mind in the act of knowing it
self." By consciousness I know that I am — that I affirm
that space is, — that I also affirm that the whole is equal to all
its parts — that every event must have a cause, and many such
like truths. I am conscious not only ojf these affirmations, but
also that necessity is the law of these affirmations, that I can
not affirm otherwise than I do in respect to this class of truths.
I am also conscious of choosing to sit at my desk and write,
and lam just as conscious that liberty is the law of this choice.
That is, I am conscious oi necessarily regarding myself as en
tirely free in this choice, and of affirming my own ability to
have chosen not to sit at my desk and of being now able
to choose not to sit and write. I am just as conscious of affir
ming the liberty or necessity of my mental states as I am of
the states themselves. Consciousness gives us our existence
and attributes, our mental acts and states, and all the attri
butes and phenomena of our being of which we have any
knowledge. In short all our knowledge is given to us by
consciousness. The Intellect is a receptivity as distinguished
from a voluntary power. All the acts and states of the intelli
gence are under the law oi necessity or physical law.' The will
can command the attention of the intellect. Its thoughts, per
ceptions, affirmations, and all its phenomena are involuntary
and under a law of necessity. Of this we are conscious. An
other faculty indispensable to moral agency is,
(2.) Sensibility. This is the faculty or susceptibility otfeel-
ing. All sensation, desire, emotion, passion, pain, pleasure,
and in short every kind and degree of feeling as the term feel
ing is commonly used, is a phenomenon of this faculty. This
faculty supplies the chronological condition of the idea of the
valuable, and hence of right and wrong and ofmoral obliga
tion. The experience of pleasure or happiness develops the
idea of the valuable just as the perception of. body develops
the idea of space. But for this faculty the mind could have
no idea of the valuable and hence of moral obligation to will
the valuable, nor of right and wrong, nor of praise and
blame-worthiness. This faculty like the intellect is a receptivity or purely a

32 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
passive as distinguishedfrom a voluntary faculty. All its phe~
nomena are under the law of necessity. I am conscious that
I cannot, by any direct effort, feel when and as I will. This
faculty is so correlated to the intelligence that when the intel
lect is intensely occupied with certain considerations, the Sensi*
bility is affected in a certain manner, and certain feelings exist in
the Sensibility by a law of necessity. I am conscious that when
certain conditions are fulfilled, I can not but have certain feel
ings, and that when these conditions are not fulfilled, I can not
have those feelings. I know by consciousness that my feed
ings and all the states and phenomena of the Sensibility are
only indirectly under the control of my Will. By willing I
can direct my Intelligence to the consideration, of certain sub
jects, and in this way alone affect my Sensibihty, and produce
a given state of feeling. So on the other hand if certain feel
ings exist in the Sensibility which I wish to suppress, I know
that I can not annihilate them by directly willing them oat of
existence, but by diverting my attention from the cause of
them, they cease to exist of course and of necessity. Thus
feeling is only indirectly under the control of the WiU.
Another faculty indispensable to moral agency is,
(3.) Free Will. By Free Will is intended the power to
choose, in every instance, in accordance with moral obliga
tion, or to refuse so to choose. This much must be implied ia
Free Will, and I am not concerned to affirm any thing more.
The Will is the voluntary power. In it resides the power of
causality. As consciousness gives; the affirmation that neces
sity is an attribute of the phenomena of the Intellect and of
the Sensibility, so it just as unequivocally gives the affirmai
tion that Liberty is an attribute of the phenomena of the
Will. I am as conscious of affirming that I could will differ^
ently from what I do in every instance of moral obligation, as
I am of the affirmation that I can not affirm,in regard to truths-
of intuition, otherwise than I do. I am as conscious of being
free in willing as I am of not being free or voluntary in my
feelings and intuitions.
Consciousness of affirming the Freedom of the Will, that
is, of power to will in accordance with moral obligation, or
to refuse thus to will, is a necessary condition of the affirma
tion 'of moral obligation. For example: No man affirms, or
can affirm, his moral obligation to undo all the acts of his past
life, and to live his life over again. He can not affirm himself
to be under this obligation, simply because he cannot but;
affirm the impossibility of it. He can affirm, and indeed can

MORAL GOVERNMENTS 33
not bnt affirm his obligation to repent and obey God in fu
ture, becanse he is conscious of affira»ngbis ability to do this.
Consciousness of the affirmation of abiBty to comply with any
requisition, Js a necessary condition of the affirmation of obli
gation to cpmply with that requisition. Then no moral agent.
can affirm himself to be under moral obligation to perform
an impossibility. ?,
(4.) A fourth condition of moral obligation is Light, or so
much knowledge of our moral relations as to develop the
i4ea of oughtness. This implies,
[1,] The perception or idea of the intrinsically valuable.
[2.] The affirmation of obhgation to will the valuable for its-
own sake.
{3,] The development of the idea that it is right to will the
good or the valuable and wrong not to will it for its own sake
or disinterestedly.
Before I can affirm my obligation to will, I most perceive
something in that which I am required to will as an ultimate
end, that renders it worthy of heing chosen. I must have an
Object of choice. That object must possess in itself that
which commends itself to my Intelligence as worthy of being
chosen. All choice must respect means or ends. That is, every
thing must be willed either as an end or a means. I can not
he under obhgation to will the means until I know the end*
I can not know an end, or that which can possibly be chosen
as an ultimate end, until I know that something is intrinsically
valuable. I can not know that it is right or wrong, to choose
or refuse a certain end, until I know whether the proposed ob^
ject of choice is intrinsically valuable or not. It is impossi
ble for me to choose it as an ultimate end, unless I perceive
it to be intrinsically valuable. This is self-evident; for choos
ing it as an end is nothing else than choosing it for its intrin
sic value. Moral obligation, therefore, always- and necessa
rily implies the knowledge that the well being of God and of
the Universe is valuable in itself, and the affirmation that
it ought Jo be chosen for its own sake, that is, impartially
and oa account of its intrinsic value, Jt is is*poss}ble that
th§ ideas of right and wrong should be developed until the
idea of the valuable is developed. Right and wrong respect
ifltentioRS, and strictly nothing else, as we shall see. In
tention implies an end intended. Now that which is cho
sen as an ultimate end, is and must be chosen for its own-
Sake or for its intrinsic value. Until the end is apprehended)

34 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
no idea or affirmation of obligation can exist respecting
it. Consequently no idea of right or wrong in respect to
that end can exist. The end must first be perceived. The
idea of the intrinsically valuable must be developed. Simul
taneously with the development of the idea of the valuable
the Intelligence affirms, and must affirm obligation to will it,
or, which is the same thing, that it is right to will it, and
wrong not to will it.
It is impossible that the idea of moral obligation and of
right and wrong should be developed upon any other con
ditions than those just specified. To affirm the contrary
were absurd. Suppose, for instance, it should be said that
the idea of the intrinsically valuable is not necessary to the
development of the idea of moral obligation, and of right
and wrong. Let us look at it. It is agreed that moral
obligation, and the ideas of right and wrong, respect, di
rectly, intentions only. It is also admitted that all inten
tions must respect either means or ends. It is also admitted
that obligation to will means, can not exist until the end is
known. It is also admitted that the choice of an ultimate end
implies the choice of a thing for its own sake, or because it is
intrinsically valuable. Now, from these admissions, it follows
that the idea of the intrinsically valuable is the condition of
moral obligation, and also of the idea of moral obligation.
It must follow also that the idea of the valuable must be the
condition of the idea that it would be right to choose or wrong not
to choose the valuable. When I come to the discussion of
the subject of moral depravity, I shall endeavor to show that
the idea of the valuable is very early developed, and is among
the earliest, if not the very first, of human intellections. -I
have here only to insist that the development of this idea is
a sine qua non of moral obligation. It is, then, nonsense to
affirm that the ideas of right and wrong are developed antece
dently to the idea of the valuable. It is the same as to say
that I affirm it to be right to will an end, before I have the
idea of an end, or which is the same thing, of the intrinsically
valuable, or wrong not to will an end when as yet I have no
idea or knowledge of any reason why it should be willed,
or in other words, while I have no idea of an ultimate end.
This is absurd.
Let it be distinctly understood then, that the conditions of
moral obhgation are,
,_.*;. The POS8es9sion of the powers, or faculties, and suscep
tibilities of a moral agent.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 35
2. Light, or the' development of the ideas of the valua
ble, of moral obligation, of right and wrong.
It has been absurdly contended that Sensibility is not ne-;
cessary to moral agency. This assertion overlooks the fact
that Moral Law is the Law of Nature; that, therefore, were
the powers and susceptibilities .radically different from what
they are, or were the correlation of these powers radically
otherwise than it is they could not still be moral agents in the
sense of being under the same law that moral agents now are.
Possessing a different nature, they must of necessity be sub
ject to a different law. The law of their nature must be their
law, and no other could by any possibility be obligatory upon
them. II. I am to show by an appeal to reason, or to natural theology^-
to what acts and states of mind moral obligation cannot directly
extendi 1. Not to external or muscular action. These actions are
connected with the actions of the Will by a law of necessity.
If I will to move my muscles they must move, unless the
nerves of voluntary motion are paralyzed, or some resistance
is offered to muscular motion that overpowers the strength of
my Will, or, if you please, of my muscles. It i3 generally
understood and agreed that moral obligation does not directly
extend to bodily or outward action.
2. Not to the states of the Sensibility. I have already
remarked that we are conscious that our feelings are not vol
untary but involuntary states of mind. Moral obligation can
not, therefore, directly extend to them.
3. Not to states of the Intelligence. The phenomena of
this faculty we also know by consciousness to be under the
law of necessity. It is impossible that moral obligation should
extend directly to any involuntary act or state of mind.
4. Not to unintelligent acts of Will. There are many un
intelligent volitions or acts of Will, to which moral obligation
can not extend, for example, the volitions of maniacs, or of
infants, before the reason is at all developed. . They must at
birth be the subjects of volition, as they have motion or mus
cular action. The volitions of somnambulists are also of this
character. Purely instinctive volitions must also come under
the category of unintelligent actions of Will. , For example:
A bee lights on my hand, I instantly and instinctively shake
him off. I tread on a hot iron, and instinctively move my
foot. Indeed there are many actions of will which are put
forth under the influence of pure instinct, and before the

36 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Intelligence caii affirm obligation to will or not to wiU. These
surely can not have moral character, and of course moral
obligation cannot extend to them.
///. To what acts arid states of mind Moral Obligation must
directly extend.
1. To all intelligent acts of will. These are and most
foe free.
2. All intelligent acts of will must consist, either in the
choice of ends or means. The mind does not act intelligent
ly, except as it acts in reference to some end or object of choieev
3. The choice of an ultimate end is an ultimate intention.
4. The choice of the means to secure an ultimate end, is
but an endeavor of the will to secure it, and is therefore,- but
an exertion of the ultimate intention^ It is choosing this as a
means to that, that is, it is the choice of the end and of the
means for its sake. Choosing the means is sometimes, though
I think improperly, denominated subordinate choice, or the
choice of subordinate ends.
5. All, intelligent willing, choosing, intending, must consist?
either itf the choice of an end, or in volitions or efforts to se
cure an end. In other words, all choosing must consist in
choosing an end, or something for its own sake, or in choosing
means to compass the end. This must be, or there is really
no object of choice.
6. I have said, that Moral Obligation respects the ultimate
intention only. I am now prepared to say still further, that
this is a first truth of Reason. It is a truth universally and
necessarily assumed by all Moral Agents, their speculations
to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding. This is evident
from the following considerations.
(1.) Very young children know and assume this truth uni
versally. They always deem it a sufficient vindication of
themselves, when accused of any delinquency, to say, "I did
not mean to," or if accused of short coming, to say, " I meant
or intended to have done it— J designed it." This, if true,
they assume as an all-sufficient vindication of themselves.
They know that this, if believed, must be regarded as a suffi
cient excuse to justify them in every Case.
(2.) Every Moral Agent necessarily regards such an excuse
as a perfect justification, in case it be sincerely and truly
made. (3.) It is a saying as common as men are, and as true as com
mon, that men are to be judged by their motives, that is, by
their designs, intentions. It is impossible for us not to assent

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 37
to this truth. If a man intend evil, though perchance he
may do us good, we do not excuse him, but hold him guilty of
the crime which he intended. So if he intend to do us
good, and perchance do us evil, we do not, and cannot
condemn him. For this intention and endeavor to do us good,
we cannot blame him, although it has resulted in evil to us.
He may be' to blame for other things connected with the af
fair. He may have come to our help too late, and may have
been to blame for not coming when a different result would
have followed; or he may have been blamable for not being
better qualified for doing us good. He may have been to
blame for many things connected with the transaction, but for
a sincere, and of course hearty endeavor to do us good, he is
not culpable, nor can he be, however it may result. If he
honestly intended to. do us good, it is impossible that he should
not have used the best means in his power at the time: this
is implied in honesty of intention. And if he did this, rea
son cannot pronounce him guilty, for it must judge him by
his intentions.
(4.) Courts of Criminal Law have always in every enlight
ened country assumed this as a first truth. They always in
quire into the quo animo, that is, the intention, and judge ac
cordingly. (5.) The universally acknowledged truth that lunatics are not
moral agents and responsible for their conduct, is but an illus
tration of the fact that the truth we are considering is regard
ed and assumed as a first truth of Reason.
7. Again if it be true, which certainly it must be, that all
choices respect ends or means, and that the choice of means
to effect an end is only an endeavor to secure the intended
end, it must also be true that Moral Obligation extends di
rectly only to ultimate intention.
8. But the Bible every where, either expressly or impliedly
recognizes this truth. " If there be a willing mind, that is,
aright willing or intention, it is accepted," &c.
9. Again. All the Law is fulfilled in one word, love. Now this
can not be true if the spirit of the whole Law does not di
rectly respect intentions only. If it extends directly to
thoughts, emotions, and outward actions, it can not be truly
said that love is the fulfilling of the Law. This love must be
good will, for how could involuntary love be obligatory ?
10. Again. The spirit of the Bible every where respectsthe
intention. If the intention is right,or if there he a willing
mind it is accepted as obedience. But if there be not a will-
4

38 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. j
ing mind, that is, right intention, no outward act is regarded
as obedience. The willing is always regarded bythe Scrip
tures as the doing. If a man look on a woman to lust after her,
that is, with hcentious intention or willing, he hath committed
adultery with her already, &c. So on the other hand, if one
intends to perform a service for G°d which after all he is una
ble to perform, he is regarded as having virtually done it, and
is rewarded accordingly.
This is too obviously the doctrine of the Bible to need ftu>
ther elucidation.
IV. To what Acts and Mental States Moral Obligation indi
rectly extends.
Under this head I remark,
That, it has been already said that outward action to
gether with the states of the Intelligence and Sensibility are
connected with the actions of the Will by a Law of Neces
sity. (1.) The muscles of the body are directly under the controlof
the Will. I will to move, and my muscles must move, unless
there be a paralysis of the nerves of voluntary motion, or un
less some opposing power of sufficient magnitude to overcome
the strength of my Will be interposed.
(2.) The Intellect is also directly under the control of the
Will. I am conscious that I can control and direct my atten
tion as I.please, and think upon one subject oranother.
(3.) The Sensibility, I am conscious, is only indirectly con
trolled by the Will. Feeling can be produced only by direct
ing the attention and thoughts to those subjects that excite
Feeling by a Law of Necessity.. -. _•:¦:'
The way is now prepared to say, - *';
1. That Moral Obligation extends indirectly to outward or
bodily actions. These are often required in the Word of God.
The reason is that being connected with the actions of the
Will by a Law of Necessity, if the Will is right the outward
action must follow, except upon the contingencies just named,
and therefore such actions may reasonably be required. But
if the contingencies just named intervene so that outward ac
tion does not follow the choice or intention, the Bible accepts
the Will for the deed invariably. "If there be a willing
mind it is, accepted according" &c.
2. Moral Obligation extends indirectly to the states of the
Sensibility, so that certain emotions or feelings are required as
outward actions are, and for the same reason, namely, the
states of the Sensibility are connected with the actions of the

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 39
Will by a Law of .Necessity. But when the Sensibility is
exhausted, or when for any reason the right action of the
Will does not produce the required feelings, it is accepted
upon the principle just named.
3. Moral Obligation indirectly extends also to the states of
the Intellect; consequently the Bible, to a certain extent,
and in a certain sense, holds men responsible for their Thoughts
and Opinions. It every where assumes that if the heart be
constantly right the Thoughts and Opinions will correspond
with the state of the Heart or Will; "If any man will do
his will he shall know the doctrine whether it be of God." It
is, however, manifest that the Word of God every where as
sumes that, strictly speaking, all virtue and vice belong to the
heart or intention. Where this is right, all is regarded as
right; and where this is wrong, all is regarded as wrong. It is
upon this assumption that the doctrine of total depravity rests.
It is undeniable that the veriest sinners do many things out
wardly which the Law of God requires. Now unless the in
tention decides the character of these acts, they must be re
garded as really virtuous. But when the intention is found to
be selfish, then it is ascertained that they are sinful notwith
standing their literal conformity to the Law of God.
The fact is that Moral Agents are so constituted that it is
impossible for them not to judge themselves and others by
their motives and intentions. They cannot but assume it as a
first truth that a man's character is as his intention is, and
consequently that Moral Obligation respects directly only
intention. 4. Moral Obligation then indirectly extends to every thing
about us, over which the Will has dfreol or indirect control.
The Moral Law, while, strictly, it legislates over intention
only, yet in fact legislates over the whole being, inasmuch as
all our powers are directly or indirectly connected with inten
tion by a Law of Necessity. Strictly speaking, however,
Moral Character belongs alone to the intention. In strict
propriety of speech, it can not be said that either outward ac
tion or any state of the Intellect or the Sensibility has a moral
element or quality belonging to it. Yet in common language,
which is sufficiently accurate for most practical purposes, we
speak of thought, feeling, and outward action as holy or un-

'LECTURE IV.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
In discussing this subject I will,
I. Repeat the Definition of Moral Obligation.
II. Remind you of the Conditions of Moral Obligation.
III. Show what is intended by the Foundation of Mor
al Obligation.
IV. Point out again the Extent of Moral Obligation*
V. Notice The Points of Agreement between the
PRINCIPAL PARTIES IN THIS DISCUSSION.
VI. Show wherein they disagree.
VII. Show from Reason and Revelation what must be
the Foundation of Moral Obligation,
VIII. Show wherein that consists which constitutes
the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
IX. Examine the claims of the Principal Theories
THAT HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED ON THIS SUBJECT.
Before I enter directly upon the discussion I would ob
serve that this question, like most Theological questions, is both
Psychological and Theological. It is common, and as absurd
and vain as it is common, to object to Metaphysical discus
sions in the examination of Theological questions. The fact
is that there is no such thing as holding Theological opinions ,
without assuming the truth of some system of Mental Philos©^!
phy. Metaphysical Theology is only Bible Theology ex
plained; and to object to Metaphysics in Theology is only to
object to the application of. Reason in the explanation of the
facts of Revealed Theolbgy. It has, however^ been too com
mon to discuss this question without suitable reference to the
Bible, that is, it has been common to treat it as a purely Psy
etiological Question. But this mode of procedure can never
be satisfactory to a Christian Mind. I shall therefore discuss
it both as a Biblical and as a Psychological Question.
/. / am to repeat the Definition of Moral Obligation*
Obligation is that which binds. Moral Obligation is the
bond or ligament that binds a Moral Agent to Moral Law.
The idea, however, is too plain to be defined by the use of
other language. It is a pure idea of the Reason, and better
understood than explained by any term except that of Mor
al Obligation itself. %
//. I am to call attention again, to the Conditions of Moral
Obligation.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 41
These have been so fully discussed in a preceding lecture
that it is only necessary to observe that these' conditions are
the powers of moral agency, together#with so much light on
moral relations as to develop the idea of Oughtness or Moral
Obligation. ///•¦ I am to show what is intended by the Foundation of Mor
al Obligation.
-The Foundation of Moral Obligation is the Reason or Con
sideration that imposes obligation on a moral agent to obey
moral law. Should the question be asked, why does the mor
al law require what it does? the true answer to this ques
tion would also answer the question, what is the Founda
tion of Moral Obligation? There must be some good and
sufficient reason for the law requiring what it does, or it
cannot be Moral Law or impose Moral Obligation. The
question then is, why does the Moral Law require what it
does? The reason that justifies and demands the requisition
must be the reason why it ought to be obeyed. The reason
for the command must be identical with the reason for obedi
ence — the reason why the law should require what it does,
"is the reason why we should do what it requires. This rea
son, whatever it is, is the Foundation of Moral Obligation,
that is, of the obligation to obey Moral Law. To ascertain
what this reason is, is the object of the discussion upon which
we have entered.
IV. I am to remind you of the Extent of Moral Obligation*
In a former Lecture, it has been shown that moral obliga
tion extends, strictly speaking, to the ultimate intention only,
that the Law of God requires only entire consecration to the
right end.
V. I am to notice the points of Agreement among the prin
cipal parties in this discussion.
¦ I. They agree in their definition of Moral Obligation.
2. They also agree in respect to the conditions of moral
obligation — that they are, as has just been stated, the powers
of moral agency with so much light respecting moral rela
tions as to develop the idea of oughtness or obligation.
3. They agree also in respect to what is intended by the
foundation of moral obligation — namely, that the founda
tion of moral obligation is the fundamental reason or con
sideration on which the obligation rests or is founded.
4. Shey agree also in respect to the extent of moral obli
gation, that strictly speaking, it extends only to the ultimate
action or choice of the Will;. or in other words, that it ex-
4*

42 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
tends to the ultimate intention only, or to the choice of an ul
timate end, or of something for its own sake.
5. They agree in holding that an ultimate, end is one cho
sen for what it is in and of itself, or for its own intrinsic val
ue, and not as a condition or means of securing any other end.
6. They hold in common that the moral law as revealed in
the Bible covers the whole ground of moral obligation — that
is, that the Law of God as revealed in the Bible requires all
that is obligatory on moral agents.
7. They agree also that the sum of the requirements of
the Moral Law is expressed in one word, Love; that the term
love is comprehensive of all that the true spirit of the Moral
Law requires.
8. They, agree also that this love is not an emotion or mere
involuntary feehng of any kind, but that it consists in ultimate
choice, preference, intention, or in the choice of an ultimate
end, that is, of something for its own sake, or for what it is in
and of itself.
9. They agree that the fundamental reason of the obliga
tion to choose an ultimate end must be found in the end itself,
and that this reason, or that in the end which imposes obliga- •
tion to choose it as an end, must be identical with the end it
self. The fundamental reason for choosing a thing, is that
in the thing which renders it obligatory to choose it. This
reason is, the end on which tiie choice ought to and must tein
minate, or, the true end is not chosen. This brings me,
VI. To show wherein they differ.
From the foregoing it must be plain that they must differ
only in respect to the end on,which choice, preference, inten
tion, ought to terminate; that is, they differ in respect to that.
which moral agents ought to choose as an ultimate end. This
is the true point of difference. The question on which they
differ is this: What is the ultimate end to which moral agents
are under obligation to consecrate; their whole being ?
VII. I am to show from Reason and Revelation what must be,
the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
This inquiry, as will be seen, resolves itself into an inquiry
concerning the true spirit and meaning of the Law of God.
What does the Moral Law mean? What does it require?
What is the end which it commands moral agents to choose,
will, intend, for its own sake? Let it be remembered that it
is agreed that moral obligation cannot' exist in respect to the
choice of an ultimate end, unless there be something in the
end itself that renders it worthy or deserving of being chosen,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 43
for its own sake. It is plainly impossible to choose any thing
as an ultimate end or for its own sake, except as it is chosen for
what it is in and of itself. And it is just as plain that there
can be no obligation to choOse it for what it is in and of itself
except there be in it that which renders it worthy of choice.
This brings me to lay down the. following proposition:
The highest Well Being of God and of the Universe of sen
tient existences is the end on which ultimate preference, choice, in
tention, ought to terminate. In other words,, the Well Being
of God and of the Universe is the absolute and ultimate good, and
therefore it should be chosen by every moral agent.
Itis certain that the highest well being of God and of the Uni
verse of sentient existences, must be intrinsically and infinitely
valuable in itself. It is a first truth of reason that whatever
is intrinsically valuable should be chosen for that reason, or as
an end. It is and must be a first truth of reason, that what
ever is intrinsically and infinitely valuable ought to be chosen
as the ultimate end of existence by every moral agent. To
say that a thing is intrinsically and infinitely valuable, is the
same as to say that it is intrinsically and infinitely worthy or
deserving of being chosen for what it is in and of itself.
Therefore to admit or affirm that a thing is intrinsically and
infinitely valuable, is the same as to affirm that every moral
agent who has the knowledge of this intrinsically and infinitely
valuable thing, is under an obligation of infinite weight to
choose it for the reason that it is intrinsically and infinitely
valuable, or, in other words to choose it as an ultimate end.
It is then the intrinsic and infinite value of the highest good
or well being of God and of the Universe that constitutes
the true foundation of Moral Obligation. The Moral Law
then must require moral agents to will good or that which is
intrinsically valuable to God and the Universe of sentient ex
istences for its own sake or as an ultimate end. Be it remem
bered that Moral Obligation respects, strictly speaking, the
ultimate intention only. It must follow that the highest well
being of God and of the Universe, is the intrinsically valua
ble end on which ultimate choice ought to terminate.
And here let it be observed that good may be willed for its
own sake; that is, because it is good or valuable on condition
that it belongs to or can be enjoyed by self. This may be the
condition on which a moral agent chooses its existence. He
may refuse to choose it because it is valuable, except on the con
dition that it belongs to self. Its relation to self may with
him be the condition on which he will choose it. To choose
thus is Selfishness.

44 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Good may be chosen disinterestedly, that is, for its own in
trinsic value to being in general,' that is, the highest well be
ing of being in general may be chosen for its own sake or on
account of its intrinsic value. This is what is called disinter
ested benevolence.
It should be observed thafcall the actions of the Will con
sist in choices or willings. These actions are generally regard
ed as consisting in Choice and Volition. By choice is intend
ed the selection or choice of an end. By volition is intended
the executive efforts of the Will to secure the end intended; >
The Nilling or refusing of the will is only choice in an op
posite direction. In Nilling, the will as really chooses as in
any other acts of will. If it refuses one end, it in the very
act chooses another. If it refuses one means, it is only because
it seeks another.
It should further be observed in this place that all intelli
gent choices or actions of the Will, must consist either in the
choice of an end or of means to secure an end. To deny this
is the same as to deny that there is any object of choice.
If the Will acts at all, it wills, chooses. Ifit chooses, it choos
es something — there is some object of choice. In other words,
it chooses something for some reason, and that reason is truly
the object of the choice. Orat least, the fundamental reason
for choosing a thing is the object chosen. Now whenever the
Will chooses, it chooses something for its own sake or for what
it is in and of itself, or as a means or condition of securing
that which is chosen for its own sake. To say that there can
be an intelligent action of the Will that does not consist ei
ther in the choice of an end or of means to secure an end, is
the same thing as to say that there is an action of the Willj-
when nothing whatever is willed, or chosen; which is absurd.
' It should further be observed that the choice of an end im
plies the choice of all the known, necessary conditions and
means of securing that end; that the choice of an end, ser
cures and even necessitates, while the choice of the end con
tinues, the choice of the known necessary conditions and
means. VIII. I am to show wherein that consists which constitutes the
true Foundation of Moral Obligation ; in other words, in what
the highest Weil-Being or Ultimate Good of sentient beings con
sists ? 6
In discussing this question I will endeavor to show,
1. Wherein it can not consist. '
2. Show wherein it must consist.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 45
But first I must define the different sense of the term good.
Good may be natural or moral. Natural good is synonymous
with valuable. Moral good is synonymous with virtue. Mor
al good may be a natural good in the sense that it may be a
means Or condition of natural good. Good may be Absolute
and Relative. Absolute good is that which is valuable in itself
or intrinsically valuable. Relative good is that which is valu
able as a means. Absolute good may also be a relative good,
that is, it may be a means of perpetuating and augmenting it
self. Good may also be Ultimate. Ultimate good is that ab
solute good in which all relative good terminates or results.
It is that absolute good to which all relative good sustains the
relation of conditions or means.
I would here remark also that there is a broad distinction
between the conditions and means of the highest good of being
and that which constitutes' the absolute and ultimate good of be
ing. 1. Wherein the ultimate and absolutengood can not'consist.
By an ultimate good is intended that which is intrinsically
valuable. Relative good is that which is valuable as a means
of ultimate good. I here remark,
(1.) That the ultimate and absolute good must belong to being
or to sentient existences. It must be inseparable from beings
that have a conscious existence. It is nonsense to speak of
an insentient or unconscious existence as being capable of or
as being a subject of the' absolute and ultimate good. Noth
ing can be a good or intrinsically valuable to such a being.
A block of marble can not be the subject of good. To it noth
ing is good or evil. Let it be distinctly understood that none
but a sentient being can know or possibly be a subject of
good in the sense of the valuable. I remark,
(2i) That with moral agents at least the ultimate good must
consist in a state of mind. It must consist in something that
must be sought and found, if found at all, within the field of
consciousness. [1.] The ultimate and absolute good in the sense of the in
trinsically valuable, can not be identical with Moral Law. Mor
al Law as we have seen, is an Idea of the Reason. Moral Law
and Moral Government must propose some end to be secured
by means of law. ' Law can not be its own end. It can
not require the subject to seek itself as an ultimate end. This
were absurd. The Moral Law is nothing else than the Reason's
Idea, or Conception of that course of willing and acting that
is fit, proper, suitable to, and demanded by the nature, rela-

46 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
tions, necessities, and circumstances of moral agents. Their
nature, relations, circumstances and wants being perceived,
the Reason necessarily affirms that they ought to propose to
themselves a certain end, and to consecrate themselves to the
promotion of this end for ks own sake, or for its own intrinsic
value. This end can not be law itself. The law is a simple
and pure idea of the Reason and can never be in itself the su
preme, intrinsic, absolute and ultimate good.
[2.] Nor can obedience, or the course of acting or willing
required by the law, be the ultimate end aimed at by the law
or the lawgiver. The law requires action in reference to an
end, or that an end should be willed; but the willing and the
end to be willed can not be identical. The action required
and the end to which it is to be directed can not be the same.
To affirm that it can, is absurd. It is to affirm that obo-
dience to law is the ultimate end proposed by Law or
Government. The obedience is one thing, the end to be
secured by obedience is and must be another. Obedience
must be. a means or condition, and that which law and obedi
ence are intended to secure, is and must be the ultimate end of
obedience. The law or the lawgiver aims to promote the high
est good or blessedness of the universe. This must be the
end of Moral Law and Moral Government. Law and obedi
ence must be the means or conditions of this end. It is ab
surd to deny this. To deny this is to deny the very nature of
Moral Law and to lose sight of the true and only end of Mor
al Government. Nothing can be Moral Law and nothing can
be Moral Government that does not propose the highest good
of moral beings as its ultimate end. But if this is the end of
law and the end of government it must be the end to be aim
ed at or intended by the ruler and the subject. And this end
must be the foundation of moral obligation. The end propos
ed to be secured must be intrinsically valuable or that would
not be Moral Law that proposed to secure it. The end must
be good or valuable, per se, or there can be no Moral Law re-'
quiring, it to be sought or chosen as an ultimate end, nor any
obfigation to, choose it as an ultimate end. <
' It must be true, then, that the end proposed by Moral Law
can neither be the law itself nor obedience to law. Obedience
consists in the choice of an end. It is impossible that choice
should be an ultimate end. To make choice an ultimate end
were to choose choice, and to intend intention as an ultimate*
end1— -this is plainly impossible.
[3.] The absolute arid ultimate good of being can not con-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 47
sist in moral worth or good desert. Moral worth or good de
sert is a result of obedience to law. It is not a state of mind
— it is merit. It is- a quality or attribute of character. As it
is not a state of mind, it can nofcbe the ultimate and absolute
good of being. It is good desert, and is not identical with the
good deserved. It is a good and an indispensable condition ot
of the ultimate ind absolute good, but can not be identical
with it. As it does not consist in a state of mind, it is im
possible that it should be the ultimate good. It is intrinsical
ly meritorious or deserving of good, but not identical with the
ultimate good. It is that to which the law and the lawgiver
promise the ultimate good, but it is not the good promised*
Moral worth, merit, and good desert, can never have been
the end proposed by the lawgiver. The law proposes to se
cure moral worth, not as an ultimate end, not as the ultimate
and absolute good of the subject, but as a condition of his be
ing rewarded with absolute good. The Lawgiver and the law
propose ultimate and perfect satisfaction, and blessedness as a
result of virtue and of moral worth. This result must be
the ultimate and absolute good.
The reason why virtue and moral excellence or worth
have been supposed to be a good in themselves, and in
trinsically and absolutely valuable, is, that the mind ne
cessarily regards them with satisfaction. They meet a de
mand of the Reason and Conscience; they are the arch
etypes of the Ideas of the Reason and are therefore nat
urally and necessarily regarded with satisfaction,just as when
we behold natural beauty, we necessarily enjoy it. We nat
urally experience a mental satisfaction in the contemplation
of beauty, and this is true whether the beauty be physical or
moral. Both meet a demand of our nature, and therefore we
experience satisfaction in their contemplation. Now it has,
been said that this satisfaction, is itself proof that we pronounc
ed the beauty a good in itself. But ultimate good must, as-
we have said, consist in a state of mind. But neither physi
cal nor moral beauty is a state of mind. Aside from the sat
isfaction produced by their contemplation, to > whom or to what
can they be a good? Take physical beauty for example, aside
from every beholder, to whom or to what is it a good? Is it a
good to itself? But it can not be a subject of good. It must
be a good only as and because it meets a demand of our
being and produces satisfaction in its contemplation. It is a
relative good. The satisfaction experienced by contemplat
ing it, is an ultimate good. It is only a condition of ultimate

48 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
gOod. So virtue or holiness is morally beautiful. Moral
worth or excellence is morally beautiful. Beauty is an attri-'
bute or element of holiness, virtue, and of moral worth,
Or right character. But the beauty is not identical with holi
ness nor moral worth any more than the beauty of a rose and
the rose are identical. The rose is beautiful. Beauty is one
of its attributes. So virtue is morally beautiful. Beauty is
one of its attributes. But the beauty in neither case is a state
of mind, and can not be an ultimate good. The contempla
tion of either and of both naturally begets mental satisfaction
because of the relation of the archetype to the idea of our
Reason. We are so constituted that beholding the arche
types of certain ideas of our Reason produces mental satisfac
tion. Not because we affirm the archetypes to be good in
themselves; for often, to say the least, as for instance in the
case of physical beauty, this cannot he, but because these arch
etypes meet a demand of our nature. They meet this demand,
and thus produce satisfaction. This satisfaction is an ulti
mate good, but that which produces it, is only a relative good.
Apart from the satisfaction produced by the contemplation of
moral worth, of what value can it be? Can the worthiness of
good, or the moral beauty be the ewd proposed by the lawgiver?
Or must we seek to secure moral worth in moral agents for the
sake of the good in which it results? If neither the subject ofmor
al excellence or worth nor any one else experienced the least satis
faction in contemplating it— if it did not so meet a demand of
our being or of any being as to afford the least satisfaction to
any sentient existence, to whom or to what would it be a good?
If it meets a demand of the nature of a moral agent, it miist
produce satisfaction. It does meet a demand of our being,
and therefore produces satisfaction to the Intelligence, the
.Conscience, the Sensibility. It is therefore necessarily
pronounced by us to be a good. We are apt to say it is an
ultimate good; but it is only a relative good. It meets a de
mand of our being and thus produces satisfaction. This sat
isfaction is the ultimate good of being. At the very moment
we pronounce it a good in itself, it is only because we experi
ence such a satisfaction in contemplating it. At the very
time we say that we consider it a good in itself wholly inde
pendent of its results, we only say so the more positively
because we are so gratified at the time by thinking of it. It
is its experienced results that is the ground of the affirma
tion. [4.] It cannot be too distinctly understood that Right Char-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 49
otter, Moral Worth, Good Desert, Meritoriousness* or whatever
you call it, can not be or consist in a state of Mindj and
therefore it is impossible that it should be an ultimate good
or intrinsically valuable. By Right Character, Moral Worth,
Good Desert, Meritoriousness, &c, as distinguished from vir
tue, we can mean nothing more than that it is fit and prop
er and suitable to the nature and relation of things, that a
virtuous person should be blessed. The Intelligence is grat
ified when this, . character is perceived to exist. This per
ception produces intellectual satisfaction. This satisfaction
is a good in itself. But that which produces this satisfaction,
is in no proper sense a good in itself. Were it not for the
fact that it meets a demand of the Intelligence and thus pro
duces satisfaction, it could not so much as be thought of as a
good in itself any more than any thing else that is a pure concep
tion of the Reason, such, for instance, as a mathematical line.
It is impossible that the Lawgiver or the Law should
make obedience or the worthiness resulting from obedience,
an ultimate end. God requires the highest good of the
universe to be willed as an ultimate end. Now he requires
the willing for the sake of the good willed. He aims and
must aim at securing the good and not merely the willing.
He must aim at securing the good, and not merely securing;
the willing or the worthiness resulting from willing. It is
the end He aims at. The willing and the worthiness of wil
ling are valuable only as the end willed is valuable. Were
it not that the end is intrinsically valuable, the willing would
not be so much as relatively valuable. It would have noval-.
ue whatever. And but for the intrinsic value of the end
willed, Good Desert would not result from willing it. Both
the virtuousness and the meritoriousness of willing the end
depends altogether upon the intrinsic value of the end. But
for this, I say again, neither Virtue nor Merit could exist.
Now it is absurd to make that an ultimate good and to affirm
that to be intrinsically and ultimately valuable, whose whole
value consists in its relations to an ultimate good.
[5.] The ultimate or absolute good can not consist in any
thing external to Mind itself Moral Agents are so con
stituted as to sustain certain correlations to things external
to themselves, many of which things are necessary means
and conditions of their well being. But none of these can
be good or valuable in themselves. That is, nothing without.
the consciousness of being can be a good per se.
The Constitution of Moral Agents has three primary De-
5

50 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
partments or Faculties as we have formerly seen, namely,
the Intellect, the Sensibility, and the Will. All the. demands
of our being may be and must be made by one of these
Faculties. The Intellect has its demands or wants. The
Sensibility has its objects of desire, or_ its demands and
wants. Our whole being is comprised in these three de
partments, and they sustain such correlations to each other
and to the universe that the objects demanded by these
powers or susceptibilities are indispensablek conditions of
our well-being or being satisfied. For instance, the Intellect de
mands knowledge of Truth; the Conscience demands obedi
ence to Moral Law; the Sensibility demands those objects that
excite its desires. These are only specimens of the de
mands or wants of our being. Our well-being or our high
est good- is, from the constitution of our Nature, condition
ated upon the' demands of our Nature being met and our
wants supplied. These wants are numerous. Now the ob
jects that are so correlated to us as to be the conditions of our
blessedness, are not the ultimate and absolute good. Truth,
for example, is a condition or means of our ultimate good,
but it is not itself an ultimate good. To whom or what would
it be a good were there no Intelligence to apprehend it? It
meets a demand of the Intelligence, and is therefore a rela
tive good. The same is and must be true of every thing that
is so correlated to us as to meet a demand of our Constitution.
The meeting of these demands, the supply of these wants
produces mental satisfaction. This satisfaction is an ultimate
good. But the things that produce it are only relative good.
It is possible that an ultimate good may be also a relative
good. Thus the satisfaction or blessedness that constitutes
the ultimate good may and does tend to perpetuate and in
crease itself. The contemplation by us of the joy of others
may be, and often is, a means of increasing our own. In this
case the ultimate good is both an ultimate and a relative good;
that is, it is both an ultimate end and a means.
It is true also that a thing may meet a demand of our being and
be at the same time a means and an ultimate end. Our Nature
demands Satisfaction, Blessedness, Enjoyment. This is an ul
timate demand. That which supplies or meets this demand
is an ultimate good. The universal satisfaction of all the pow
ers and susceptibilities of our Nature is the ultimate good of
our being. This demand is only met by the ultimate and ab
solute good. All other demands are met by their appropri
ate objects, not one of which is an ultimate or absolute good,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 51
but only a relative good. As these objects meet the demands
of our Constitution they produce satisfaction; this satisfaction
is an ultimate good. Did they not produce satisfaction they
would not be a good in any sense. The Intelligence is met
and the Reason is satisfied, that is, the things which it de
manded, it has obtained, or they are accomplished.
Virtue, then, or obedience to Moral Law is in some sense a good
to a Moral Agent, that is, it meets a demand of his Reason
or Conscience. Moral Worth, also, or Right Character, is
demanded by the Intelligence of every Moral Agent, and
where Moral Worth is seen to exist, this demand of the In
telhgence is met. So far that exists which it demanded ;
so that in this sense Moral Worth is valuable to a Moral
Agent inasmuch as it meets a demand of his being. So all
the objects of desire are valuable in the sense that they meet
a demand of the Constitution.
Buthere an inquiry arises. Are these the ultimate good? I
answer no, for this reason, that they are not, and cannot be re
garded by the mind as ultimate. The universal intelhgence de
mands Virtue or obedience to moral law, and when this is seen
to exist the Intelhgence is satisfied. For example; when the
mind perceives any thing to which it sustains such a correla?-
tion that the thing is demanded by the mind, in other words,
that it is a necessity of nature, the possession of the object sat
isfies the demand. When the Intelligence acquires the
knowledge that it demands, it is satisfied. When the
Conscience has that which it demands, or when that exists
which the conscience demands, the conscience is satisfied.
When the Sensibility possesses those objects of desire which
it craved, the Sensibility is satisfied. Whenever the Intelli
gence perceives the concrete realization of those ideas of the
Reason whose realization was demanded by the Intelligence,
the Intelligence is satisfied. The mind continues to struggle
after all the objects that are so correlated to it as to be de
manded by any power of the mind, and it does not rest until
that demand is met. As soon as the demand is met the
mind rests and is satisfied. Now observe, those things after
which the mind is struggling to meet its demands, are not
the ultimate good of the mind that is thus struggling. When
the mind has obtained the objects after which it struggles,
and which it demands, it then rests — it is satisfied. And it
matters not which of the powers of the mind makes the de
mand, the power is not satisfied until the end is gained. And
when the end is gained, thus far the mind is satisfied. A

52 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
benevolent mind is not seeking merely self-satisfaction, for
this is not what Reason demands. But it seeks the satisfac
tion of being in general, including its own, and in wilhng the
general good is sure to secure its own.
This brings me to remark again, that those objects external to
the mind itself after which the mind struggles and which, when
obtained, meet the demands of the constitution and satisfy the
mind are not the ultimate good of the mind, but the satisfaction re
sulting from the possession of those obj ects is the ultimate good. •
It appears to me that this must be self-evident: If the
mind is perfectly satisfied, the satisfaction itself is to the mind
a perfect, an ultimate, and an absolute ¦ good. For example,
God possesses a self-existent and infinite nature. Certain
things were demanded by the constitution and laws of his
own being; such as that his will should be conformed to
the Law of his Intelligence, or in other words that he should
be virtuous. Now when this demand was met, arid the heart
or Will, was conformed to the law of the Intelligence, which
was from eternity with him, this demand of his Being was
met — his Conscience, and his Intelligence were satisfied.
They are so. His Intelligence is in a state of infinite and
eternal satisfaction, or in other words, he possesses necessa
rily what we call an intellectual pleasure or delight or satis
faction in the state of his Will, or in other words, in the
Will's conformity to the law of his Intelligence. Now mark : the
virtue that meets this demand is to Him a good, because it
meets a demand of his Being. But it is not the ultimate
good, but the satisfaction which he has in that state of his
Willis the ultimate good. So there were many otherideas of the
Divine Reason, such as the idea of the Just, of the Right, the
Beautiful, the Useful, the Merciful, and such like. Now the
.Intelligence demanded that these ideas- should be realized,
and the Sensibility also desires the realization of these ideas.
In .other words still, the realization of these ideas was not
only demanded by the Intelhgence, but their realization was
an object of rational desire.
When creative power went forth for the realization of these
ideas, when the universe sprang into existence as the arche
type or, living expression and exemplification of these ideas,
the Divine Mind was satisfied. He is represented as having
looked upon all that He had made, and pronounced it '¦'•very
good." That is, He was satisfied with the work of his hands.
He. beheld the realization of the ideas of his own Reason,
and saw that these demands of his being were met. Now

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 53
observe : from eternity these things were present to God in
such a sense that He was from eternity satisfied with or en
joyed the realization of all these ideas. In other words, ev
ery demand of his Being was from eternity met — since from
eternity all things that are or will be have been present to
the Divine Omniscience.
Now I inquire what must be the ultimate good of God ?
Certainly not these created things, not any thing created or
uncreated that is so correlated to Him as to meet a demand
of his Being with the exception of this one thing — the in
finite satisfaction of the Divine Mind. God can say, I have
no want. All the demands of his infinite mind are fully met.
The ideas of his Reason are realized. His desires are, upon
the whole, fulfilled, and every power and susceptibility is full.
His satisfaction is perfect and infinite. When I say all the
demands of his nature are met, I mean that his Omniscience
embraces all events, and to Him all things that will be, are al
ready to* Him in such a sense as to satisfy the Divine Mind.
He pronounces it a\l very good, in the sense that, upon the
whole, he is satisfied.
That state of mind, the Satisfaction, the perfect and infinite
Rest of the Divine Mind, in having every demand of His being
met, is His ultimate good.
Now, it is self-evident, that this must also be the ultimate
good of every being in existence. That which meets the de
mands of His being is not its ultimate good, with the single
exception of the satisfaction that results from having all the
other demands of every department of the being fully met and
satisfied. This satisfaction is the ultimate demand of our
being. That is, it is that which is ultimately demanded, and
for the sake of which all the other things are demanded.
This is an ultimate good. But that which meets no other
demand of our being, can be the ultimate good; for all these
things, whatever they are, only result in satisfaction, but do
not constitute it. Satisfaction is, and must be, the ultimate
good ; and whatever produces this result must be only a relative
good. The highest well-being of God and of the universe, then,
or the highest good of universal being must consist in a state
of entire satisfaction. Whenever a mind is in a state in which
it can affirm, I have no wants that are unsupplied, my whole
being is satisfied'-r-that state of satisfaction that results from
the meeting of all the demands of the constitution, is, and it
seems to me must be„the ultimate good of the being.
Here let it be ohserved, that Satisfaction of mind, in the
5*

54 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sense in which I have explained it, is the ultimate good of
being, whether any one possesses it or not. The Reason af
firms, that it is an ultimate and an absolute good,^ for any mind
to be perfectly and universally satisfied. This is the thing
which ought to be willed for its own sake, whether any one
ever possesses it or not. Every Moral Agent ought to will
the perfect satisfaction of God and of all beings, for the sake
of the intrinsic value of that state of mind.
They only, of Moral Agents, will possess this ultimate
Good, whose heart and life are conformed to the dictates of
their Intelligence, and every want or demand of whose being
is met and fully satisfied.
Just so far as any mind is entirely satisfied, just so far it
possesses that which belongs to or constitutes the ultimate
good. Suppose my heart to be entirely conformed to the
Law of my Intelligence — thus far my Conscience, my Intelli--
gence and my Sensibility are satisfied. My Sensibility is
satisfied thus far, for the conformity of my Will to the Law of
my Intelligence is not only a demand of my Intelligence, but
of my Sensibility. So that if I am virtuous, thus far I am sat
isfied whether any body else is virtuous or not. Thus far I
possess that satisfaction which constitutes the ultimate good.
But as yet, I may not possess this in perfection. AU the de
mands of my being, in respect to myself and others, may not
be met, and consequently my satisfaction may not be perfect
and universal. But so far as I have it, it is in kind of the
ultimate good. I shall never possess it in a perfect degree,
until every demand of my constitution is met — until I can say,
I have no want that is not supplied.
By the term satisfaction, I mean more than is generally
understood by the term happiness. This term is generally
used to express merely the satisfaction of the Sensibility.
There is, however, such a thing as intellectual satisfaction,
the satisfaction of Conscience. In other words, there is a
natural, and if I may so speak, a moral satisfaction. , The
demands of the Intelligence and of the Heart and of the
Sensibility, are all fully met. This results in a state of uni
versal and entire mental satisfaction. It is a state perhaps
well and fully expressed by the term blessedness. Every
power and susceptibility is foil, is satisfied. The mind
can say, it is enough,— I have no want. This state must
be the ultimate and the absolute good. Whatever con
duces to this state, whatever meets any demand of any
power or susceptibility, is a means, or condition of this

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 55
state, and is in this sense a good. It is not an absolute,
but a relative good. This appears to be self-evident. When I
can say that every demand of my being is met, then I possess
the ultimate good in a degree that is unmixed with any alloy.
If the demands of my Intelligence, or of any power of my
being are enlarged, if I come into relations where my constitu
tion demands more, when these demands are all met, my
satisfaction will increase. But so long as my satisfaction is
universal and complete, my blessedness is perfect in the sense
that I have no want that is not fully met. This satisfaction,
let it be repeated, is, and must be the ultimate good of being.
The Intelligence of a Moral Agent demands moral order.
But Moral Order itself is not the ultimate good. But the sat
isfaction which the mind has in contemplating a state of Mor
al Order is an ultimate good.
Here again let me observe that it has been insisted that
those things demanded by the Intelligence must be affirmed to
be a good in themselves, or we should not have pleasure in
them, or in other words, we should not be satisfied with them.
I perceive beauty. Now it is said that unless I affirm that
beauty is a good in itself it would afford me no satisfaction
to behold it. But this is certainly a mistake. As I have ob
served before, the ultimate good belongs to sentient beings and
must certainly be inseparable from them; that is, none but
a sentient being can be the subject of ultimate good. The
ultimate good of all beings must of necessity be subjective;
that is, it must belong to themselves. As moral agents the
ultimate good must consist in a state of mind. This should
always be borne in mind. Now if it be objected that when
we behold beauty for example, the Intelligence must pro
nounce it to be a good in itself as a condition of its produ
cing satisfaction in us, I answer: To whom or what is beauty,
as separate from sentient existences a good? I behold this
archetype of my idea of beauty. Now in what sense can it
be a good in itself? Can it be a good to itself? If not in
what sense can it be a good in itself? Good as I have said,
belongs to sentient beings. But in the case supposed, this
beauty does not belong to any sentient existence. It is an
object of contemplation distinct from all being. It is not a
state of mind. .To whom or to what then is it a good in itself?
It is and must be a relative good to every beholder that has
the idea of beauty. But it can by no means be a good in
itself. The same is and must be true of all those arche
types of the Reason that do not consist in a state of mind.

56 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
They belong to no being. They can be in no sense a good
in themselves, unless they are a good to themselves, which is ab
surd. They are good only relatively to those who have the
idea whose archetype they are. This class of beings are-
satisfied or gratified with beholding them, not because they are
good in themselves, but because being archetypes of the ideas
of their own Reason, they necessarily take pleasure in them.
Now it is not the archetype itself which I affirm to be an ul
timate good, hut I am so constituted that beholding the ar
chetype of my idea affords me satisfaction, and this satisfac
tion is an ultimate good. It is a state of blessedness.
That which remains at present, is to examine this Philoso
phy in the light of Revelation; to see whether it recognizes
the highest well being, blessedness, or satisfaction of God
and of the Universe as the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
And here I observe that it is agreed that the Law of God
demands that that should be chosen which ought to be chosen;
that the identical end which Moral Agents are required to
choose is proposed as the ultimate end on which choice ought
to terminate, by the Law of God. We will inquire then,
What is the true spirit and meaning of the Moral Law as
revealed in the Bible? Its two great precepts are, "Thon
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy HearVwith all thy
Soiil, with all thy Mind, and with all thy strength; and thy
neighbor as thyself." Now it is agreed that this love is not a
mere emotion or feeling, but that it consists in willing, choos
ing, intending an end. I observe again that it requires that
something should be willed to God and our neighbor, or which
is the same, to God and the universe of creatures. But what
is this something that is to be willed to them? What is this
¦love but good will, willing the gOod of God and of the Uni
verse? What is of equal value to this ? Nay what is of any
intrinsic value but this ? The highest well being of God and
of the Universe must be that which we ought to will.
And this must be the love which we are commanded to exer
cise. This implies the willing of the universal satisfac
tion of the Divine Mind with all the necessary means
and conditions of this result; this satisfaction being the ulti
mate end both in respect to God and our neighbor, and the
conditions and means as relatively Valuable.
And here let me remark that it is very plain that the Lam
fecognizes but one Foundation of Moral Obligation.
. " The whole law" it is said « is fulfilled in one word— Love."
« Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Lam? And this love

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 57
must be the love of God and our neighbor, and not of other
things. The law does not say, Thou shalt love rightr-^truth
— beauty or any thing else, with all thy heart and with aU thy
soul, but God and thy neighbor. This then is the End. Truth,
beauty, virtue, and a multitude of things are relative goods and
conditions of the ultimate good or of the universal satisfaction
-that results from all the demands of the being of God and of
our neighbor being folly satisfied.
Whoever contends that there is more than one foundation
of Moral Obligation should bereminded that one word express
es all that is required by the Moral Law. That word is
love, and this love respects God and our neighbor only. . In
other words whoever loves God with all his heart and soul, and
mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself, fulfils the whole
law. This is the Ultimate End — the good of God and our neigh
bor. That this love, if it consists in willing any thing to God
and our'neighbor, must consist in willing their highest well-being
with all the necessary cpnditions and means thereof must be
self-evident; for as I have said, these are the only things that
are valuable to God or our neighbor, and to be under obligation
to will any thing else than these to God and, to our neighbor
were absurd. When we have willed the highest well-being, of
God and our neighbor as an ultimate end, we have willed to
them every good of, which they are capable ; and what more
can we will to them? and if we refuse to will this, of what use
is it to will any thing else?
Let this theory again be viewed in the light of some of the
precepts of the gospel. — "Whether therefore ye eat or drink
or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." By this lan
guage, asdt is used in the Scriptures, we are to understand
that God requires of us to aim at pleasing Him in all that we
do. That is, we are to aim at satisfying- God and meeting the
demands of His Conscience, His Intelligence, His Sensibility
and in short, so to demean ourselves as that He shall be per
fectly satisfied with us. This satisfaction is His ultimate good.
At this we should aim — at pleasing God, at satisfying God, so
that He shall say, all that 1 want in respect to you, I have.
This is what God requires us to will. He requires that we
should live to please or gratify Him for the sake of the intrinsic
value-ofhis well-being or of His satisfaction. To love God — to
consecrate ourselves to God — rto do ah to the glory of God, is
to choose or intend in ah our ways to please God; that is,
to choose ; the pleasure, the gratification or satisfaction or
wellrbeing of God as the ultimate end to which we consecrate
ourselves.

58 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. .
Let this question again be brought into the light of the ex
ample of God and of Christ. God no doubt has the same end
in view which He requires us to have. Christ has also the
same end in view that his Father has and that He requires us
to have. But what end have they in view? God says, "I
have created all things for myself." That is, He has exerted
his almighty power in the creation of objects to realize the
ideas of his own Reason for the safe of the satisfaction which
necessarily results to Himself and to the universe from their realiza
tion. He pronounces the works of his hands " very good" that
is, they are satisfactory to Him, they are good in such a
sense that He is satisfied with them as the archetypes of his
own ideas. In the contemplation of these archetypes He is
satisfied. This satisfaction must be to Him an infinite good.
Christ must have the same end in view.
The whole Moral Government of God as well as his prov
idential government — in short, all creation, and providence,
and government, physical and moral, show that God and
Christ are endeavoring to realize the ideas of the good, the
just, the merciful, the beautiful, the useful, the right, the per
fect, and all those ideas in the realization of which they have
so much satisfaction.
The good oi creatures must enter into the end at which they aim.
This is manifest from creation, and providence, and the Bible.
To meet the demands of the nature and constitution of every
being, is manifestly the tendency of things so far as we can
understand them. These things are means of producing sat
isfaction in the minds of Moral Agents, and in " satisfying
the wants of every living thing." Thus it is said, " Thou
openest thy hand and satisfyest the wants of every hving
thing." This satisfaction of creatures is an ultimate good.
Their virtue and every thing else but this satisfaction itself, is
a condition and means of promoting it. The highest good
then of the universe must be that at which God and all holy
beings ought to aim and really do aim. Unless they aim at
this, their aim can never meet the demands of the Intelli
gence of Moral Agents. If they do aim at this, the Intelli
gence cannot but be satisfied.
But to this philosophy it is objected,
1. That if the highest good or well-being of God and of
the Universe be the sole Foundation of Moral Obligation, it
follows that we are not under obligation to will any thing ex
cept this end with the necessary conditions and means there
of. That every thing but this end, which we are bound to will

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 59
must be willed as a means to this end or because of its ten
dency to promote this end. And this it is said is the doctrine
of Utility.
To this I answer; The doctrine of Utility is, that the found-
ation of the obligation to will both the end and the means
is the tendency of the willing to promote the end. But
this is absurd. The doctrine of this discourse is not,
as Utilitarians say, that the foundation of the obligation
to will the End or the Means is the tendency of the willing
to promote that end, but that the foundation of the obligation to
will both the end and the. means, is the intrinsic value of the
end. And the condition of the obligation to will the means is
the perceived tendency of the means to promote the end.
The end is to be willed for its own sake. The conditions
and means of this end are to be willed for the sake of
the end ; that is, it is the intrinsic value of the end, that
is the foundation of the obligation to will the conditions
and means. The tendency of the means to promote the end is
not, as Utilitarians say, the Foundation of the Obligation to
will the means, but both the end and the means are to be
willed for the same reason, to wit, the intrinsic value of the
end. The obhgation to will the means being only conditioner
ted upon, but not found in their tendency to promote the end.
This then is not the doctrine of Utility.
2. It is objected that if the good of being be the only
Foundation of Moral Obligation, we should be indifferent in
respect to the means, if the end could be obtained. But this,
it is said, contradicts human consciousness. To this I answer,
the end to be obtained is the satisfaction of universal mind,
that results from having every demand of the being fully met.
Now it is impossible that this satisfaction should exist unless
these demands are met. To suppose then that the end can
be obtained without these demands being met, is the same as
to suppose that the end can be obtained without the nature^
and necessary conditions and means. This supposition is there
fore an impossible supposition, and consequently inadmissi
ble. Again ; if universal mind were perfectly satisfied so that there
were no demand or want of any being that was not folly
met, we should of course be satisfied, and well satisfied, and per
fectly satisfied, on this supposition.
The philosohpy to- which this objection is opposed teach
es that the highest well being of God and of the uni
verse is the ultimate, the absolute good of moral agents and

60 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
therefore that it is the foundation of Moral Obligation. It
further teaches that the absolute and ultimate good of moral
agents in its last analysis consists in mental satisfaction, enjoy
ment, blessedness, happiness, and that this state of mind is
conditionated upon the fact that every demand, of every power
of our being is fully met and satisfied. The objection is this,
that if mental satisfaction, enjoyment, blessedness or happi
ness were but complete and universal, we should be indiffer
ent, that is, that we should be satisfied as it respects the means
and conditions of this satisfaction. That if the universal
mind were satisfied it would be satisfied by whatever means.
This is, to be sure, a truism. Or the objection amounts to
this. If the highest well-being of God and of the universe
ofmoral agents be the foundation of Moral Obligation, it fol
lows that if this end is obtained and the highest well-being
of God and of the universe be secured, we should -be. indif
ferent as it respects the conditions and means. In other
words we should be indifferent whether it was accomplished
by possible or impossible means. If the mental satisfaction
do but universally exist it matters not whether the Intelli
gence, the Conscience or the Sensibility he satisfied. If that
state of mind which can alone result from the fact that every
demand of every power and susceptibility of our nature be
fully met and satisfied, do but exist, it matters not whether
any demand of our being is met, whether we are at all sat
isfied. Or again: If our nature is such that it can not be
satisfied unless virtue be connected with happiness, and sin with
misery, that is, unless misery exist in connection with, siri,
and happiness in -connection with holiness, did happitaess but
exist it would be indifferent to us and we should be 'just as
well satisfied did happiness exist in connection with sin and
misery in connection with holiness as we now are. The
objection is an absurdity and a contradiction. It overlooks that
?hich is implied in the well being of God and of the universe.
3. "It is said that if the sole Foundation of Moral Obliga
tion be the highest good of Universal Being, all obligation
pertaining to God, would respect his susceptibilities and the
means necessary to this result. When we have willed God's
highest well-being with the means necessary to that result
we have fulfilled all our duty to Him."
To this I reply; certainly, when we have willed the highest
well-being of God and of the universe with the necessary con
ditions and means thereof, we have done our whole duty to
him: for this is loving Him with all our heart and our neighbor

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 61
as ourselves. The necessary conditions of the. highest well-be
ing of the universe, are that every moral being shouldbe
, perfectly virtuous and that every demand of the Intelligence
and of the whole being of God and of the universe of crea
tures be perfectly met, so that universal mind shall be in a
state of perfect and universal satisfaction. To will this is all
that the Law of God does or can require.
4. It is said that " If the highest good of being be the
Foundation of Moral Obligation, it would follow that if God's
character were the opposite of what it is, we should be un
der the same obhgation to Him that we are now." To this
I answer: —
(1.) It is not true. We are to will the highest well-
being of God. This results from the meeting of every
demand of his being. We are to will his perfect satis
faction as a good in itself. But it is impossible that we
should will that He should be actually and perfectly satisfied
except on the condition that He obeys the laws of his be
ing. If He should not fulfill the laws of his being — -if, for
example, He should not conform his Will to the law of his*
Intelligence it would be infpossible for us to will or be under
an obligation to will that He should be actually and per
fectly satisfied with Himself. We can not, therefore, be
under an obhgation to will the perfect and universal sat
isfaction or blessedness of God, except on condition that He
is perfectly virtuous. We should not be under an obliga
tion to will his actual well being and satisfaction were his
character otherwise than what it is. But the demands of
his being being met, He being perfectly virtuous and meeting
every demand of his Intelligence, we are under an obligation,
in view of this consideration, to will his actual, perfect, univer
sal, eternal, infinite blessedness or satisfaction. It is not true,
then, as the objection affirms, that our obligation would be
the same to God that it now is, whether his character were
what it now is or not.
(2.) As a possible good we should be under obligation to
will his highest well being with all the conditions and means
thereof. But we should not be under obligation to will his
highest well being as an actual good without the necessary
conditions and means thereof; and therefore if He refused to
fulfill the necessary conditions we should not be under obli
gation to will his actual satisfaction or blessedness. In one
sense we should be under obligation to love God let his char
acter be what it might, just as we are under obligation to love
6

62 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
wicked men. We should be under obligation to regard and
will his and*heir highest well being as a possible good of in
finite value in itself But as an actually existing good, we
should not be under an obligation to will it, but upon the condi
tion that they deserve it, by fulfilling on their part the indis
pensable conditions.
5. It is objected," That if the good of being be the sole
Foundation of Moral Obligation, right and wrong would be
contingent and not fixed, that is, the same intention or choice
would possess a character according as it is contemplated rel
atively to the good of Being."
To this I reply, — That right and wrong are not contingent but
fixed. Towillthehighestgoodofbeingisrightinitself, andno-
thing else is in itself right. To will any thing else than this as an
ultimate end is wrong in itself, and therefore unalterably and
invariably wrong. An intention is right or wrong as it ter
minates on the good of being or. on some thing else as an ul
timate end. This must be, and every thing else in the only
sense in which it has moral character at all, is right or
wrong as it proceeds from the choice of the highest well-be
ing of God and the Universe as art ultimate end or from some
other choice. ; ,
6. It is objected, " That if this be the sole Foundation of
Moral Obligation, it follows that if all the good now in exist
ence were connected with sin and all the misery connected
with holiness, we should be just as well satisfied as we now
are." To this I answer, We are satisfied only when the demands . of
our being are met. One demand of our being is, that all moral
agents should be holy, and that they should be actually and per
fectly happy only on the condition that they are holy. Now if
our constitution only demanded their happiness irrespective of
their holiness, then were they perfectly happy we should be
satisfied whether they were holy or not. But our constitu
tion being what it is, we should not be and can not be satisfied
with their happiness unless they are holy: for their holiness,
as a condition of their actual blessedness, is an unalterable de
mand of our Intelligence. Now, therefore, although we are to
regard their universal satisfaction as the ultimate good,, yet
we also know, and can not but affirm that their universal
satisfaction or blessedness is naturally impossible, and that it
ought to be, except on condition of their perfect holiness. There
fore the supposition is impossible and inadmissible.
l Let it be understood that the highest well being of God

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

63

and of the Universe of Moral Agents is conditionated on the
fact that every demand of every power of their being is sat
isfied. Therefore as the Intelligence and Conscience of eve
ry Moral Agent demands that actual happiness should be
connected with holiness and actual misery should be connec
ted with sin, we should not be satisfied with happiness in Mor
al Agents unless it were connected with holiness, nor with
misery unless it were connected with sin — such being the
laws of our being that nothing else than this can meet the
demands of our being in respect to Moral Agents.
7. It is said, " If any moral act can be conceived of, which
has not the element of willing the highest good of being in
it, this theory is false!" To this I reply, That strict
ly speaking it is agreed on all hands by the parties in
this discussion, that no act is a moral act, but an ul
timate act, choice, or intention of the Will. Now if any
ultimate choice can be conceived of that does not terminate
on the good of universal being which after all is morally right
or virtuous, then this theory is false. But no such moral act
or ultimate choice can be found. But an example is brought
forward of moral obligation to do that which does not im
ply the choice ofthe highest good of being. Itis said we are un
der obligation to esteem and treat as worthy of confidence those
whose known veracity entitles them to our confidence. This,
let it be^ observed, is an example or an instance in which itis
said that we are under obligation where no reference is had
to the good of being. Now, let it be remembered, that the
theory to overthrow which this example is brought forward is
that the satisfaction of the mind arising from the fact that
every demand of his being is met, is that in which the ultimate
good of being consists. Now it is a demand of the Intelli
gence of every moral being that we should esteem and treat
as worthy of confidence those whose character entitles them
to this confidence. Thus, then, to esteem and treat all that
are truthful, is one of the demands of the universal Intelli
gence of Moral Agents. Unless this demand be met by a
being he cannot be satisfied with himself. His Intelligence
and Conscience are not satisfied.
We are under obligation, therefore, to treat every indi
vidual ofknown veracity as worthy of confidence; for this is an
unalterable condition of our being satisfied, or ofthe demands of
our nature being met. We are under obligation also to will
that every Moral Agent in the Universe should meet this de
mand of his being as an unalterable condition of his highest well-

64 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
being. So we see that this example is not one in which no
reference is had to the highest good of being. For in this
very example the highest good of being is the ultimate
end, and treating the individual according to his nature, rela
tions, and character for veracity, is one of the indispensable
conditions and means of realizing this end. It is not only:
a demand of my being that I should treat one who is wor->
thy of confidence as worthy, but it also isa demand of his being
and Intelligence that / should thus treat him. If I would aim,
therefore, at his highest good, or at meeting the demands of
his being for the sake of promoting his entire and perfect sat
isfaction, I must treat him as worthy of confidence. So that
his highest good and my highest good and the highest good of
all beings demand that I should thus treat him. For the In
telligence of God and of every intelligent being in the uni
verse demands that I should treat a being with confidence who
is worthy of confidence., So that I do not really meet the de
mands of my own being, nor of the Intelligence of any being
unless I do thus treat him. Therefore, thus esteeming and treat
ing him is indispensable to the highest good of being. And
if I am under an obligation to choose the highest satisfaction
or good of Universal Being as an end, I must be under an
obligation to treat every being so as to meet the demands of
my own Intelligence and the Intelhgence of the Universe.
Tnis I cannot do without esteeming the holy as holy, the truth
ful as truthful, &c.
8. It is objected again that we are all conscious of often
affirming ourselves to be under moral obligation when no re
ference is had by us to the good of being as an end. Exam
ple — To love God because he is good. This affirmation, it is
said, has no reference to the good of God. To this I answer,
Such an affirmation, if it be made, is most nonsensical.
What is it to love God ? Why, as is agreed, it is not to ex
ercise a mere emotion of complacency in Him. It is to will
something to Him. But what ought I to will to Him in view
of his goodness ? Why surely I ought to will good to Him;
But why ought I to will good rather than evil to God? Sure
ly, first and fundamentally, because good is good or valuable
to Him, and secondarily, because and upon condition that
He is holy or good. The fact is, there is in all such cases
a mistake in supposing that we affirm moral obligation when
no reference is had to the good of being as an ultimate end.
It is a first truth of reason that the good of being is valuable
in itself, and that it ought to be chosen for its own sake;

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 65
This truth is every where and at all times and by all moral
agents assumed and known. While this is a first truth that
the good of being is valuable and ought to be willed as a pos
sible good for its own sake entirely irrespective of moral
character, yet it is also a first truth of reason that the high
est good or the actual blessedness of moral agents is neces
sarily conditionated upon their holiness, and that this ought to
be so. Therefore, every moral agent while he assumes his ob
ligation to will the well being of all moral agents as a possi
ble good whether they are holy or unholy, at the same time
affirms, and assumes, his obligation to will the actual blessed
ness of God and of every moral agent only upon the condi
tion that He is holy. Thus necessarily stand the assump
tions of every mind. Now when we perceive that a being
is holy, we thereupon affirm our obligation to will his actual
blessedness. And being assured that God is holy we irre
sistibly affirm that we are under infinite obligation to love
Him. And being consciously affected at the time by a con
sideration of his goodness, and overlooking the assumption
at the bottom of our minds, that his good is of infinite
value, we loosely suppose ourselves to have no reference to
his good or to the intrinsic value of his good. Now in ev
ery case of this kind we do and must have respect to his
good, or we really make no intelligent affirmation at all in
respect to moral obligation. If I do not affirm myself under
obligation to will good to God, I in fact make no intelhgent
and just affirmation about it. This in fact is and must be my
duty ; and nothing else, more or less, is. My whole duty to
God and my neighbor is to love the one with all my heart,
and the other as myself. This God himself has expressly
asserted, and whoever makes the assertion that, He requires
more of me than this, let him look to it. There is not, there
can not be moral obligation when no reference is had to the
good of God and of being, for to love God and our neighbor
is not and can not be any thing else than to will their highest
good. The fact is that those who make such objections as
this to the philosophy and theology of this lecture, either do
not mean what they say, or they must assume the existence of
some other law and of some other rule of duty than the law
of love revealed in the Bible. What ! can it be possible that
they have in mind the fact that the whole law is fulfiled in
one word love or good will to God and our neighbor, when
they make such assertions ? This law allows of no obliga
tion but to love God and our neighbor, that is to will their
6*

66 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
good, for surely this love can be nothing else. But here comes
an objector and says that we often affirm moral obligation
when no reference is had to the good of God and our neigh
bor. To such an one I only reply, if this affirmation of ob
hgation is ever really made by any one, " he knows not what
he saysnor whereof he affirms."
9. But it is said that a moral agent may sometimes be un
der obligation to will evil instead of good to others. I an
swer: —
It can never be the duty of a moral agent to will evil
to any being for its own sake or as an ultimate end. The char
acter and govemriiental relations ofa being may be such thatit
may be duty to will the execution of law upon him to meet a de
mand of the public conscience and intelhgence and thus pro
mote the pubhc good. But in this case good is the -end willed
and misery only a means. So it may be the duty of a moral
agent to will the temporary misery of even a holy being; to
promote the public interests. Such was the case with, the
sufferings of Christ. The Father willed his temporary mis
ery to promote the public good. But in all cases when itis
duty to will misery, it is only as a means or condition of
good to the public or to the individual and not as an ultimate
end. There are several other objections to this theory. But as
each of the other theories stand opposed to this and are of
course so many objections to it, I will consider them in their
proper place, and proceed to remove objections to the truth
as I go forward.

LECTURE V.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
FALSE THEORIES.
I. The Will of God.
II. Self Interest.
III. Utilitarianism.
I will now proceed to the examination of various other
Theories of the Foundation of Moral Obligation, for the pur
pose of showing that they all involve the most palpable con
tradiction of- their own admitted principles, of the plainest
intuitions of Reason, and of Divine Revelation. I will com
mence with the Theory,
I. That the Sovereign Will of God is the Foundation of
Moral Obhgation.
By the Will of God I suppose is intended his willing
that we should will, choose, intend some end. For Moral
Obligation, let it be remembered, respects the choice of an
end, or the ultimate intention. This theory,, then, makes
God's willing, commanding^ the foundation of the obliga
tion to choose or intend an ultimate end. If this is so,
then the willing of God is the end to be intended. For the
end to be intended and the reason of the obligation to intend
it, are identical. But it is impossible to will or choose the
Divine willing or requirement as an ultimate end. God's
wilhng reveals a Law, a rule of choice, or of intention. It
requires something to be intended as an ultimate end for its
own intrinsic value. This end can not be the willing, com
mandment, law itself. This is absurd and impossible. Does
God will that I should choose his willing as an ultimate end?
This is ridiculously absurd. It is a plain contradiction to
say that Moral Obligation respects directly ultimate intention
only, or the choice of an end for its own intrinsic value, and
yet that the Will of God is the foundation or reason of the ob
hgation. This is affirming at the same breath that the intrin
sic value of the end which God requires me to choose, is the
reason or foundation of the obligation to choose it, and yet
that this is not the reason, but that the Will of God is the
reason. Wilhng can never be an end. God can not will our wil
ling as an end. Nor can he will his willing as an end. Wil
ling, choosing, always and necessarily implies an end willed

68 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
entirely distinct from the willing or choice itself. Willing
can not be regarded or willed as an ultimate end for two
reasons :
(1.) Because that on which choice or willing terminates, and
not the choice itself, must be regarded as the end.
(2.) Because choice or willing is of no intrinsic value and
of no relative value aside from the end willed or chosen,
2. The will of God can not be the foundation of Moral
Obligation in created moral agents. It is admitted that God
is himself the subject of Moral Obligation. If so, there is
some reason, independent of his own will, why he wills as
he does, some reason that imposes obligation upon him to
will as he does will. His will, then, respecting the conduct
of moral agents, is not the fundamental reason of their obliga
tion; but the foundation of their obligation must be the rea
son which induces God or makes it obligatory on him to will
in respect to the conduct of moral agents, just what he does.
3. If the will of God were the foundation of Moral Obli
gation, he could, by willing it^ change the nature of virtue and
vice. 4. If the will of God were the foundation of Moral Obli
gation, he not only can change the nature of virtue and vice,
but has a right to do sO; for if there is nothing back of his
will that is as binding upon him as upon his creatures, he
could at any time, by willing it, make malevolence a virtue,
and benevolence a Vice.
5. If the will of God be the foundation of Moral Obliga
tion, we have no standard by which to judge of the moral
character of His actions, and cannot know whether he is
worthy of praise or blame.
6. If the will of God is the foundation of Moral Oblige
tion, he has no standard by which to judge of his own char
acter, as he has no rule with which to compare his Own ac
tions. 7. If the will of God is the foundation of Moral Obliga
tion, he is not himself a subject of Moral obligation. But,
8- If God is not a subject of Moral Obligation, he has no
moral character; for virtue arid vice are nothing else but con
formity or non-conformity to Moral Obligation. The will of
God, as expressed in his law, is the! rule of duty to moral
agents. It defines and marks out the path of duty, but the
fundamental reason why moral agents ought to act in confor
mity to the will of God, is plainly not the will of God itself.
9. The Will of no being can be law. Moral Law is an

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 69
idea ofthe Reason and not the willing of any being. If the
Will of any being were law, that being could not by natural
possibility will wrong, for whatever he willed would be right,
simply and only because he willed it. This is absurd.
10. But let us bring this Philosophy into the light of Divine
Revelation. "To the Law and to the Testimony: if it agree
not therewith, it is because it hath no light in it."
The Law of God, or the Moral Law, requires that God
shall be loved with all the heart and our neighbor as our
selves. Now it is agreed by the parties in this discussion,
that the love required is not mere emotion, but that it consists
in choice, willing, intention — i. e., in the choice of something
on account of its own intrinsic value, or in the choice of an
ultimate end. Now what is this end? What, is that which
we are to choose for its own intrinsic value ? Is it the will or
command of God? Are we to will as an ultimate end, that
God should will that we should thus will? What can be
more absurd, self-contradictory, and ridiculous than this ? But
again: what is this love, willing, choosing, intending, required
by the Law ? We are commanded to love God and our neigh
bor. What is this— what can it be, but to will the highest
good or well-being of God and our neighbor ? This is intrinsi- '
cally and infinitely valuable. This must be the end required,
and nothing can possibly be Law that requires the choice of
any other ultimate end. Nor can that by any possibility be
true Philosophy that makes any thing else the Reason or
Foundation of Moral Obhgation.
But it is said that we are conscious of affirming our obli
gation to ob«y the will of God without reference to any oth
er reason than his will; and this, it is said, proves that His
will is the Foundation of the Obligation.
To this I reply, the Reason does indeed affirm that we
ought to will that which God commands, but it does not and
can not assign His will as the foundation of the obligation to
will it. His whole will respecting our duty is summed up in
the two precepts of the Law. These as. we have seen, require
universal good will to being, or theTSupreme Love of God
and the Equal Love of our neighbor — that we should will the
highest well-being of God and ofthe Universe for its own sake,
or for its own intrinsic value. Reason affirms that we ought
thus to will. And can it be so self-contradictory as to affirm
that we ought to will the good of God and of the Universe
for its own intrinsic value; yet not for this reason, but because
God wills that we should will it? Impossible ! But in this ob-

70 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
jcctiori or assertion, the objector has reference to some out
ward act,- some condition or means of the end to be chosen,
and not to the end itself. But even in respect to any act
whatever, his objection does not hold good. For example,
God requires me to labor and pray for the salvation of souls,
or to do any thing else. Now his command is necessarily re
garded by me as obligatory, not as an arbitrary requirement,
but as revealing infallibly the true means or conditions of
securing the great and ultimate end which I am to will for
its intrinsic value. I necessarily regard his commandment
as wise and benevolent, and itis only because I so regardit
that I affirm or can affirm my obligation to obey Him. Should
He command me to choose as an ultimate end, or for, its
own intrinsic value, that which my Reason affirmed to be of
no intrinsic value, I could not possibly affirm my obligation
to obey Him. Should He command me to do that which my
Reason affirmed to be unwise and malevolent, it were im
possible for me to affirm my obligation to obey Him. This
proves beyond controversy that Reason does not regard His
command as the foundation of the obligation to obey, but
only as infallible proof that that which He commands is wise and
benevolent in itself, and commanded by Him for that reason*
If the will of God were the Foundation of Moral Obliga
tion, He might command me to violate and trample down all
the laws of my being, and to be the enemy of all good, and
I should not only be under obligation, but affirhi my obliga
tion to obey him. But this is absurd. This brings us to the
conclusion that he who asserts that Moral Obhgation respects
the choice of an end for its intrinsic value, and still affirms
the will of God to be the Foundation of Moral Obligation,
contradicts his own admissions, the .plainest intuitions of
Reason, and Divine Revelation. His theory is grossly inconsist
ent and nonsensical. It overlooks the very nature of Moral
Law as an idea of Reason, and makes it to corisist in arbitra
ry willing. This is nonsense. -^ .
II. I now proceed to date and examine a second Theory^
For convenience safe I shall call it the theory of Paley.
His theory, as every reader of Paley knows, makes self-inter
est the Ground of Moral Obligation. Upon this theory I re
mark, 1. That if self-interest be the ground of Moral Obliga
tion, then self-interest is the end to be chosen for its own sake.
To be virtuous I must in every instance intend my own inter
est as the supreme good.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

71

2. Upon this hypothesis, I am to treat my own interest as
supremely valuable, when it is infinitely less valuable than
the interests of God. Thus I am under a moral obligation to
prefer an infinitely less good, because it is my own, to one of
infinitely greater value that belongs to another. This is pre
cisely what every sinner in earth and hell does.
3. But this theory would impose on me a moral obligation
to choose contrary to the nature and relations of things, and,
therefore, contrary to Moral Law. But this is absurd.
4. But let us examine this theory in the light of the re
vealed law. If this Philosophy be correct, the Law should
read, " Thou shalt love thyself supremely, and God and thy
neighbor not at all." For Dr. Paley holds the only reason of
the obligation to be self-interest. If this is so, then I am un
der an obligation to love myself alone, and never do my du
ty when I at all love God or my neighbor. He says itis the
Utility of any rule alone which constitutes the obligation of
it. (Paley 's Moral Philo., Book 2, chap. 6.) Again he says,
" And let it be asked why 1 am obliged, (obligated) to keep
my word? and the answer will be: Because I am urged to do
so by a violent motive, namely, the expectation of being af
ter this life rewarded if I do so, or punished if I do not." —
(Foley's Moral Philo. Book 2, chap 3.) Thus it would seem that
it is the utility of a rule to myself only that constitutes the
ground of obligation to obey it.
But should this be denied, still it can not be denied that
Dr. Paley maintains that self-interest is the ground of Moral
Obligation. If this is so, i. e., if this be the foundation of
Moral Obligation, whether Paley or any one else holds it to
be true, then, undeniably, the Moral Law should read, " thou
shalt love thyself supremely, and God and thy neighbor
-subordinately;" or, more strictly, Thou shalt love thyself as
an end, and God and your neighbor only as a means of pro
moting your own interest*
5. If this theory be true, all the precepts in the Bible need
to be altered. Instead of the injunction, " Whatever you do,
do it heartily unto the Lord," it should read: Whatever you
do, do it heartily unto yourself. Instead of the injunction,
¦"Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do
all to the glory of God," it should read : Do all to secure
your own interest. Should it be said that this school would
say that the meaning of these precepts is,- do all to tbe glory
of God to secure your own interest thereby, I answer: This
as a contradiction. To do it to or for the glory of God is one

72 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. •
thing, to do it to secure my own interest is an entirely differ
ent and opposite thing. To do it for the glory of God, is to
make his glory my end. But to do it to secure my own inter
est, is to make my own interest the end.
6. But let us look at this theory in the light Of the revealed
conditions of salvation. "Except a man forsake all that he hath
he can not be my disciple." If the theory under consideration be
true, it should read: Except a man make his own interest the
supreme end of pursuit, he can not be my disciple. Again;
"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and
take up his cross," &c. This, in conformity with the theory
in question, should read: "If any man will come after me let
him not deny himself, but cherish and supremely seek hTs own
interest. A multitude of such passages might be quoted, as
every reader of the Bible knows.
7. But let us examine this theory in the hght of Scripture
declarations. " It is more blessed to give than to receive."
This, according to the theory we are opposing, should read:
It is more blessed to receive than to give. " Charity, (love)
seeketh not her own." This should read: Charity seeketh her
own. " No man (that is no righteous man.) liveth to himself."
This should read: Every (righteous man) liveth to himself.
8. Let this theory be examined in the light of the spirit and
example of Christ. "Even Christ pleased not himself."
This should read, if Christ was holy and did his duty: Even
Christ pleased himself, or which is the same thing, sought his
own interest.
" I seek not mine own glory but the glory of Him who sent
me." This should read: I seek not the glory of Him who
sent me, but mine own glory.
But enough; you can not, fail to see that this is a selfish
Philosophy, and the exact opposite of the truth of God.
But let us examine this Philosophy in the light of the ad
mission that Moral Obligation respects ultimate intention only.
1 ought to choose the good of God and my neighbor for its
own intrinsic value; That is, as an ultimate end, and yet not
as an ultimate end for its intrinsic value, but only as a means
of promoting my own interest ! This is a plain contradiction.
What! I am to love, that is, will good to God and my neigh
bor as an ultimate end or for its own sake, merely to promote
my own happiness!
III. Iwillinthe next place consider the Utilitarian Philosophy.
This maintains that the utility of an act or choice renders

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 73
it obligatory. That is, Utility is the Foundation of Mor
al Obligation — that the tendency oi an act, choice, or inten
tion, to secure a good or valuable end is the foundation of
the obligation to put forth that choice or intention. Upon
this theory I remark,
1. That it is absurd to say the foundation of the obliga?
tion to choose a certain end is to be found not in the value of
the end itself, but in the tendency of the intention to secure the
end. The tendency is valuable or otherwise, as the end is
valuable or otherwise. It is and must be the value of the
end and not the tendency of an intention to secure the end, that
constitutes the foundation of the obligation to intend.
' 2. We have seen that the foundation of, obligation to will
or choose any end as such, that is, on its own account, must
consist in the intrinsic value of the end, and that nothing else
whatever can impose obligation to choose any thing as an
ultimate end, but its intrinsic value. To affirm the contrary is to
affirm a contradiction. It is the same as to say that Ipught to
choose a thing as an end, and yet not as an end, that is, for its
own sake, but for some other reason, to wit, .the tendency of
my choice to secure that end. Here I affirm at the same
breath that the thing intended is to be an end, that is, chosen
for its own intrinsic value, and yet not as an end or for its in
trinsic value, but for entirely a different reason, to wit, the
tendency of the choice to secure it.
3. But we have also seen that the end chosen and the rea
son for the choice are identical. If Utility be the foundation
of Moral Obligation, then Utility is the end to be chosen.
That is, the tendency of the choice to secure its end is the end
to be chosen. This is absurd.
4. But the very announcement of this theory implies its
absurdity. A choice is obligatory because it tends to secure
good. But why secure good rather than evil ? The answer
is because good is valuable. Ah ! here then we have an
other reason, and one which must be the true reason, to wit,
the value of the good which the choice tends to secure. Ob
ligation to use means to do good may and must be conditiona
ted upon the tendency of those means to secure the end, but
the obligation to use them is founded solely in the value of*
the end.
But let us examine this philosophy in the light of the ora
cles of God. What say the Scriptures ?
1. The Law. Does this require us to love God and our
neighbor because loving God and our neighbor tends to the
7

74 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
well-being either of God, our neighbor, or ourselves I Is it
the tendency or utility of love that makes it obligatory upon us
to exercise it? What! will good, not from regard to its
value, but because willing good will do good ! But why do
, good ? What is this love ? Here let it be distinctly remem
bered that the love required by the law of God is not a
mere emotion or feeling, but willing, choosing, intending,
in a word, that this love is nothing else than ultimate inten
tion. What, then, is to be intended as an end or for its own
sake ? Is it the tendency of love or the utihty of ultimate
intention that is the end to be intended? It must be the lat
ter if Utilitarianism is true. '
According to this theory, when the law requires supreme
love to God, and equal love to our neighbor, the meaning
is, not that we are to will, choose, intend the well-being of
God and our neighbor for its own sake or because of its intrin
sic value, but because of the tendency oi the intention to pro
mote the good of God, our neighbor and ourselves. But
suppose the tendency of love or intention to be what it may,
the utility of it depends upon the intrinsic value of that which
it tends to promote. Suppose love or intention tends to pro
mote its end, this is a useful tendency only because the
end is valuable in itself. It is nonsense then to say that
love to God . and man, or an intention to promote their good
is required, not because of the value of their well-being, but
because love tends to promote their well-being.
But the supposition that the Law of God requires love to
God and man or the choice of their good on account of the
tendency of love to promote their well-being, is absurd. It
is to represent the law as requiring love, not to God and our
neighbor as an end, but to tendency as an end. The law in
this case should read thus : Thou shalt love the utility or ten-
• dency of Love with all thy heart, &c.
If the theory under consideration is true, this is the spirit
and meaning of the Law : Thou shalt love the Lord and thy
neighbor, that is, thou shall choose their good,not for its ownfiake ,
or as an end, but because choosing it tends to promdte it.
This is absurd ; for I ask again, why promote it but for its
own value ?
Again this theory is absurd, because if the Law' of God
requires ultimate intention, it is a contradiction to affirm that
the intention ought to terminate on its own tendency as an end.
2. Again, let us examine this theory in the light of the pre
cepts of the gospel. "Do all to the glory of God." The

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 75
spirit of this requirement, as is admitted, is, intend, choose
the glory of God. But why choose the glory of God ? Why,
if Utilitarianism be true, not because of the value of God's
glory, but because choosing it tends to promote it. But
again, I ask why promote it if it be not valuable ? And if it-
he valuable, why not will it for that reason ?
3. But it is said that we are conscious of affirming obligation
to do many things on the ground that those things are useful
or tend to promote good.
I answer that we are conscious of affirming obligation to
do many things upon condition of their tendency to promote
good, but that we never affirm obligation to be founded on
this tendency. Such an affirmation would be a down-right
absurdity. I am under an obligation to use the means to
promote good, not for the sake of its intrinsic value, but for
the sake of the tendency of the means to promote it ! This
is absurd. I say again, the obligation to outward action or to use
means may and must be conditionated upon perceived tendency,
but never founded in this tendency. Ultimate intention has
no such condition. The perceived intrinsic value imposes ob
ligation without any reference to the tendency of the inten
tion. 4. But suppose any utilitarian should deny that moral obli
gation respects ultimate intention only, and maintain that it
also respects those volitions and actions that' sustain "to the
ultimate end the relation of means, and therefore assert that
the foundation of moral obhgation in respect to all those vo
litions and actions, is their tendency to secure a valuable end.
This would not at all reheve the difficulty of Utilitarianism,
for in this case tendency could only be a condition of the ob
hgation, while the fundamental reason of the obligation would
and must be the intrinsic value of the end which these,may have
a tendency to promote. Tendency to promote an end can
impose no obligation. The end must be intrinsically valua
ble and this alone imposes obligation to choose the end, and
to use the means to promote it. Upon condition that any
thing is perceived to sustain to this end the relation of a ne
cessary means, we are for the sake of the end alone under ob
ligation to use the means.

LECTURE VI.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
IV. RlGHTARIANISM.
IV. I now pass to the consideration of the theory that regards
right as the foundation of Moral Obligation.
In the examination of this Philosophy I must begin by de
fining terms. What is Right? The primary signification of
the term is straight. When used in a moral sense it means
fit, suitable, agreeable to the nature and relations of moral
agents. Right is objective and subjective: Objective right is
an idea of the fit, the suitable, the agreeable to the nature and
relations of moral beings. It is an idea of that choice or ul
timate intention, and of the consequent course of- life which
is befitting to or obhgatory upon moral agents. Objective right
is moral law. It is the rule of moral action as it lies re
vealed in the ideas of the reason of every moral agent.
Thus, strictly speaking, objective right is subjective law. This
idea or law of reason is subjective as it lies in the mind ofthe
subject of it. But as a rule of action or rather of ultimate
intention, in other words, regarded as a rule or law of right,
it is objective right and subjective law.
Subjective right is synonymous with righteousness, upright
ness, virtue. It consists in or is an attribute of that state of
the will which is conformed to objective right, or to moral law.
Itis a term that expresses the moral quality, element, or attri
bute of that ultimate intention which the law of God requires.
In other words still, it is conformity of heart to the law of ob
jective right, or, as I just said, it is more strictly the term
that designates the moral character of that state of heart.
Some choose to regard subjective right as consisting in this
state of heart, and others insist that it is only an element,- attri
bute, or quality of this state of heart, or of this ultimate in
tention. I shall not contend about words, but shall show
that it matters not, so far as the question we are about to ex
amine is concerned, in which of these lights subjective right
is regarded, whether as consisting in ultimate intention con
formed to law, or, as an attribute, element, or quality of this
intention. T would here repeat a remark made on a former occa
sion, that since moral obligation respects the ultimate in
tention, that is, the choice of an end for its intrinsic val
ue, moral obligation must imply the perception or idea
of the valuable. Until the mind perceives or has the
idea of the valuable developed, it cannot have the idea of

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 77
moral obligation and consequently of right and wrong devel
oped. If moral obhgation respects the choice of an end, the
obligation cannot exist until the end is apprehended. When
the end is apprehended the affirmation of moral obligation to
choose it, and ofthe lightness of compliance, and the wrong-
ness of noncompliance with the obligation, is made by a law
of necessity. The mind is so constituted that when the idea
of the intrinsically valuable is developed, the correlated ideas
of moral obligation, of right and wrong, of praise and blame
worthiness, of justice and injustice, &c, are developed by a
law of necessity.
The theory under consideration was held by the ancient
Greek and Roman Philosophers. It was the theory of Kant,
and is now the theory of the transcendental school in Europe
and America. Cousin, in manifest accordance with the views of
Kant, states the theory in these words ; "Do right for the sake of
the right, or rather, will the right for the sake of the right.
Morality has to do with the intentions." — (Enunciation of mo
ral law — Elements of Psychology p. 162.) Those who follow
Kant, Cousin and Coleridge state the theory either in the
same words, or in words that amount to the same thing.
They regard right as the foundation of moral obligation. "Will
the right for the sake of the right." This, if it has any mean
ing, means, WiU the right as an ultimate end, that is, for
its own sake. Let us examine this very popular philosophy,
first, in the light of its own principles, and secondly in the
light of Revelation.
1. In the hght of its own principles. And,
(1.) This philosophy strenuously maintains that Moral Ob
hgation respects the ultimate intention only, that is, that it
respects the choice of an ultimate end. It also maintains
that to choose an ultimate end is to choose something for its
own intrinsic value, either to self or being in general, and not
as a means or condition of any other end.. This, it will bp
seen, is the same as to say that the choice of an ultimate end
is the choice of the intrinsically valuable to being, thaf is,
to self or to the universe. This, again, it will be seen, is
the same as to say that ultimate intention is and must be sy
nonymous either with good will to being in general or identi
cal with disinterested benevolence, or with willing good to
self in particular. But how does this teaching consist with
choosing the right for the sake of the right? Arc the good
of being, the intrinsically valuable to being, and therighl the
same thing? Are the right and the. intrinsically valuable the

78 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
same thing? Are the right, and the highest well being of God
and of the xmiverseHdenlical? To choose, will, intend the
highest good of God and the universe, as an ultimate end, or for
its own value, is right. For this is choosing the proper, fit,
suitable, right end. But to will the right for the sake of the
right is to will another end, and this is not right. To will the
good for the sake of the good, that is, to will it disinterested
ly, is right. But to will the right for the sake ofthe right, is
not right.
But does this philosophy mean that right is the supreme
and ultimate good upon which intention ought to terminate?
If so, in what sense of the term right does this theory re
gard it as the intrinsically and supremely valuable? Is it in
the sense of Objective Right? But Objective Right is a mere
abstract idea or law. It is impossible that this should possess
any intrinsic value. It may be and is a condition or means
of virtue, and hence of ultimate satisfaction or good, and
therefore may be relatively valuable. But to make a mere
idea of the reason, an abstract idea or law the intrinsical
ly valuable thing which all moral agents are bound to choose
as the supreme good, and to which they are bound to conse
crate themselves for its own sake, is absurd. To prefer this
to the highest well being of God and the universe is not-right,
It can not be right.
(2.) It is absurd to talk of making objective right an ultimate
end. Make law an ultimate end ! Law is a rule of choice or
willing, as this philosophy maintains. But what does law re
quire a moral agent to will, choose, intend? Why, according
to this philosophy, it requires him to will, choose, intend no
end whatever but itself. A very important law surely that
requires its subject to will only its own existence and nothing
else! And what is its own existence or self that it should
make itself the supreme good? Why, forsooth, it is a mere
abstract idea. But it is impossible for the mind to choose
this, as the supreme good, or as an ultimate end, for the plain
reason that it can not be regarded as intrinsically valuable.
(3.) It is absurd to represent the moral law as requiring
its subjects to make itself the end to which they ought to con
secrate themselves. The law must require the choice of some
intrinsically and supremely valuable end. This must be the
highest good or well-being of God and of the universe, and can
not be a mere abstract law or idea. What, a mere idea of
greater intrinsic value than the infinite and eternal happiness
or well being of God and of the universe! Impossible.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 79
But does this philosophy teach that subjective right is the founda
tion of moral obligation? Subjective right is a compliance with
moral obligation, and can not therefore be the foundation of
the obligation. Subjective right, is virtue, righteousness. It
must, as has been said, consist either in ultimate intention, or it
must be a quality or attribute of that intention. If it be re
garded as identical with that ultimate choice or intention
which the moral law requires, then, according to this philoso
phy, moral agents are bound to choose their own choice or to
intend their own intention as an ultimate end, that is, to in
tend their own intention for its own intrinsic value. This is
absurd and nonsensical.
Ii subjective right is to be regarded, not as identical with
ultimate choice or intention, but as a quality, element, or
attribute of the choice or intention, then moral agents, if
this philosophy be true, are under a moral obligation to
choose, will, intend nothing out of their choice or intention,
but to choose or intend an element, attribute or quality of
their intention as an ultimate end. Upon one supposition
ultimate intention must terminate upon itself as an end;
upon the other it must terminate upon a quality or attribute of
itself. Either supposition is a gross absurdity and an im
possibility. What! choose my own choice as an end! This
is a natural impossibility. Choose an attribute of my own
choice as an end or object of the very choice of which it is
an attribute! This is equally a natural impossibility. Choice
must of necessity terminate on some object out of itself, else
there is no object of choice. Thus we see that subjective
right cannot be chosen as an ultimate end, because it is not
an ultimate. In what possible or conceivable sense, then,
can right be the foundation of moral obligation? I answer
in no possible or conceivable sense. It is grossly inconsistent
and self contradictory for this philosophy to maintain at the
same breath, that moral obligation respects the choice of an
ultimate end, and that right is the foundation of moral obliga
tion. Why, right, as we have just seen, consists either in the
law or idea of obligation, or in obedience to this law or obli
gation. It is therefore stark nonsense to affirm that right is
the foundation of the obligation. Obedience to law can not be
identical with the reason for this obedience. Compliance with an
obligation, can not be identical with the reason or foundation of
the obligation. In other words, intending in accordance with ob
ligation, can not be identical with the thing or end intended.
If objective right be the end to be intended, then obedience to

80 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the law is identical with choosing the law as an ultimate end.
Choosing the law as an ultimate end is obedience to the law !
(4.) But here it is objected that we really affirm our obliga
tion to love God because of his moral excellence. To this I re
ply — That this objection ot the mouth of a Rightarian must
mean that it is right to love God for or because of his moral
excellence and that we are, bound to love Him because it is
right? But to love Him because it is right, and to love Him for
his moral excellence are not identical. The objection in
volves a contradiction. This love, let it be remembered,|is
willing, intending an end. But what am I bound to will or
intend to God in view of his moral excellence. Am I bound
to will his goodness as an end? This must be, if his good
ness is the foundation of the obligation, for as we have repeat
edly seerf the reason for choosing any thing as an ultimate end
and the end chosen are identical. But to will the divine good
ness, which consists in benevolenc^, as an ultimate end is ab
surd, But am I to will the right far the sake of the right?
Is this loving God or willing any thing to Him? Or am I
to will good to God because it is right to will good to Him? This
is absurd and a contradiction. To will good to God as an
ultimate end, is to will it for its own sake or because of its
own intrinsic value. It is impossible to will good to God for
its own sake, because it is right. It is the same as to will good
to God for its intrinsic value, yet not for its intrinsic value,
but because it is right. This is willing the right and not the
good as an end. The assumption, that we affirm our obligation
to love God to be founded in his moral excellence, will be ful
ly considered in its proper place, I would only here remark
that it is not very consistent in a rightarian to urge this objec
tion. (5.) But right here it will be well to inquire into the ground
of the mistake of rightarians. Kant, and if consistent, all
rightarians, consider the law itself as imposing obligation,
and therefore of course as being the foundation of obligation.
Hence Kant affirms that ethics or morality or virtue* does
not imply any religion, but only the adoption into the will
of a maxim, " at all times fit for law universal." He holds
that the mind needs no end upon which to fix, nothing at
which to aim beside or out of the law itself; nothing to in
tend, no motive out ofthe precept or maxim itself, but simply
the adoption of the maxim just named, and which Cousin ex
presses thus, "Do right for the sake of the right," or "Will
the right for the sake of the right." Now it is a fundamen-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 81
tal mistake to represent the law itself, as imposing obli-
fation, and therefore as the foundation of the obligation.
¦aw is a rule according to which moral agents are bound to
will. God and reason affirm their obligation to will in ac
cordance with law, or in other words, to will that which the
law requires. But the law requires that something shall be
willed for its own sake, and this is the same as to say that
the end to be willed deserves to be willed on its own account,
which again, is the same as to affirm that the obligation is
founded, not in the law, but in the end which the law requires
us to seek. The law requires us to seek the end simply and
only because of its intrinsic value, and not because the law
can of itself impose obligation. Now the idea that right or
law can impose obligation is founded in a radical misappre
hension of the nature of law. It is a rule of willing or a
rule that declares how moral agents ought to will or what
they ought to choose. But it is not the foundation of the
obligation to choose that which the law requires to be cho
sen as an end. For the reason for choosing this is and must
be its intrinsic value, and were it not intrinsically valuable,
the law could not require it to be chosen as an ultimate end.
But for its intrinsic value, a requirement to choose it as an
ultimate end could not be law. Objective right and law, as
we have before seen, are identical. If right is the founda
tion of obligation, then law is the foundation of obligation.
This is and must be Rightarianism. But it is a gross absurdi
ty and a contradiction to make the law requiring the choice
of an ultimate end or of something for its own intrinsic val
ue, the reason , or foundation of the obligation instead of the
intrinsic value of that which is to be chosen for its value.
Nothing can by any possibility impose obligation to choose
an ultimate end but the intrinsic value of the end. Neither
law nor any lawgiver in earth or heaven can impose such
an obligation. This philosophy represents the moral law as
requiring its subjects to will the right for the sake of the
right or to will the right as an ultimate end. Of course it
must represent subjective right or virtue as consisting in
wiihng objective right or as an ultimate end. This we have
seen is absurd.
2. But let us examine this philosophy in the light of the
oracles of God.
(1.) In the light of the Moral Law. The whole Law is ex
pressed by the Great Teacher thus : " Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, with

82 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
all thy might,' and with all thy strength; and thy neighbor as
thyself." Paul says "All the Law is fulfilled in one word-
love :" " therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." NOw it is
admitted by this philosophy, that the love required by the Law
is not a mere emotion, but that it consists in willing, choice,
intention; that it consists in the choice of an ultimate end, or
in the choice of some thing for its own sake, or which is the
same thing, for its intrinsic value. What is this which the
Law requires us to will to God and our neighbor? Is it to will
the right for the sake ofthe right ? But what has this to do with
loving God and our neighbor ? To will the right for the sake of
the right, is not the same as to love God and our neighbor, as
it is not willing any thing to them. Suppose it be said, that
the Law requires us to will the good, or highest blessedness of
God and our neighbor, because it is right. This, as has been
shown, is a contradiction and an impossibility. To will the
blessedness of God and our neighbor in any proper sense, is to
will it for its own sake, or as an ultimate end. But this is not
to will it because it is right. To will the good of God and our
neighbor for its own sake, or for its intrinsic value, is right.
But to will the right for the sake ofthe right, is not right. To
will the good because it is good, or the valuable because it is
valuable, is right, because it is willing it for the right reason.
But to will the right because it is right, is not right, because it
is not willing the right end. To will the good because it is
right, is not to will the good as an end, but the right as an end,
which is not right. The Law of God does not, can not require
us to love right more than God and our neighbor. What !
right of greater value than the highest well-being of God and
of the universe? Impossible. Ilj is impossible that the Moral
Law should require any thing else than to will the highest
good of universal being as an ultimate end. It is a first truth
of Reason, that this is the most valuable thing possible or con
ceivable; and that could by no possibihty be law, that should
require any thing else to be chosen as an ultimate end. Ac
cording to this philosophy, the revealed law should read-:
^ Thou shalt love the right for its own sake, with all thy heart
and with all thy soul." The fact is, the Law requires the su
preme love of God, and the equal love of our neighbor. It
says nothing, and implies nothing about doing right for the
sake of the right. Rightarianism is a rejection of the Divine
Revealed Law, and a Substituting in its stead an entirely differ
ent rule of Moral Obligation, a rule that deifies right, that
rejects the claims of God, and exalts right to the throne.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 83
(2.) "Whether therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye
do, do all to the glory of God." Does this precept require us
to will the right for the sake of the right, or is it in spirit the
6ame as the Law? The same as the Law, beyond a doubt.
(3.) " Do good unto all men, as ye have opportunity." Here
again, are we required to will the right for the sake of the
right, or to will the good of our neighbor because of its own in
trinsic value? The latter, most certainly.
(4.) Take the commands to pray and labor for the salvation
of souls. Do such commandments require us to go forth to
will or do the right for the sake of the right, or to will the sal-,
vation of souls for the intrinsic value of their salvation ? When
we pray and preach and converse, must we aim at right, must
the love of right, and not the love of God and of souls influence
us? When I am engaged in prayer, and travail day and night
for souls, and have an eye so single to the good of souls and to
the glory of God, and am so swallowed up with my subject as
not so much as to think of the right, am I all wrong? Must I
pray because it is right, and do all 1 do and suffer all I suffer,
not from good will to God and man, but because it is right?
Who does not know, that to intend the right for the sake of the
right in all these things instead of having an eye single to the
good of being, would and must be any thing rather than true
religion? (5.) Examine this philosophy in the light of Scripture de*
clarations. " God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, might not
perish, but have everlasting life." Now, are we to under
stand that God gave his Son, not from any regard to the good
of souls for its own sake, but for the sake of the rightl Did He
will the right ior' the sake of the right? Did He give His Son
to die for the right for the sake of the right, or to die to render
the salvation of souls possible, and for the sake of the souls ?
(6.) Did Christ give Himself to die and labor for the right
for the sake of the right, or for souls from love to souls? Did
prophets, and apostles, and martyrs, and have the saints in all
ages, willed the right for the sake of the right, or have they
labored and suffered and died for God and souls from love to
them? (7.) How infinitely strange would the Bible read, if it adopted
this philosophy. The Law, as has been said, would read thus:
"Thou shalt love the right with all thy heart;" "Whatsoever
ye do, do all for the sake of \ the right-" 'fDo the right unto
all men for the sake of the right;" "God so loved the right

84 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
for the sake of the right that he gave his only begotten Son,
to do the right for the sake of the right." Should we interro
gate the holy men of all ages, and ask why they do and suffer
as they do, with this philosophy, they must answer, We are
willing and doing the right for the sake ofthe rig'ht. We have
no ultimate regard to God or to the good of any being, but only
to the right.
(8.) But take another passage which is quoted in support of
this philosophy : " Children obey your parents in the Lord, for
this is right." Now what is the spirit of this requirement?
What is it to obey parents? Why, if", as this philosophy holds,
it must resolve itself into Ultimate Intention, what must the
child intend for its own sake? Must he will good to God and
his parents, and obey his parents as a means of securing the
highest good, or must he will the right as an end for the sake
ofthe right, regardless ofthe good of God or ofthe universe?
Would it be right to will the right for the sake of the right,
rather than to will the good of the universe for. the sake of the
good, and obey his parents as a means of securing the highest
good? It is right to will the highest good of God and of the universe,
and to use all the necessary means, and fulfill all the necessary
conditions of this highest well-being. For children to obey
their parents is one of the means, and for this reason it is right,
and upon no other condition can it be required. But it is said
that children affirm their obligation to obey their parents
entirely irrespective of the obedience having any reference
to or sustaining any relation to the good of being. This is a
mistake. The child, if he is a Moral Agent, and does really
affirm Moral Obligation, not only does, but must perceive, the
end upon which his choice or intention ought to terminate.
If he really makes an intelligent affirmation, it is and must
be, that he ought to will an end, that this end is not, and
can not be the right, as has been shown. He knows that he
ought to will his parents' happiness, and his own happiness,
and the happiness of the world, and of God ; and he knows
that obedience to his parents sustains the relation of a
means to this end. The fact is, it is a first truth of Reason,
that he ought to will the good of his parents and the good of
every body. He also knows that obedience to his parents is
a necessary means to this end. If he does not know these
things, it is impossible for him to be a Moral Agent, or to
make any intelligent affirmation at all; and if he has any
idea of obedience, it is, and must be only such as animals

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 85
have who are actuated wholly by hope, fear arid instinct.
As well might we say, that an ox^ or a dog, who gives
indication of knowing in some sense, that he ought to obey
us, affirms Moral Obligation of himself, as to say this of a
child in whose mind the idea of the good, or valuable to
being is not developed. What! does Moral Obligation
respect ultimate intention only; and does ultimate intention
consist in the choice of something for its own intrinsic value,
and yet is it true that children affirm Moral Obligation before
the idea of the intrinsically valuable, is at all developed? Im
possible ! But this objection assumes that children have the
idea of right developed before the idea of the valuable. This
can not be. The end to be chosen, must be apprehended by
the mind before the mind can have the idea of Moral Obliga
tion to choose an end, or of the right or wrong of choosing or
not choosing it. The development of the idea of the good or
valuable, must precede the development ofthe ideas of right
and of Moral Obhgation.
But here again, I must bring into view the fundamental
error of this philosophy, to wit, that right is the end to be
willed. • Right, as we have seen, is objective or subjective.
Objective right is an idea, a law. Subjective right is virtue,
But virtue, as it consists in love, or willing, can not be an end.
Objective right, or law, can not be an end. To will objective
right as an end, would be to will the idea, or law, as an end.
This is absurd, as we have seeri. What sort of a law would
that be that required that nothing should be willed as an end
but itself? This could, by no possibility, be Law. Law is
that which declares what ought to be willed as an end, or for
its own intrinsic value; and what law would that be, which
instead of requiring the highest good of God and the uni
verse to be chosen as an end, should require the rule, law or
idea itself to be willed as the ultimate and supreme good?
Surely this would not, could not be law. The law of God,
then, is not, and can not be developed in the mind ofa child
who has no knowledge or idea of the valuable, and who has
and can have no reference to the good of any being, in obe
dience to his parents.
It is one thing to intend that which is right, and quite an
other to intend the right as an end. For example, to choose
my own gratification as an end, is wrong. But this is not
choosing the wrong as an end. A drunkard chooses to gratify
his appetite for strong drink as an end, that is, for its own
sake. This is wrong. But the choice does not terminate on
8

86 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the wrong, but, on the gratification. The thing intended is
not the wrong. The liquor is not chosen, the gratification
is not intended, because it is wrong, but notwithstanding
it is wrong. To love God is right, but to suppose that God is
loved because it is right, is absurd. It is to suppose that God
is loved, not from any regard to God, but from a regard to
right. This is an absurdity and a contradiction. To love
or will the good of my neighbor, is right. But to will the
right, instead of the good of my neighbor, is not right. It
is loving right instead of my neighbor; but this is not right
, (9.) But it is said that I am conscious of affirming to myself
that I ought to will the right. This a mistake. I am con
scious of affirriiing to myself, that I ought to will that the wil
hng of which is right, to wit, to will the good of God and of
being. This is right. But this is not choosing the right as an
end. (10.) But it is said again, " I am conscious of affirming to
myself, that I ought to will the good of being, because it is
right." That is, to will the good of being, as a means, and the
right as an end! which is making right the supreme good and
the good of being a means to that end. This is absurd. But
to say, that I am conscious of affirming to myself my obliga
tion to love or will the good of God and my neighbor, because;
it is right, is a contradiction. It is the same as to say, I ought
to love, or intend the good of God and my neighbor, as an ul
timate end, and yet, not to intend the good of God and 'my
neighbor, but intend the right.
(11.) But it is said, that " I ought to love God in compliance
with, and out of respect to my obligation; that I ought to will
it, because and for the reason that I am bound to will it." That
is, that in loving God and my neighbor, I must intend to dis
charge or comply with my obligation; and this, it is said, is
identical with intending the right. But ought my supreme
object to be to discharge my duty — to meet obligation instead
of willing the well-being of God and my neighbor for its' own
sake? limy end is to do my duty, I do not do it. For what
is my obligation? Why, to love, or will the good of God and
my neighbor, that is, as an end, or for its own value. To dis
charge my obligation, then, I must intend the good; of God
and my neighbor, as an end. That is, I must intend that
which I am under an obligation to intend. But I am not
under an obligation to intend the right, because itis right,nor
to do my duty because it is duty, but to intend the good of
God and of my neighbor, because it is good. Therefore, to

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 87
discharge my obligation, I must intend the good, and not the
right — the good of God and my neighbor, and not to do my
duty; I say again, to intend the good, or valuable, is right;
but to intend the right is not right.
(12.) But it is said, that in very many instances, at least, I
am conscious of affirming my Moral Obligation to do the right,
without any reference to the good of being, when I can as
sign no other reason for the affirmation of obligation, than the
right. For example, I behold virtue, I affirm spontaneously
and necessarily, that I ought to love that virtue. And this, it
is said, has no reference to the good of being. Are willing
the right for the sake of the right and loving virtue, the same
thing? But what is it to love virtue? Not a mere feeling
of delight or complacency in it? But it is agreed, that Moral
Obhgation respects the ultimate intention only. What, then,
do I mean by the affirmation, that I ought to love virtue?
What is virtue? Itis ultimate intention, or an attribute of
ultimate intention. But what is loving virtue? It consists in
willing its existence. But it is said, that I affirm my obliga
tion to love virtue as an end, or for its own sake, and not from
any regard to the good of being. This is absurd, and a con
tradiction. To love virtue, it is said, is to will its existence as
an end. But virtue consists\ in intending an end. Now, to
love virtue, it is said, is to will, intend its existence as an end,
for its own sake. Then, according to this theory, I affirm my
obligation to intend the intention of a virtuous being as an
end, instead of intending the same end that he does. This is
absurd. His intention is of no value, is neither naturally good
nor morally good, irrespective of the end intended. It is nei
ther right nor wrong, irrespective of the end chosen. . It is
therefore, impossible to will, choose, intend the intention as an
end, without reference to the end intended. To love virtue,
then, is to love or will the end upon which virtuous intention
terminates, namely, the good of being, or, in other words, to
love virtue, is to will its existence, for the sake ofthe end it has
in view, which is the same thing as to will the same end. Vir
tue is intending, choosing an end. Loving virtue is willing that
the virtuous intention should exist for the sake of its end. Take
away the end, and who would or could will the intention?
"Without the end, the virtue, or intention, would not, and could
not exist. It is not true, therefore, that in the case supposed,
I affirm my obligation to will, or intend, without any reference
to the good of being.
(13.) But again, it is said, that when I contemplate the

88 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Moral Excellence of God, I affirm my obligation to love him
solely for his goodness, ^without any reference to the good of
being, and for no other reason than because it is right. But to
love God because of his moral excellence, and because it is right,
are not the same thing. It is a gross contradiction, to talk of
loving God for his Moral Excellence, because it is right.- It is
the same as to say, I love God for the reason that he is morally
excellent, or worthy, yet not at all for this reason, but for the
reason thatit is right. To love God for his Moral Worth, is
to will good to him for its own sake, upon condition that he
deserves it. But to will his Moral Worth because it is right,
is to will the right as an ultimate end, to have supreme regard
to right, instead ofthe Moral Worth, or the well-being of GOd.
But it may reasonably be asked, why should Rightarians
bring forward these objections? They all assume that Moral
Obligation may respect something else than ultimate intention.
Why, I repeat it, should Rightarians affirm.that the Moral Ex
cellence of God, is the foundation of Moral Obligation, since
they hold that right is the foundation of Moral Obligation?
Why should the advocates of the theory, that the Moral Ex
cellence of God is the foundation of Moral Obligation, affirm
that right is the foundation, or that we are bound to love God
for his Moral Excellence, because this is right ? These are gross
contradictions. There is no end to the absurdities in which
error involves its advocates, and it is singular to see the advo
cates of the different theories, each in his turn, abandon his
own, and affirm some other, as an objection to the true theory.
It has also been, and still is common for writers to confound
different theories with each other, and to affirm, in the compass
of a few pages, several different theories. At least this has
been done in some instances.
Consistent Rightarianism is a Godless, Christless, loveless
philosophy. This Kant saw, and acknowledged. He calls it
pure legality^ that is, he understands the law as imposing
obligation by virtue of its own nature, instead ofthe intrinsic
value of the end, which the law requires Moral Agents to
choose. He loses sight of the end, and does not recognize
any end whatever. He makes a broad distinction between
morality and religion. Morality consists, according to him
in the adoption of the maxim, "Do right for the sake of
the right," or "Act at all times upon a maxim fit for law uni
versal." The adoption of this maxim is morality. But now,
having adopted this maxim, the mind goes abroad to carry its
maxim into practice. It finds God and being to exist, and sees

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 89
it to be right to intend their good. This intending the good is
religion, according to him. Thus, he^sajis, ethics lead to, or
result in religion. (See Kant on Religion.) But who does
not feel prompted to inquire, whether, when we apprehend
God and being, we are to will their well-being as an end, or for
its own sake, or because it is right? If for its own sake, where
then is the maxim, "Will the right for the sake ofthe right?"
for if we are to will the good, not as an ultimate end but for
the sake ofthe right, then right is the end that is preferred to
the highest well-being of God and of the universe. It is im
possible that this should be religion. Indeed Kant himself
admits that this is not religion.
But enough of this cold and loveless philosophy* As it ex
alts right above all that is called God and subverts all the
teachings of the Bible, it can not be a light thing to be deluded
•by it. But it is remarkable and interesting to see Christian
Rightarians, without being sensible of their inconsistency, so
often confound this philosophy with that which teaches that
good will to being constitutes virtue. Numerous examples of
it occur every where in their writings, which demonstrate that
Rightarianism is with them only a theory that " plays round
the head but comes not near the heart."

8*

LECTURE VII.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
DIVINE MORAL EXCELLENCE THEORY.
V. I NOW ENTER UPON THE DISCUSSION OF THE THEORY,
THAT THE GOODNESS, OR MoRAL EXCELLENCE OF GoD IS THE
Foundation of Moral Obligation.
To this philosophy I reply,
1. That its absurdity may be shown in several ways.
(1.) Let it be remembered, that Moral Obligation respects;
the choice of an ultimate end.
(2.) That the reason of the obligation, or that which im
poses obligation, is identical with the end on which the in
tention ought to terminate. If, therefore, the goodness of
God be the reason, or foundation of Moral Obligation, then;
the goodness, of God is the ultimate end to be intended. But
as this goodness consists in love, or benevolence, it is impos
sible that it should be regarded or chOsen, as an ultimate end;
and to choose it were to choose the Divine choice, to intend
the Divine intention as an •ultimate end, instead of choosing
what God chooses, and intending what he intends.
Or if the goodness or moral excellence of God is to be re
garded, not as identical with, but as an attribute or moral-
quality of benevolence, then, upon the theory under consider
ation, a moral agent ought to choose a quality or attribute of
the Divine choice or intention as an ultimate end, instead of
the end upon which the Divine intention terminates. This
is absurd. 2. It is impossible that virtue should be the foundation of
Moral Obligation. Virtue consists in a compliance with
Moral Obligation. But obligation must exist before it can be
complied with. Now, upon this theory, obligation can not
exist until virtue exists as its foundation. Then this theory
amounts to this: Virtue is the foundation of Moral Obliga
tion ; therefore Virtue must exist before Moral Obligation can
exist. But as Virtue consists in a conformity to Moral Obli
gation, Moral Obligation must exist before Virtue can exist.
Therefore neither Moral Obligation nor Virtue, can ever, by
any possibility, exist. God's Virtue must have existed prior to
his obligation, as its foundation. But as Virtue consists in
compliance with Moral Obligation, and as obligation could
not exist until Virtue existed as its foundation; in other

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

91

words, as obligation could not exist without the previous ex
istence of Virtue, as its foundation, and as Virtue could not
exist without the previous existence of obligation, it follows,
that neither God, nor any other being, could ever be virtuous
for the reason that he could never be the subject of Moral
Obligation. Should it be said, that God's holiness is the
foundation of our obligation to love Him, I ask in what sense
it can be so? What is the nature or form of that love, which
his Virtue lays us under an obligation to exercise? It can not
be a mere emotion of complacency, for emotions being involun
tary states of mind and mere phenomena of the Sensibility, are
without the pale of legislation and morality. Is this love re
solvable into benevolence, or goodwill? But why will good
to God rather than evil ? Why, surely, because good is valuable
in itself. But if it is valuable in itself, this must be the fun
damental reason for willing it as a possible good; and his
Virtue must be only a secondary reason or condition of the
obligation, to will his actual blessedness. But again, the
foundation of Moral Obligation must be the same in all
worlds, and with all Moral Agents, for the simple reason,
that Moral Law is one and identical in all worlds. If God's
Virtue is not the foundation of Moral Obligation in Him,
which it can not be, it can not be the foundation of obh
gation in us, as Moral Law must require Him to choose the
same end that it requires us to choose. His Virtue must be
a secondary reason of his obligation to will his own actual
blessedness, and the condition of our obligation to will his
actual and highest blessedness, but can not be the funda
mental reason, that always being the intrinsic value of his
well-being. But for the sake of a somewhat systematic examination of
this subject, I will,
1. Show what Virtue, or Moral Excellence is.
2. That it can not be the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
3. Show what Moral Worth or Good Desert is.
4. That it can not be the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
5. Show what relation Virtue, Merit, and Moral Worth sus
tain to Moral Obligation.
6. Answer objections.
1. Show what Virtue, or Moral Excellence is.
Virtue, or Moral Excellence, consists in conformity of will
to Moral Law. It must either be identical with love or good
will, or it must be the moral attribute or element of good will
or benevolence. .
2. It can not be the Foundation of Moral Obligation.

92 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
It is agreed, that the Moral Law requires love; and that
this term expresses all that it requires. It is also agreed,
that this love is good will, or that it resolves its elf into choice,
or ultimate intention. It must, then, consist in the choice of
an ultimate end. But since Virtue either consists in choice,
or is an attribute of choice, or benevolence, it is impossible to
will it as an ultimate end. For this would involve the absurdity
of choosing choice, or intending intention, as an end, instead
of choosing that as an end upon which virtuous choice termi
nates. Or if Virtue be regarded as the Moral Attribute of
love or benevolence, to make it an ultimate end, would be to
make an attribute of choice an ultimate end, instead of that on
which choice terminates, or ought to terminate. This is
absurd. 3. Show what Moral Worth, or Good Desert is.
Moral Worth, or Good Desert is not identical with Virtue,
or obedience to Moral Law, but is an attribute of character,
resulting from obedience. Virtue, or Holiness, is a state of
mind. It is an active and benevolent state of the Will; Moral
Worth is not a state of mind, but is the result ofa state of
mind. We say that a man's obedience to Moral Law, is val
uable in such a sense that a holy being is worthy, or deserving
of good, because of his Virtue, or Holiness. But this Worthi
ness, this Good Desert, is not a state of mind, but, as I said, it is
a result of benevolence. It is an attribute or quality of cha
racter, and not a state of mind.
4. Moral Worth, or Good Desert, can not be the Founda-,
tion of Moral Obligation.
(1.) It is admitted, that good, or the intrinsically valuable to
being, must be the foundation of Moral Obligation. The
law of God requires the choice of an ultimate end. This end
must be intrinsically valuable, for it is its intrinsic value that im
poses obligation to will it. Nothing, then, can be the Found
ation of Moral Obligation but that which is a good, or intrin
sically valuable in itself.
We have seen in a former Lecture, and here repeat, that
ultimate good, or the intrinsically valuable, must belong to,
and be inseparable from sentient existences. A block of
marble can not enjoy, or be the subject of good. It has also,
been said, that that which is intrinsically good to Moral Agents,
must consist in a state of mind. It must be something that
is found within the field of consciousness. Nothing can be to
them an intrinsic good, but that of which they can be con
scious. By this, it is not intended, that every thing of which

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 93
they are conscious, is to them an ultimate good, or a good in
any sense; but it is intended, that that can not be to them an
ultimate, or intrinsic good, of which they are not conscious.
Ultimate good must consist in a conscious state of mind.
Whatever conduces to the state of mind that is necessarily
regarded by us as intrinsically good or valuable, is to us a
relative good; but the state of mind alone, is the ultimate
good. From this it is plain, that Moral Worth, or Good De
sert, Can not be the foundation of Moral Obligation, because
it is not a state of mind, and can not be an ultimate good.
The consciousnesss of Good Desert, that is, the consciousness
of affirming of ourselves Good Desert, is an ultimate good.
Or, more strictly, the satisfaction which the mind experiences,
upon occasion of affirming its Good Desert, is an ultimate
good. But neither the conscious affirmation of Good Desert,
nor the satisfaction occasioned by the affirmation, is identical
with Moral Worth or Good Desert, Merit, Moral Worth,
Good Desert, is the condition, or occasion of the affirmation,
and of the resulting conscious satisfaction, and is therefore a
good, but it is not, and can not be an ultimate, or in
trinsic good. It is valuable, but not intrinsically valuable.
Were it not that Moral Beings are so constituted, that it meets
a demand of the Intelligence, and therefore produces satisfac
tion in its contemplation, it would not be, and could not rea
sonably be regarded as a good in any sense. But since it
meets a demand of the Intelligence, it is a relative good, and
results in ultimate good.
5. Show what relation Moral Excellence, Worth, Merit,
Desert, sustain to Moral Obligation.
(1.) We have seen, that neither of them can be the founda
tion of Moral Obligation; that neither of them has in it the
element of the intrinsic, or ultimate good, or valuable; and
that therefore a Moral Agent can never be under obligation
to will or choose them as an ultimate end.
(2.) Worth, Merit, Good Desert, can not be a distinct
ground, or foundation of Moral Obligation, in such a sense as
to impose obligation,irrespective ofthe intrinsic value of good.
All obligation must respect, strictly, the -choice of an end,
with the necessary conditions and means. The intrinsic value
ofthe end is the foundation ofthe obligation to choose both it
and the necessary conditions and means of securing it. But
for the intrinsic Value of the end there could be no obligation
to will the conditions and means. Whenever a thing is seen
to be a necessary condition or means of securing an intrinsi-

94 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
cally valuable end, this perceived relation is the condition of
our obligation to will it. The obligation is, and must be
founded in the intrinsic value of the end, and conditionated
upon the perceived relation of the object to the end. The
Intelligence of every Moral Agent, from its nature and laws
affirms, that the ultimate good and blessedness of Moral Beings
is, and ought to be conditionated upon their Holiness and
Good Desert. This being a demand of Reason, Reason can
never affirm Moral Obligation to will the actual blessedness
of Moral Agents, but upon condition of their Virtue, and con
sequent Good Desert," or Merit. The Intelligence affirms,
that it is fit, suitable, proper, that Virtue, Good Desert, Merit,
Holiness, should be rewarded with Blessedness. Blessedness
is a good in itself, and ought to be willed for that reason, and
Moral Agents are under obligation to will thatall beings
capable of good may be worthy to enjoy, and may therefore
actually enjoy blessedness. But they are not under obligation
to will that every Moral Being should actually enjoy bles
sedness, but upon condition of Holmess and Good Deseflt.
The relation that Holiness, Merit, Good Desert, &c. sustain to
Moral Obligation, is this: they supply the condition of the
obligation to will the actual blessedness of the being or beings
who are holy. The obligation must be founded in the intrin
sic value of the good we are to will to them. For it is absurd
to say, that we are, or can be under obligation to will good
to them, for its own sake, or as an ultimate end, and yet that
the obligation should not be founded in the intrinsic value of
the good. Were it not for the intrinsic value of their good,
we should no sooner affirm obligation to will good to them
than evil. The good, or blessedness is the thing, or end we
are under obligation to will. But obligation to will an ulti
mate end can not possibly be founded in any thing else than
the intrinsic value of the end. Suppose it should be said, that
in the case of Merit, or Good Desert, the obligation is found
ed in Merit, and only conditionated on the intrinsic value of
the good I am to will. This would be to make desert the
end willed, and good only the condition, or means. This were
absurd. (3.) But again: to make Merit the ground of the obligation,
and the good willed only a condition, amounts to this: I per
ceive Merit, whereupon I affirm my obligation to will what?
Not good to him because of its value to him, nor from any dis
position to see him enjoy blessedness for its own sake, but be
cause of his Merit. But what does he merit? Why, good*

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 95
or blessedness* It is good, or blessedness, that I am to will to
him, and this is the end I am bound to will, that is, I am to
will his good, or blessedness, for its own intrinsic value. The
obligation, then, must be founded in the intrinsic value of the
end, that is, his well-being, or blessedness, and only condition
ated upon Merit.
6. I am to answer objections.
(1.) It is objected to this view ofthe subject, and in support
ofthe theory we are examining, that the Bible represents the
goodness of God as a reason for loving him, or as a foundation
of the obligation to love him.
To this I answer,
[1.] The Bible may assign, and does assign the goodness of
God as a reason for loving him, but it does not follow, that it
affirms, Or assumes, that this reason is the foundation, or a
foundation of the obligation. The inquiry is, in what sense
does the Bible assign the goodness of God as a reason for lov
ing him? Is it that the goodness of Gqd is the foundation of
the obligation, or only a condition of th'e obligation to will his
actual blessedness? Is His goodness a distinct ground of obli
gation to love him? But what is this love that His goodness
lays us under an obligation to exercise to him? It is agreed,
that it can not be an emotion, that it must consist in willing
something to Him. It is said by some, that the obligation is to
treat Him as worthy. But I ask, worthy of what? Is He
Worthy of any thing? If so, what is it? For this is the thing
that I ought to will to Him. Why, worthy of blessing, and
honor, and praise and obedience. But these must all be em
braced in the single word, love ? The Law has forever decided
the point, that our whole duty to God is expressed by this one
term. It has been common to make assertions upon the sub
ject, that involve a contradiction of the Bible. The Law of
God, as revealed in the two precepts, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thy
self," covers the whole ground of Moral Obligation. It is
expressly and repeatedly taught in the Bible, that love to God
and our neighbor, is the fulfilling of the law. It is, and must
be admitted, that this love consists in willing something
to God and our neighbor. What, then, is to be willed to
them? The command is, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself. This says nothing about the character of my neigh
bor. It is the value of His interests, of his well-being,
that the Law requires me to regard. It does not require me
to love my righteous neighbor merely, nor to love my righteous

96 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
neighbor better than I do my wicked neighbor. It js. my
neighbor that I am to love. That is, I am to will his well-
being, or his good, with the conditions and means thereof, ac
cording to its value. If the Law contemplated the Virtue of
any being as a distinct ground of obligation, it could not read
as it does. It must, in that case, have read as follows; If
thou art righteous, and thy neighbor is as righteous as thou
art, thou shalt love him as thyself. But if he is righteous,
and thou art not, thou shalt love him, and not thyself. If
thou art righteous, and he is not, thou shalt^ love thyself, and
not thy neighbor. How far would this be from the gloss of
the Jewish Rabbies so fully rebuked by Christ, namely, "Ye
have heard that it hath been said by them, of old time, thou
shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say
unto you, love your enemies; bless them that curse ypu; do
good to them that hate you ; and pray for them that despite-
folly use and persecute you. For if ye love them that love
you, what thank have ye? Do not even the publicans the
same ?" The fact is, the Law knows but one ground of Mpral
Obligation. It requires us to love God and our neighbor.
This love is good will. What else ought we, or can
we possibly will to God and our neighbor, but their highest
good, or well-being, with all the conditions and means thereof.
This is all that can be of any value to them, and all that we
can, or ought to will to them under any circumstances what
ever. When we have willed this to them, we have done our
whole duty to them. " Love is the fulfilling of the law."
We owe them nothing more, absohitely. They can have no
thing more. But this the Law requires us to will to God and
our neighbor, on account of the intrinsic value of their good,
whatever their character may be, that is,, this is to be willed
to God and our neighbor, as a possible good, whether they
are holy or unholy, simply because of its intrinsic value.
But while the law requires that this should be willed to
all, as a possible and intrinsic good, irrespective of character;,
it cannot, and does not require us to will that God, or any.
Moral Agent, shalfbe actually blessed, but upon condition
that he be holy. Our obligation to the unholy, is to will that
they might be holy, and perfectly blessed. Our obligation,
to the holy is to will that they be perfectly blessed. The Bible
represents love to enemies as one of the highest forms of
Virtue: "God commendeth his love toward us, in that while
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." But if love to ene
mies be a high and a valuable form of Virtue, it must be only

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 97
because the true spirit of the Law requires the same love to
them as to others, and because of the strong inducements
not to love them. Who does not regard the Virtue of the
atonement as beirig as great as if it had been made for the
friends, instead of the enemies of God? And suppose God
were supremely selfish and unreasonably our enemy, who
would not regard good will exercised toward him as being as
praiseworthy as it now is. Now, if he were unjustly our ene
my, would not a hearty good will to him in such a case be a strik
ing and valuable instance of virtue ? In such a case we could not,
mightnotwillhisactualblessedness,but we might, and should
beunderinfinite obligation to will that he might become holy,
and thereupon be perfectly blessed. We should be under obliga
tion to will his good in such a sense, that should he become holy,
we should will his actual blessedness, without any change in our
ultimate choice or intention, and without any change in us that
would imply an increase of virtue. So of our neighbor : we are
bound to will his good, even if he is wicked, in such a sense as
to need no new intention or ultimate choice, to will his actual
blessedness, should he become holy. We may be as holy in
loving a sinner, and in seeking his salvation while he is a sin
ner, as in willing his good after he is converted and becomes
a saint. God was as virtuous in loving the world and seek-;
ing to save it while in sin, as he is in loving those in it who
are holy. The fact is, if we are truly benevolent} and will
the highest well-being of all, with the conditions and means
of their blessedness, it follows, of course, and of necessity,
that when one becomes holy, we shall iove him with the
love of complacency; that we shall, of course, will his
actual blessedness, seeing that he has fulfilled the neces
sary conditions, and rendered himself worthy of blessedness.
It implies no increase of Virtue in God when a sinner
repents, to exercise complacency toward him. Complacency,
as a state of Will or heart, is only benevolence modified
by the consideration or relation of right character in the
object of it. God, prophets, apostles, martyrs and saints,
iri all ages, are as virtuous in their self denying and un
tiring labors to save the wicked, as they are in their com
placent loVe to the saints. This is the universal doctrine
of the Bible. It is in exact accordance with the spirit and
letter ofthe law. " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself:"
that is, whatever his character may be. This is the doctrine
of reason, and accords with the convictions of all men. But
if this is so, it follows that Virtue is not a distinct ground of

98 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Moral Obligation, but only modifies obligation in this sense —
we are under obligation to will the actual blessedness ofa
moral being, upon condition of his holiness. We ought to
will his good or blessedness for its own value, whatever his
Character may be ; but we ought to will it as a fact and reality,
only upon condition of his holiness. Its intrinsic value is the
foundation of the obligation, and his holiness the condition
of the obligation to will his actual enjoyment of perfect bles
sedness. When, therefore, the Bible calls on us to love God
for his goodness, it does not and can not mean to assign the
fundamental reason, or foundation of the obligation to will his
good; for it were absurd to suppose, that his good is to be
willed, not for its intrinsic Value, but because he is good.
Were it not for its intrinsic value, we should as soon affirm our
obligation to will evil as good to him. The Bible assumes
the first truths of Reason. It is a first truth of Reason, that
God's well-being is of infinite value, and ought to be willed as a
possible good whatever his character may be ; and that it ought
to be willed as an actual reality upon condition of His holi
ness. Now the Bible does just as in this case might be ex
pected. It informs us of his actual and infinite holiness,
and calls on us to love Him or to will His good for that rea
son. But this is not asserting nor implying that His holi
ness is the foundation of the obligation to will His good in
any such sense as that we should not be under obligation to
will it with all our heart and soul and mind and strength as
a possible good whether He were holy or not. It is plain that
the law contemplates only the intrinsic value of the end to
be willed. It would require us to will the well-being of God
with all our heart, &c, or as the supreme good, whatever His
character might be. Were not this so, it could not be Moral
Law. His interest would be the supreme and the infinite
good in the sense of the intrinsically and infinitely valuable,
and we should, for that reason, be under infinite obligation
to will jhat it might be, whether He were holy or sinful, and
upon condition of His holiness, to will the actual existence
of his perfect and infinite blessedness. Upon our coming to
the knowledge of his holiness, the obligation is instantly im
posed, not merely to will his highest well-being as a possi
ble, but as an actually existing good.
[2.] Again. Itis impossible that, goodness, virtue,good desett,
merit, should be a distinct ground or foundation of moral obli
gation in such a sense as to impose or properly to increase
obligation. It has been, shown that neither of these can be

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 99
an ultimate good and impose obligation, to choose it as an ul
timate end or for its intrinsic value.
[3.] Again. If they impose obligation,itmustbean obligation
to will something as an ultimate end, or something for its own
sake. But nothing can do that but the very thing that is the
ultimate good or the intrinsically valuable. To choose a
thing for its own sake or as an ultimate end, is to choose it
for what it is in and of itself, and not for any other reason.
Now if goodness or merit can impose moral obligation to
will, it must be an obligation to will itself as an ulti
mate end. It must be because they are ultimate and intrin
sic good. But this we have seen can not be; therefore these
things can not be a distinct ground or foundation of moral
obligation. But again, the law does not make virtue, good desert,
or merit, the ground of obligation, and require us to love
them and to will them as an ultimate end; but to love God
and our neighbor as an ultimate good. It does, no doubt,
require us to will God's goodness, good desert, worthiness,
merit, as a condition and means of his highest well-being,
but it is absurd to say that it requires us to will either of
these things as an ultimate end instead of his perfect bles
sedness, to which these sustain only the relation of a condi
tion. Let it be distinctly understood that nothing can im
pose moral obligation but that which is an ultimate and an
intrinsic good, for if it impose obligation it must be an obli
gation to choose itself for what it is in and of itself. All ob
ligation must respect the choice either of an end or of means.
Obligation to choose means is founded in the value ofthe
end. Whatever then imposes obligation must be an ultimate
end. It must possess that in and of itself that is worthy or
deserving of choice as an intrinsic and ultimate good. This
we have seen, virtue, merit, &c, can not be, therefore they
can not be a foundation of moral obligation. But it is said
they can increase obligation to love God and holy beings.
But we are under infinite obligation to love God and to will
his good with all our power, because of the intrinsic value of
His well-being, whether He is holy or sinful. Upon condition
that He is holy, we are under obligation to will His actual
blessedness, but certainly we are under obligation to will it
with no more than all our heart and, soul and mind and
strength. But this we are required to do because of the in
trinsic value of His blessedness, whatever his character might
he. The fact is, we can do no more, and can be under obfi-

100 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
gation to do no more, than to will His good with all our pow
er, and this we are bound to do for its own sake; and no
more than this can we be under obligation to do for any rea
son whatever. Our obligation is to will His good with all
our strength by virtue of its infinite value, and.it can not be
increased by any other consideration than our increased knowl
edge of its value, which increases our ability.
{4.] Again. I am bound to love my neighbor asmyself what
ever his character may be. If he is holy I am under obliga
tion to love him no more. This settles the question that his
holiness does not, can npt increase my obligation. .. The fact
is that merit, good desert, &c, only modify obligation in
this respect; they are the condition of the obligation to will
the actual blessedness of the holy being, but. they never are
or can be a distinct ground of obligation. The intrinsic
value of' the well-being of God and of moral agents, of itself
imposes obligation to will their highest possible well-being,
with all the conditions and means thereof. This is all that
they can possibly have, and this is all that I can will to them.
Nothing remains, or can remain, but for them to fulfil the
condition by being actually holy, and I am under obligation
to will their actual and highest well<%eing for its own intrin
sic value to them, or as an ultimate end. This is all. that I
can will, and this is all that they can have. This is all that I
can be under obligation, to will to them. This obligation
must, as I have said, be, founded in the intrinsic value of their
well-being, and conditionated, so far as their actual blessed
ness is concerned, upon their hohness. This conducts us to
a position from which we can see how to answer the follow
ing objections.
, (2.) It is said that moral excellence can and does of itself
impose moral obligation; for example, that a character for
veracity imposes obhgation to treat a truthful person as
worthy of credit.
Answer: What is the obligation in this case? It must
resolve itself into an obligation to will something to him.
But what am I bound tewilltohim? What else than that
he should be actually blessed? That since in him the condi
tions are fulfilled he should actually enjoy/ the highest . bles
sedness? I am to will his highest blessedness as a possible
good for its own sake, irrespective of his character, and upon
condition that he be holy, I am to will his actual enjoyment
of all possible good. This is and must be my whole obliga
tion to him. This implies obligation to beheve him and out-

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

101

wardly to treat him as worthy of confidence, as thus treating
him is a condition and means of his actual enjoyment of all
possible good. The whole obligation, however, resolves itself
into an obligation to will his actual and highest well-being.
(3.) It is said that favors received impose obligation to exer
cise gratitude; that the relation of benefactor itself imposes
obligation to treat the benefactor according to this relation.
Answer: I suppose this objection contemplates this rela
tion as a virtuous relation, that is, that the benefactor is truly
virtuous and not selfish in his benefaction. If not, then the
relation can not at all modify obligation.
If the benefactor has in the benefaction obeyed the law of
love, if he has done his duty in sustaining this relation, I am
under obligation to exercise gratitude toward him. But what
is gratitude? It is not a .mere emotion or feeling, for this is a
phenomenon of the sensibility and, strictly speaking, without
the pale both of legislation and morality. Gratitude when
spoken of as a virtue and as that of which moral obligation
can be affirmed, must be an act of will. An obligation to
gratitude must be an obligation to will something to the bene
factor. But what am I under obligation to Will to a benefac
tor but his actual highest well-being? If it be God, I am un
der obligation to will his actual and infmite blessedness with
all my heart and with all my soul. If it be my neighbor, I am
bound to love him as myself, that is, to will his actual well-
being as I do my own. What else can either God or man
possess or enjoy, and what else can I be under obligation to
will to them? I answer, nothing else. To the law and to the
testimony; if any philosophy agree not herewith, itis because
there is no light in it. The virtuous relation of benefactor
modifies obhgation just as any other and every other form of
virtue does, and in no other way. Whenever we perceive
virtue in any being, this supplies the condition upon which we
are bourid to will his actual highest well-being. He has done
his duty. He has complied with obligation in the relation he
sustains. He is truthful, upright, benevolent, just, merciful,
no matter what the particular form may be in which the indi
vidual presents to me the evidence of his holy character. It is
all precisely the same so far as my obligation extends. I am,
independently of my knowledge of his character, under obli
gation to wili his highest well-being for its own sake. That
is, to will that he may fulfil all the conditions, and thereupon,
enjoy perfect blessednessi But I am not under obligation to
will his actual blessedness until I have evidence of his virtue.
9*

102 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
This evidence, however I obtain it, by whatever manifesta
tions of virtue in him or by whatever means, supplies the
condition upon which I am under obligation to will his actual
and highest well-being. This is my whole obligation. It is
all he can have, and all I can will to him. All objections of
this kind, and indeed all possible pbjections to the true theory
and in support of the one I am examining, are founded in an
erroneous view of the subject of moral obligatiori. Or
in a false and anti-scriptural philosophy that contradicts
the law of God, and sets up another rule of moral obligation.
(4.) But it is said that in all instances in which we affirm
Moral Obligation, we necessarily affirm the moral excellence
or goodness of God to be the foundation or reason of the ob
ligation. Answer : This is so great a mistake, that in no instance
whatever do we or can we affirm the moral excellence of
God to be the foundation of obligation, unless we do and
can affirm the most palpable contradiction. Let it be re
membered 1. That moral obligation respects ultimate in
tention only. 2. That ultimate intention is the choice of
an end for its intrinsic value. 3. That the ground or rea
son of our obligation to intend an end is the intrinsic value
of the end, and is really identical with the end to be chosen.
4. , That moral excellence either consists in ultimate inten
tion or in an attribute of this intention, and therefore can
not be chosen as an ultimate end. 5. That moral obliga
tion always resolves itself into an obligation to will the high
est well-being of God and the universe for its own intrinsic
value. 6. Now, can Reason be so utterly unreasonable as
to affirm all these, and also that the ground or reason of the
obhgation to will the highest well-being of God and the uni-
verse for its own intrinsic value, is not its intrinsic value, but
is the Divine Moral Excellence ?
(5.) But it is also insisted that when men attempt to assign
a reason why they are under moral obligation of any kind,
as of love to God, they all agree in this, in assiening the
Divine Moral Excellence as the reason of that obligation, - I
, answer: — , ,,,:
[1.] There is and can be but one kind of moral obligation.
[2«] It is not true that all men agree in assigning the moral
excellence of God as the foundation or fundamental reason
of the obligation, to love Him or to will his good for its own
sake. I certainly am an exception to this rule.
[3.] If any body assigns this as the reason of the obliga
tion, he assigns a false reason, as has just been shown.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

103

[4-] No man who knew what he said ever assigned the
goodness of God as the foundation of the obligation to will
his good as an ultimate endj for this is as we have often seen
a gross contradiction and an impossibility.
[5.] The only reason why any man supposes himself to as
sign the goodness of God as the foundation of the obligation
to will good to Him is that he loosely confounds the conditions
of the obligation to will his actual blessedness with the
foundation of the obligation to will it for its own sake, or as
a possible good. Were it not for the known intrinsic value
of God's highest well-being, we should as soon affirm our ob
hgation to will evil as good to Him, as has been said.-
[6.] Again : If the Divine moral Excellence were the
foundation of moral obligation, if God were not holy1 and
good, moral obligation could not exist in any case.
[7.] God's moral obligation can not be founded in his own
moral excellence, for his moral excellence consists in his con
formity to moral obligation, and the fact implies the existence
of moral obligation, prior, in the order of nature, to his moral
excellence, as was said before.
[8.] The fact is, the intrinsic and infinite value of the well-
being of God and of the universe, is a first truth of reason
and always and necessarily taken along with us at all times.
That moral excellence or good desert is a naturally necessary
condition of their highest well-being is also a first truth al
ways and necessarily taken along with us whether we are
conscious of it or not. The natural impossibility of willing
the actual existence of the highest well-being of God and
the universe of moral agents but upon condition of their
worthiness, is a self-evident truth. So that no man can affirm
his obligation to will the actual highest well-being of God
and of moral agents but upon condition of their moral excel
lence any more than he can affirm his obligation to will their
eternal well-being but upon condition of their existence.
That every moral agent ought to will the highest well-being
of God and of all the universe for its own sake as a possible
good whatever their characters may be, is also a first truth
of reason. Reason assigns and can assign no other reason
for willing their good as an ultimate end than its intrinsic
value; and to assign any other reason as imposing obligation
to will it as an end, or for its own sake were absurd and self
contradictory* Obligation to will it as an end and for its own
sake, implies the obligation 'to will its actual existence in all
cases and to all persons when the indispensable conditions are

104 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
fulfilled. These conditions are seen to be fulfilled in God, and
therefore upon this condition reason affirms obligation to will
His actual and highest blessedness for its own sake, the in
trinsic value being the fundamental reason of the obligation
to will it as an end, and the Divine Goodness the condition of
the obligation to will the actual existence of His highest
blessedness. Suppose that I existed and had the idea, of
blessedness and its intrinsic value duly developed, together
with an idea of all the necessary conditions of it ; but that
I did not know that any other1 being than myself existed and
yet I knew their existence and blessedness possible. In this
case I should be under obligation to will or wish that beings
might exist and be blessed. Now suppose that I complied
with this obligation, my virtue is just as real and as great as
if I knew their existence and willed their actual blessedness,
provided my idea of its intrinsic value were as clear and just
as if I knew their existence. And now suppose I came to
the knowledge of the actual existence and holiness of all ho
ly beings, I should make no new ultimate choice in willing
their actual blessedness. This I should do of course, and
remaining benevolent, of necessity; and if this knowledge did
not give me a higher idea of the value of that which I before
willed for its own sake, the willing of the real existence of
their blessedness would not make me a whit more virtuous
than when I willed it as a possible good without knowing
that the conditions of its actual existence would ever, in
any case be fulfilled.
The Bible reads just as it might be expected to read and
just as we should spe ak in common life. It being afitst truth'of
reason that the well-being of God is of infinite value and there
fore ought to be willed for its own sake — it also being a first
truth that virtue is an indispensable condition of fulfilling
the demands of his own reason and conscience, and of course
of his actual blessedness, and of course also a condition of the
obligation to will it, we might expect the bible to exhort and
require us to love God or will His actual blessedness and
mention His virtue as the reason or fulfilled condition of the
obligation, rather than the intrinsic value of his blessedness
as the foundation of the obligation. The foundation of the
obligation being a first truth of reason needs not to be a mat
ter of revelation. Nor need the fact that virtue is the condi
tion of His blessedness, nor the fact that we are under no
obligation to will His actual blessedness but upon condition oi
His holiness. But that in him this condition is fulfilled needs

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 105
to be revealed, and therefore the bible announces it as a rea
son or condition of the obligation to love Him, that is, to will
His actual blessedness.
(6.) Again: it is asserted that when men would awaken a
sense of moral obligation they universally contemplate the
moral excellence of God as constituting the reason of their
obligation, and if this contemplation does not awaken their
sense of obligation nothing else can or will. I answer,
The only possible reason why men ever do or can take this
course, is that they loosely consider religion to consist in feel
ings oi complacency in God and are endeavoring to awaken
these complacent emotions. If they conceive of religion
as consisting in these emotions, they will of course conceive
themselves to be under obligation to exercise them, and to be
sure they take the only possible course to awaken both these
and a sense of obligation to exercise them. But they are
mistaken both in regard to their obligation and the nature of
religion. Did they conceive of religion as consisting in good
will, or in willing the highest well-being of God and of the
universe for its own sake, would they, could they resort to
the process in question, that is, the contemplation of the
Divine moral excellence, as the only reason for willing good
to him instead of considering the infinite value of those in
terests to the realization of which they ought to consecrate
themselves? If men often do resort to the process in question, it is be
cause they love to feel and have a self-righteous satisfaction
in feelings of complacency in God, and take more pain3 to
awaken these feelings than to quicken and enlarge their be
nevolence. A purely selfish being may be greatly affected by
the great goodness and kindness of God to him. I know a
man who is a very niggard so far as all benevolent giving and
doing for God and the world are concerned, who, I fear, re
sorts to the very process in question, and is often much affected
with the goodness of God. He can bluster and denounce
all who do not feel as he does. But ask him for a dollar to
forward any benevolent enterprize and he will evade your
request, and ask you how you feel, whether you are engaged
in rehgion, &e.
(7.) It has been asserted thaf nothing can add to the sense
of obligation thus excited.
To this I answer that- if the obhgation be regarded as an
obligation to feel emotions of complacency in God, this is
true. But if the obligation be contemplated as it really is,

106 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
an obligation to will the highest well-being of God for its
own sake, the assertion is not true, but on the contrary affirms
an absurdity. I am under obligation to will the highest well-
being of God and of the Universe as an ultimate end, or for
its own intrinsic value. Now according to this philosophy,
in order to get the highest view of this obligation, I must
contemplate not the intrinsic value of those infinite interests
that I ought to will, but the goodness of God. This is ab
surd. The fact is, I must prize the value of the interests to
be willed and the goodness of God as a reason for willing
actual blessedness to Him in particular.
But it may well be asked, why docs the bible and why do
we so often present the character of God and of Christ as
a means of awakening a sense of moral obligation and of
inducing virtue? : Answer,
It is to lead men to contemplate the infinite value of those
interests which we ought to will. Presenting the example
of God and of Christ, is the highest moral means that can be
used. That God's example and man's example is the most
impressive and efficient way in which he can declare his views
and hold forth to public gaze the infinite value of those inte
rests upon which all hearts ought to be set. For example,
nothing can set the infinite value of the soul in a stronger light
than the example of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
has done.
Nothing can beget a higher sense of obligation to will the
glory of the Father and the salvation of souls, than the exam
ple of Christ. His example is his loudest preaching, his
clearest most impressive exhibition, not merely of his own
goodness, but of the intrinsic and infinite value of the inte
rest he sought and which we ought to seek. It is the love,
the care, the self-denial, and the example of God in his efforts
to secure the great ends of benevolence that hold thoseinte-
rests forth in the strongest light, and thus beget a sense of
obhgation to seek the same end.. But let it be observed, itis
not a contemplation of the goodness of God that awakens this
sense of obligation, but the contemplation of the value of
those interests which he seeks, in the light of His painstaking
and example; this quickens and gives efficiency to the sense
of obligation to will what He wills. Suppose, for example.
that I manifest the greatest concern and zeal for the salva
tion of souls, it would not be the contemplation of my good
ness that would quicken in a by-stander a sense of obliga
tion to save souls, but my zeal, arid life, and spirit, would have

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 107
the strohgest'tendency to arouse in him a sense of the infinite
and intrinsic value of the soul, and thus quicken a sense of
obligation. Should I behold multitudes rushing to extinguish
a flaming house, it would not be a contemplation of their
goodness, but the contemplation of the interests at stake to
the consideration of which their zeal would lead me that
would quicken a sense of obligation in me to hasten to lend
my aid.
(8.) Again: it is asserted that moral action is impracticable
upon any other principle.
[1.] What does this mean? Does it mean that there can
be no obligation unless the goodness of God be regarded
as the foundation of moral obligation? If so, the mistake
is radical.
[2.] Or does it mean that action can have no moral char
acter whatever, unless it be put forth in view of the fact
or upon the assumption that the goodness of God is the foun-
datian of moral obligation? If this be the meaning, the mis
take is no less radical.
Thus we see that it is grossly absurd and self-contradictory
for any one to maintain that moral obligation respects the
ultimate intention or choice of an end for its own intrinsic
value, and at the same time assert that the Divine moral ex
cellence is the foundation of moral obligation. The fact is,
it never is, and never can be the foundation of moral obliga
tion. Our whole duty resolves itself into an obligation to
will the highest good or well-being of God and of the' uni
verse as an ultimate end. Faith, gratitude, and every phase
of virtue resolves itself into this love or good will, and the
foundation of the obligation to will this end for its own sake,
can by no possibilitybe any other than its own intrinsic value.
To affirm that it can is a most palpable contradiction. The
moral law proposes an end to be sought, aimed at, chosen,
intended. It is the duty of the Divine Being as well as of
every other moral agent, to consecrate himself to the promo
tion of the most valuable end. This end can not be his
own virtue. His virtue consists in choosing the end demand
ed by the law of his own reason. This end can not be iden
tical with the choice itself; for this would be only to choose
his own choice as an ultimate end. But again it is impossi
ble that God should require moral agents to make His own
virtue an ultimate end.
If it be said that the law requires us to will God's good,
blessedness, &c, because or for the reason that He is virtu-

108 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ous, I ask what can be intended by this assertion? Is it in
tended that we are bound to will His good not because it is
valuable to Him, but because He is good? But why, I ask
again, should we will good rather than evil to Him? The
only answer must be because good is good or valuable. If
the good is to be willed because it is valuable, this must be
the fundamental reason or foundation of the obligation to
will it; and His goodness is and can be only a secondary
reason or condition of the obligation to will good to Him in
particular, or to will His actual blessedness. My intelli
gence demands, and the intelligence of every moral being de
mands that holiness should be the unalterable condition of
the blessedness of God and of every moral agent. This
God's intelligence must demand. Now his complying with
this condition is a changeless condition of the obligation of
a moral agent to will His actual blessedness. Whatever His
character might be, we are under obligations to will His bles
sedness with the conditions and means thereof, on account of
its own intrinsic value. But not until we are informed that
he has met this demand of reason and conscience and per
formed this condition and thus rendered himself worthy of
blessedness, are we under obligation to will it as a reality
and fact.
Revelation is concerned to make known the fact that He
is holy and of course calls on us in view of His holiness to
love and worship Him. But in doing this, it does not, can
not mean that His holiness is the foundation of the obliga
tion to will His good as an ultimate end.
The moral excellence of God, so far as I can see, can
modify moral obligation only as follows. Every moral agent
is under obligation of infinite weight to will the highest well-
being of God as an ultimate end, or for its own sake, as a
possible good, whether God be holy or sinful. But since
the intelligence affirms that blessedness ought to be condi
tionated upon holiness, no moral agent is under obligation
to exercise the love of complacency in God, that is, to will
His actual blessedness but upon condition of his holiness.
Now seeing that He is holy, moral agents are under obliga
tion to will His actual, and perfect, and infinite and eternal
blessedness. Or in other words, they are under infinite obli
gation to exercise that modification of benevolence toward
Him which is properly termed complacency.
Our obligation when viewed apart from His character is to
will or wish that God might fulfil all the conditions of perfect

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 109
blessedness and .uponlhat condition that He might actually
enjoy perfect and infinite satisfaction. But seeing that He
meets the demands of His own intelligence and the intelli
gence of the universe, and that he voluntarily fulfils all tiie
necessary conditions of his highest well-being, our obligation
is to will his actual and most perfect and eternal blessedness.
But here it is said, as was noticed in a former lecture, that
we often and indeed generally affirm our obligation to lpve
God in view of His moral excellence, without any reference
to the good or well-being of God as an end: that His good*
ness is the foundation of the obligation, and that in affirming
this we have no respect to the value of his blessedness,
and that indeed His well-being or blessedness is not so
much as thought of, but only His holiness or goodness is
the object of thought and attention. To this I answer: If
we really affirm obligation to love God, we must affirm either
that we ought to feel complacency in Him, or that we ought
to will something to Him. It is admitted that the obligation
is to will something, to Him. But if God is good, holy, what
ought we to will to Him? Why certainly something which
is valuable to Him and that which is most valuable to Him.
What should this be but his actual, perfect, infinite, eternal
blessedness? It is certainly nonsense to say that a moral
agent affirms himself to be under obligation to love God
without any reference to his well-being. It is true that moral
agents may be consciously and deeply affected with the con
sideration of the goodness of God when they affirm their obli
gation to love him. But in this affirmation they do and must
assume the intrinsic value of his blessedness as the foundation
of the obhgation, or they make no intelligent affirmation
whatever. They really do affirm and must affirm that they
ought to will good to God, assuming the intrinsic value of the
good to Him, or they would just as soon affirm obligation to
will evil as good to Him.

10

LECTURE Vr%I.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
FALSE THEORIES.
VI. Theory of Moral Order.
VII. Theory of Nature and Relations.
VIII. Theory that the Idea of Duty is the foundation
of moral obligation.
IX. Complex theory.
VI. I come now to consider the philosophy which teaches that
Moral Order is the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
But what is moral order? The advocates of this theory
define it to be identical with the fit, proper, suitable. It is,
then, according to them, synonymous with the right. Moral
order must be in their view either identical with law or with
virtue. It must be either an idea ofthe fit, the right, the prop
er the suitable, whieh is the same as objective right; or it must
consist in conformity of the will to this idea or law, which is
virtue. It has been repeatedly shown that right, whether ob
jective or subjective can not by any possibility be the end at
which a moral agent ought to aim and to which he ought to
consecrate himself. If moral order be not synonymous with
right in one of these senses, I do not know what it is; and all
that I can say is, that if it be not identical with the highest
well-being of God and of the universe, it cannot be the end
at which moral agents ought to aim, and can not be the foun
dation of mdral obligation. But if by moral order, as the phrase
ology of some would seem to indicate, be meant that state of
the universe in which all law is universally obeyed and as a
consequence of universal well-being, this theory is only an
other name for the true one. It is the same as willing the
highest well-being of the universe with the conditions and
means thereof. \
Or if it be meant, as other phraseology would seem to indi
cate, that moral order is a state of things in which either all
law is obeyed, or the disobedient are punished for the sake
of promoting the public good ; — if this be what is meant by
moral order — it is only another name for the true theory.
Willing moral order is only willing the highest good of the
universe for its own sake with the condition, and means there
of. But if by moral order be meant the fit, suitable, in the sense

MORAL GOVERNMENT. Ill
of law physical or moral, it is absurd to represent moral or
der as the foundation of mOral obligation. ,*,
VII. I will next consider the Theory that maintains that the
Nature and Relations of Moral Beings is the true Foundation of
Moral Obligation.
1. The advocates of this theory confound the conditions of
moral obligation with the foundation of obligation. The na
ture and relations of moral agents to each other and to the uni
verse is the condition of their obligation to will the good of
being, but not the foundation ofthe obligation. What! the
nature and relations of moral beings the foundation of their
obligation to choose an ultimate end. Then this end must be
their nature and relations. This is absurd. Their nature
and relations, being what they are, their highest well-being is
known to them to be of infinite and intrinsic value. But it is
and must be the intrinsic value ofthe end, and npt their na
ture and relations that imposes obligation to will the highest
good ofthe universe as an ultimate end.
Writers upon this subject are often falling into the mistake
of confounding the conditions of moral obligation with the
foundation of moral obligation. Moral agency is a condition,
but not the foundation of the obligation. Light, or the knowl
edge of the intrinsically valuable to being, is a condition, but
not the foundation ofmoral obligation. The intrinsically val
uable is the foundation of the obligation, and light or the
~- perception of the intrinsically valuable, is only a condition of
the obhgation. So the nature and relations ofmoral beings
is a condition of their obligation to will each other's good,
and so is light or a knowledge of the intrinsic value of their
blessedness, but the intrinsic value is alone the foundation of
the obligation. It is, therefore, a great mistake to affirm "that
the known nature and relations of moral agents is the true
foundation ofmoral obhgation."
VIII. The next theory that demands attention is that which teach
es that Moral Obligation is founded in the Idea of Duty.
According to this philosophy the end at which a moral
agent ought to aim, is duty. He must in all things " aim at
doing his duty." Or, in other words, he must always have
respect to his obligation, and aim at discharging it.
It is plain that this theory, is only another form of stating
the rightarian theory. By aiming, intending to do duty, we
must understand the advocates of this theory to mean the
adoption ofa resolution or maxim, by which to regulate their
lives — the formation ofa resolve to obey God — to serve God

112 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
—to do at all times what appears to be right — to meet the de
mands of conscience— to obey the law — to discharge obliga
tion, &c. I have expressed the thing intended in all these
ways because it is common to hear this theory expressed in
all these terms and in others like them. Especially in giv
ing instruction to inquiring sinners, nothing is more common
than for those who profess to be spiritual guides to assume
the truth of this philosophy, and give instructions according
ly. These philosophers or theologians will say to sinners,
Make up your mind to serve the Lord; resolve to do your
whole duty and to do it at all times; resolve to obey God in
all things— to keep all his commandments; resolve to deny
yourselves — to forsake all sin — to love the Lord with all your
heart and your neighbor as yourself. They often represent
regeneration as consisting in this resolution or purpose.
Such-like phraseology, which, is very common and almost
universal among rightarian philosophers: demonstrates that
they regard virtue or obedience to God as consisting in the
adoption of a maxim of life. With them, duty is the great
idea to be realized. All these modes of expression mean the
same thing, and amount to just Kant's morality, which he ad
mits does not necessarily imply religion, namely, " Act upon
a maxim at all times fit for law universal," and to Cousin's,
which is the same thing, namely, " Will the right for the sake
of the right." Now, I can not but regard this philosophy on
the one hand, and utilitarianism on the other, as equally
wide from the truth, and as lying at the foundation of much
of the spurious religion with which the church and the
world are cursed. Utilitarianism begets one type of selfish
ness, which it calls religion, and this philosophy begets anoth
er, in some respects more specious, but not a whit the less
selfish, God-dishonoring and soul-destroying. The nearest
that this philosophy can be said to approach either to true
morality or religion, is, that if the one who forms the resolu
tion understood himself he would resolve to become truly moral
instead of really becoming so. But this is in fact an absurdi
ty and an impossibility, and the resolution-maker does not un
derstand what he is about wheri he supposes himself to be
forming or cherishing a resolution to do his duty. Observe:
he intends to do his duty. But to do his duty is to form and
cherish an ultimate intention. To intend to do his- duty, is
merely to intend to intend. But this is not doing his duty, as
Will be shown. He intends to serve God, but this is not serv
ing God as will also be shown. Whatever he intends, he is

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 113
neither truly moral nor religious, until he really intends the
same end that God does ; and this is not to do his duty, nor to
do right, nor to comply with obligation, nor to keep a con
science void of offence, nor to deny himself, nor any such-like
things. God aims at and intends the highest well-being of
Himself and the Universe as an ultimate end, and this is doing
his duty. It is not resolving or intending to do his duty, but
is doing it. It is not resolving to do right for the sake ofthe
right, but it is doing right. It is not resolving to serve him
self and the universe but is actually rendering that service.
It is not resolving to obey the moral law, but is actually obey
ing it. It is not resolving to love but actually loving his neigh
bor as himself. It is not, in other words, resolving to be be
nevolent but is being so. It is not resolving to deny self, but
is actually denying self.
A man may resolve to serve God without any just idea of
what it is to serve Him. If he had the idea of what the law of
God requires him to choose clearly before his mind — if he
perceived that to serve God was nothing less than to conse
crate himself to the same end to which God consecrates him
self, to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as him
self, that is, to will- or choose the highest well-being of God
and of the universe as an ultimate end — to devote all his be
ing, substance, time and influence to this end; — I say, if this
idea were clearly before his mind, he would not talk of resolv
ing to consecrate himselfto God — resolving to do his duty,
to do right — to serve God: — to keep a conscience void of offence,
and such-like things. He would see that such resolutions
were totally absurd and a mere evasion of the claims of God.
It has been repeatedly shown that all virtue resolves itself in
to the intending of an ultimate end or of the highest well-be
ing of God and the universe. This is true morality and noth
ing else is. This is identical with that love to God and man
which the law of God requires. This then, is duty. This is
serving God. This is keeping a conscience void of offence.
This is right and nothing else is. But to intend or resolve to do
this is only to intend to intend instead of at once intending what
God requires. It is resolving to love God and his neighbor in
stead Of really loving him; choosing to choose the highest
well-being of God and ofthe universe instead of really choos
ing it. Now this is totally absurd, and when examined to the
bottom will be seen to be nothing else than a most perverse
postponement of duty and a most God-provoking evasion of
his claims. To intend to do duty is gross nonsense. To do
10*

114 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
duty is to love God with all the heart and our neighbor as oar-
selves, that is, to choose, will, intend the highest well-being of
God and our neighbor for its own sake. To intend to do du
ty, to aim at doing duty, at doing right, at discharging obliga
tion, &c. is to intend to intend, to choose to choose, and such
like nonsense. Moral obligation respects the ultimate inten
tion. It requires that the intrinsically valuable to being shall
be willed for its own sake. To comply with moral obligation
is not to intend or aim at this compliance as an end, but to
will, choose, intend that which moral law or moral obhgation
requires me to intend, namely, the highest good of being. , To
intend obedience to law is not obedience to law, for the reason
thatobedience is not that which the law requires me to intend.
To aim at discharging obligation is not discharging it, just for
the reason that I am under no obligation to intend this as an
end. Nay, it is totally absurd and nonsensical to talk of reso ly
ing, aiming, intending to do duty — to serve the Lord, &c. &c.
All such resolutions imply an entire overlooking of that in'
which true religion consists. Such resolutions and intentions
from their very nature must respect outward actions in which
is no moral character, and not the ultimate intention, in which
all virtue and vice consist. A man may resolve or intend to
do this or that. But to intend to intend an ultimate end, or to
choose it for its intrinsic value instead of willing and at once
intending or choosing that end, is grossly absurd, self-contra
dictory, and naturally impossible. Therefore this philosophy
does not give a true definition and account of virtue. It is
self-evident that it does not conceive rightly of it. And it can
not be that those who give such instructions or those who
receive and comply with them have the true idea of reli
gion in their minds. Such teaching is radically false and
such a philosophy leads only to bewilder, and dazzles to blind.
Itis one thing for a man who actually loves God with all his
heart and his neighbor as himself to resolve, to regulate all
his outward life by the law of God, and a totally different thing
to intend to love God or to intend his highest glory and well-
being. Resolutions may respect outward action, but it is to
tally absurd to intend or resolve to form an ultimate intention.
But be it remembered that morality and religion do not belong
to outward action, but to ultimate intentions. It is amazing
and afflicting to witness the alarming extent to which a spu
rious philosophy has corrupted and is corrupting the church
of God. Kant and Cousin and Coleridge have adopted a
phraseology and manifestly have conceived in idea a philoso-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 115
phy subversive of all true love to God and man, and teach a
religion of maxims and resolutions instead of a religion of Love.
It is a philosophy, as we shall see in a future Lecture, which
teaches that the moral law or law of right, is entirely distinct
from and may be opposite to the law of benevolence or love.
The fact is, this philosophy conceives of duty and right as
belonging to mere outward action. This must be, for it can
not be crazy enough to talk of resolving or intending to form
an ultimate intention. Let but the truth of this philosophy
be assumed in giving instructions to the anxious sinner, and it
will immediately dry off his tears and in all probability lead
him to settle down in a religion of resolutions instead of" a re-
ligon of love. Indeed this philosophy will immediately dry
off, (if I may be allowed the expression) the most genuine and
powerful revival of religion, and run it down into a mere re
vival ofa heartless, Christless, loveless philosophy. It is much
easier to persuade anxious sinners to resolve to do their duty,
to resolve to love God, than it is to persuade them really to do
their duty, and really to love God with all their heart and with
all their soul and their neighbor as themselves.
IX. We now come to the consideration of that philosophy which
teaches the Complexity of the Foundation of Moral Obligation.
This theory maintains that there are several distinct grounds
of moral obligation; that the highest good of being is only
one of the grounds of moral obligation, while right, moral
order, the nature and relations of moral agents, merit and de
merit, truth, duty, and many such like things, are distinct
grounds of moral obligation; that these are not merely condi
tions of moral obligation, but that each one of them can by
itself impose moral obligation. The advocates of this theory,
perceiving its inconsistency with the doctrine that moral ob
ligation respects the ultimate choice or intention only, seem
disposed to relinquish the position that obligation respects
strictly only the choice of an ultimate end, and to maintain
that moral obligation respects the ultimate action of the will.
By ultimate action of the will they mean, if I understand
them, the will's treatment of every thing according to its in
trinsic nature and character; that is, treating every thing or
taking that attitude in respect to every thing known to the
mind that is exactly suited to what it is in and of itself. For
example, right ought to be regarded and treated by the will
as right, because it is right. Truth ought to be regarded and
treated as truth for its own sake, Virtue as virtue, merit as
merit, demerit as demerit, the useful as useful, the beautiful

116 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
as beautiful, the good or valuable as valuable, each for its own
sake ; that in each case the action of the will is ultimate in the
sense that its action terminates on these objects as ultimates*;
in other words, that all those actions of the will are ultimates
that treat things according to their nature and character, or
ac cording to what they are in and of themselves. Now in
respect to this theory I would enquire:
1 . What is intended by the will's treating a thing or taking
that attitude in respect to it that is suited to its nature and
character? Are there any other actions of will than choices
and intentions ? Choice, preference, intention, vohtion — are
not all the actions of the will comprehended in these ? Choice^
preference, intention — are not these identical? Do not all
the actions of the will consist either in the choice of an end
or in the choice of means to secure an end? If there are
any other actions than these, are they intelligent actions?
If so, what are those actions of will that consist neither, in
the choice of an end, nor in volitions or efforts to secure an
end? Can there be intelligent acts of will that neither re
spect ends nor means? Can there be moral acts of will. when
there is no choice or intention? If there is choice or inten
tion, must not these respect an end or means ? What then
can be meant by ultimate action of will as distinguished from
ultimate choice or intention? Can there be choice without
there is an object of choice? If there is an object of choice,
must not this object be chosen either as an end or as a means?
If as an ultimate end, how does this differ from ultimate in
tention? If as a means, how can this be regarded as an ulti
mate action of the will? What can be intended by actions of
will that are not acts of choice nor of volition? I can con
ceive of no other. But if all acts of will must of necessity
consist in willing or nilling, that is in choosing or refusing,
which is the same as willing one way or another in respect
to all objects of choice apprehended by the mind, how can
there be any intelligent act of the will that does not consist
in or that may not and must not in its last analysis be resolu
ble into, and be properly considered as the choice of an end
or of means to secure an end? Can moral law require any-
other action of will than choice and volition? - What other
actions of will are possible to us? Whatever moral law does
require, it must and can only require choices and volitions.
It can onlygequire us to choose ends or means. It can not
require us to choose as an ultimate end any thing that is not
intrinsically worthy of choice— nor as a means anything that
does not sustain that relation.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 117
2. Secondly, let us examine this theory in the light of the
revealed law of God. The whole law is fulfilled in one word,
Love. Now we have seen that the will of God can not be the foun
dation of moral obligation. Moral obligation must be founded
in the nature of that which moral law requires. Unless there
be something in the nature of that which moral law requires us
to will that renders it worthy or deserving of choice, we can
be under no obligation to will or choose it. It is admitted
that the Jove required by the law of God must consist in an
act of the will and not in mere emotions. Now, does this
love,- willing, choice, embrace several distinct ultimates ? If so,
how can they all be expressed in one word love ? Observe,
the law requires only love to God and our neighbor, as an ul
timate. This love or willing must respect and terminate on
God and our neighbor. The law says nothing about willing right
for the sake of the right, or truth for the sake of the truth,
or beauty for the sake of beauty, or virtue for the sake of virtue,
or moral order for its own sake, or the nature and relations of
moral agents for their own sake; nor is, nor can any such
thing be implied in the command to love God and our neigh
bor. All these and innumerable other things are and may
be conditions and means of the highest well-being of God
and our neighbor. As such, the law may , and doubtless does,
in requiring us to will the highest well-being of God and our
neighbor as an ultimate end, require us to will all these as the
necessary conditions and means. The end which the revealed
law requires us to will is undeniably simple as opposed to com
plex. It requires only love to God and our neighbor. One word
expresses the whole of moral obligation. Now certainly this
word can not have a complex signification in such a sense as to
include several distinct and ultimate objects of love, or of
choice. This love is to terminate on God and our neighbor,
and not on abstractions, nor on inanimate and insentient exist
ences. I protest against any philosophy that contradicts the
revealed law of God, and that teaches that any thing else
than God and our neighbor, is to be loved for its own sake,
or. that any thing else is to be chosen as an ultimate end than
the highest well-being of God and our neighbor. In oth
er words, I object utterly to any philosophy that makes any
thing obligatory upon a moral agent that is not expressed or
implied in perfect good will to God and to the universe of sen
tient existences. "To the word and to the testimony; if"
any philosophy "agree not therewith, it is because there is no

118 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
light in it." The revealed law of God knows but one ground
or foundation of moral obligation. It requires but one thing,
and that is just that attitude of the will toward God and our
neighbor that accords with the intrinsic value of their
highest well-being; that God's moral worth shall be willed as
of infinite value as a condition of his own well-being, and that
his actual and perfect blessedness shall be willed for its own
sake, and because or upon condition that he is worthy; that
our neighbor's moral worth shall be willed as an indispensable
condition of his blessedness, and that if our neighbor is wor
thy of happiness, his actual and highest happiness shall be
willed. The fact is that all ultimate acts of will must consist
in 'ultimate choices and intentions, and the revealed law re
quires that our ultimate choice, intention, should terminate on
the good of God and our neighbor, thus making the founda
tion of moral obligation simple, moral action simple; and all
true morality to be summed up in one word, Love. Itis im
possible with our eye upon the revealed law to make more
than one foundation of moral obligation, and it is utterly inad
missible to subvert this foundation by any philosophisings
whatever. This law knows but one end which moral agents
are under obligation to seek and sets at nought all so-called
ultimate actions of will that do not terminate on the good of
God and our neighbor. The ultimate choice with the choice
of all the conditions and means of the highest well-being of God
and the universe, is all that the revealed law recognizes as
coming within the pale of its legislation. It requires nothing
more and nothing less.
But there is another form of the complex theory of moral
obligation that I must notice before I dismiss this subject.
In the examination of it I shall be obliged to repeat some
things which have been in substance said before. Indeed
there has been so much confusion upon the subject of the na
ture of virtue or of the foundation of moral obhgation as to
render it indispensable in the examination of the various false
theories and in removing objections to the true one, to fre
quently repeat the same thought in different connections.
This I have found to be unavoidable if I would render the sub
ject at aU intelligible to the common reader.
I pass now to the consideration of another form of the the
ory that affirms the complexity of the foundation of Moral Ob
ligation; complex, however, only in a certain sense.
This philosophy admits and maintains that the good,. that is,
the valuable to being, is the only ground of moral obligation,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 119
and that in every possible case the valuable to being, or the
good, must be intended as an end as a condition of the inten
tion being virtuous. In this respect it maintains that the
foundation of moral obligation is simple, a unit. But it also
maintains that there are several ultimate goods or several ulti
mates or things which are intrinsically good or valuable in
themselves, and are therefore to be chosen for their own sake
or as an ultimate end ; that to choose either of these as an
ultimate end or for its own sake is virtue.
It admits that happiness or blessedness is a good, and
should be willed for its own sake, or as an ultimate end, but
it maintains that virtue is an ultimate good ; that right is an
ultimate good; that the just and the true are ultimate goods;
in short that the realization of the ideas of the reason, or the
carrying out into concrete existence any idea of the rea
son is an ultimate good. For instance: there were in the
Divine mind from eternity, certain ideas of the good or
valuable; the right, the just, the beautiful, the true, the use
ful, the holy. The realization of these ideas of the Divine
reason, according to this theory, was the end which God
aimed at or intended in creation ; He aimed at their realization
as ultimates or for its own sake, and regarded the concrete
realization of every one of these ideas as a separate and ul
timate good; and so certain as God is virtuous, so certain it
is, says this theory, that an intention to realize these ideas
for their own sake, or for the sake of the realization is vir
tue. Therefore the intention on our part to realize these
ideas for the sake of the realization is virtue. Then the
foundation of moral obligation is complex in the sense that to
will either the good or valuable, the right, the true, the just,
the virtuous, the beautiful, the useful, &c, for its own sake,
or as an ultimate end, is virtue; that there is more than one
virtuous ultimate choice or intention. Thus any one of seve
ral distinct things may be intended as an ultimate end with
equal propriety and with equal virtuousness. The soul may
at one moment be wholly consecrated to one end, that is, to
one ultimate good, and sometimes to another, that is, some
times it may will one good and sometimes another good as
an ultimate end and still be equally virtuous.
In the discussion of this subject I will,
1. State again the exact question to be discussed.
2. Define again the different senses of the term good.
3. Show in what sense of the term good it can be an ultimate.
4- That satisfaction or enjoyment is the only ultimate good.

120 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
1. The exact question. Itis this: In what does the supreme
and ultimate good consist?
2. The different senses of the term good.
(1.) Good may be natural or moral. Natural good is sy
nonymous with valuable. Moral good is synonymous with
virtue. Moral good is in a certain sense a natural good, that
is, it is valuable as a means of natural good; and the advcw
cates of this theory affirm that moral good is valuable in
itself. (2.) Good, as has formerly been said, may be absolute and
relative. Absolute good is that which is intrinsically valua
ble. Relative good is that which is valuable as a means.
It is not valuable in itself, but valuable because it sustains
to absolute good the relation of a means to an end. Abso
lute good may also be a relative good, that is, it may tend
to perpetuate and augment itself.
Good may also be ultimate.
Ultimate good is that intrinsically valuable or absolute good
in which all relative good, whether natural or moral, termi
nates. It is that absolute good to which all relative good sus
tains the relation of a means or condition.
3. In what sense of the term good, it can be an ultimate.
(1.) Not in the sense of moral good or virtue. This has
been so often shown that it needs not be repeated here. I
will only say that virtue belongs to intention. It is impossible
that intention should be an ultimate. The thing intended
must be the ultimate of the intention. We have seen that
to make virtue an ultimate, the intention must terminate on
itself, or on a quality of itself, which is absurd. Good can
not be an ultimate in the sense of relative good. To suppose
that it could, were to suppose a contradiction; for relative
good is not intrinsically valuable, but only valuable on account
of its relations.
(2.) Good can be an ultimate only in the sense of the natu
ral and absolute, that is, that only can be an ultimate good,
which is naturally and intrinsically valuable to being. This
only can be an end or an ultimate good, namely, that which
sustains such a relation to sentient existences as to be by
reason of their own natures intrinsically valuable to them.
And we shall soon inquire whether any thing can be intrin
sically vuluable to them but enjoyment, mental satisfaction,
or blessedness.
I come now to state the point upon which issue is taken,
to wit: That enjoyment, blessedness, or mental satisfaction
is the only ultimate good.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 121
(1.) It has been before remarked and should be repeated
here that the intrinsically valuable must not only belong to
and be inseparable from sentient beings, but that the ultimate
or intrinsic absolute good of moral agents must consist in a
state of mind. It must be Something to be found in the field
of consciousness. Nothing can be affirmed by a moral agent
to be an intrinsic, absolute, ultimate good, but a state of mind.
Take away mind, and what can be a good per se; or, what
can be a good in any sense?
(2.) Again, it should be said that the ultimate and absolute
good cannot consist in a choice or in a voluntary state of
mind. The thing chosen is and must be the ultimate of the
choice. Choice can never be chosen as an ultimate end. Be
nevolence then, or the love required by the law can never be
the ultimate and absolute good. It is admitted that blessed
ness, enjoyment, mental satisfaction, i-s a good, an absolute
and ultimate good. This is a first truth of reason. All men
assume it. All men seek enjoyment either selfishly or disin
terestedly, that is, they seek their own good supremely, or the
general good of being. That it is the only absolute and ulti
mate good is also a first truth. But for this there could be
no activity — no motive to action — no object of choice. En
joyment is in fact the ultimate good. It is in fact the result
of existence and of action. It results to God from his exist
ence, his attribute's, his activity, and his virtue, by a law of
necessity. His powers are so correlated that blessedness
can not but be the state of his mind, as resulting from the
exercise of his attributes and the activity of his will. Hap
piness or enjoyment results both naturally and governmental-
ly from obedience to law both physical and moral. This
shows that government is not an end, but a means. It also'
shows that the end is blessedness and the means obedience
to law. Obedience to law can not be the ultimate end of
government, for,
[1.] ,Obedience to moral law consists in the love of God
and our neighbor, that is, in willing good to God and our
neighbor. The good and not the willing must be the end of
government. [2.] The sanctions of government or of law in the widest
sense of the term, must be the ultimate of obedience and the
end of government. The sanctions of moral government
must be the ultimate good and evil. That is, they must
promise and threaten that which is in its own nature an ulti
mate good or evil. Virtue must consist in the impartial

122 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
choice of that as an end which is proffered as the reward of
virtue. This is and must be the ultimate good. Sin consists
in choosing that which defeats or sets aside this end,, or in
selfishness. But what is intended by the right, the just, the true, &c.
being ultimate goods and ends to be chosen for their own
sake? These may be objective or subjective. Objective right,
truth, justice, &c. are mere ideas and can [not be good or
valuable in themselves. Subjective right, truth, justice, &c,
are synonymous with righteousness, truthfulness, and just
ness. These are virtue. They consist in an active state of
the will and resolve themselves into choice, intention. But
we have repeatedly seen that intention can neither be an end
nor a good in itself, in the sense of intrinsically valuable.
Again: Constituted as moral agents are, it is a matter of
consciousness that the concrete realization of the ideas of
right, and truth, and justice, of beauty, of fitness, of moral
order, and in short, of all that class of ideas, is indispensa
ble as the condition and means of their highest well-being, and
that enjoyment or mental satisfaction is the result of reali
zing in the concrete those ideas. This enjoyment or satis
faction then is and must be the end or ultimate upon which
the intention of God must have terminated, and upon which
ours must terminate as an end or ultimate.
Again: The enjoyment resulting to God from the concrete
realization of his own ideas must be infinite. He must there
fore have intended it as the supreme good. It is in fact the
ultimate good. It is in fact the supremely valuable.
Again: If there is more than one ultimate good, the mind
must regard them all as one, or sometimes be consecrated to
one and sometimes to another — sometimes wholly consecra
ted to the beautiful, sometimes to the just, and then again
to the right, then to the useful, to the true &c But it may
be asked of what value is the beautiful aside from the enjoy
ment it affords to sentient existences. It meets a demand of
our being, and hence affords satisfaction. But for this in
what sense could it be regarded as good? The idea of the
useful, again, can not be an idea of an ultimate end, for utility
implies that something is valuable in itself to which the use
ful sustains the relation of a means and is useful only for that
reason. Of what value is the true, the right, the just, &c, aside
from the pleasure or mental satisfaction resulting from them
to sentient existences? Of what value were all the restfof

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 123
the universe, were there no sentient existences to enjoy
it. Suppose, again, that every thing else in the universe ex
isted just as it does, except mental satisfaction or enjoyment,
and that there were absolutely no enjoyment of any kind in
any thing any more than there is in a block of granite, of
what value would it all be; and to what or to whom would it
be valuable? Mind without susceptibility of enjoyment could
neither know nor be the subject of good nor evil^ any more
than a slab of marble. Truth in that case could no more be
a good to mind than mind could be a good to truth; the eye
would be the good of light as much as light would be the good
of the eye. Nothing in the universe could give or receive
the least satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Neither natural or
moral fitness or unfitness could excite the least emotion or
mental satisfaction. A block of marble might just as well
be the subject of good as any thing else upon such a suppo
sition. Again: It is obvious that all creation, where law is obeyed,
tends to one end, and that end is happiness or enjoyment.
This demonstrates that enjoyment was the end at which God
aimed in creation.
Again : It is evident that God is endeavoring to realize all
the other ideas of his reason for the sake of, and as a means
of realizing that of the valuable to being. This as a matter
offact is the result of realizing in the concrete all those ideas.
This must then have been the end intended.
But again: The bible knows of but one ultimate good.
This, as has been said, the moral law has forever settled.
The highest well-being of God and the universe is the only
end required by the law. Creation proposes but one end.
Physical and moral government propose but one end. The
bible knows but one end, as we have just seen. The law and
the gospel propose the good of being only as the end of vir
tuous intention. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and tiny
neighbor as thyself." Here is the whole duty of man. But
here is nothing of choosing, willing, loving, truth, justice,
right, utility, Or beauty, as an ultimate end for their own
sakes. The fact is, there are innumerable relative goods, or
conditions, or means of enjoyment, but only one ultimate
good. Disinterested benevolence to God and man is the
whole of virtue, and every modification of love resolves itself in
the lastanalysis into this. If thisis so, well-being in the sense
of enjoyment must be the only ultimate or good. But well

124 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
being, m the complex sense of the term, is made up of en
joyment and the means and sources or conditions of enjoy
ment. Conformityyto law universal, must be the condition
and enjoyment; the ultimate end, strictly and properly speak
ing. It is nonsense to object that if enjoyment or mental satis
faction be the only ground of moral obligation, we should be ,
indifferent as to the means. This objection assumes that in
seeking an end for its intrinsic value, we must be indifferent
as to the way in which we obtain that end, that is, whether it
be obtained in a manner possible or impossible, rightor wrong.
It overlooks the fact that from the laws of our own being it
is impossible for us to will the end without willing also the
indispensable and therefore the appropriate means; and also
that we can not possibly regard any other conditions or means
of the happiness of moral agents as possible, and therefore as
appropriate or right, but holiness and universal conformity to
the law of our being. As we said in a former lecture, enjoy
ment or mental satisfaction results from having the different
demands of our being met. One demand of the reason, and
conscience of a moral agent is that happiness should be con
ditionated upon holiness. It is therefore naturally impossible
for a moral agent to be satisfied with the happiness or enjoy
ment of moral agents except upon the condition of their ho
liness. Bat this class of philosophers insist that all the archetypes
of the ideas of the reason are necessarily regarded by us as .
good in themselves. For example: I have the idea of beau
ty. I behold a rose. The perception of this archetype of
the idea of beauty gives , me instantaneous pleasure. Now
it is said, that this archetype is necessarily regarded by me
as a good. I have pleasure in the presence and percep
tion of it, and as often as I call it to remembrance. This
pleasure, itis said, demonstrates that it is a good to me; and
this good is in the very nature of the object, and must be
regarded as a good in itself. To this I answer, that the pres
ence of the rose is a good to me, but not an ultimate good.
It is only a means or source of pleasure or happiness to me.
The rose is not a good in itself. If there were no eyes to see
it and no olfactories to smell it, to whom could it be a good?
But in what sense can it be a good except in the sense that it
gives satisfaction to the beholder? The satisfaction and not
the rose, is and must be the ultimate good. But it is inquired,
do not I desire the rose for its own sake? I answer, yes; you

MORAL GOVERNMENT, 125
desire it for its own. sake, but you do not, can not choose it for
its own sake, but, to gratify the desire. The desires all termi
nate on their respective objects. The desire for food termi
nates on food; thirst terminates on drink, &c. These things
are so corr'elated to these appetites that they are desired for
their own sakes. But they are not and cannot be chosen for
their own sakes or as an ultimate end. They are and must
be regarded and chosen as the means of gratifying their re
spective desires. To choose them simply in obedience to the
desire were selfishness. But the gratification is a good and a
part of universal good. The reason, therefore, urges and
demands that they should be chosen as a means of good to
myself,' When thus chosen in obedience to the law of the
intelligence, and no more stress is laid upon the gratification
than in proportion to its relative value, and when no stress
is laid upon it simply because it is my own gratification, the
choice is holy. The perception of the archetypes of the va
rious ideas of the reason will, in most instances, produce en
joyment. These archetypes, or, which is the same thing, the
concrete realization of these ideas, is regarded by the mind as
a good, but not as an ultimate good. The ultimate good is
the satisfaction derived from the perception of them.
The perception of moral or physical beauty gives me satis
faction. Now moral and physical beauty are regarded by me
as good, but not as ultimate good. They are relative good
only. Were it not for the pleasure they give me, I could not
in any way connect with them the idea of good. Suppose no
such thing as mental satisfaction existed, that neither the percep
tion of virtue nor of natural beauty, nor of any thing else, could
produce the least emotion or feeling or satisfaction of any
kind. There would be the idea and its archetype both in ex
istence and exactly answering to each other. But what then?
The archetype would no more be , the good of, or valuable to
the idea, than the idea would be the good of or valuable to the
archetype. The mental eye might perceive order, beauty,
physical and moral, or any thing else; but these things would
no more be a good to the eye or intellect that perceived them
than the eye would be a good to them. The fact is, the idea
of good or of the valuable could not in such a case exist, con
sequently virtue or moral beauty could not exist. The idea
of good, or of the valuable, must exist before virtue can exist.
It is and must be the development of the idea of the valuable,
that develops the idea ofmoral obligation, of right and wrPng,
and consequently, that makes virtue possible. The mind
11*

126 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
must perceive an object of choice that is regarded as intrin
sically valuable before it can have the idea ofmoral obligation
to choose it as an end. This object of choice can not be vir
tue or moral beauty, for this would be to have the idea of vir
tue or of moral beauty before the idea of moral obhgation, or
of right and wrong. This were a contradiction. The mind
must have the idea of some ultimate good the choice of
which would be virtue or concerning which the reason affirms
moral obligation, before the ideaofvirtueorofrightor wrong
can exist. The development of the idea of the valuable or
of an ultimate good must precede the possibility of virtue or
of the idea of virtue, ofmoral obligation, or of right and
wrong. It is absurd to say that virtue is regarded as an ulti
mate good, when in fact the very idea of virtue does not and
can not exist until a good is presented in view of which the
mind affirms moral obligation to will it for its own sake, and
also affirms that the choice of it for that reason would be vir
tue.

LECTURE IX.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
PRACTICAL BEARINGS OF THE DIFFERENT THEORIES.
It has already been observed that this is a highly practical
question, and one of surpassing interest and importance, and
I have gone through the discussion and examination of the
several principal theories for the purpose of preparing the
way to expose the practical results of those various theories,
and show that they legitimately result in some of the most
soul-destroying errors that cripple the church and curse the
world, lhave slightly touched already upon this subject, but
so slightly, however, as to forbid its being left until we have
looked more steadfastly, and thoroughly into it.
/. I will begin with the theory that regards the sovereign will
of God as the foundation ofmoral obligation.
One legitimate and necessary result of this theory, is a to
tally erroneous conception both of the character of God and
of the nature and design of His government. If God's will
is the foundation of moral obligation, it follows that He is an
arbitrary sovereign. He is not under law himself, and He
has no rule by which to regulate His conduct, nor by which
either himself or any other being can judge of his moral
character. Indeed unless He is under law, or is a subject of
moral obligation, he has and can have no moral character;
for moral character always and necessarily implies moral law
and moral obligation. If God's will is not itself under the
law of His infinite reason, or in other words,, if it is not con
formed to the law imposed upon it by His intelligence, then
His will is and must be arbitrary in the worst sense, that is,
in the sense of having no regard to reason, or to the nature
and relations of moral agents. But if His will is under the
law of His reason, if he acts from principle, or has good and
benevolent reasons for his conduct, then His will is not the
foundation of moral obligation, but those reasons that lie re
vealed in the Divine intelligence, in view of which it affirms
moral obhgation, or that He ought to will in conformity with
those reasons. In other words, if the intrinsic value of His
own well-being and that of the universe be the foundation
of moral obligation; if His reason affirms his obligation to
choose this as an ultimate end, and to consecrate His infinite

128 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
energies to the realization of it; and if His will is conformed
to this law, it follows,
(1.) That His will is not the foundation of moral obligation.
(2.) That He has infinitely good and wise reasons for what
He wills, says, and does.
(3.) That He is not arbitrary, but always acts in conformity
with principles and for reasons that will, when universally
known, compel the respect and even admiration of every in
telligent being in the universe.
* (4.) That He has a moral character, and is infinitely virtuous,
(5.) That he must respect himself.
(6.) That he must possess a happiness intelligent in kind,
and infinite in degree.
(7.) That creation, providential, and moral government, are
the necessary means of an infinitely wise and good end, and
that the evils that exist are only unavoidably incidental to this
infinitely wise and benevolent arrangement, and although
great, are indefinitely the less of two evils. That is, they are
an evil indefinitely less than no creation and no government
would have been, or than a different arrangement and govern
ment would have been. It is conceivable that a plan of ad
ministration might have been adopted that would have pre
vented the present evils, but if we admit that God has been
governed by reason in the selection of the end he has in view,
and in the use of means to accomplish it, it will follow that the
evils are less than would have existed under any other plan of
administration, or at least, that the present system, with all
its evils, is the best that infinite wisdom and love could adopt.
(8.) These incidental evils, therefore, do not at all detract
from the evidence of the wisdom and goodness of God, for in
all these things He is not acting from caprice, or malice, or
an arbitrary sovereignty, but is acting in conformity with the
law of his infinite intelligence, and of course has infinitely
good and weighty reasons for what He does and suffers to be
done — so good and so weighty reasons that he could not do
otherwise without violating the law of his own intelligence and
therefore committing infinite sin.
(9.) It follows also that there is ground for perfect confi
dence, love, and submission to His Divine will in all things;
That is: If His will is not arbitrary, but conformed to the
law of His infinite intelligence, then it is obligatory as our
rule of action, because it reveals infallibly what is in ac
cordance with infinite intelligence. We may be entirely
safe always in obeying all the Divine requirements, and in

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

129

submitting to all his dispensations, however mysterious,
being assured that they are perfectly wise and good. Not
only are we safe in doing so, but we are under infinite obliga
tion to do so, not because His arbitrary will imposes obliga
tion, but because it reveals to us infallibly the end we ought
to choose and the indispensable means of securing it. His
will is law, not in the sense of its originating and imposing
obligation of its own arbitrary sovereignty, but in the sense
of its being a revelation of both the end we ought to seek
and the means by which the end can be secured. Indeed
this is the only proper idea of law. It does not in any
case of itself impose obligation, but is only a revelation of
obligation. Law is a condition, but not the foundation of
obligation. The will of God is a condition of obligation
only so far forth as itis indispensable to our knowledge of the
end we ought to seek, and the means by which this end is
to be secured. Where these are known, there is obligation
whether God has revealed his will or not.
The foregoing and many other important truths, little
less important than those already mentioned, and too nume
rous to be now distinctly noticed, follow from the fact that the
good of being and not the arbitrary will of God, is the foun
dation of moral obligation. But no one of them is or can be
true if His will is the foundation of obligation. Nor can any
one who consistently holds or believes that His will is the
foundation of obligation, hold or believe any of the foregoing
truths, nor indeed hold and believe any truth of the law or
gospel. Nay, he cannot, if he be at all consistent, have
even a correct conception of one truth of God's moral govern
ment. Now let us see if he can.
(1.) Can he believe that God's will is wise and good un
less he admits and believes that it is subject to the law of His
intelligence. Certainly he can not, and to affirm that he can
isa palpable contradiction. But if he admits that the Di
vine will is governed by the law of the Divine intelligence
this is denying that His will is the foundation of moral obli
gation. If he consistently holds that the Divine will is the
foundation of moral obligation, he must either deny that His
will is any evidence of what is wise and good, or maintain
the absurdity that whatever God wills is wise and good, sim
ply for the reason that God wills it, that if he willed the di
rectly opposite of what he does, it would be equally wise and
good. But this is an absurdity the swallowing of which
would choke a moral agent to death.

130 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(2.) If he consistefitly holds and believes that God's sove
reign will is the foundation of moral obligation, he can not
regard Him as having any moral character, for the reason
that there is no standard by which to judge of His willing
and acting; for, by the supposition, he has no intelligent rule
of action, and therefore can have no moral character as he is
not a moral agent, and can himself have no idea of the moral
character of his own actions, for in fact, upon the supposition
in question, they have none. Any one, therefore, who holds
that God is not a subject of moral law, imposed on Him by
His own reason, but on the contrary that His sovereign will
is the foundation of moral obligation, must, if consistent, deny
that He has moral character; and he must deny that God
is an intelligent being, or admit that He is infinitely wicked
for not conforming His will to the law of His intelligence,
and for not being guided by his infinite reason instead of set
ting up an arbitrary sovereignty of will.
(3.) He who holds that God's sovereign will is the founda
tion of moral obligation instead of a revelation of Obligation,
if he be at all consistent, can neither assign nor have any
good reason either for confidence in Him or submission to
Him. If He has no good and wise reasons for what He com
mands, why should we obey Him? If He has no good and
wise reasons for what he does, why should we submit to Him?
Will it be answered that if we refuse, we do it at our peril,
and therefore it is wise to do so even if He have no good rea
sons for what he does and requires? To this I answer that
it is impossible upon the supposition in question either to
obey or submit to God with the heart. If we can see no
good reasons, but on the other hand, are assured there are no
good and wise reasons for the Divine commands and conduct,
it is forever naturally impossible from the laws of our nature
to render any thing more than feigned obedience and sub
mission. Whenever we do not understand the reason for a
Divine requirement, or of a dispensation of Divine provi
dence, the condition of heart obedience to the one and sub
mission to the other, is the assumption that He has good and
wise reasons for both. But assume the contrary, to wit, that
He has no good and wise reasons for either, and you render
heart obedience, confidence, and submission impossible.' It
is perfectly plain, therefore, that he who consistently holds
the theory in question, can neither conceive rightly of God
nor of any thing respecting His law, gospel, or government,
moral or providential. It is impossible for Him to have an

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 131
intelligent piety. His religion, if he have any, must be sheer
superstition, in as much as he neither knows the true God,
nor the true reason why he should love Him, believe, obey, or
submit to Him. In short, he neither knows, nor, if consistent,
can know any thing of the nature of true religion, and has
not so much as a right conception of what constitutes virtue.
But do not understand me as affirming that none who pro
fess to hold the theory in question have any true knowledge
of God or any true religion. No, they are happily so purely
theorists on this subject, and so happily inconsistent with
themselves, as to have, after all, a practical judgment in fa
vor of the truth. They do not see the logical consequences
of their theory and of course do not embrace them, and this
happy inconsistency is an indispensable condition of their sal
vation. There, is no end to the absurdities to which this the
ory legitimately conducts us, as might be abundantly shown.
But enough has been said, I trust, to put you on your guard
that you do not entertain fundamentally false notions of God
and of his government, and consequently of what constitutes
true love, faith, obedience, and submission to Him.
(4.) Another pernicious consequence of this theory is, that
those who hold it will of course give false directions to inqui
ring sinners. Indeed, if ministers, the whole strain of their-
instructions must be false. They must, if consistent, not only
represent God to their hearers as an absolute and arbitrary
sovereign, but they must represent religion as consisting in
submission to this arbitrary sovereignty. If sinners inquire
what they must do to be saved, they must answer in substance
that they must cast themselves on the sovereignty of a God
whose law is solely an expression of his arbitrary will, and
whose every requirement and purpose is founded in his arbi
trary sovereignty. This is the God whom they must love,
in whom they must believe, and whom they must serve with a
willing mind. How infinitely different such instructions are
from those that would be given by one who knew the truth.
Such an one would represent God to an inquirer as infinitely
reasonable in all his requirements, in all his ways. He would
represent the sovereignty of God as consisting, not in arbi
trary will, but in benevolence or love directed by infinite
knowledge in the promotion of the highest good of being.
He would represent his law, not as the expression of his arbi
trary will, but as having its foundation in the self-existent
nature of God and in the nature of moral agents, as being
the very rule which is agreeable to the nature and rela-

132 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
tions of moral agents; that its requisitions are not arbitra
ry, but that the very thing and only that is required which
is in the nature of things indispensable to the highest well-
being ofmoral agents; that God's will does, not originate
obligation by any arbitrary fiat, but on the contrary that he
requires what he does because it is obligatory in the nature
of things; that his requirement does not create right, but that
he requires only that which is naturaUy and of necessity
right. These and many such like things would irresistibly
commend the character of God to the human intelligence as
a being worthy to be trusted, and as one to whom submission
is infinitely safe and reasonable.
But let the advocates of the theory under consideration
but consistently press this theory upon the human intelligence,
and the more they do so the less reason can it perceive either
for submitting to, or for trusting in God. The fact is, the
idea of arbitrary sovereignty is shocking and revolting not
only to the human heart, whether unregenerate or regene
rate, but also to the human intelligence. Religion, based
upon such a view of God's character and government, must
be sheer superstition or gross fanaticism.
II. I will next glance at the legitimate results of the theory of
the Selfish School.
This theory, as you recollect, teaches that our own interest
is the foundation of moral obligation. In conversing with a
distinguished defender of this philosophy, I requested the
theorist to define moral obligation, and this was the definition
given, to wit: " It is the obligation of a moral agent to seek
his own happiness." Upon the practical tendency of this
theory I remark,
1. It tends directly and inevitably to the confirmation and
despotism of sin in the soul. All sin, as we shall abundantly
see, resolves itself into a spirit of self-seeking, or into a
disposition to seek good to self, and upon condition of its
relations to self, and not impartially or disinterestedly. This
philosophy represents this spirit of self-seeking as virtue, and on
ly requires that in our efforts to secure our own happiness we
should not interfere with the rights of others in also seeking
theirs. But here it may be asked, when these philosophers
insist that virtue consists in willing our own happiness, and
that in seeking it we are bound to have respect to the right
and happiness of others, do they mean that we are to have a
positive or, merely a negative regard to the rights and hap
piness of others? If they mean that we are to have a posi-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 133
tive regard to others' rights and happiness, what is that but
giving up their theory and holding the true one, to wit, that
the happiness of each one shall be esteemed according to its
intrinsic value, for its own sake? That is, that we should be
disinterestedly benevolent? But if they mean that we are to
regard our neighbor's happiness negatively, that is, merely
in such a sense as not to hinder it, what is this but the most
absurd thing' conceivable? What! . I need not care positive
ly for my neighbor'shappiness, I need not will itas a good in
itself, and for its own value, and yet I must take care not to
hinder it. But why? Why, because it is intrinsically as val
uable as my own. Now if this is assigning any good reason
why I ought not to hinder it, it isjust because it is assigning a
good reason why I ought positively and disinterestedly to will
it; which is the true theory. But if this is not a sufficient
reason to impose obligation, positively and disinterestedly to
will it, it can never impose obligation to avoid hindering it,
and I may pursue my own happiness in my own way without
regard to that of any other.
2. If this theory be true, sinful and holy beings are pre
cisely ^ke, so far as ultimate intention is concerned, in which
we have seen all moral character consists. They have pre
cisely the same end in view, and the difference lies only in the
means they make use of to promote their own happiness.
That sinners are seeking their own happiness, is a truth of
universal consciousness. If moral agents are under obliga
tion to seek their own happiness as the supreme end of life, it
follows that holy beings do so. So that holy and sinful beings
are precisely alike so far as the end for which they live is
concerned, the only difference being, as has been observed,
in the different means they make use of to promote this end.
But Observe, no reason Can be assigned, in accordance with
this philosophy, why they use different means only that they
differ in judgment in respect to them, for let it be remembered
that this philosophy denies that we are bound to have aposi"
tive and disinterested regard to our neighbor's interest, and
of course no benevolent considerations prevent the holy from
using the same means as do the wicked. Where, therefore,
is the difference in their character, although they do use this
diversity of means ? I say again, there is none. If this differ
ence be not to be ascribed to disinterested benevolence in
one and to selfishness in the other, there really is and can be
no difference in character between them. According.to this
theory nothing is right or wrong in itself but the intention to

134 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
promote my own happiness, and any thing is right or wrong
as it is intended to promote this result or otherwise. For let it be
borne in mind that if moral obligation respects strictly the ulti
mate intention only, it follows that ultimate intention alone is
right or wrong in itself, and all other things are right or wrongas
they proceed from a right or wrong ultimate intention. This
must be true. Also, if my own happiness be the foundation
of my moral obligation, it follows that this is the ultimate end
at which I ought to aim, and that nothing is right or wrong
in itself, in me, but this intention or its opposite, and further?
more that every thing else must be right or wrong in me as it
proceeds from this or from an opposite intention. I may do,
and upon the supposition of the truth of this theory, I am
bound to do whatever will, in my estimation, promote my own
happiness, and that, not because of its intrinsic value as a
part of universal good, but because it is my own. To seek
it as a part of universal happiness, and not because it is my
own, would be to act on the true theory, or the theory of dis
interested benevolence ; which this theory denies.
3. Upon this theory I am not to love God supremely, and
my neighbor as myself. If I love God and my neighbor, it
is to be only as a means of promoting my own happiness,
which is not loving Him but loving myself supremely.
4. This theory teaches radical error in respect both to the
character and government of God; and the consistent de
fender of it can not but hold fundamentally false views in re
spect to what constitutes holiness or virtue either in God or
man. They do not and can not know the difference between
virtue and vice. In short, it is impossible that all their views
of religion should not be radically false and absurd.
5. The teachers of this theory must fatally mislead all
who consistently follow out their instructions. In preaching
they must, if consistent, appeal wholly to hope and fear, in
stead of addressing the heart through the intelligence. All
their instructions must tend to confirm selfishness. All the
motives they present, if consistent, tend only to stir up a zeal
within them to secure their own happiness. If they pray, it
Will only be to implore the help of God to accomplish their
selfish ends.
Indeed it is impossible that this theory should not blind its
advocates to the fundamental truths of morality and religion,
and it is hardly conceivable that one could more efficiently
serve the devil than by the inculcation of such a philosophy
9>S tulS*

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 135
III. Let us in the next place look into the natural, and if its
advocates are consistent, necessary results of Utilitarianism.
This theory, you know, teaches that the utility of an action
or of a choice, renders it obligatory. That is, I am bound to
will good, not for the intrinsic value of the good; but because
willing good tends to produce good — to choose an end, not
because of the intrinsic value of the end, but because the will
ing of it tends to secure it. The absurdity of this theory has
been sufficiently exposed. It only remains to notice its legit
imate practical results.
1. It naturally, and, I may say, necessarily diverts the at
tention from that in which all morality consists, namely the
ultimate intention. Indeed it seems that the abettors of this
scheme must have in mind only outward action, or at most ex
ecutive volitions, when they assert that the tendency of an
action, is the reason of the obligation to put it forth. It
seems impossible thatthey should assert that the reason for
choosing an ultimate end should or could be the tendency of
choice to secure it. This is so palpable a contradiction that
it is difficult to believe that they have ultimate intention in
mind when they make the assertion. An ultimate end is ever
chosen for its intrinsic value, and not because choice tends to
secure it. How, then, is it possible for them to hold that the
tendency of choice to secure an ultimate end is the reason of
an obligation to make that choice? But if they have not
their eye upon ultimate intention when they speak of moral
obligation, they are discoursing of that which is strictly with
out the pale of morality. I said in a former lecture, that the
obligation to put forth volitions or outward actions to secure an
ultimate end must be conditionated upon the perceived tenden
cy of such volitions and actions to secure that end, but while
this tendency is the condition of the obligation to executive
volition, or outward action, the obligation is founded in the
intrinsic value of the end to secure which such volitions tend.
So that utilitarianism gives a radically false account of the
reason of moral obligation. A consistent utilitarian therefore
can not conceive rightly, of the nature of morality or virtue.
He can not consistently hold that virtue consists in willing" the
highest well-being of God and of the universe as an ultimate
end or for its own sake, but must, on the contrary, confine
his ideas of moral obligation to volitions and outward actions
in which there is strictly no morality, and withal assign an en
tirely false reason for these:, to wit their tendency to secure
an end rather than the value ofthe end which they tend to
secure.

136 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
This is the proper place to speak of the doctrine of expe
diency, a doctrine strenuously maintained by utilitarians
and as strenuously opposed by rightarians. It is this, that
whatever is expedient is right for that reason, that is, that the
expediency of an action or measure is the foundation of the
obligation to put forth that action or adopt that measure. It
is easy to see that this is just equivalent to saying that the
utility of an action or measure is the reason of the obligation
to put forth that action or adopt that measure. But, as we
have seen, utility, tendency, expediency, is only a condition
of the obligation (in the sense in which obligation can be
affirmed of any thing but ultimate intention,) to put forth out
ward action or executive volition, never the foundation of the
obligation, that always being the intrinsic value of the end
to Whiph the vohtion, action or measure sustains the relation
of a means. I do not wonder that rightarians object to this,
although I do wonder at the reason which, if consistent, they
must assign for this obligation, to wit, that any action or voli
tion, (ultimate intention excepted,) can be right or wrong in it
self irrespective of its expediency or utility. This is absurd
enough and flatly contradicts the doctrine of rightarians them
selves, that moral obligation strictly belongs only to ultimate
intention. If moral obligation belongs only to ultimate inten
tion, then nothing but ultimate intention can be right or wrong
in itself. And every thing else, that is, all executive volitions
and outward actions must be right or wrong, ( in the only
fiense in which moral character can be predicated of them,) as
they proceed from a right or wrong ultimate intention. This
is tbe only form in which rightarians can consistently admit
*he doctrine of expediency, that is, that Prelates exclusively
to executive volitions and outward actions. And this they
can admit only upon the assumption that executive volitions
and outward actions have strictly no moral character in them
selves but are right or wrong only as and because they pro
ceed necessarily from a right or wrong ultimate intention. All
schools that hold this doctrine, to wit, that moral obligation
respects the ultimate intention only, must if r consistent, deny
that any thing can be either right or wrongper se but ultimate
intention. Farther they must maintain that utihty, expedi
ency, or tendency to promote the ultimate end upon which ul
timate intention terminates, is always a condition of the obli
gation to put forth those volitions and actions that sustain
to this end the relation of a means. And still further,
they must maintain that the obhgation to use those means

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 137
must be founded in the value of the end and no^ in the ten
dency of the means to secure it, for unless the end be intrin
sically valuable, the tendency of means to secure it can impose
no obligation to use them. Tendency, utility, expediency,
then, I say again, is only the condition of the obligation to use
any given means but never the foundation of obligation. An
action or executive volition is not obligatory, as utilitarians
say, because and for the reason that it is useful or expedient.
but merely upon condition that it is so. The obligation in re
spect to outward action is always founded in the value of the
end to which this action sustains the relation of a means,
and the obligation is conditionated upon the perceived ten
dency of the means to secure that end. Expediency can nev
er have respect to the choice of an ultimate end, or to that in
which moral character consists, to wit, ultimate intention;
The end is to be chosen for its own sake. Ultimate intention
is right or wrong in itself, and no questions of utility, expedi
ency or tendency have any thing to do with the obligation to
put forth ultimate intention, there being only one reason for
this, namely, the intrinsicvalue of the end to be. intended, It
is true then that whatever is expedient is right, not for that
reason, but only upon that condition. The inquiry then, Is it
expedient? in respect to outward action, is always proper;
for upon this condition does obligation to outward action turn.
But in respect to ultimate intention or the choice of an ultimate
end, an inquiry into the expediency of this choice or intention
is never proper, the obligation being founded alone upon the
perceived and intrinsic value of the end, and the obligation
being without any condition whatever, except the possession
of the powers of moral agency, wjth the perception of the
end upon which intention ought to terminate, namely, the
good of universal being. But the mistake of the utilitarian
is fundamental, that expediency is the foundation of moral obli
gation, for in fact it cannot be so in any case whatever. I
have said, and here repeat, that all schools that hold that
moral obligation respects ultimate intention only, must, if
consistent, maintain that perceived utility, expediency &c,
is a condition of obligation to put forth any outward action,
or which is the same thing, to use any means to secure the
end of benevolence. Therefore, in practice or in daily life
the true doctrine of expediency must of necessity have a
place. The railers against expediency, therefore, know not
what they say nor whereof they affirm. It is, however, im
possible to practice upon the utilitarian philosophy. This
12*

138 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
teaches that the tendency of an action to secure good
instead of the intrinsic value of the good is the founda
tion of the obligation to put forth that action. But this is
too absurd for practice. For unless the intrinsic value of the
end be assumed as the foundation of the obligation to choose
it, it is impossible to affirm obligation to put forth an action
to secure that end. The folly and the danger of utilitarian
ism is, that it overlooks the true foundation of moral obliga
tion, and consequently the true nature of virtue or holiness.
A consistent utilitarian can not conceive rightly of either.
The teachings of a consistent utilitarian must of necessity
abound with pernicious error. Instead of representing vir
tue as consisting in disinterested benevolence or in the con
secration of the soul to the highest good of being in general
for its own sake, it must represent it as consisting wholly in
using means to promote good. That is, as consisting wholly
in executive vohtions and outward actions, which, strictly
speaking, have no moral character in them. Thus consistent
utilitarianism inculcates fundamentally false ideas of the na
ture of virtue. Of course it must teach equally erroneous
ideas respecting the character of God — the spirit and mean
ing of His law — the nature of repentance — of sin— of re
generation — and in short of every practical doctrine of the
Bible.

LECTURE X.
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.
PRACTICAL BEARINGS OF DIFFERENT THEORIES.
IV. Practical bearings and tendency of Rightarianism.
It will b e recollected that this philosophy teaches that right
is the foundation of moral obligation. With its advocates,
virtue consists in willing the right for the sake of the right,
instead of willing the good for the sake of the good. The
right is the ultimate end to be aimed at in all things instead
of the highest good of being. From such a theory the follow
ing consequences must flow. I speak only of consistent Right
arianism. 1. If this theory is true, there is a law of right entirely dis
tinct from the law of love or benevolence. The advocates of
this theory often, perhaps unwittingly, assume the existence
of such a law. They speak of multitudes of things as being
right or wrong in themselves, entirely independent of the law
of benevolence. Nay, they go so far as to affirm that it is con
ceivable that virtue might necessarily tend to and result in
universal misery, and that in such a case, we should be under
obhgation to do right, or will right, or intend right although
universal misery should be the necessary result. This as
sumes and affirms that right has no necessary relation to will
ing the highest good of being for its own sake, or, what is the
same thing, that the law of right is not only distinct from the
law of benevolence, but may be directly opposed to it; thata
moral agent may be under obligation to will as an ultimate
end that which he knows will and must by a law of necessity
promote and secure universal misery. Rightarians sternly
maintain that right would be right, and that virtue would be
virtue although this result were a necessary consequence.
What is this but maintaining that moral law may require
moral agents to set their hearts upon and consecrate themseves
to that which is necessarily subversive of the well-being ofthe
entire universe? And what is this but assuming that that
may be moral law that requires a course of willing and act
ing entirely inconsistent with the nature and relations ofmor
al agents? Thus virtue and benevolence, not only may be
different things but opposite things, in case virtue or right
and not benevolence is obligatory. This is not only ab-

140 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
surd, but itis the grossest nonsense; and a more capital er
ror in morals or phUosophy can hardly be conceived.
Nothing is or can be right but benevolence. Nothing is or
can be moral law but that which requires that course of wil
ling and acting that tends to secure the highest well-being of
God and the universe. Nay, nothing can be moral law but
that which requires that the highest well-being of God and of
the universe should be chosen as an ultimate end. Rightari-
anism overlooks and misrepresents the very nature ofmoral
law. Do but contemplate the grossness of that absurdity that
maintains that that can be moral law that requires a course of
willing, that necessarily results in universal and perfect mise
ry; that that may be right, and virtue, and obligatory that
thus necesarily results in universal misery. What then, it
may be asked, has, moral law to do with the nature and rela
tions ofmoral agents, except to mock, insult, and trample them
under foot? Moral law is and must be the law of nature, that
is, suited to the nature and relations of moral agents. But
can that law be suited to the nature and relations of moral
agents that requires a course of action necessarily resulting in
universal misery? The fact is that rightarianism not only
overlooks, but flatly contradicts the very nature of moral law
and sets up a law of right that is the direct opposite of the
law of nature.
2. This philosophy tends naturally to fanaticism. Con
ceiving as it does of right as distinct from and often opposed
to benevolence, it scoffs or rails at the idea of inquiring
what the highest good evidently demands. It insists that such
and such things are right or wrong in themselves entirely ir
respective of what the highest good demands. " Justitia fiat,
ruat caelum" is its motto — Do right, if it ruins the universe;
thus assuming that that can be right which shall ruin God
and the universe. Having thus in mind a law of right distinct
from and perhaps opposed to benevolence what frightful con
duct may not this philosophy lead to? This is indeed the
law of fanaticism. The tendency of this philosophy is illus
trated in the spirit of many reformers, who are bitterly con
tending for the right.
3. This philosophy teaches a false morality and a false re
ligion. It exalts right above God and represents virtue as
consisting in the love of right instead of the love of God. It
exhorts men to will the right for the sake of the right instead
of the good of being for the sake of the good or for the sake
of being. It teaches us to inquire, How shall I do right? in-

MORAL GOVERNMENT, 141
stead of, How shall I do good? What is right? instead of
What will most promote the good of the universe? Now that
which is most promotive of the highest good of being is right.
To intend the highest well-being of God and of the universe
is right. To use the necessary means to promote this end is
right; and whatever in the use of means or in outward action is
right is so for this reason, namely, it is designed, not that it
tends to promote, the highest well-being of God and of the
universe. To ascertain, then, what is right, we must inquire,
not into a mere abstraction,but what is intended. Or if we would
know what is duty or what would be right in us, we must un
derstand that to intend the highest well-being ofthe universe
as an end is right and duty; and that in practice every thing
is duty or right that is intended to secure this. , Thus and thus
only can we ascertain what is right in intention, and what is
right in the outward life. But rightarianism points out an
opposite course. It says: Will the right for the sake of the
right, that is, as an end; and in respect to means, Inquire not
what is manifestly for the highest good of being, for this you
have nothing to do with; your business is to will the right for
the sake of the right. If" you inquire how you are to know
what is right, it does not direct you to the law of benevolence
as the only standard, but it directs you to an abstract idea of
right as an ultimate rule, havirig no regard to the law of be
nevolence or love. It tells you that right is right because it
is right, and not that right is conformity to the lawof benevo
lence, and right for this reason. The truth is that subjective
right, or right in practice, is only a quality of disinterested
benevolence. But the philosophy in question denies this and
holds that so far from being a quality of benevolence, it must
consist in willing the right for the sake of the right. Now
certainly such teaching is radically false and subversive of all
sound morality and true religion.
4. As we have formerly seen, this philosophy does not rep
resent virtue as consisting in the love of God, or of Christ, or
our neighbor. Consistency must require the abettors of this
scheme to give fundamentally false instructions to inquiring
sinners. Instead of representing God and all holy beings as
devoted to the public good, and instead of exhorting sinners
to love God and their neighbor, this philosophy must represent
God and holy beings as consecrated to right for the sake of
the right, and must exhort sinners who ask what they shall do
to be saved, to will the right for the sake of the right, to love
the right, to deify right and fall down and worship it. Who

142 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
does not know that there is much of this morality and religion in
the world and in the church? Infidels are great sticklentfor
this religion, and often exhibit as much of it as do some rights
rian professors of religion. The fact is, it is a severe, stern,
loveless, Godless, Christless philosophy, and nothing but hap
py inconsistency prevents its advocates from uniformly so
manifesting it to the world. I have already in a former lec
ture shown that this theory is identical with that which
represents the idea of duty as the foundation of moral obli
gation and that it gives the same instructions to inquiring
sinners. It exhorts them to resolve to do duty, to resolve to
serve the Lord, to make up their minds at all times to do right,
to resolve to give their hearts to God, to resolve to conform
in all things to right, &c. The absurdity and danger of such
instructions were sufficiently exposed in the lecture referred
to. The law of right when conceived of as distinct from the
law of benevolence, is a perfect strait-jacket, an iron collar,. a
snare of death.
This philosophy represents all war, all slavery, and many
things as wrong per se, without insisting upon such a defini
tion of those things as necessarily implies selfishness. Any
thing whatever is wrong in itself that includes and implies
selfishness, and nothing else is or can be. All war waged for
selfish purposes is wrong per se. But war waged for benevo
lent purposes, or war required by the law of benevolence, is
neither wrong in itself, nor wrong in any proper sense. All
holding men in bondage for selfish motives is wrong in itself,
but holding men in bondage in obedience to the law of be
nevolence is not wrong but right. And so it is with every
thing else. Therefore where it is insisted that all war and
all slavery or any thing else is wrong in itself, such a defini
tion of things must be insisted on as necessarily implies self
ishness. But consistent rightarianism will insist that all war,
all slavery, and all of many other things, is wrong in itself
without regard to its being a violation of the law of benevo
lence. This is consistent with this philosophy, but it is most
false and absurd in fact. Indeed any philosophy that assumes
the existence of a law of right distinct from and} may be, op
posed to the law of benevolence, must teach many doctrines
at war with both reason and revelation. It sets men in chase
of a philosophical abstraction asjhe supreme end of life, in
stead of the concrete reality of the highest well-being of God
and the universe. It preys upon his soul and turns into solid
iron all the tender sensibilities of" his being. Do but contemplate

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 143
a human being supremely devoted to an abstraction as the end
of life. He wills the right for the sake of the right. For this
he hves and moves and has his being. What sort of religion
is this? God forbid that I should be understood as holding or
insinuating that professed rightarians universally or even gene
rally consistently carry their theory to its legitimate bounda
ry, and that they manifest the spirit that it naturally begets.
No. I am most happy in acknowledging that with many, and
perhaps with most of them, it is so purely a theory that they
are not greatly influenced by it in practice. Many of them I
regard as among the excellent of the earth, and I am hap
py to count them among my dearest and most valued friends.
But I speak of the philosophy with its natural results when
embraced, not merely as a theory, but when adopted by the
heart as the rule of life. It is only in such cases that its natu
ral and legitimate fruits appear. Only let it be borne in
mind that right is conformity to moral law, that moral law is
the law of nature, or the law founded in the nature and rela
tions of moral agents, the law that requires just that course
of willing and action that tends naturally to secure the high
est well-being of all moral agents, that requires this course of
willing and acting for the sake of the end in which it naturally
and governmentally results — and requires that this end shall
he aimed at or intended by all moral agents as the supreme
good- and the only ultimate end of life. I say, only let these
truths be borne in mind and you will never talk of a right or
a virtue, or a law, obedience to which necessarily results in
universal misery; nor will you conceive that such a thing is
possible. V. The philosophy that comes next under review is that which
teaches that the Divine Goodness or Moral Excellence is the foun
dation of moral obligation.
The practical tendency of this philosophy is to inculcate
and develope a false idea of what constitutes virtue. It inevi- >
tably leads its advocates to regard religion as consisting in a
mere feeling of complacency in God. It overlooks, and, if
consistent, must overlook the fact that all true morality and
religion consists in benevolence or in willing the highest well-
being of God and the universe as an ultimate end. It must
represent true religion either as a phenomenon of the sensi
bility, or as consisting in willing the goodness or benevolence
of God as an end; either of which is radical error. This
scheme does not and can not rightly represent either the char
acter of God or the nature and spirit of his law and govern-

144 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ment. It, in teaching, presents the benevolence of God, not
as an inducement to benevolence in us, that is, not as a means
of leading us to consider and adopt the same end of life to
which God is consecrated, but as being the end to which' we
are to consecrate ourselves. It holds forth the goodness of
God, not for the sake of setting the great end he has in view
strongly before us, and inducing us to become like him in con
secrating ourselves to the same end, to wit, the highest good!
of being, but it absurdly insists that His goodness is the foun*
dation of our obligation, which is the same thing as to insist
that we are to make His goodness the ultimate end of life,
instead of that end at which God aims, and aiming at which
constitutes His virtue. Instead of representing the benevo
lence of God as clearly revealing our obligation to be benevo
lent, it represents the benevolence as being the foundation of
obligation. Obligation to what? Not to will good, certainly?
for it is a gross contradiction as we have repeatedly seen, to
say that I am under obligation to will good to God as an ulti
mate end or for its own sake, yet not for this reason, but be
cause God is good. This philosophy, if consistent, must pre
sent the goodness of God as a means of awakening emotions
of complacency in God, and not for the purpose of making us
benevolent, for it does not regard religion as consisting in be^
nevolence, but in a love to God for His goodness, which can
be nothing else than a feeling of complacency. But this is
radical error. The practical bearings of this theory are well
illustrated in the arguments used to support it, as stated and
refuted when examining its claims in a former lecture. The
fact is, it misrepresents the character, law, and government of
God, and of necessity, the nature of true religiori. It harps
Jierpetually on the goodness of God as the sole reason for
oving Him, which demonstrates that benevolence does not, •
and consistently can not enter into its idea of virtue or true
religion. There is, no doubt, a vast amount of spurious selfish reli-'
gion in the world growing out of this philosophy. Many love
God because they regard him as loving them, as being their
benefactor and particular friend. They are grateful for fa
vors bestowed on self. But they forget the philosophy and
theology of Christ who said: "If ye love them that love yoa
what thank have ye? Do not even sinners love those that
love them?" They seem to have no idea of a religion of dis*
interested benevolence.
VI. The next theory to be noticed is that which teaches that
Moral Order is the foundation of moral obligation.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

145

The practical objection to this theory is, that it presents a
totally wrong end as the great object of life. According to
the teachings of this school, moral order is that intrinsically
valuable end at which all moral agents ought to aim, and to
which they are bound to consecrate themselves. If by moral
order the highest good of being is intended, this philosophy
is only another name for the true one. But if, as I suppose is
the fact, by moral order no such thing as the highest good of
God and the universe is intended, then the theory is false and
can not teach other than pernicious error. It must misrep
resent God, His law and government, and of course must hold
radically false views in respect to the nature of holiness and
sin. It holds up an abstraction as the end of life, and exalts
moral order above all that is called God. It teaches that
men ought to love moral order with all the heart, and with all
the soul. But the theory is sheer nonsense as was shown in
its place. Its practical bearing is only to bewilder and con
fuse the mind.
Again: The theory must overlook or deny the faet that
moral obligation respects the ultimate intention; for it seems
impossible that any one possessing reason can suppose that
moral order can be the end to which moral beings ought to
consecrate themselves. The absurdity of the theory itself
was sufficiently exposed in a former lecture. Its practical
bearings and tendency are only to beget confusion in all our
ideas of moral law and moral government.
VII. We next come to the practical bearings of the theory that
moral obligation is founded in the nature and relations of
moral agents.
The first objection to this theory, is that it confounds the
conditions with the foundation oi moral obligation. The na
ture and relations of moral beings are certainly conditions of
their obligation to will each other's good. But it is absolutely
childish to affirm that the obligation to will each other's good
is not founded in the value of good but in their nature and re
lations. But for the intrinsic value of their good their na
ture and relations would be no reason at all why they should
will good rather than evil to each other. To represent the na
ture and relations of moral agents as the foundation of moral
obligation is to mystify and misrepresent the whole subject of
moral law, moral government, moral obligation, the nature of
sin and holiness, and beget confusion in all our thoughts on
moral subjects. What but grossest error can find a lodgment
in that mind that consistently regards the nature and relations
13

146 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
of moral beings as the foundation of moral obligation? If
this be the true theory, then the nature and relations of
moral agents is the ultimate end to which moral agents are
bound to consecrate themselves. Their nature and relations
is the intrinsically valuable end which we are bound to choose
for its own sake. This is absurd. But if this philosophy
misrepresents the foundation of moral obligation, it can con
sistently teach absolutely nothing but error on the whole
subject of morals and religion. If it mistakes the end to
be intended by moral agents, it errs on the fundamental
fact of all morals and religion. As all true morality and
true religion consists exclusively in willing the right end,
if this end be mistaken, the error is fatal. It is, then, no
light thing to hold that moral obligation is founded in the
nature and relations of moral beings. Such statements are
a great deal worse than nonsense — they are radical error on
the most important subject in the world. What consisten
cy can there be in the views of one who consistently holds
this theory? What ideas must he have of moral law and
of every thing else connected with practical theology? In
stead of willing the highest good of God and of being he
must hold himself under obligation to will the nature and re
lations of moral beings as an ultimate end..
VIII. The next theory in order is that which teaches that the
idea of duty is the foundation ofmoral obligation. But as I
sufficiently exposed the tendency and practical bearings of
this theory in a former lecture, I will not repeat here, but pass
to the consideration of another theory.
IX. The complexity of the foundation of moral obligation.
In respect to the practical bearings of this theory, I re
mark, 1. The reason that induces choice is the real object chosen.
If, for example, the value of an object induce the choice of
that object, the valuable is the real object chosen. If the
Tightness of a choice of an object induce choice, then the
right- is the real object chosen. If the virtuousness of an
object induce choice, then virtue is the real object chosen.
2. Whatever really influences the mind in choosing must
be an object chosen. Thus if the mind have various reasons
for a choice, it will choose various ends or objects.
3. If the foundation of moral obligation be not a unit,
moral action or intention cannot be simple. If any thing
else than the intrinsically valuable to being is or can be the
foundation of moral obligation, then this thing, whatever it is,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 147
is to be chosen for its own sake. If right, justice, truth, vir
tue, or any thing else is to be chosen as an end, then just so
much regard must be had to them as their nature and impor
tance demand. If the good or valuable to being be an ulti
mate good, and truth and justice and virtue are also to be
chosen, each for its own sake, here we meet with this diffi
culty, namely, that the good or valuable is one end to be cho
sen, and right another, and virtue another, and truth another,
and justice another, and the beautiful another, and so on.
Now, who does not see that if this be so, moral obligation
can not be a unit nor can moral action be simple? If there be
more considerations than one that ought to have influence in
deciding choice, the choice is not right, or at least wholly right
unless each consideration that ought to have* weight, really has
the influence due to it in deciding choice. If each considera
tion has not its due regard, the choice certainly is not what it
ought to be. In other words, all the things that ought to be
chosen are not chosen. Indeed, it is self-evident, if there is
complexity in the ultimate end to be chosen, there must be
the same complexity in the choice, or the choice is not what
it ought to be; and if several considerations ought to influ
ence ultimate choice, then there are so many distinct ultimate
ends. If this is so, then each of them must have its due re
gard in every case of virtuous intention. • But who then could
ever tell whether he allowed to each exactly the relative in
fluence it ought, to have? This would confound and stultify
the whole subject of moral obligation. This theory virtual-,
ly and flatly contradicts the law of God and the repeated de?
claration that love to God and our neighbor is the whole of
virtue. What, does God say that all the law is fulfilled in
one word, Love, that is, love to God and our neighbor;, and
shall a christian philosopher overlook this, and insist that, we
ought to love not only God and our neighbor, but to will the
right, and the true, and the just, and the beautiful, and muh
titudes of such like things for their own sake? The law of
God makes and knows only one ultimate end, and shall this
philosophy be allowed to confuse us by teaching that there are
many ultimate ends, that we ought to will each for its own
sake? Nay verily. But if by this theory it is intend-;
ed that right, and justice, and truth, and the beautifjul, &c,
are to be chosen only for their intrinsic or relative value to
being, then the valuable alone is the foundation of moral
obligation* This is simple and intelligible. But if these
are to be chosen each for its own sake, then there are so

148 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
many different ends' to be chosen. If it be their intrinsic value
that is to be chosen, then there is really but one object of ul
timate choice, and that is the intrinsically valuable to being,
and it is this upon which the choice terminates in whatsoever
this quality may be found, whether in right, virtue, justice, truth,
&,c. But if on the other hand it is not the valuable to being
found in these things which is tbe reason for choosing them, but
each of these things is to be chosen on its own account for
a reason distinct from its intrinsic value to being, then there
are, as has been said, distinct objects of choice or distinct
ultimate ends, which must involve the whole subject of moral
law, moral obligation, moral action, and moral character in
vast confusion. I might here insist upon the intrinsic absurdi
ty of regarding right, justice, virtue, the beautiful, &c. as
ultimate goods, instead of mental satisfaction or enjoyment.
But I waive this point at present, and observe that either
this theory resolves itself into the true one, namely, that
the valuable to being, in whatsoever that value be found,
is the sole foundation of moral obligation, or it is pernicious
error. If it be not the true theory, it does not and can not
teach ought, but error upon the subject of moral law, moral
obligation, and of course of morals and religion. It is either^
then, confusion and nonsense, or it resolves itself into the
true theory, just stated.
X. Lastly, I come to the consideration of the practical bearings
of what I regard as the true theory of the foundation of moral
obligation, namely that the highest well-being of God and of
the Universe is the sole foundation of moral obligation.
Upon this philosophy I remark,*
1. That if this be true the whole subject of moral obliga
tion is perfectly simple and intelligible; so plain indeed that
" the wayfaring man though a fool can not err therein."
(1.) Upon this theory moral obligation respects the choice
of an ultimate end.
(2.) This end is a unit.
(3.) It is necessarily known to every moral agent.
(4.) The choice of this end is the whole of virtue.
(5.) It is impossible to1 sin while this end is intended with
all the heart and with all the soul.
(6.) Upon this theory every moral agent knows in every
possible instance what is right, andean never mistake his real
duty. ^ (7.) This ultimate intention is right and nothing else is
right, more or less.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 149
(8.) Right and wrong respect ultimate intention only and
are always the same. Right can be predicated only of good
will, and wrong only of selfishness. These are fixed and
permanent. If a moral agent can know what end he aims at
or lives for, he can know and can not but know at all times
whether he is right or wrong. All that upon this theory a
moral agent needs to be certain of is, whether he lives for the
right end, and this, if at all honest or if dishonest, he really
can not but know. If he would ask what is right or what is
duty at any time, he need not wait for a reply. It is right for
him to intend the highest good of being as an end. If he
honestly does this, he can not, doing this, mistake his duty,
for in doing this he really performs the whole of duty. With
this honest intention it is impossible that he should not use
the means to promote this end according to the best light he
has; and this is right. A single eye to the highest good of
God and the universe is the whole of morality, strictly con
sidered, and upon this theory moral law, moral government,
moral obhgation, virtue, vice, and the whole subject of morals
and religion are the perfection of simplicity. If this theory
be true, no honest mind ever mistook the path of duty. To
intend the highest good of being is right and is duty. No
mind is honest that is not steadily pursuing this end. But in
the nonest pursuit of this end there can be nb sin, no mis
taking the path of duty; ¦ That is and must be the path of
duty that really appears to a benevolent mind to be so. That
is, it must be his duty to act in conformity with his honest
convictions. This is duty, this is right. So, upon this theo
ry, no one who is truly honest in pursuing the highest good of
being ever did or can mistake his duty in any such sense as
to commit sin. I have spoken with great plainness, and per
haps with some severity, of the several systems of error, as
I cannot but regard them, upon the most fundamental and im
portant of subjects; not • certainly from any want of love to
those who hold them, but from a concern long cherished and
growing upon me for the honor of truth and for the good of
being. Should any of you ever take the trouble to look into
this subject, length and breadth, and read the various .sys
tems, and take the trouble to trace out their practical results,
as actually developed in the opinions and practices of men,
you certainly would not be at a loss to account for the theo
logical and philosophical fogs that so bewilder the world.
How can it be otherwise with such confusion of opinion upon
the fundamental question of morals and religion?
13*

LECTURE XI.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
I. In what sense Obedience to Moral Law cannot be
PARTIAL.
In discussing this question I must,
1. Show what constitutes obedience to moral law.
2. That obedience cannot be partial in the sense that
the subject ever does or can partly obey and partly disobey
at the same time.
I. What constitutes obedience &?c.
We have seen in former lectures that disinterested be
nevolence is all that the spirit of moral law requires, that is,
that the love which it requires to God and our neighbor is
good willing, willing the highest good or well-being of God
and of being in general, as an end, or for its own sake; that
this willing is a consecration of all the powers, so far as they
are under the control of the will, to this end. Entire conse
cration to this end must of course constitute obedience to the
moral law. The next question is: Can consecration to this
end be real and yet partial in the sense of not being entire
for the time being? This conducts us to the second proposi
tion, namely:
//. That obedience can not be partial in the sense that the sub
ject ever does or can partly obey and partly disobey at the same
time. That is, consecration, to be real, must be, for the time be
ing, entire and universal. It will be seen that this discussion
respects the simplicity of moral action, that is, whether the
choices of the will that have any degree of conformity to
moral law are always and necessarily wholly conformed or
wholly disconformed to it. There are two distinct branches
to this inquiry.
I. The one is, can the will' at the same time make opposite
choices? Can it choose the highest good of being as an ulti
mate end, and at the same time choose any other ultimate end
or make any choices whatever inconsistent with this ultimate
choice? 2. The second branch of this inquiry respects the strength
or intensity of the choice. Suppose but one ultimate choice
can exist at the same time, may not that choice be less effi
cient and intense than it ought to be?
Let us take up these two inquiries in their order.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 151
1. Can the will at the same time choose opposite and con
flicting ultimate ends? While one ultimate end is chosen
can the will choose any thing inconsistent with this end? In
reply to the first branch of this inquiry I observe,
(1.) That the choice of an ultimate end is, and must be, the
supreme preference of the mind. Sin is the supreme prefer
ence of self-gratification. Holiness is the supreme preference
ofthe good of being. Can then two supreme preferences coex
ist in the same mind? It is plainly impossible to make oppo
site choices at the same time. That is, to choose opposite
and conflicting ultimate ends.
(2.) All intelligent choice, as has been formerly shown,
must respect ends or means. Choice is synonymous with in
tention. If there is a choice or intention, of necessity some
thing must be chosen or intended.. This something must be
chosen for its own sake or as an end, or for the sake of some
thing else to which it sustains the relation of a means. To
deny this were to, deny that the choice.is intelligent. But we
are speaking of no other than intelligent choice, or the choice
of a moral agent.
(3.) This conducts us to the inevitable conclusion that no
choice whatever can be made inconsistent with the present
choice of an ultimate end. The mind can not choose one ul
timate end, and choose at the same time another ultimate
end. But if this can not be, it is plain that it can not choose
one ultimate end, and at the same time, while in the exercise
of that choice, choose the means to secure some other ulti
mate end, which other end is not chosen. But if all choice
must necessarily respect ends or means, and if the mind can
choose but one ultimate end at a time, it follows that, while in
the exercise of one choice, or while in the choice of one ulti
mate end, the mind can not choose, for the time being, any
thing inconsistent with that choice. The mind, in the choice
of an ultimate end, is shut up to the necessity of willing the
means to acccomplish that end; and before it can possibly
will means to secure any other ultimate end, it must change
its choice of an end. If, for example, the soul choose the
highest well-being of God and the universe as an ultimate
end, it can not while it continues to choose that end, use or
choose the means to effect any other end. It can not while
this choice continues, choose self-gratification or „any thing
else as an ultimate end, nor can it put forth any volition what
ever known to be inconsistent with this end. Nay, it can
put forth no intelligent vohtion whatever that is not designed

152 ' systematic theology.
to secure this end. The only possible choice inconsistent
with this end is the choice of another ultimate end. When
this is done, other means can be used or chosen and not be
fore. This, then, is plain, to wit, that obedience to moral law
can not be partial, in the sense either that the mind can choose
two opposite ultimate ends at the same time, or that it can
choose one ultimate end and at the same time use or choose
means to secure any other ultimate end. It " can not serve
God and mammon." It can not will the good of being as an
ultimate end, and at the same time will self-gratification as an
ultimate end. In other words, it can not be selfish and be
nevolent at the same time, it can not choose as an ulti
mate end the highest good of being, and at the same time
choose to gratify self as an ultimate end. Until self-grati
fication is chosen as an end, the mind can not will the means
of self-gratification. This disposes of the, first branch of the
inquiry. 2. The second branch of the inquiry respects the strength
or intensity of the choice.
May not the choice of an end be real and yet have less
than the required strength or intensity? The inquiry resolves
itself into this : Can the mind honestly intend or choose an
ultimate end and yet not choose it with all the strength or in
tensity which is required or with which it ought to choose it?
Now what degree of strength is demanded? By what crite
rion is this question to be settled? It can not be that the de
gree of intensity required is equal to the real value of the
end chosen, for this is infinite. The value of the highest
well-being of God and the universe is infinite. But a finite
being can ' not be under obligation to exert infinite strength.
The law requires him only to exert his own strength. But
does or may he not choose the right end but with less
than all his strength? All his strength lies in his will; the
question, therefore, is, may he not will it honestly and yet at
the same time withhold a part of the strength of his will? No
one can presume that the choice can be acceptable unless it
be honest. Can it be honest and yet less intense and ener
getic than it ought to be?
We have seen in a former lecture that the perception of an
end is a condition of moral obligation to choose that end. I
now remark that as light in respect to the end is.the condi
tion of the obligation, so the degree of obligation cannot ex
ceed the degree of light. That is, the mind' must apprehend
the valuable as a condition of the obligation to will it. The

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 153
degree of the obligation must be just equal to the mind's
honest estimate of the value of the end. , The degree of the
obligation must vary as the light varies. This is the doctrine
ofthe Bible and of reason. If this is so, it follows that the
mind is honest when and only when it devotes its strength to
the end in view with an intensity just proportioned to its pres
ent light or estimate of the value of that end.
We have seen that the mind can not will any thing incon
sistent with a present ultimate choice. If, therefore, the end
is not chosen with an energy and intensity equal to the pres
ent light, it can not be because a part of the strength is em
ployed in some other choice. If all the strength is not given
to this object, it must be because some part of itis voluntarily
withholden. That is, I choose the end, but not with all my
strength, or I choose the end, but choose not to choose it with
all my strength. Is this an honest choice, provided the end
appears to me to be worthy of all my strength? Certainly it
is not honest.
But again: It is absurd to affirm that I choose an ultimate
end and yet do not consecrate to it all my strength. The
choice of any ultimate end implies that that is the thing and
the only thing for which we live arid act; that we aim at
and live for nothing else for the time being. Now what is in
tended by the assertion that I may honestly choose an ultimate
end and yet with less strength or intensity than I ought. Is
¦it intended that I can honestly choose an ultimate end, and
yet not at every moment keep my will upon the strain, and
will at every moment with the utmost possible intensity? If
this be the meaning, I grant that this may be so. But I at
the same time contend that the law of God does not require
that the will or any other faculty should be at every moment
upon the strain and the whole strength exerted at every mo
ment. If it does, it is manifest that feven Christ did not obey
it. I insist that the moral law requires nothing more than
honesty of intention, and assumes that honesty of intention
will and must secure just that degree of interisity which from
time to time the mind in its best judgment sees to be demand
ed. The Bible every where assumes that sincerity or honesty
of intention is moral perfection ; that it is obedience to the
law. The terms sincerity and perfection in scripture lan
guage are synonymous. Uprightness, sincerity, holiness,
honesty, perfection, are words of the same meaning in bible
language. Again: It seems to be intuitively certain that if the mind

154 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
chooses its ultimate end, it must in the very act of choice
consecrate all its time, and strength, and being to that end,
and at every moment while the choice remains, choose and
act with an intensity in precise conformity with its ability and
the best light it has. The intensity of the choice and the
strenuousness of its efforts to secure the end chosen must, if
the intention be sincere, correspond with the view which the
soul has of the importance of the end chosen. It does not
seem possible that the choice or intention should be real and
honest unless this is so. To will at every moment with the ut
most strength and intensity is not only impossible, but, were
it possible, to do so could not be in accordance with the soul's,-
convictions of duty. The irresistible judgment of the mind
is, that the intensity of its action should not exceed the bound
of endurance. .That the energies of both soul and body should
be so husbanded as to be able to accomplish the most good
upon the whole and not in a given moment.
. But to return to the question. Does the law of God re
quire simply uprightness of intention, or does it require not
only uprightness but also a certain degree of intensity in the
intention? Is it satisfied with simple sincerity or uprightness
of intention, or does it require that the highest possible in
tensity of choice shall exist at every moment? When it re
quires that we love God with all the heart, with all the soul,
with all the mind, and with all the strength, does it mean that
all our heart, soul, mind and strength shall be consecrated to
this end, and be used up from moment to moment and from
hour to hour according to the best judgment which the mind
can form of the necessity and expediency of strenuousness of
effort, or does it mean that all the faculties of soul and body
shall be at every moment on the strain to the uttermost? Does
it mean that the whole being is to be consecrated to and used
up for God with the best- economy of which the soul, is capa
ble; or does it require that the whole being be not only con
secrated to God, but be used, up without any regard to
economy, and without the soul's exercising any judgment or
discretion in the case? In other words, is the law of Gad the
law of reason, or of folly? Is it inteUigible or just in its de
mands; oris it perfectly unintelligible and unjust? Is it a law
suited to the nature, relations, and circumstances of moral
agents; or has it no regard to them? If it has no regard to
either, is it, can it be moral law and impose moral obligar
tion? It seems to me that the law of God requires that all
our power, and strength, and being be honestly and continu-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 155
ally consecrated to God and held not in a state of the utmost
tension, but that the strength shall be expended and employed
in exact accordance with the mind's honest judgment of what
is at every moment the best economy for God. If this be not
the meaning and the spirit of the law, it can not be law, for it
could be neither intelligible nor just. Nothing else can be
a law of nature. What! Does, or can the command, thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy
soul, with all thy might, and with all thy strength, require that
every particle of my strength and every faculty of my being
shall be in a state of the utmost possible tension ? How long
could my strength hold out or my being last under such a
pressure as this? What reason, or justice, or utility, or equi
ty could there be in such a commandment as this ? Were this
suited to my nature and relations? That the law does not re
quire the constant and most intense action of the will, I argue
for the following reasons :
(1.) No creature in heaven or earth could possibly know
whether he ever for a single moment obeyed it. How could
he know that no more tension could possibly be endured?
(2.) Such a requirement would be unreasonable inasmuch
as such a state of mind would be unendurable.
(3.) Such a state of constant tension and strain ofthe facul
ties could be of no possible use.
(4.) It would be uneconomical. More good could be effec
ted by a husbanding of the strength.
(5.) Christ certainly obeyed the moral law and nothing is
more evident than that his faculties were not always on the
strain. (6.) Every one knows that the intensity ofthe will's action
depends and must depend upon the clearness with which the
value ofthe object chosen is perceived. It is perfectly absurd
to suppose that the will should orpossibly can act at all times
with the same degree of intensity. As the mind's apprehen
sions of truth vary, the intensity of the will's action must
vary, or it does not act rationally, and consequently not
virtuously.. The intensity of the actions of the will, ought to
vary as light varies, and if it does not, the mind is not honest.
If honest, it must vary as light and ability vary.
That an intention can not be right and honest in kind and
deficient in the degree of intensity, I argue.
1. From the fact that it is absurd to talk of an intention
right in kind while it is deficient in intensity. What does
lightness in kind mean? Does it mean simply that the inten-

156 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
tion terminates on the proper object? But is ,this the right
kind of an intention when only the proper object is chosen,
while there is a voluntary withholding of the required energy
of choice? Is this, can this be an honest intention? If so
what is meant by an honest intention ? Is it honest, can it
be honest voluntarily to withhold from God and the universe
what we perceive to be their due? and what we are conscious
that we might render? It is a contradiction to call this hon
est. In what sense then may, or can an intention be accepr
table in kind, while deficient in degree? Certainly in no
sense unless known and voluntary dishonesty can be accepta
ble. But let me ask again what is intended by an intention
being deficient in degree of intensity? If this deficiency be a
sinful deficiency, it must be a known deficiency. Thatis,the
subject of it must know at the time that his intention
is in point of intensity less than it ought to be, or that
he wills with less energy than he ought; or, in other words,
that the energy of the choice does not equal or is not agree
able to his own estimate of the value of the end chosen.
But this implies an absurdity. Suppose I choose an end, that
is, I choose a thing solely on account of its own intrinsic
value. It is for its value that I choose it. I choose it for its
value, but not according to its value. My perception of its
value led me to choose it for that reason ; and yet, while I
chooseitfor that reason, I voluntarily withhold that degree of in
tensity which I know is demanded by my own estimate ofthe val
ue ofthe thing which I choose ! . This is a manifest absurdity and
contradiction. If I choose a thing for its value, this implies that
I choose it according to my estimate of its value. Happiness
for example is a good in its'elf. Now suppose I will its exis
tence impartially, that is, solely on account ofits intrinsic value. '
Now, does not this imply that every degree of happiness must
be willed according to its real or relative value?; Can I will
it impartially, for its own sake, for and only for its intrinsic
value, and yet not prefer a greater to a less amount of happi
ness ? This is impossible. Willing it on account of its in
trinsic value implies willing it according to my estimate ofits
intrinsic value. So, it must be that an , intention cannot be
sincere, honest, and acceptable in kind while it is sinfully de
ficient in degree. I will introduce here with some alteration
and addition what I have elsewhere stated upon this subject
I quote from my letter in the Oberlin Evangelist upon the fol
lowing proposition : —
Moral Character is always wholly right or wholly wrong, and
never partly right and partly wrong at the same time.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 157
"I must again remind you of that in which moral charac
ter consists, and occupy a few moments in stating what I have
already said, that moral character belongs solely to the ulti
mate intention of the mind, or to choice, as distinguished from
volition. The law of God requires supreme disinterested be
nevolence, and all holiness, in the last analysis, resolves itself
into some modification of supreme disinterested benevolence,
or good-willing. Benevolence, or good-willing, is synonymous
with good-intending, or intending good. Now the true spirit
ofthe requirement ofthe moral, law is this — that every moral
being shall choose every interest according to its value as
perceived by the mind. This is holiness. It is exercising su
preme love or good will to God, and equal love or good will
to our neighbor.
This is a choice or intention, as distinguished from a voli
tion. It is also an ultimate intention, as distinguished from a
proximate intention.
Choice is the selection of an ultimate end. Volition is
produced by choice, and is the effort of the will to accomplish
the end chosen. An ultimate intention, or choice, is that
which is intended or chosen for its own sake, or as an ultimate
end, and not something chosen or intended as a means to ac
complish some other and higher end. A proximate end is that
which is chosen or intended, not as an ultimate end, but as a
means to an ultimate end. If I choose an end, I, of course
put forth those volitions which are requisite to the accomplish
ment of that end. Holiness, or virtue, consists in the su
preme ultimate intention, choice, or wilhng ofthe highest well-
being of God and the highest good of his kingdom. Noth
ing else than this is virtue or holiness.
As holiness consists in ultimate intention, so does sin. And
as holiness consists in choosing the highest well-being of
God and the good of the universe, for its own sake, or as the
supreme ultimate end of pursuit; so sin consists in willing
with a supreme choice or intention, self-gratification and self-
interest. Preferring a less to a greater good because it is our
own is selfishness. All selfishness consists in a supreme ulti
mate intention. By an ultimate intention, as I have said is
intended that which is chosen for its own sake as an end
and not as a means to some other end. Whenever a moral
being prefers or chooses his own gratification, or his own in
terest, in preference to a higher good, because it is his own
he chooses it as an end, for its own sake, and as an ultimate
end; not designing it as a means of promoting any other and
14

158 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
higher end, nor because it is a part of universal good. Eve
ry sin, then, consists in an act of will. It consists in prefer
ring self-gratification, or self-interest, to the authority of God,
the glory of God, and the good of the universe. It is, there
fore, and must be, a supreme ultimate choice, or intention.
Sin and holiness, then, both consist in supreme, ultimate,
and opposite choices, or intentions, and can not, by any pos
sibility, co-exist.
But for the sake of entering more at large into the discus
sion of this question, I will —
L Examine a little in detail the philosophy ofthe question, and,
2. Bring the philosophy into the light of the Bible.
And in discussing the philospphy of the question, I would
observe that five suppositions may be made, and so far as I
can see, only five, in respect to this subject.
1. It may be supposed, that selfishness and benevolence
can co-exist in the same mind.
2. It may be supposed, that the same act or choice may
have a complex character, on account of complexity in the
motives which induce it.
3. It may be supposed, that an act or choice may be right,
or holy in kind, but deficient in intensity or degree. Or,
4. That the will, or heart, may be right, while the affec
tions, or emotions, are wrong. Or,
5. That there may be a ruling, latent, actually existing,'ho-
ly preference, or intention, co-existing with opposing volitions.
Now unless one of these suppositions is true, it must follow
that moral character is either wholly right or wholly wrong,
and never partly right and partly wrong at the same time.
And now to the examination.
1. It may be ¦ supposed, that selfishness and benevolence
can co-exist in the same mind.
It has been shown that selfishness and benevolence are
supreme, ultimate, and opposite choices, or intentions. They
can not, therefore, by any possibility, co-exist in the same
mind. 2. The next supposition is, that the same act or choice
may have a complex character, on account of complexity in
the motives. On this let me say:
(1.) Motives are objective or subjective. An objective
motive is that thing external to the mind that induces choice
or intention. Subjective motive is the intention itself.
(2.) Character, therefore, does not belong to the objective
motive, or to that thing which the mind chooses; but moral

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 159
character is confined to the subjective motive, which is synony
mous with choice or intention. Thus we say a man is to be
judged by his motives, meaning that his character isv as his
intention is. Multitudes of objective motives or considera
tions, may have concurred directly or indirectly in their influ
ence, to induce choice or intention; but the intention or sub
jective motive is always necessarily simple and indivisible. In
other words, moral character consists in the choice of an ulti
mate end, and this end is to be chosen for its own sake, else it
it not an ultimate end. If the end chosen be the highest
well-being of God and the good of the universe — if it be the
willing or intending to promote and treat every interest in the
universe according to its perceived relative value, it is a right,
a holy motive, or intention. If it be any thing else, it is sinful.
Now whatever complexity there may have been in the consid
erations that led the way to this choice or intention, it is self
evident that the intention must be one, simple, and indivisible.
(3.) Whatever complexity there might have been in those
considerations that prepared the way to the settling down up
on this intention, the mind in a virtuous choice has and can
have but one reason for its choice, and that is the intrinsic
value of the thing chosen. The highest well-being of God,
the good of the universe, and every good according to its per
ceived relative value, must be chosen for one, and only one
reason, and that is the intrinsic value of the good which is
chosen for its own sake. If chosen for any other reason the
choice is not virtuous. It is absurd to say, that a thing is
good and valuable in itself, but may be chosen, not for that
but for. some other reason — that God's highest well-being and
the happiness of the universe, are an infinite good in them
selves, but are not to be chosen for that reason, and on their
own account, but for some other reason. Holiness, then,
must always consist in singleness of eye or intention. It
must consist in the supreme disinterested choice, willing, or
intending the good of God and of the universe, for its own
sake. In this intention there can not be any complexi
ty. If there were, it would not he holy, but sinful. It is,
therefore, stark nonsense to say, that one and the same choice
may have a complex character, on account of complexity of
motive. For that motive in which moral character consists.
is the supreme ultimate intention, or choice. This choice, or
intention must consist in the choice of a thing as an end and
for its own sake. The supposition, then, that the same choice
or intention may have a complex character, on account of
complexity in the motives, is wholly inadmissible.

160 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
If it be still urged, that the intention or subjective motive
may be complex — that several things may be included in the
intention and aimed at by the mind — and that it may, there
fore, be partly holy and partly sinful — I reply;
(4.) If by this it be meant that several things may be aimed
at or intended by the mind at the same time, I inquire what
things? It is true that the supreme, disinterested choice of
the highest good of being; may include the intention to use
all the necessary means. It may also include the intention to
promote every interest in the universe, according to its per
ceived relative value. These are all properly included in one
intention; but this implies no such complexity in the subject
ive motive as to include both sin and holiness.
(5.) If by complexity of intention is meant that it may be
partly disinterestedly benevolent, and partly selfish, which it
must be to be partly holy and partly sinful, I reply, that this
supposition is absurd. It has been shown that selfishness and
benevolence consist in supreme, ultimate, and opposite choices
or intentions. To suppose, then, that an intention can be
both holy and sinful, is to suppose that it may include two su
preme opposite and ultimate choices orintentions at the same
time; in other words, that I may supremely and disinterest
edly intend to regard and promote every interest in the uni
verse according to its perceived relative value, for its own
sake; and at the same time, may supremely regard my own
self-interest and self-gratification, and in some things supreme
ly intend to promote my selfish interests, in opposition to the
interests of the universe and the commands of God. But this
is naturally impossible. An ultimate intention, then, may be
complex in the sense, that it may include the design to pro
mote every perceived interest, according to its relative value;
but it can not, by any possibihty, be complex in the sense that
it includes selfishness and benevolence, or holiness and sin.
3. The third supposition is, that holiness may be right} or
pure in kind, but deficient in degree. On this, I remark:
(1.) We have seen that moral character consists in the ul
timate intention.
(2.) The supposition, therefore, must be, that the intention
may be right, or pure in kindft but deficient in the degree of
its strength.
(3.) Our intention is to be tried by the law of God, both in
respect to its kind and degree.
(4.) The law of God requires us to will, or intend the pro
motion of every interest in the universe according to its per-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 161
ceived relative value, for its own sake; in other words, that
all our powers shall be supremely and disinterestedly devoted
to the glory of God and the good of the universe.
(5.) This cannot mean that any faculty shall at every mo
ment be kept upon the strain, or in a state of utmost tension,
for this would be inconsistent with natural ability. It would
be to require a natural impossibility, and therefore be unjust.
(6.) It cannot mean that at all times, and on all subjects,
the same degree of exertion shall be made; for the best pos
sible discharge of duty does not always require the same de
gree or intensity of mental or corporeal exertion.
(7.) The law can not, justly or possibly, require more, than
that the whole being shall be consecrated to God — that we
shall fully and honestly will or intend the promotion of every
interest according to its perceived relative value, and accord
ing to the extent of our ability.
(8.) Now the strength or intensity of the intention must,
and ought, of necessity, to depend upon the degree of our
knowledge or light in regard to any object of choice. If our
obhgation is not to be graduated by the light we possess,
then it would follow that we may be under obligation to ex
ceed our natural abihty, which can not be.
(9.) The importance which we attach to objects of choice,
and consequently the degree of ardor or intenseness of the
intention, must depend upon the clearness or obscurity of our
views of the real or relative value of the objects of choice.
(10.) Our obligation can not be measured by the views
which God has of the importance of those objects of choice.
It is a well settled and generally admitted truth, that increased
light increases responsibility or moral obligation. No crea
ture is bound to will any thing with the intenseness or degree
of strength with which God wills it, for the plain reason,
that no creature sees its importance or real value, as He does.
If our obligation were to be graduated by God's knowledge
of the real value of objects, we could never obey the moral
law either in this world or the world to come, nor could any
being but God ever, by any possibility, meet its demands.
(11.) Nor can our obligation be measured by the views or
knowledge which angels may have of the intrinsic or relative
value of the glory of God, the worth of souls, and the good
of the universe.
(12.) Nor can the obligation of a heathen be measured by
the knowledge and light of a Christian.
( 1 3.) Nor the obligation ofa child, by the knowledge ofa man.
14*

162 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(14.) The fact is, that the obligation of every moral being
must be graduated by his own knowledge.
(15.) If, therefore, his intention be equal in its intensity to
his views or knowledge of the real or relative value of differ
ent objects, it is right. It is up to the full measure of his ob
ligation; and if his own honest judgment is not to be made
the measure of his obligation, then his obligation can exceed
what he is able to know; which contradicts the true nature of
moral law, and is, therefore, false.
(16.) If conscious honesty of intention, both as it respects
the kind and degree of intention, according to the degree of
light possessed, be not entire obedience to moral law, then
there is no being in heaven or earth, who. can know himself
to be entirely obedient; for all that any being can possibly
know upon this subject is, that he honestly wills or intends in
accordance with the dictates of his reason, or the judgment
which he has of the real or relative value of the object cho
sen. (17.) If something more than this can be required, then a
law can be binding farther than it is prescribed, or so pub
lished that it toay be known, which is contradictory to natu
ral justice, and absurd.
(18.) No moral being can possibly blame or charge himself
with any default, when he is conscious of honestly intending,
willing, or choosing* and acting, according to the best light he
has; for in this case he obeys the law as he understands it, and
of course can not conceive himself to be condemned by the
law. (20.) Good-willing, or intending is, in respect to God, to be
at all times supreme, and in respect to other beings, it is to be
in proportion to the relative value of their happiness as per
ceived by the mind. This is always to be the intention. The
volitions, or efforts of the will to promote these objects,, may
and ought to vary indefinitely in their intensity, in proportion
to the particular duty to which, for the time being, we are
called. (21.) But farther, we have seen that virtue consists in wil
ling every good according to its perceived relative value, and
that nothing short of this is virtue. But this is perfect virtue
for the time being. In other words, virtue and moral perfec
tion, in respect to a given act, or state Ofthe will, are synony
mous terms. Virtue is holiness. Holiness is upright
ness. Uprightness is that which is just What, under the
circumstances, it should be; and nothing else is virtue, holi-

* MORAL GOVERNMENT. 163
ness, or uprightness. Virtue, holiness, uprightness, moral
perfection — when we apply these terms to any given state of
the will-i— are synonymous. To talk, therefore, of a virtue,
holiness, uprightness, justice — right in kind, but deficient in
degree — is to talk sheer nonsense. It is the same absurdity as
to talk of sinful holiness, an unjust justice, a wrong Tightness,
an impure purity, an imperfect perfection, a disobedient obedi
ence. (22.) The fact is, virtue, holiness, uprightness, &c, signify
a definite thing, and never any thing else than conformity to
the law of God. That .which is not entirely conformed to
the law of God is not holiness. This must be true in philoso
phy, and the Bible affirms the same thing. " Whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one pointy he is guilty of
all." The spirit of this text as clearly and as fully assumes
and affirms the doctrine under consideration as if it had been
uttered with that design alone.
(23.) God has no right to call that holy which is defective
in degree.
(24;) Unless every perceived interest is, for the time being,
willed or intended according to its relative value, there is no
virtue. Where this intention exists, there can be no sin.
4. The next supposition is, that the will, or heart, may be
right, while the affections or emotions are wrong. Upon this
I remark:. (1.) That this supposition overlooks that in which moral
character consists. It has been shown that moral character
consists in the supreme ultimate intention of the mind, and
that this supreme, disinterested benevolence, good-willing, or
intention, is the whole of virtue. Now this intention begets
volitions. It directs the attention ofthe mind, and, there-;
fore, produces thoughts, emotions, or affections. It also,
through volition, begets bodily action. But moral character
does not lie in outward actions, the movements of the arm, nor
in the volition that moves the muscles; for that volition ter
minated upon the action itself. 1 will to move my arm, and
my arm must move by a law of necessity. Moral character
belongs solely to the intention, that produced the volition, that
moved the muscles, to the performance of the outward act.
So intention produces the volition that directs the attention
of the mind to a given object. Attention, by a natural ne
cessity, produces thought, affection, or emotion. Now thought
affection, or emotion, are all connected with volition, by a
natural necessity; that is — if the attention is directed to an

164 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
object, corresponding thoughts and emotions must exist of
course. Moral character no more lies in emotion, than in
outward action. It does not lie in thought, or attention. It
does not lie in the specific volition that directed the attention;
but in that intention, or design of the mind, that produced the,
volition, which directed the attention, which, again, produced
the thought, which, again, produced the emotion. Now the
supposition, that the intention may be right, while the emo
tions or feelings of the mind may be wrong, is the same as to
say, that outward action may be wrong, while the intention is
right. The fact is, that moral character is and must be as the
intention is. If any feeling or outward action is inconsistent
with the existing ultimate intention, it must be so in spite of
the agent. But if any outward action or state of feeling ex
ists, in opposition to the intention or choice of the mind, it
cannot, by any possibility, have moral character. Whatever
is beyond the control of a moral agent, he can not be respon
sible for. Whatever he can not control by intention he can
not control at all. Every thing for which he can possibly be
responsible, resolves itself into his intention. His whole char
acter, therefore, is and must be as his intention is. If, there
fore, temptations, from whatever quarter they may come,
produce emotions within him inconsistent with his intention,
and which he can not control, he cannot be responsible for
them. (2.) As a matter of fact, although emotions, contrary to
his intentions, may, by circumstances beyond his control, be
brought to exist in his mind; yet, by willing to divert the at
tention Of the mind from the objects that produce them, they
can ordinarily be banished from the mind. If this is done as
soon as in the nature of the case it can be, there is no sin.
If it is not done as soon as in the nature of the case it can be,
then it is absolutely certain that the intention is not what it
ought to be. The intention is to devote the whole being to
the service of God and the good of the universe, and of
course to avoid every thought, affection, and emotion, incon
sistent with this. While this intention exists, it is certain that
if any object be thrust upon the attention which excites thoughts
and emotions inconsistent with our supreme ultimate inten
tion, the attention of the mind will be instantly diverted from
those objects, and the hated emotion hushed, if this is possi
ble. For, while the intention exists, corresponding volitions
must exist. There cannot, therefore, be a right state of heart
or intention, while the emotions or affections of the mind are

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 165
sinful. For emotions are in themselves in no case sinful, and
when they exist against the will, through the force of tempta
tion, the soul is not responsible for their existence. And, as
I said, the supposition overlooks that in which moral character
consists, and makes it to consist in that over which the law
does not properly legislate; for love, or benevolence is the
fulfilling of the law.
But here it may be said, that the law not only requires be
nevolence, or good-willing, but requires a certain kind of
emotions, just as it requires the performance of certain out
ward actions, and that therefore there may be a right inten
tion where there is a deficiency, either in kind or degree, of
right emotions. To this I answer:
Outward actions are required of men, only because they
are connected with intention, by a natural necessity. And
no outward action is ever required of us, unless it can be pro
duced by intending and aiming to do it. If the effect does
not follow our honest endeavors, because of any antagonist
influence, opposed to our exertions, which we can not over
come, we have by our intention complied with the spirit of
the law, and are not to blame that the outward effect does not
take place. Just so with emotions. All we have power to
to do, is, to direct the attention of the mind to those objects
calculated to secure a given state of emotion. If, from any
exhaustion of the sensibility, or for any other cause beyond
our control, the emotions do not arise which the consideration
of that subject is calculated to produce, we are no more re
sponsible for the absence or weakness of the emotion, than
we should be for the want or weakness of motion in our mus
cles, when we willed to move them, in consequence of exhaus
tion or any other preventing cause, over which we had no
control. The fact is, we can not be blame worthy for not
feeling or doing that which we can not door feel by intending
it. If the intention then is what it ought to be for the time
being, nothing can be morally wrong.
5. The last supposition is, that a latent preference, or right
intention, may co-exist with opposing or sinful volitions.
Upon this I remark:
That I have formerly supposed that this could be true, but
am now convinced that it can not be true ; for the following
reasons :
(1.) Observe, the supposition is, that the intention or ru
ling preference maybe right — may really exist as an active
and virtuous state of mind, while, at the same time, volition
may exist inconsistent with it.

166 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(2.) Now what is a right intention? I answer: Nothing
short of this1— Willing, choosing, or intending the highest good
of God and of the universe, and to promote this at every irio-
ment, to the extent of our ability. In other words — right jn-
tentionis supreme, disinterested benevolence. _ Now whatare
the elements Which enter into this right intention?
a. The choice or willing of every interest according to its
perceived intrinsic value.
¦ b. To devote our entire being, now and for ever, to this end.
This is right intention. Now the question is, can this inten
tion co-exist with a volition inconsistent with it? Volition im
plies the choice of something, for some reason. If it be the
choice of whatever can promote this supremely benevolent
end, and for that reason, the Volition is consistent with the in
tention ; but if it be the choice of something perceived to be
inconsistent with this end, and for a selfish reason, then the
volition is inconsistent with the supposed intention. But the
question is, do the volition and intention co-exist? According
to the supposition, the will chooses, or wills something, for a
selfish reason, or something perceived to be inconsistent with
supreme, disinterested benevolence. Now it is plainly impos
sible, that this choice can take place while the opposite inten
tion exists. For this selfish volition is, according to the sup
position, sinful or selfish; that is — something is chosen for its
own sake, which is inconsistent with disinterested benevolence.
But here the intention is ultimate. It terminates upon the ob
ject chosen for its own sake. To suppose, then, that benevo
lence still remains in exercise, and that a volition co-exists
with it that is sinful, involves the absurdity of supposing, that
selfishness and benevolence can co-exist in the same mind, or
that the will can choose, or will, with a supreme preference
or choice, two opposites, at the same time. This is plainly
impossible. Suppose I intend to go to the city of New York
as soon as I possibly can. Now if, on my way, I will to loiter
unecessarily a moment, I necessarily relinquish one indispen
sable element of my intention. In willing to loiter, or, turn
aside to some other object for a day, or an hour, I must, of
necessity, relinquish theintention of going as soon as I possi
bly can. I may not design to finally relinquish my journey,
but I must of necessity relinquish the intention of going as
soon as I can. Now virtue consists in intending to do all the
good I possibly can, or in willing the glory of God and the
good of the universe, and intending to promote them to the
extent of my ability. Nothing short of this is virtue. • Now

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 167
if at any time, I will something perceived to be inconsisent
with this intention, I must, for the time being, relinquish the
intention, as it must indispensably exist in my mind in order
to be virtue. I may not come to the resolution, that I will
never serve God any more, but I must of necessity relinquish,
for the time being, the intention of doing my utmost to glorify
God, if at any time I put forth a selfish volition. For a selfish
volition implies a selfish intention. I can not put forth a voli
tion intended to secure an end until I have chosen the end.
Therefore, a holy intention can not co-exist with a selfish
volition. It must be, therefore, that in every sinful choice, the will
of a holy being must necessarily drop the exercise of supreme,
benevolent intention, and pass into an opposite state of choice;
that is — the agent must cease, for the time being, to exercise
benevolence, and make a selfish choice. For be it understood
that volition is the choice of a means to an end; and of course
a selfish volition implies a selfish choice of an end.
Having briefly examined the several suppositions that can
be made in regard to the mixed character of actions, I will
now answer a few objections ; after which, I will bring this
philosophy as briefly as possible, into the light of the Bible.
Objection. Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, when
ever he commits, a sin? I answer:
1. Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to
be holy. This is self-evident.
2. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned. He must in
cur the penalty of the law of God. If he does not, it must
be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of
God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, can
neither be holy nor sinful. If it be said that the precept is
still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian
the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply — that to
abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept
without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The
Christian, therefore, is justified no farther than he obeys, and
must be condemned when he disobeys, or Antinomianism
is true.
3. When the Christian sins, he must repent, and 'do his
first works,' or he will perish.
4. Until he repents he cannot be forgiven. In these re
spects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sin
ner are upon precisely the same ground.
5. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs
widely from the unconverted sinner:

168 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God.
A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An uncon
verted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christiari sustains a
covenant relation to God, such a covenant relation as to se
cure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring
him back, if he wanders away from God. " If his children
forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they
break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will
I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with
stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly
take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My cove
nant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of
my lips." Ps.». 89: 30—34.
(2.) The sinning Christian differs from the unconverted man,
in the state of his sensibility. In whatever way it takes place,
every Christiari knows that the state of his sensibility in re
spect to the things of God, has undergone a great change.
Now it is true, that moral character does not lie in the sensi,
bility, nor in the will's obeying the sensibility. Nevertheless
our consciousness teaches us, that our feelings have great
power in promoting wrong choice on the one hand and in remo
ving obstacles to right choice on the other. In every Chris
tian's mind there is, therefore, a foundation laid for appeals to
the sensibilities of the soul, that gives truth a decided advan
tage over the will. And multitudes of things in the experi
ence of every Christian, give truth a more decided advantage
over his will through the intelligence than is the case with un
converted sinners.
Obj. Can a man be born again, and then be unborn? I
answer: 1. If there were any thing impossible in this, then perse
verance would be no virtue.
2. None will maintain, that there is any thing naturally
impossible in this, except it be those who hold to physical re
generation. 3. If regeneration consist in a change in the ruling prefer
ence of the mind or in the ultimate intention, as we shall see
it does, it is plain, that an individual can be born again and
afterwards cease to be virtuous.
4. That a Christian is able to apostatize, is evident, from the
many warnings addressed to Christians in the Bible.
5. A Christian may certainly fall into sin and unbelief, and
afterwards be renewed, both to repentance and faith.
Obj. Can there be no such thing as weak faith, weak love,
and weak repentance? I answer:

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 169
1. If you mean comparatively weak, I say, yes. But if
you mean weak, in such a sense. as to be sinful, I say, no.
Faith, Repentance, Love, and every Christian grace, properly
so called, does and must consist in an act of will, and resolve
itself into some modification of supreme, disinterested benev
olence. I shall, in a future lecture, have occasion to show the
philosophical nature of faith. Let it suffice here to say,
that faith necessarily depends upon the clearness or obscurity
of the intellectual apprehensions of truth. Faith, to be real
or virtuous, must embrace whatever of truth is apprehended
by the intelhgence for the time being. '
2. Various causes may operate to divert the intelligence
from the objects of faith, or to cause the mind to perceive but
few of them, and those in comparative obscurity.
3. Faith may be weak, and will certainly and necessarily be
weak in such cases, in proportion to the obscurity of the views.
And yet, if the will or heart confides so far as it apprehends
the truth, which it must do to be virtuous at all, faith cannot
beweak in such a sense as to be sinful; for if a man confides
so far as he apprehends or perceives the truth, so far as faith
is concerned he is doing his whole duty.
4. Faith may be weak in the sense, that it often intermits
and gives place to unbelief. Faith is confidence, and unbe
lief is the withholding of confidence. It is the rejection of
truth perceived. Faith is the reception of truth perceived.
Faith and unbelief, then, are opposite states of choice, and
can by no possibility co-exist.
5. Faith may be weak, in respect to its objects. The disci
ples of our Lord Jesus Christ knew so little of Him, were so
filled with ignorance and the prejudices of education, as to
have very weak faith in respect to the Messiahship, power,
and divinity of their Master. He speaks of them as having
but little confidence, and yet it does not appear that they did
not implicitly trust Him, so far as they understood Him. And
although, through ignorance, their faith was weakj yet there
is no evidence, that when they had any faith at all they did
not confide in whatever of truth they apprehended.
Obj. But did not the disciples pray, "Increase our faith?"
I answer, Yes. And by this they must have intended to pray for
instruction; for what else could they mean? Unless a man
means this, when he prays for faith, he does not know what he
prays for. Christ produces faith by enlightening the mind.
When we pray for faith we pray for light. And faith, to be
15

170 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
real faith at all, must be equal to the light we have. If appre
hended truth be not implicitly received and confided in, there
is no faith; but unbelief. If it be, faith is what it ought
to be, wholly unmixed with sin.
Obj. But did not one say to our Lord, "Lord, I believe,
help thou my unbelief," thus implying, that he was in the ex
ercise both of faith and unbelief at the same time? I an
swer, yes, but,
1. This was not inspiration.
2. It is not certain, that he had any faith at all.
3. If he had and prayed understandingly, he meant nothing
more than to ask for an increase of faith, or for such a degree
of light as to remove his doubts in respect to the divine power
of Christ.
Obj. Again it is objected that this philosophy contradicts
Christian experience. To this I reply,
1. Thatit is absurd'to appeal from reason and the Bible to
empirical consciousness, which must be the appeal in this case.
Reason and the Bible plainly attest the truth of the theory
here advocated. What experience is then to be appealed to
to set their testimony aside ? Why, christian experience, it is
replied. But what is christian experience? How shall we
learn what it is? Why surely by appealing to reason and
the Bible. But these declare that if a man offend in one point,
he does and must for the time being violate the spirit of the
^whole law. Nothing is or can be more express than is the
testimony of both reason and revelation upon this subject.
Here, then, we have the unequivocal decision of the only
court of competent jurisdiction in the case, and shall we be
fool ourselves by appealing from this tribunal to the court of
empirical consciousness ? Of what does that take cognizance?
Why, of what actually passes in the mind, that is, of its men
tal states. These we are conscious of as facts. But we call
these states christian experience. How do we ascertain that
they are in accordance with the law and gospel of God?
Why only by an appeal to reason and the Bible. Here, then,
we are driven back to the court from which we had before ap
pealed, whose judgment is always the same.
Obj. But it is said this theory seems to be true in philosophy,
that is, the intelligence seems to affirm it, but it is not true
in fact.
Answer, If the intelligence affirms it, it must be true or
reason deceives us. But if the intelligence deceives in this,
it may also in other things. If it fails us here, it fails us on

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 171
the most important of all questions. If reason gives false tes
timony, we can never know truth from error upon any moral
subject. We certainly can never know what religion is oris
not, if the testimony of reason can be set aside. If the in
telligence can not be safely appealed to, how are we to know
what the bible means? for it is the only faculty by which we
get at the truth of the oracles of God?
These are the principal objections to the philosophical view
I have taken of the simplicity of moral action, that occur to
my mind. I will now briefly advert to the consistency of this
philosophy with the scriptures.
1. The Bible every where seems to assume, the simplicity
of moral action. Christ expressly informed his disciples, that
they could not serve God and Mammon. Now by this He did
not mean, that a man could not serve Goiiat one time and
Mammon at another; but that he could not serve both at the
same time. The philosophy that makes it possible for per
sons to be partly holy and partly sinful at the same time, does
make it possible to serve God and Mammon at the same time,
and thus flatly contradicts the assertion of our Savior.
2, James has expressly settled this philosophy, by saying,
that, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend
in one point, he is guilty of all." Here he must mean to as
sert that one sin involves a breach of the whole spirit of the
law, and is therefore inconsistent with any degree of holiness
existing with it. Also, " Doth a fountain send forth at the
same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig-tree, my breth
ren, bear olive-berries? either a vine, figs ? so can no foun
tain both yield salt water and fresh." James 3: 11, 12.
In this passage he clearly affirms the simplicity of moral ac^
tion ; for by 'the same' place' he evidently means, the same time,
and what he says is equivalent to saying that a man can not be
holy and sinful at the same time.
3. Christ has expressly taught, that nothing is regeneration,
or virtue, but entire obedience, or the renunciation of all
selfishness. " Except a man forsake all that he hath, he can
not be my disciple." ,
4. The manner in which the precepts and threatenings of
the Bible are usually given, show that nothing is regarded as
obedierice, or virtue, but doing exactly that which God
commands. 5. The common philosophy, that maintains the co-existence
of both sin and holiness m the mind at the same time, is vir
tually Antinomianism. It is a rejection of the law of God as

172 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the standard of duty. It maintains, that something is holiness
which is less than supreme disinterested benevolence, or the de
votion for the time of the whole being to God. Now any
philosophy^that makes regeneration, or holiness, consist in
any thing less than just that measure of obedience which the
law of God requires, is Antinomianism. It is a letting down,
a rejection of the law of God.
6. The very idea of sin and holiness co-existing in the
same mind, is an absurd philosophy, contrary to scripture and
common sense. It is an overlooking of that in which holiness
consists. Holiness is obedience to the law of Grid, and noth
ing else is. By obedience, I mean entire obedience, or just
that which the law requires. Any thing else than that which
the law requires is not obedience and is not holiness. To
maintain that itis, is to abrogate the law.
I might go to great lengths in the examination of scripture
testimony, but- it cannot be necessary, or in these lectures
expedient. I must close this lecture, with a few inferences
and remarks.
1. It has been supposed by some, that the simplicity of
moral action, has been resorted to as a theory by the advocates
of entire sanctification in this life, as the only consistent
method of carrying out their principle. To this I reply:
(1.) That this theory is held in common, both by those who
hold and those who deny the doctrine of entire sanctification
in this life.
(2.) The truth ofthe doctrine of entire sanctification does not
depend at all upon this philosophical theory for its support;
but may be established by Bible testimony, whatever the phil
osophy of holiness may he.
2. Growth in grace consists in two things:
(1.) In the stability or permanency of holy, ultimate in
tention. (2.) In intensity or strength. As knowledge increases,
Christians will naturally grow in grace, in both these re
spects. 3. The theory of the mixed character of moral actions, is
an eminently dangerous theory, as it leads its advocates to
suppose that in their acts of rebellion there is something
holy, or more strictly, that there is some holiness in them while
they are in the known commission of sin.
It is dangerous, because it leads its advocates to place the
standard of conversion, or regeneration, exceedingly low; to
make regeneration, repentance, true love to God, faith, &c,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 173
consistent with the known or conscious commission of present
sin. This must be a highly dangerous philosophy. The fact
is, that regeneration, or holitiess, under any form, is quite
another thing than it is supposed to be by those who main
tain the philosophy of the mixed character of moral ac
tion. 4. There can scarcely be a more dangerous error than that
while we are conscious of present sin we are or can be in a
state acceptable to God.
5. The false philosophy of many leads them to adopt a
phraseology inconsistent with truth, and to speak as if they
were guilty of present sin when in fact they are not, but are
in a state of acceptance with God.
6. It is erroneous to say that Christians sin in their most
holy, exercises, and it is as injurious and dangerous as it is
false. The fact is hohness is holiness, and it is really non
sense to speak of a hohness that consists with sin.
7. The tendency of this philosophy is to quiet in their de
lusions those whose consciences assure them of present sin,
as if this could be true and they in a state Of acceptance with
God notwithstanding.

15*

LECTURE XII.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
I. In what sense obedience to Moral Law can be par
tial. II. The Government of God accepts nothing as virtue
but obedience to Moral Law.
I. In what sense obedience to Moral Law can be partial.
In discussing this subject I must,
1., Remind you of the sense in which it has been shown that
obedience can not be partial, and,
2. Show the sense in which it can be partial.
1. In what sense we have seen that obedience to moral law
can not be partial.
(1.) Not in the sense that a moral agent can at the same
time be selfish and benevolent. That is, a moral agent
can not choose as an ultimate end the highest well-being of
God and of the Universe, and, at the same time, choose an
opposite end, namely, his own gratification. In other words
he can not love God supremely and his neighbor as him
self, and at the same time love himself supremely, and
prefer his own gratification to the good of God and his neigh
bor. These two things, we have seen, can not be.
(2.) We have seen that a moral agent can not honestly
choose the well-being of God and the universe as an ultimate
end, that is, for and on account of its intrinsic value, and yet
withhold the degree of intensity of choice which he sees the
value of the end demands, and he is able to render. In other
words, he can not be honest in knowingly and intentionally
withholding from God and man their dues. That is, he can
not be honestly dishonest. ' "•
(3.) We have seen that honesty of intention implies the
esteeming and treating of every being and thing' known to
the mind according to its nature and relations, and every inte
rest according to its estimated relative importance and our
ability to promote it.
(4.) We have seen that neither of the following supposi
tions can be true.
It can not be true,
[1.] That an act or choice may have a complex character;
on account of complexity in the motives that induce it. .
It can not be true,

MORAL GOVERNMENT, 175
[2.] That the will or heart may be right while the emotions
and affections are wrong in the sense of sinful.
It can not be true, t"'
[3.] That a ruling, latent, but actually existing holy prefer
ence or intention, may co-exist with opposing volitions.
These things, we have seen, can not be, and therefore that
the following is true, to wit, that obedience to moral law can
not be partial in the sense that a moral agent can partly obey
and partly disobey at the same time ; that he can not be both
holy and unholy in the same act; that he can not at the same
time serve both God and mammon. This certainly is the doc
trine both of natural and revealed theology. This summing
up of what was taught in the last lecture conducts us to the
discussion of the second inquiry, namely :
I. In what sense obedience to moral law can be partial.
And here I would observe that the only sense in which
obedience to moral law can be partial is, that obedience may
be intermittent. That is, the subject may sometimes obey
and at other times disobey. He may at one time be selfish
or will his own gratification because it is his own, and with
out regard to the well-being of God and his neighbor, and at
another time will the highest well-being of God and the Uni
verse as an end and his own good only in proportion to its
relative value. These are opposite choices or ultimate inten
tions. The one is holy; the other is sinful. One is obedi
ence and entire obedience, to the law of God; the other is diso
bedience and entire disobedience to that law. These for
ought we can see may succeed each other an indefinite num
ber of times, but co-exist they plainly can not.
//. The Government of God accepts nothing as virtue but obe
dience to the law of God.
But it may be asked, why state this proposition? Was
this truth ever called in question? If such questions be asked,
I must answer that the truth of this proposition, (though ap
parently so self-evident that the suggestion that it is, or
can be called in question, may reasonably excite astonish
ment,) is generally denied. Indeed, probably nine-tenths of
the nominal church deny it. They tenaciously hold sentiments
that are entirely contrary to it, and amount to a direct denial
of it. They maintain that there is much true virtue in the
world, and yet that there is no one who ever for a moment
obeys the law of God; that all christians are virtuous, and
that they are truly religious, and yet not one on earth obeys
the moral law of God; in short that God accepts as virtue

176 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
that which in every instance comes short of obedience to his
law. And yet it is generally asserted in their articles of faith
that obedience to moral law is the only proper, evidence of a
change of heart. With this sentiment in their creed, they
will brand as a heretic or as a hypocrite any one who profes
ses to obey the law, and maintain that men may be and are
pious, and eminently so, who do not obey the law of God.
This sentiment, which every one knows to be generally held
by those who are styled orthodox Christians, must assume
that there is some rule of right or of duty beside the moral
law, or that virtue or true religion does not imply obedience
to any law. In this discussion I shall,
1. Attempt to show that there can be no rule of right or duty
but the moral law. and,
2. That nothing can be virtue or true religion but obedience to
this law.
3. That the Government of God acknowledges nothing else as
virtue or true religion.
1. There can be no rule of duty but the moral law.
Upon this proposition I remark^
(1.) That the moral law, as we have seen, is nothing else
than the law of nature, or that rule of action which is found
ed, not in the will of God, but in the nature and relations of
moral agents. It prescribes the course of action which is
agreeable or suitable to our nature and relations. It is unal
terably right to act in conformity with our nature and rela
tions. To deny this is palpably absurd and contradictory.
But if this is right nothing else can be right. If this course
is obligatory upon us by virtue of our nature and relations,
no other course can possibly be obligatory upon us. To act
in conformity with our nature and relations, must be right and
nothing more or less can be right., If these are not truths
of intuition, then there are no such truths.
(2.) God has never proclaimed any other rule of duty, and
should He do it, it could not be obligatory. The moral law
did not originate in His arbitrary will. He did not create it,
nor can He alter it, or introduce any other rule of right among
moral agents. Can God. make any thing else right than to
love him with all the heart and our neighbor as ourselves?
Surely not. Some have strangely dreamed that /the law of
faith has superseded the moral law. But we shall see that
moral law is not made void but is established by the law of
faith. True faitii, from its very nature, always implies love
or obedience to the moral law, and love or obedience to the

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 177
moral law always implies faith. As has been said on a former
occasion, no being can create law. Nothing is or can be
obligatory on a moral agent but the course of conduct suited
to his nature and relations. No being can set aside the obh
gation to do this. Nor can any being render any thing more
than this obligatory. Indeed there can not possibly be any
other rule of duty than the moral law. There can be no oth
er standard with which to compare our actions, and in the
light of which to decide their moral character. This brings
us to the consideration of the second proposition, namely:
//. That nothing can be virtue or true religion but obedience to
the moral law.
By this two things are intended:
(1.) That every modification of true virtue is only obedi
ence to moral law.
(2.) That nothing can be virtue but just that which the
moral law requires.
That every modification of true, virtue is only obedience to
moral law will appear if we consider,
1.] That virtue is identical with true religion.
'2.] That true religion can not properly consist in any thing
else than the love to God and man enjoined by the riioral law.
[3.] That the bible expressly recognizes love as the fulfill
ing of the law, and as expressly denies that any thing else is
acceptable to God.
"Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." "Though I
speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, (love,) I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling
cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and under
stand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all
faith so that I could remove mountains and have not charity I
am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the
^poor, and though I give my body to be burned and have not
charity, (love) it profiteth me nothing."
Love is repeatedly recognized in the bible, not only as con
stituting true religion, but as being the whole of religion.
Every form of true religion is only a form of love or benevo
lence. Repentance consists in the turning of the soul from a
state of selfishness to benevolence, from disobedierice to God's
law, to obedience to it. Faith is the receiving of, or confiding
in, embracing, loving, truth and the God of truth. It is only
a modification of love to God and Christ. Every christian
grace or virtue, as we shall more fully see when we come to
consider them in detail, is only a modification of love. God

178 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
is love. Every modification of virtue and holiness in God is
only love or the state of mind which the moral law requires
alike of him and of us. Benevolence is the whole of virtue
in God and in all holy beings. Justice, truthfulnes s, and every
moral attribute, is only benevolence viewed in particular rela
tions. Nothing can be virtue that is not just what the moral law
demands. That is, nothing short of what it requires can be in
any sense virtue.
The common idea seems to be that a kind of obedience is
rendered to God by Christians which is true religion, and
which on Christ's account is accepted of God, which after all
comes indefinitely short of full or entire obedience at ahy
moment; that the Gospel has somehow brought men, that is,
Christians, into such relations that God really accepts of them
an imperfect obedience, something far below what His law
requires; that Christians are accepted and justified while they
render at best but a partial obedience, and while they sin
more or less at every moment. Now this appears to me to be
as radical an error as can well be taught. This question
naturally branches out into two distinct inquiries:
(1.) Is it possible for a moral agent partly to obey and part
ly to disobey the moral law at the same time?
(2.) Can God in any sense justify one who does not yield a
present and full obedience to the moral law?
The first of these questions has been fully discussed under
another head. We think it has been shown that obedience
to the moral law can not be partial in the sense that the sub
ject can partly obey and partly disobey at the same time.
We will now attend to the second question, namely: Can
God, in any sense justify one who does not yield a present
and full obedience to the moral law? Or, in other words, can
he accept any thing as virtue or obedience which is not for the*
time being full obedience:, or all that the law requires?
The term justification is used in two senses.
[1.] In the sense of pronouncing the subject blameless.
E2.J In the sense of pardon and acceptance.
t is in this last sense that the advocates of this theory
hold that Christians are justified, that is, that they are pardoned
and accepted and treated as just, though at every moment
sinning by coming short of rendering that obedience which
the moral law demands. They do npt pretend that they are
justified at any moment by the law, for that at every moment
condemns them for present sin, but that they are justified by

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 179
grace, not in the sense that they are made really and person
ally righteous by grace, but that grace pardons and accepts,
and in this sense justifies them when they are in the present
commission of an indefinite "amount of sin ; that grace accounts
them righteous while in fact they are continually sinning;
that they are fully pardoned and acquitted while at the same
moment committing sin. While voluntarily withholding full
obedience, their partial obedience is accepted, and the sin of
withholding full obedience is forgiven. God accepts what
the sinner has a mind to give, and forgives what he voluntari
ly withholds. This is no caricature. It is, if I understand
them, precisely what many hold. In considering this subject,
I wish to propose for discussion the following inquiries as of
fundamental importance.
1. If a present partial obedience can be accepted, how
great a part may be withholden and we be accepted?
2. If we are forgiven while voluntarily withholding a part
of that which would constitute full obedience, are we not for
given sin of which we do not repent, and forgiven while in the
act of committing the sin for which we are forgiven?
3. What good can result to the sinner, to God, or to the
universe from forgiving - impenitence, or sin which is per
sisted in?
4. Has God a right to pardon present, and of course unre
pented sin?
5. Have we a right to ask him to forgive present unrepent
ed sin?
6. Must not confession of present and of course unrepent
ed sin be base hypocrisy?
7. Does the bible recognize the pardon of present and un
repented sin?
8- Does the bible recognize any justification in sin?
9. Can there be sucR a thing as partial repentance of sin?
That is, does not repentance imply present full obedience to
the law of God?
10. Must not that be a gross error that represents God as
pardoning and justifying a sinner in the present voluntary
commission of sin?
11. Can there be any other than a voluntary sin?
12. Must not present sin be unrepented sin?
We will now attend to these questions in their order.
1. How much sin may we commit, or how much may we at
every moment come short of full obedience to the law of
God, and yet be accepted and justified?

180 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY-
This must be an enquiry of infinite importance. If we
may willfully withhold a part of our hearts from God and yet
be accepted, how great a part may we withhold? If we may
love God with less than all our hearts and our neighbor less
than ourselves and be accepted, how much less than supreme
love to God and equal love to our neighbor will be ac
cepted? Shall we be told that the least degree of true love to God
and our neighbor will be accepted? But what is true. love to
God and our neighbor? This is the point of inquiry. Is
that true love which is not what is required? If the least
degree of love to God will he accepted, then we may love
ourselves more than we love God and yet be accepted. We
may love God a little, and ourselves much, and still be in a
state of acceptance with God. We may love God a little
and our neighbor a little and ourselves more than we love
God arid all our neighbors, and yet be in a justified state. Or
shall we be told that God must be loved supremely?. But
what is intended by this? Is supreme love a loving with all
the heart? But this is full and not partial obedience; but the
latter is the thing about which we are inquiring. Or is su
preme love, not love with all the heart, but simply a higher
degree of love than we exercise toward any other being?
But how much greater must it be? Barely a little? How are
we to measure it? In what scale are we to weigh, or by what
standard are we to measure our love so as to know whether
we love God a little more than any other being? But how
much are we to love our neighbor in order to our being accep
ted? If we may love him a little less than Ourselves, how
much less and still be justified ? These are certainly questions
of vital importance. . But such questions look like trifling.
But why should they ? If the theory I am examining be true,
these questions must not only be asked, but they must admit
of a satisfactory answer. The advocates of the theory in
question are bound to answer them. And if they can not, it
is only because their theory is false. Is it possible that their
theory should be true and yet no one be able to answer such
vital questions as these just proposed? If a partial obedience
can be accepted, it is a momentous question how partial or
how complete must that obedience be? I say again, that this
is a question of agonizing interest. God forbid that we
should be left in the dark here. But let us look at the second
question. 2. If we are forgiven while voluntarily withholding a.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 181
part of that which would constitute full obedience, are we not
forgiven sin of which we do not repent, and forgiven while
in the act of committing the sin for which we are forgiven?
The theory in question is that Christians never at any time
in this world yield a full obedience to the Divine law; that
they always withhold a part of their hearts from the Lord,
and yet While in the very act of committing this abominable
sin of voluntarily defrauding God and their neighbor, God
accepts their persons and their services, folly forgives and
justifies them. What is this but pardoning present and per
tinacious rebellion! Receiving to favor a God-defrauding
wretch! Forgiving a sin unrepented of and detestably per
severed in? Yes this must be, if it be true that Christians are
justified without present full obedience. That surely must be
a doctrine of devils that represents God as receiving to favor
a rebel who has at least one hand filled with weapons against
his throne.
3. But what good can result to God or the sinner or to the
universe by thus pardoning and justifying an unsanctified
soul? Can God be honored by such a proceeding? Will
the holy universe the more respect, fear and honor God for
such a proceeding? Does it, can it commend itself to the in
telhgence ofthe universe?
Will pardon and justification save the sinner, while yet he
continues to withhold a part, at least, of his heart from God?
While he still cleaves to a part of his sins ? Can heaven be ed
ified or hell confounded, and its cavils silenced by such a meth
od of justification?
4. But again: Has God a right to pardon unrepented sin?
Some may feel shocked at the question, and may insist that
this is a question which we have no right to agitate. But let
me inquire: Has God a right to act arbitrarily? Is there not
some course of conduct which is suitable in him ? Has he not giv
en us intelligence on purpose that we may be able to see and
judge ofthe propriety of his public acts? Does He not in
vite and require scrutiny? Why has He required an atone
ment for sin, and why has He required repentance at all?
Who does not know that no executive magistrate has a right
to pardon unrepented sin? The lowest terms upon which
any ruler can exercise mercy, are repentance, or which is the
same thing, a return to obedience. Who ever heard in any
government of a rebel's being pardoned while heonly renoun
ced a part of his rebellion? To pardon him while any part of
his rebellion is persevered in, were to sanction by a public act

182 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
that which is lacking in his repentance. It were to pronounce
a public justification of his refusal to render full obedience.
5. But have we a right to ask forgiveness while we perse-
vereinthe sinof withholding a part of our heart from Him?
God has no right to forgive, and we have no right to desire
him to forgive us while we keep back any part of the price.
While we persist in defrauding God and our neighbor, we can
not profess penitence and ask forgiveness without gross, hy
pocrisy. And shall God forgive us while we can not without
hypocrisy even profess repentance? To ask for pardon while
we do not repent and cease from sin, is a gross insult to God.
6. But does the bible recognize the pardon of present un
repented sin ?
Let the passage be found, if it can be, where sin is repre
sented as pardoned or pardonable unless repented of and fully
forsaken. No such passage can be found. The opposite of
this always stands revealed expressly or impliedly on every
page of Divine Inspiration.
7. Does the bible any where recognize a justification in sin?
Where is such apassage to be found? Does notthelaw con
demn sin, every degree of it? Does it not unalterably con
demn the sinner in whose heart the vile abomination is found?
If a soul can sin, and yet not be condemned, then it must be
because the law is abrogated, for surely if the law still remains
in force, it must condemn all sin. James most unequivocally
teaches this: "If any man keep the whole law, and yet
offend, in one point, be is guilty of all." What is this but as
serting that if there could be a partial obedience, it would be
unavailing, since the law would condemn for any degree of
sin; that partial obedience, did it exist, would not be re
garded as acceptable obedience at all? The doctrine that a
partial obedience (in the sense that the law is not at any time
fully obeyed,) is accepted of God, is sheer Antinomianism.-^
What! a sinner justified while indulging in rebellion against
God! But it has been generally held in the church that a sinner
must intend fully to obey the law as a condition of justifica-
tion^that in his purpose, intention, he must forsakeall sin; that
nothing short of perfection of aim or intention can be accept
ed of God. Now, what is intended by this language? We
have seen in former lectures that moral character belongs.
properly only to the intention. If, then, perfection of inten
tion be an indispensable condition of justification, what is this
but an admission after all that full present obedience is a con-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 183
dition of justification? But this is what we hold and they de
ny. What then can they mean? It is of importance to as
certain what is intended by the assertion repeated by them
thousands of times that a sinner can not be justified but upon
condition that he fully purposes and intends to abandon all
sin and to live without sin; unless he seriously intends to ren
der full obedience to all the commands of God. Intends to
obey the law! What constitutes obedience to the law? Why,
love, good willing, good intending. Intending to obey the
law is intending to intend, willing to will, choosing to choose!
This is absurd.
What then is the state of mind which is and must be the
condition of justification? Not merely an intention to obey,
for this is only an intending to intend, but intending what the
law requires to be intended, to wit, the highest well-being of
God and ofthe universe. Fully intending this, and not folly
intending to intend this, is the condition of justification. But
fully intending this, is full present obedience to the law.
But again: It is absurd to say that a man can intend fully
to obey the law unless he actually fully intends what the law
requires him to intend. The law requires him fully to iritend
the highest well-being of God and of the universe. And un
less he intends this, it is absurd to say that he can intend full
obedience to the law; that he intends to live without sin. —
Why, the supposition is that he is now sinning, that is, (for no
thing else is sin) voluntarily withholding from God and man
their due. He chooses, wills and intends this, and yet the sup
position is, that at the same time he chooses, wills," intends
fully to obey the law. What is this but the ridiculous asser
tion that he at the same time intends full obedience to the law
and intends not fully to obey, but only to obey in, part, volun
tarily withholding from God and man their dues.
But again to the question, can man be justified while sin re
mains in him? Surely he can not either upon legal or gospel
principles, unless the law be repealed. That he can not be
justified by the law while there is a particle of sin in him, is
too plain to need proof. But can he be pardoned and accept
ed, and then justified in the gospel sense, while sin, any de
gree of sin, remains in him? Certainly hot. For the law, un
less it be repealed and antinomianism be true, continues to
condemn him while there is any degree of sin in him. It is a
contradiction to say that he can be pardoned and at the same
time condemned. But if he is all the time coming short of foil
obedience, there never is a moment in which the law is not

184 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
uttering its curses against him. "Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the
law, to do them." The fact is, there never has been, and
there never can be any such thing as sin without condemna
tion. "Beloved, if pur own heart condemn us, God is greater
than our heart," that is, he much more condemns us. "But if
our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards
God." God can not repeal the law. It is not founded in his
arbitrary will. It is as unalterable and unrepealable as his
own nature. God can never repeal nor alter it. He can, for
Christ's sake, dispense with the execution of the penalty when
the subject has returned to full present obedience to the pre
cept, but in no other case, and upon no other possible condi
tions. To affirm thathe can, is to affirm that God can alter
the immutable and eternal principles of moral law and moral
government. 8. The next inquiry is, can there be such a thing as a par
tial repentance of" sin? That is, does not true repentance
imply a return to present full obedience to the law of God?
In considering this question, I will state briefly,
(1.) What repentance is not.
(2.) What it is.
(3.) What is not implied in it.
(4.) What is.
I shall in this place only state these points briefly, leaving
their full consideration to their appropriate place in this course
of instruction.
(1.) What repentance is not.
[1.] It is not a phenomenon of the intelligence. It does not
consist in conviction of sin, nor in any intellectual views of sin
whatever. [2.] Itis not a phenomenon ofthe sensibihty. It does not
consist in a feeling of regret, or remorse, or of sorrow of any
kind or degree. It is not a feeling of any kind.
(2.) What it is.
The primary signification of the word rendered repentance
is, to think again, but more particularly, to change the mind
in conformity with a second thought, or in accordance with, a
more rational and intelligent View of the subject. TO repent
is to change the choice, purpose, intention. It is to choose a
new end, to begin a new life, to turn from self-seeking to seek
ing the highest good of being, to turn from selfishness to disin
terested benevolence, from a state of disobedience to a state
of obedience.
(3.) What is not implied in it.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 185
[l.J It does not imply the remembrance of all past sin. —
This would be implied if repentance consisted, as some seem
to suppose, in sorrowing over every particular sin. But as
repentance consists in returning or turning to God, from the
spirit of self-seeking and self-pleasing to the spirit of seeking
the highest well-being of God and the universe, no such
thing as the remembrance of all past sin is implied in it. ,
[2.] It does not imply a continual sorrowing for'past sin;
for past sin is not, can not be, ought not to be the subject of
continual thought.
(4.) What is implied in it.
[1.] An understanding ofthe nature of sin, thatit consists
in the spirit of self-seeking, or in selfishness. This is implied,
as a condition upon which repentance can be exercised.
[2.] A turning from this state to a state of consecration to
God and the good ofthe universe.
[3.] Sorrow for past sin when it is remembered. This and
the following particulars are implied in repentance as neces^
sarily following from it.
4.] Universal, outward reformation.
[5.] Hatred of sin.
6.] Self-loathing on account of sin.
Certainly if repentance means and implies any thing, it does
imply a thorough reformation of heart and life. A reformat
tion of heart consists in turning from selfishness to benevo
lence. We have seen in a former lecture that selfishness and
benevolence can not co-exist in the same mind. They are
the supreme choice of opposite ends. These ends can not
both be chosen at the same time. To talk of partial repent
ance as a possible thing is to talk nonsense. It is to overlook
the very nature of repentance. What! a man both turn away
from and hold on to sin at the same time? Serve God and
Mammon at one and the same time ! It is impossible. This
impossibility is affirmed both by reason and by Christ
9. The ninth inquiry is : Must not that be a gross error
that represents God as pardoning and justifying a sinner in the
present willful commission of sin? I answer, yes,
(I.) Because itis antinomianism, than which there is scarce
ly any form of error more God-dishonoring.
(2.) Because it represents God as doing what He has no
right to do, and therefore, as doing what He can not do without
sinning himself.
, (3.) Because it represents Christ as the minister of sin.
16* *

186 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and as justifying his people in their sins, instead of saving
them from their sins.
(4.) Because it represents God as making void instead of
establishing the law through faith.
(5.) Because it is a prolific source of delusion, leading mul
titudes to think themselves justified while living in known sin.
But perhaps it will be objected that the sin of those who render
but a partial obedience, and whom God pardons and accepts,
is not a voluntary sin. This leads to the tenth inquiry :
10. Can there be any other than a voluntary sin?
What is sin? Sin is a transgression of the law. The law
requires benevolence, good willing. Sin is not a mere nega
tion or a riot willing, but consists in Wilhng self-gratification.
It is a willing contrary to the commandment of God. Sin as
well as holiness consists in choosing, wilhng, intending. Sin
must be voluntary. That is, it must be intelligent and volun
tary. It consists in willing, and it is nonsense to deny that
sin is voluntary. The fact is there is either no sin or there
is voluntary sin. Benevolence is wilhng the good of being
in general as an end, and of course implies the rejection of
self-gratification as an end. So sin is the choice of self-grati
fication as an end, and necessarily implies the rejection of the
good of being in general as an end. Sin and holiness natu
rally and necessarily exclude each other. They are eternal
opposites and antagonists. Neither can consist with the pres
ence of the other in the heart. They consist in the active
state of the will, and there can be no sin or holiness that does
not consist in choice.
12. Must not present sin be unrepented sin?
Yes, it is impossible for one to repent of present sin. To affirm
that present sin is repented of is to affirm a contradiction* It
is overlooking both the nature of sin and the nature of re
pentance. Sin is selfish willing; repentance is turning from
selfish to benevolent willing. These two states of will, as has
just been said, cannot pOssibly co-exist. Whoever, then, is
at present falling short of full obedience to the law of God, is
voluntarily sinning against God and is impenitent. It is non
sense to say that he is partly penitent and partly impenitent;
that he is penitent so far as he obeys, and impenitent so far
as he disobeys. This really seems to be the loose idea of
many, that a man can be partly penitent and partly impeni
tent at the same time. This idea doubtless is founded on
the mistake that repentance consists in sorrow for sin, or is
a phenomenon of the sensibility. But we have seen that re-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 187
pentance consists in a change of ultimate intention, a change
in the choice of an end, a turning from selfishness to supreme
disinterested benevolence. It is, therefore, plainly impossi*
ble for one to be partly penitent and partly impenitent at the
same time, inasmuch as penitence and impenitence consist
in supreme opposite choices.
So then it is plain that nothing is accepted as virtue under
the government of God but present full obedience to his law.
REM ARES.
I. If what has been said is true, we see that the church has fall
en into a great and ruinous mistake in supposing that a state
of sinlessness is a very rare, if not an impossible attainment in
this life. If the doctrine of this lecture be true, it follows that
the very beginning of true religion in the soul, implies the re
nunciation of all sin. Sin ceases where holiness begins. —
Now, how great and ruinous must that error be that teaches
us to hope for heaven while living in conscious sin; to look
upon a sinless state as not to be expected in this world ; that
it is a dangerous error to expect to stop sinning even for an
hour or a moment in this world; and yet to hope for heaven!
And how infinitely unreasonable must that state of mind be that
can brand as heretics those who teach that God justifies no
one but upon condition of present sinlessness!
2. How great and ruinous the error that justification is
conditionated upon a faith that does not purify the heart of
the believer; that one may be in a state of justification who
lives in the constant commission of more or less sin. This er
ror has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that
ever cursed the world.
3. We see that if a righteous man forsake his righteousness
and die in his sin, he must sink to hell.
4. We see that whenever a christian sins he comes under
condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be
lost.

LECTURE XIII.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
What is not implied in obedience to Moral Law.
I. I will state briefly what constitutes obedience.
II. What is not implied in it.
I. What constitutes obedience to moral law.
1. We have seen that all that the law requires is summa
rily expressed in the single word love; that this word is sy
nonymous with benevolence; that benevolence consists in the
choice of the highest well-being of God and of the universe
as an end, or for its own sake; that this choice is an ultimate
intention. In short we have seen that good will to being in
general is obedience to the moral law. Now the question be-;
fore us is, What is not implied in this good will or in this be
nevolent ultimate intention ? I will here introduce, with some
alteration, what I have formerly said upon this subject
As the law of God, as revealed in the Bible, is the stand
ard and the only standard by which the question in regard to
what is not, and what is implied in entire sanctification is to
be decided, it is of fundamental importance that we under
stand what is and what is not implied in entire obedience to
this law. It must be apparent to all that this inquiry is of
prime importance. And to settle this question is one of the!-.
main things to be attended to in this discussion. The doc- '
trine of the entire satisfaction of believers in this life can
never be satisfactorily settled until it is understood. And if, $
can not be understood until it is known what is and what is
not implied in it. Our judgment of our own state or of the
state of others, can never be relied upon till these inqui
ries are settled. Nothing is more clear than that in the pres
ent vague unsettled views of the Church upon this question,
no individual could set up a claim of having attained this state
without being a stumbling block to the church, Christ Was
perfect and yet so erroneous were the notions of the Jews
in regard to what constituted perfection that they thought
him possessed with a devil instead of being holy as he claimed
to be. It certainly is impossible that a person should profess
to render entire obedience to the moral law without being a
stumbling block to himself and to others unless he and they
clearly understand what is not and what is implied in it I
will state then what is not implied in entire obedience to the
moral law as I understand it. The law as epitomized by

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 189
Christ, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength, and thy neighbor as thyself" I understand to lay
down the whole duty of man to God and to his fellow crea
tures. Now the questions are what is not, and what is im
plied in perfect obedience to this law? Vague notions in re
gard to the proper answer to be given to these questions
seem to me to have been the origin of much error. To set
tle these questions it is indispensable that we have distinctly
before our minds just rules of legal interpretation. I will
therefore lay down some first principles in regard to the in
terpretation of law, in the light of which, I think we may
safely proceed to settle these questions.
Rule 1. Whatever is inconsistent with natural justice is
not and can not be moral law.
2. Whatever is inconsistent with the nature and relations
of moral beings, is contrary to natural justice and therefore
can not be moral law.
3. That which requires more than man has natural ability
to perform, is inconsistent with his nature and relations and
therefore is inconsistent with natural justice, and of course
is not moral law.
4. Moral law then must always be so understood and inter
preted as to consist with the nature of the subjects, and their
relations to each other and to the lawgiver. Any interpreta
tion that makes the law to require more than is consistent
with the nature and relations of moral beings, is the same as
to declare that it is not law. No authority in heaven or on
earth can make that law, or obligatory upon moral agents,
which is inconsistent with their nature and relations.
5. Moral law must always be so interpreted as to cover the
whole ground of natural right or justice. It must bp so un
derstood and explained as to require all that is right in itself,
and therefore immutably and unalterably right.
6. Moral law must be so interpreted as not to require any ,
thing more than is consistent with natural justice or with the
nature and relations of moral beings.
7, Moral law is never to be so interpreted as to imply the
possession of any attributes or strength and a perfection of at
tributes which the subject does not possess. Take for illus
tration the second commandment, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself." Now the simple meaning of this com-
mandmentseems to be that we are to regard and treat every
person and interest according to its relative value. We are

190 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
not to understand'this commandment as expressly or implied
ly requiring us to know in all cases the exact relative value
of every person and thing in the universe; for this would im
ply the possession of the attribute of omniscience by us, No
mind short of an omniscient one can have this knowledge.
The commandment then must be so understood as only to re
quire us to judge with candor of the relative value of differ
ent interests, and to treat them according to their value, and
our ability to promote them, so far as we understand it. I
repeat the rule therefore; Moral law is never to be so in
terpreted as to imply the possession of any attribute or a
strength and perfection of attributes which the subject does
not possess.
8. Moral law is never to be so interpreted as to require that
which is naturally impossible in our circumstances. Exam
ple: The first commandment, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart," &e, is not to be so interpreted as to
require us to make God the constant and sole object of our
attention, thought, and affection, for this would not only be
plainly impossible in our circumstances, but manifestly contra
ry to our duty.
9. Moral law is never to be so interpreted as to make one
requirement inconsistent with another. Example: If the first
commandment be so interpreted as to require us to make God
the only object of thought, affection, and attention, then we
cannot obey the second commandment which requires us to
love our neighbor. And if the first commandment is to be
so understood that every faculty and power is to be directed
solely and exclusively to the contemplation and love of God,
-then love to all other beings is prohibited, and the second com
mandment is set aside. I' repeat the rule therefore: com
mandments are not to be so interpreted as to conflict with
each other.
10. A law requiring perpetual benevolence must be so con
strued as to consist with and require all the appropriate and
essential modifications of this principle under every circum
stance^ such as justice, mercy, anger at sin and sinners, and
a special and complacent regard to those who are virtuous.
11. Moral law must be so interpreted as that its claims
shall always be restricted to the voluntary powers in such a
sense that the right action of the will shall be regarded as
fulfilling the spirit of the laW, whether the desired outward
action or inward emotion follow or not. If there be a willing
mind, that is, if the will or heart is right, it is and must in

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 191
justice be accepted as obedience to the spirit of moral law.
For whatever does not follow the action of the will, by a law
of necessity, is naturally impossible to us and therefore not
obligatory. To attempt to legislate directly over the invol
untary powers would be inconsistent with natural justice.
You may as well attempt to legislate over the beating of the
heart, as directly over any involuntary mental actions.
12. In morals, actual knowledge is indispensable to moral
obhgation. The maxim, "ignorantia legis non excusat" (ig
norance of the law excuses no one) — applies in morals to but a
very limited extent. That actual knowledge is indispensa
ble to moral obligation, will appear,
(1.) From the following Scriptures:
James 4: 17: " Therefore to him that knoweth to do good,
and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Luke 12: 47, 48: " And
that servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not
himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things
worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto
whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required,
and to whom men have committed much, of him they will
ask the more." John 9:11: "Jesus said unto them, If ye
were blind ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see;
therefore your sin remaineth." In the first and second chap
ters of Romans, the Apostle reasons at large on this subject.
He convicts the heathen of sin, upon the ground that they
violate their own consciences, and do not live according to the
hght they have.
; (2.) The principle is every where recognized in the Bible,
that an increase of knowledge increases obligation. This
impliedly, but plainly recognizes the principle that knowl
edge is indispensable to, and commensurate with obligation.
In sins of ignorance, the sin lies in the state of heart that ne
glects or refuses to be informed, but not in the neglect of what
is unknown. A man may be guilty of present or past ne
glect to ascertain the truth. Here his ignorance is sin, or
rather the state of heart that induces ignorance is sin. The
heathen are culpable for not living up to the light of nature ;
but are under no obligation to embrace Christianity until they
have the opportunity^ do so.
13. Moral law is to be so interpreted as to be consistent
with physical law. In other words the application of moral
law to human beings, must recognize man as he is, as both a
corporeal and intellectual being,; and must never be so inter-
*

192 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
preted as that obedience to it would violate the laws of the
physical constitution, and prove the destruction of the body.
14. Moral law is to be . so interpreted as to recognize all
the attributes and circumstances of both body and soul. In
the application of the law of God to human beings, we are to
regard their powers and attributes as they really are, and not
as they are not.
15. Moral law is to be so interpreted as to restrict its obli
gation to the actions, and not to extend them to the nature or
constitution of moral beings. Law must not be understood as
extending its legislation to the nature, or requiring a man to
possess certain attributes, but as prescribing a rule of action.
It is not the existence or possession of certain attributes
which the law requires, or that these attributes should be in a
certain state of perfection; but the right use of all these at
tributes as they are, is what the law is to be interpreted as
requiring. 16. It should be always understood that the obedience of
the heart to any law, implies, and includes general faith, or
confidence in the lawgiver. But no law should be so con
strued as to require faith in what the intellect does not per
ceive. A man may be under obhgation to perceive what he
does not; that is, it may be his duty to inquire after and as
certain the truth. But obligation to believe with the heart,
does not attach until the intellect obtains perception pf the
things to be believed.
Now, in the light of these rules let us proceed to inquire:
//. What is not implied in entire obedience to the law of God.
1. Entire obedience does not imply any change in the sub
stance of the soul or body, for this the law does not require,
and it would not be obligatory if it did, because the require
ment would be inconsistent with natural justice and therefore
not law. Entire obedience is the entire consecration of the
powers, as they are, to God. It does not imply any change in
them, but simply the right use of them.
2. It does not imply the annihilation of any constitutional
traits of character, such as constitutional ardor or impetuosi
ty. There is nothing certainly, in the law of God that re
quires such constitutional traits to be annihilated, but simply
that they should be rightly directed in their exercise.
3. It does not imply the annihilation of any of the consti
tutional appetites, or susceptibilities. It seems to be suppo
sed by some, that the constitutional appetites and susceptibili
ties, are in themselves sinful, and that a state of entire con-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 193
formity to the law of God implies their entire annihilation.
And I have often been astonished at the fact that those who
array themselves against the doctrine of entire conformity to
the law of God in this life, assume the sinfulness of the, con
stitution of man. And I have been not a little surprised to
find that some persons who I had supposed were far enough
from embracing the doctrine of physical moral depravity,
were, after all, resorting to this assumption to set aside the
doctrine of entire sanctification in this life. But let us ap
peal to the law. Does the law any where, expressly or im
pliedly, condemn the constitution of man, or require the an
nihilation of any thing that is properly apart of the constitu
tion itself? Does it require the annihilation of the appetite
for food, or is it satisfied merely with regulating its indul
gence? In short does the law of God any where require any
thing more than the consecration of all the powers, appetites,
and susceptibilities of body and mind to the service of
God? . Entire obedience does not imply the annihilation of natu
ral affection, or natural resentment. By natural affection I
mean that certain persons may be naturally pleasing to us.
Christ appears to have had a natural affection for John., By
natural resentment I mean, that, from the laws of our being,
we must resent or feel opposed to injustice or ill-treatment.
Not that a disposition to retaliate or revenge ourselves is con
sistent with the law of God. But perfect obedience to the
law of God does not imply that we should have no sense of
injury and injustice, when we are abused. God has this, and
ought to have it, and so has every moral being. To love
your neighbor as yourself does not imply, that if he injure
you, you feel no sense of the injury or injustice, but that you
love him and would do him good, notwithstanding his injuri
ous treatment.
5. It does not imply any unhealthy degree of excitement
of the mind. Rule 13 lays down the principle that moral law
is to be so interpreted as to be consistent with physical law.
God's laws certainly do not clash with each other. And the
moral law can not require such a state of constant mental
excitement as* will destroy the physical constitution. It can
not require any more mental excitement than is consistent
with all the laws, attributes, and circumstances of both soul
and body, as stated in rule 14.
6. It does not imply that any organ or faculty is to be at
all times exerted to the full measure of its capacity. This

194 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
would soon exhaust and destroy any and every organ of the
body. Whatever may be true of the mind when separated
from the body, it is, certain, while it acts through a material
organ., that a constant state of excitement is impossible. When
the mind is strongly excited, there is of necessity a great der
termination of blood to the brain. A high degree of excite
ment cannot long continue, certainly, without producing inflam
mation of the brain, and consequent insanity. And the law
of God does not require any degree of emotion or mental ex
citement, that is inconsistent with life and health; Our Lord
Jesus Christ does not appear to have been in a state of con
tinual mental excitement. When he and his disciples had
been in a great excitement for a time, they would turn aside,
" and rest a while."
Who that has ever philosophized on this subject, does not
know that the high degree of excitement which is sometimes
witnessed in revivals of religion, must necessarily be short,
or that the people must become deranged? It seems some
times to be indispensable that a high degree of excitement,
should prevail for a time to arrest public and individual atten
tion, and draw off people from other pursuits, to attend to
the concerns of their souls. But if any suppose that this high
degree of excitement is either necessary or desirable, or pos
sible to be long continued, they have not well considered the
matter. And here is one grandmistake of the Church. They
have supposed that the revival consists mostly in this state of
excited emotion, rather than in conformity of the human will
to the law of God. Hence, when the reasons for much ex
citement have ceased, and the public mind, begins to grow
more calm, they begin immediately to say, that the revival is
on the decline ; when, in fact, with much less excited emotion,
there may be vastly more real religion in the community.
Excitement is often important and indispensable, but the
vigorous actings of the will are infinitely more important.
Arid this state of mind may exist in the absence of highly ex
cited emotions.
7. Nor does it imply that the same degree of emotion,- vo
lition, or intellectual effort, is at all times required. All voli
tions do not need the same strength. They cannot have
equal strength, because they are not produced by equally in
fluential reasons. Should a man put forth as strong a volition
to pick up an apple, as to extinguish the flames of a burning
house? Should a mother watching over her sleeping nurs
ling, when all is quiet and secure, put forth as powerful voli-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 195
tions, as might be required to snatch it from the devouring
flames? Now, suppose that she were equally devoted to God,
in watching her sleeping babe, and in rescuing it from the
jaws of death. Her holiness would not consist in the^ fact
that she exercised equally strong volitions, in both cases; but
that in both cases the volition was equal to the accomplish
ment of the thing required to be done. So that persons may
be entirely holy, and yet continually varying in the strength
of their affections, emotions, or volitions, according to their
circumstances, the state of their physical system, and the
business in which they are engaged.
All the powers of body and mind are to be held at the ser
vice and disposal of God. Just so much of physical, intellec
tual, and moral energy are to be expended in the performance
of duty, as the nature and the circumstances of the case re
quire. And nothing is farther from the truth, than that the
law of God requires a constant, intense state of emotion and
mental action on any and every subject alike.
8. Entire. obedience does not imply that God is to beat all
times the direct object of attention and affection. This is not
only impossible in the nature of the case, but would render
it impossible for us to think of or love our neighbor as our
selves: Rule 9.
The law of God requires the supreme love of the heart.
By fhis is meant that the mind's supreme preference should
be of God — that God should be the great object of its su
preme regard. But this state of mind is perfectly consistent
with our engaging in any of the necessary business of life-
giving to that business that attention and exercising about
it all those affections and emotions which its nature and im
portance demand.
If a man love God supremely, and engage in any business
for the promotion of his glory, if his eye be single, his affec
tions and conduct, so far as they have any moral character,
are entirely holy when necessarily engaged in the right
transaction of his business, although for the time being neither
his thoughts nor affections are upon God.
Just as a man who is supremely devoted to his family may
be acting consistently with his supreme affection, and render
ing them the most important and perfect service, while he
does not think of them at all. As I have endeavored to show
in my lecture on the text, " Make to yourself a new heart, and
a new spirit," the moral heart is the mind's supreme prefer
ence. As I there stated, the natural or fleshy heart, propels

196 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the blood through all* the physical system. Now there is a
striking analogy hetween this and the mpral heart. And the
analogy consists in this, that as the natural heart, by its pul
sations, diffuses life through the physical system, so the moral
heart, or tfte supreme governing preference, or ultimate in.
tention of the mind, is that which gives life and character to
man's moral actions. Example, suppose that I am engaged
in teaching Mathematics; in this, my ultimate intention is to
glorify God, in this particular calling- Now, in demonstra
ting some of its intricate propositions, I am obliged, for hours
together, to give the entire attention pf my mind to that ob
ject. Now, while my mind is thus intensely employed in one
particular business, it is impossible that I should have any
thoughts directly about God, or should exercise any direct af
fections, or emotions, or volitions, towards him. Yet if, in this
particular calling, all selfishness is excluded, and my supreme
design is to glorify God, my mind is in a state of entire ober
diencc, even though, for the time being, I do not think of God.
It should be understood that while the supreme preference
or intention of the mind has such efficiency, as. to exclude all
selfishness, and to call forth just that strength of volition,
thought, affection, and emotion, that is requisite to the right
discharge of any duty, to which the mind may be called, the,
heart is in a right state. And this must always be the case
while the intention is really honest, as was shown on a form
er occasion. By a suitable degree of thought, and feeling as to
the right discharge of duty, I mean just that intensity of
thought, and energy of action, tha,t the nature and importance
of the particular duty to which, for the time being, I am
called, demand, in my honest estimation.
In this statement, I take it for granted, that the brain, to
gether with all the circumstances' of the constitution are such
that the requisite amount of thought, feeling, &c, are possi
ble. If the physical constitution be in such a state of ex
haustion as to be unable to put forth that amount of exertion
which the^nature of the case might otherwise demand, even
in this case, the languid efforts, though far below the impor;
tance of the subject, would be all that the law of God re
quires. Whoever, therefore, supposes that a state of entire
obedjence implies a state of entire abstraction of mind from
every thing but God, labors under a grievous mistake. Such
a statg of mind is as inconsistent with duty, as it is impossi
ble, while we are in the flesh.
The fact is that the language and spirit of the law have'

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 197
been and generally are grossly misunderstood, and interpre
ted to mean what they never did, or can mean consistently
with natural justice. Many a mind has been thrown open
to the assaults of satan, and kept in a state of continual bond
age and condemnation, because God was not, at all times,
the direct object of thought, affection, and emotion; and be
cause the mind was not kept in a state of perfect tension, and
excited to the utmost at every moment.
9. Nor does it imply a state of continual calmness of mind.
Christ was not in a state of continual calmness. The deep
peace of his mind was never broken up, but the surface or
emotions of his mind were often in a state of great excite
ment, and at other times in a state of great calmness. And
here let me refer to Christ as we have his history in the Bible
in illustration of the positions I have already taken. Exam
ple: Christ had all the constitutional appetites and suscepti
bilities of human nature. Had it been otherwise, he could
not have been " tempted in all points like as we;" nor could
he have been tempted in any point as we are, any further
than he possessed a constitution similar to our own. Christ
also manifested natural affection for his mother and for other
friends. He also showed that he had a sense of injury and
injustice, and exercised a suitable resentment when he was
injured and persecuted. He was not always in a state of
great excitement. He appears to have had his seasons pf
excitement and of calm — of labor and rest — of joy and sor
row, like other good men. Some persons have spoken of en
tire obedience to the law as implying a state of uniform and
universal calmness, and as if every kind and degree of exci
ted feeling, except the feelings of love to God were inconsist
ent with this state. But Christ often manifested a great de
gree of excitement when reproving the enemies of God In
short his history would lead to the conclusion that his calm
ness and excitement were various, according to the circum
stances of the case. And although he was sometimes so point
ed and severe in his reproof, as to be accused of being posses
sed of a devil, yet his emotions and feelings were only those
that were called for and suited to the occasion.
10. Nor does it imply a state of continual sweetness of mind
without any indignation or holy anger at sin and sinners.
Anger at sin is only a modification of love. A sense of
justice, or a disposition to have the wicked punished for the
benefit of the government, is only another of the modifica
tions of love. And such dispositions are essential to the ex-
17*

198 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
istence of love, where the circumstances call for their exer
cise. It is said of Christ that he was angry. He often mani
fested anger and holy indignation. " God is angry with the
wicked every day." And holiness or a state of obedience,
instead of l»eing inconsistent with, always implies the exis
tence of anger, whenever circumstances occur which demand
its exercise. Rule 10.
11. It does not imply a state of mind that is all compas
sion, and no sense of justice. Compassion is only one of the
modifications of love. Justice or willing the execution of
law and the punishment of sin, is another of its modifications.
God, and Christ, arid all holy beings, exercise all those dispo
sitions that constitute the different modifications of love under
every possible circumstance.
12. It does not imply that we should love or hate all men
alike irrespective of their value, circumstances and relations.
One being may have a greater capacity for well-being, and be
of much more importance to the universe than another. Im
partiality and the law of love require us not to regard all
beings and things alike, but all beings and things according to
their nature, relations, circumstances and value.
13. Nor does it imply a perfect knowledge of all our rela
tions: Rule 7. Now such an interpretation of the law as
would make it necessary, in order to yield obedience, for us to
understand all our relations, would imply in us the possession
of the attribute of omniscience; for certainly there is not a
being in the universe to whom we do not sustain some rela
tion. And a knowledge of all these relations plainly implies
infinite knowledge. It is plain that the law of God- can not
require any such thing as this; and that entire obedience to
the law of God therefore implies no such thing.
14. Nor does it imply perfect knowledge on any subject.
Perfect knowledge on any subject, implies a perfect knowl
edge of its nature, relations, bearings, and tendencies. Now
as every single thing in the universe, sustains some relation
to, and has some bearing upon every other thing, there can be
no such thing as perfect knowledge on any one subject, that
does not embrace universal or infinite knowledge.
15. Nor does it imply freedom from mistake on any subject
whatever. It is maintained by some that the grace of the
gospel pledges to every man perfect knowledge, or at least
such knowledge as to exempt him from any mistake. I can
not step here to debate this question, but would merely say
the law does not expressly or impliedly require infallibility of

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 199
judgment in us. It only requires us to make the best use we
can of all the light we have.
16 Nor does entire obedience imply the knowledge of the
exact relative value of different interests.. I have already
said in illustrating Rule 7, that the second commandment,
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," does not imply
that we should, in every instance, understand exactly the rela
tive value and importance of every interest. This plainly
can not be required, unless it be assumed that we are omnis
cient. 17. It does not imply the same degree of knowledge that
we might have possessed, had we always improved our time
in its acquisition. The iaw can not 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 earth or in heaven that does, or ever can perfectly obey.
What is lost in this respect is lost, arid past neglect can never
be so atoned for 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 knowl
edge than we might have possessed, had we filled up all our
time in its acquisition. We do not, can not, nor shall we ev
er be able to love God as well as we might have loved him,
had we always applied our minds to the acquisition of knowl
edge respecting him. And if entire obedience is to be un
derstood 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 obedient.
18. 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.
The most perfect development and improvement of our
powers, must depend upon the most perfect use of them.
And every departure from their perfect use, is a diminishing
of their highest development, and a curtailing of their capa-

200 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Abilities to .serve God in the highest and best manner. All
sin then'does just so much towards crippling and curtailing
the powers of body and mind, and rendering them, by just
so much, incapable of performing the service they might oth
erwise have rendered.
To this view of the subject it has been objected that Christ
taught an opposite doctrine, in the case of the woman who
washed his feet with her tears, when he said, " To whom
much is forgiven, the same loveth much." But can it be that
Christ intended to be understood as teaching, that the more
we sin the greater will be our love and our ultimate virtue?
If this be so, I do not see why it does not follow that the more
sin in this life, the better, if so be that we are forgiven. If
our virtue is really to be improved by our sins, I see not why
it would not be good economy both for God and man, to sin
as much as we can while in this world. Certainly Christ meant
to lay down no such principle as this. He undoubtedly meant
to teach, that a person who was truly sensible of the great
ness of his sins, would exercise more of the love of gratitude,
than would be exercised by one who had a less affecting sense
of ill-desert.
19. Entire obedience does not imply the same degree of
faith that might have been exercised but for our ignorance and
past sin.
We can not believe any thing about God of which we have
no evidence or knowledge. Our faith must therefore be limit
ed by our intellectual perceptions of truth. The heathen are
not under obligation to believe in Christ and thousands of oth
er things of which they have no knowledge. Perfection in a
heathen would imply much less faith than in a christian. Per
fection in an adult would imply much more arid greater faith
than in an infant. And perfection in an angel would imply
much greater faith than in a man, just in proportion as he
knows more of God than man does. Let it be always un
derstood that entire obedience to God never implies that which
is naturally impossible. It is certainly naturally impossible
for us to believe that of which we have no knowledge. En
tire obedience implies in this respect nothing more than the
heart's faith or confidence in all the truth that is perceived by
the intellect.
20. Nor does it imply the conversion of all men in answer
to our prayers. It has been maintained by some that entire
obedience implies the offering of prevailing prayer for the
conversion of all men. To this I reply,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 201
(1.) Then Christ did not obey, for he offered no such pray
er. (2.y The law of God makes no such demand either ex
pressly or impliedly.
(3.) We have no right to believe that all men will be con
verted in answer to our prayers, unless we have an express
or implied promise to that effect.
(4.) As therefore there is no such promise, we are under no
obligation to offer such prayer. Nor does the non-conversion
of the world imply that there are no saints in the wbrld who
fully obey God's law.
21. It does not imply the conversion of any one for whom
there is not an express or implied promise in the word of
God. The fact that Judas was not converted in answer to
Christ's prayers does not prove that Christ did not folly obey.
22. Nor does it imply that all those things which are ex
pressly or impliedly promised, will be granted in answer to
our prayers, or in other words, that we should pray in faith
for them, if we are ignorant of the existence or application
of those promises. A state of perfect love implies the dis:
charge of all known duty. And nothing strictly speaking
can be duty, of which the mind has no knowledge. It can
not therefore be our duty to believe a promise of which we
are entirely ignorant or the application of Which to any spe
cific object we do not understand.
If there is sin in such a case as this, it lies in the fact that
the soul neglects to know what it ought to know. But it
should always be understood that the sin lies in this neglect
to know, and npt in the neglect of that of which we have no
knowledge. Entire obedience is inconsistent With any pres
ent neglect to know the truth ; for such neglect is sin. But
it is not inconsistent with our failing to do that of which we
have no knowledge. James says: " Hp that knoweth to do
good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." "If ye were blind,"
says Christ, " ye should have no sin, but because ye say we
see, therefore your sin remaineth."
23. Entire obedience to the Divine law does not imply that
others will of course regard our state of mind and our out
ward hfe as entirely conformed to the law.
It was insisted and positively believed by the Jews, that Je
sus Christ was possessed of a wicked, instead of a holy spirit.
Such were their notions of holiness, that they no doubt sup
posed him to be actuated by any other than the Spirit of God.
They especially supposed so on account of his opposition to

202 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the current orthodoxy, and the ungodliness of the religious
teachers of the day. Now, who does not see that when the
Church is in a great measure conformed to the wbrld, a
spirit of holiness in any man would certainly lead him to aim
the sharpest rebukes at the spirit and hfe of those in this
state, whether in high or low places? And who does not see
that this would naturally result in his being accused of pos
sessing a wicked spirit? And who does not know that where
a religious teacher finds himself under the necessity of at
tacking a false orthodoxy, he will certainly be hunted, almost
as a beast of prey, by the religious teachers of his day, whose
authority, influence, and orthodoxy are thus assailed?
The most violent opposition that I have ever seen mani
fested to any persons in my life, has been manifested by mem
bers of the Church, and even by some ministers of the gos
pel, . towards those who I believe were among the most ho
ly persons I ever knew. I- have been shocked, and wounded
beyond expression, at the almost fiendish opposition to such
persons that I have witnessed. I have several times of late
observed that writers in newspapers were calling for exam
ples of Christian Perfection or entire sanctification, or which
is the same thing, of entire obedience to the law of God.
Now I would humbly inquire, of what use is it to point the
Church to examples, so long as they do not know what is, and
what is not implied in entire obedience to moral law? I would
ask, are the church agreed among themselves in regard to
what constitutes this state? Are any considerable number of
ministers agreed among themselves as to what is implied in a
state of entire obedience to the law of God? > Now does not
every body know that the Church and the ministry are in a
great measure in the dark on this subject? Why then call for
examples? No man can profess to render this obedience
without being sure to be set at nought as a hypocrite and a self-
deceiver. 24. Nor does it imply exemption from sorrow or mental
suffering. #
It was not so with Christ. Nor is it inconsistent with our
sorrowing for our own past sins, and sorrowing that we have
not now the health, and vigor, and knowledge, and love, that
we might have had, if we had sinned less; or sorrow for
those around us — sorrow in view of human sinfulness, or suf
fering. These are all consistent with a state of joyful love to
God and man, and indeed are the natural results of it.
25. Nor is it inconsistent with our living in human society

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 203
— with mingling in the scenes, and engaging in the affairs of
this world, as some have supposed. Hence the absurd and
ridiculous notions of papists in retiring to monasteries, and
convents — in taking the veil, and as they say, retiring to a life
of devotion. Now I suppose this state of voluntary exclusion
from human society, to be utterly inconsistent with any de
gree of holiness, and a manifest violation of the law of love
to our neighbor.
26. Nor does it imply moroseness of temper and manners.
Nothing is farther from the truth than this. It is said of
Xavier, than whom, perhaps, few holier men have ever lived,
that " he was so cheerful as often to be accused of being gay."
Cheerfulness is certainly the result of holy love. And entire
obedience no more implies moroseness in this world than it
does in heaven. i
In all the discussions I have seen upon the subject of Chris
tian holiness, writers seldom or never raise the distinct inqui
ry: What does obedience to the law of God imply, and what
does it not imply? Instead of bringing every thing to this
test, they seem to lose sight of it. On the one hand they bring
in things that the law of God never required of man in
his present state. Thus they lay a stumbling block and a
snare for the saints, to keep them in perpetual bondage, sup
posing that this is the way to keep them humble, to place the
standard entirely above their reach. Or, on the other hand,
they really abrogate the law, so as to make it no longer bind
ing. Or they so fritter away what is really implied in it, as
to leave nothing in its requirements, but a sickly, whimsical,
inefficient sentimentalism, or perfectionism, which in its mani
festations and results, appears to me to be any thing else than
that which the law of God requires.
27. It does not imply that we always or ever aim at or in
tend to do our duty. That is, it does not imply that the in
tention always or ever terminates on duty as an ultimate end.
It is our duty to aim at or intend the highest well-being of
God and the universe^as an ultimate end, or for its own sake.
This is the infinitely valuable end at which we are at all times
to aim. It is our duty to aim at this. While we aim at this,
we do our duty, but to aim at duty is not doing duty. To in
tend to do our duty is failing to do our duty. We do not, in
this case, intend the thing which it is our duty to intend. Our
duty is to intend the good of being. But to intend to do our
duty, is only to intend to intend.
28. Nordoes it imply that we alwaysthink at the time of

204 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
its being duty, or of our moral Pbligation to intend the good
of being. This obligation is a first truth and is always and
necessarily assumed by every moral agent, ana this assump
tion or knowledge is a condition of his moral agency. But it
is not at all essential to virtue or true obedience to the moral
law that moral obligation should at all times be present to the
thoughts and the object of attention. The thing that we are
bound to intend is the highest good of God and of being in
general. The good, the valuable, must be before the mind.
This iriust be intended. We are under moral obligation to
intend this. But' we are not under moral obligation to intend
moral obligation or to intend to fulfil moral obligation as an ul
timate erid. Our obligation is a first truth and necessarily
assumed by us at all times, whether it is an object of attention
or not, just as causality or liberty is.
29. Nor does it imply that the lightness or moral character
of benevolence is at all times the object of the-mind's atten
tion. We may intend the glory of God and the good of our
neighbor without at all tiriies thinking of the moral character
of tins intention. But the intention is not the less virtuous
on this account. The mind unconsciously but necessarily as
sumes the Tightness of benevolence or of willing the good of
being, just as it assumes other first truths, without being dis
tinctly conscious of the assumption. First truths are those
truths that are universally and necessarily known to every
moral agent, and that are therefore always and necessarily
assumed by hinii whatever his theory may be. Among them,
are the law of causality — -the freedom of moral agents— the
intrinsic value of happiness or blessedness — moral obligation
to will it for or because of its intrinsic value — the infinite value
of God's well-being and the moral obligation to will it on that
account — that to will the good of being is duty and to comply
with moral obligation is right — that selfishness is wrong.
These and many such like truths are among the class of first
truths of reason. They are always and necessarily taken
along with every moral agent at every moment of his moral
agency. They live in his mind as intuitions or assumptions
of his reason. He always and necessarily affirms their truth
whether he thinks of them, that is, whether he is conscious of
the assumption, or not. It is not therefore at all essential to
obedience to the law of God that we should at all times have
before our minds the virtuousness or moral character of be
nevolence. „,
30 Nor does obedience to the moral law imply that the law

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 205
itself should be at all times the object of thought or of the
mind's attention. The law hes developed in the reason of
every moral agent in the form of an idea. It is the idea of
that choice or intention which every moral agent is bound to
exercise. In other words, the law as a rule of duty is a sub
jective idea always and necessarily developed in the mind of
every moral agent. This idea he always and necessarily
takes along with him, and he is always and necessarily a law to
himself. Nevertheless this law or idea is not always the ob
ject of the mind's attention and thought. A moral agent may
exercise good will or love to God and man without at the time
being conscious of thinking that this love is required of him
by the moral law. Nay, if I am not mistaken, the benevolent
mind generally exercises benevolence so spontaneously as
not very much of the time so much as to think that this love
to God is required of him. But this is not the less virtuous
on this account. If the infinite value of God's well-being and
of His infinite goodness constrain me to love Him with all my
heart, can any one suppose that this is regarded by Him as
the less virtuous because I did not wait to reflect that God
commanded me to love him and that it was my duty to
do so?
The thing upon which the intention must or ought to termi
nate is the good of being, and not the law that requires me to
will it. When I will that end I will the right end, and thi
willing is virtue, whether the law be so much as thought of
or not. Should it be said that I may will that end for a wrong
reason and therefore thus willing it is not virtue; that unless
I will it because of my obligation and intend obedience to
moral law or to God it is not virtue; I answer, that the objec
tion* involves an absurdity and a contradiction. I can not will
the good of God and of being as an ultimate end, for a
wrong reason. The reason of the choice and the end chosen
are identical, so that if I will the good of being as an ul
timate end; I will it for the right reason.
Again: to will the good of being, not for its intrinsic value,
but because God commands it, and because I am under a mor
al obligation to will it, is not to will it as an ultimate end. It
is willing the will of God or moral obligation as an ultimate
end and not the good of being as an ultimate end. This will
ing would not be obedience to the moral law.
Again: It is absurd and a contradiction to say that I can
love God, that is, will his good out of regard to his authority,
rather than out of regard to the intrinsic value of his well-
18

206 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
being. It is impossible to will God's good as an end out of re*
gard to his authority. This is to make his* authority the
end chosen, for the reason of a choice is identical with the
end chosen. Therefore, to will anything for th© reason that
God requires it, is to will God's reqirement as an ultimate
end. I can not, therefore, love God with any acceptable, love
primarily because He commands it. God never expected to
induce His creatures to love Him or to will His goodt by com
manding them to do so. "The law" says the apostle "was
not made for a righteous man but for sinners." If it be asked
then "wherefore serveth the law?" I answer,
(I.) That the obligation to will good to God exists antece
dently to His requiring it.
(2.) He requires, it because it is naturally obligatory.
(3.) It ia impossible that He, being benevolent, should not
will that we should be benevolent.
(4.) His expressed will is only the promulgation ofthe law
of nature. It is rather declaratory than dictatorial
(5.) It is a vindication or illustration of His righteousness.
(6.) It sanctions and rewards love. It can not as a mere
authority beget love, but it can encourage and reward -it
(7.) It can fix the attention on the end commanded and
thus lead to a fuller understanding of the value of that end.
In this way, it may convert the soul.
(8.) It can convince of sin in case of disobedience.
(9.) It holds before the mind the standard by which it is to
judge itself and by which itis to be judged.
But let it be kept in constant remembrance that to aim at
keeping the few as an ultimate end is not keeping it. It ha
legal righteousness and not love.
31. Obedience to the moral law does not imply tinat 'the
mind always or at any time intends the right for the. sake- of
the right. This has been so fully shown in a former lecture
that it need not be repeated here.
32. Nor does it imply that the benevolent mind always so
much as thinks of the rightness. of good wilhng. I surely
may will the highest well-being of God and of men as an end
or from a regard to its intrinsic value, arid not at the time or
at least at all times be conscious of having any reference to
the rightness. of this love. It is, however,, none the less virtu
ous on this account. I behold the infinite value of the well-
being of God and the infinite value of the immortal soul &f
my neighbor. My soul is fired with the view. 1 instantSy
consecrate my whole being to this end and perhaps do not so

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 207
much as think at the time either of moral obligation or of the
rightness ofthe choicek I choose the end with a single eye to its
intrinsic value. Will any one say that this is not virtue, that
this is not true and real obedience to the law of God? And
here I must repeat in substance what I have said on a former
occasion. 33. Obedience to the moral law does not imply that we
should practically treat all interests that are of equal value accor
ding to their value. For example, the precept, Love thy neigh
bor as thyself, can not mean that I am to take equal care of my
own soul and the soul of every other human being. This were
impossible. Nor does it mean that I should take the same
care and oversight of my own and of all the familiesof the
earth. Nor that I should divide what little of property or
time or talent I have equally among all mankind. This were,
(1.) Impossible.
(2.) Uneconomical for the universe. More good will result
to the universe by each individual's giving his attention par
ticularly to the promotion of those interests that are within
his reach and so under his influence that he possesses particu
lar advantages for promoting them. Every interest is tp^be
esteemed according to its relative value, but our efforts to
promote particular interests should depend upon our relations
and capacity to promote them. Some interests of great value}
we may be under no obligation to promote for the reason that
we have no ability to promote them, while we may be under
obligation to promote interests of vastly less value for the
reason that we are able to promote them. We are to aim at
promoting those interests that we can most surely and exten
sively promote, but always in a manner that shall not inter
fere with others promoting other interests according to their
relative value. Every man is bound to promote his own and
the salvation of his family, not because they belong to self, but
because they are valuable in themselves and because they are
particularly committed to him as being directly within his
reach. This is a principle every where assumed in the gov
ernment of God; (and I wish it to be distinctly borne in mind
as we proeeed in our investigations, as it will on the one hand
prevent misapprehension, and on the other avoid the necessity
of circumlocution when we wish to express the same idea,)
''the true intent and meaning of the moral law no doubt is that
; ' every interest orgood(known to a moral being shall be esteem-
|#ed according to its intrinsic value, and that in our efforts to
'"""promote good we are to aim at securing the greatest practica-

208 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ble amount and to bestow our efforts where and as it appears
from our circumstances and relations we can accomplish the
greatest good. This ordinarily can be done, beyond all ques
tion, only by each one attending to the promotion of those
particular interests which are most within the reach of his
influence.

LECTURE XIV.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
What is implied in obedience to the Moral Law.
It has been shown that the sum and s jtfrit of the whole
law is properly expressed in one word, Love. It has also
been shown that this love is benevolence Or good willing; that
it consists in choosing the highest good of God and of uni
versal being as an ultimate end, or for its own intrinsic value;
in a spirit or state of entire consecration to this as the ultimate
end of existence. Although the whole law is folfilled in one
word, love, yet there are many things implied in the state of
mind expressed by this term. It is, therefore, indispensable
to a right understanding of this subject, that we inquire into
the characteristics or attributes of this love. We must keep
steadily in mind certain truths of mental philosophy. I will,
therefore, I. Callattention to certain facts in mental philosophy which
are revealed to us in consciousness, and
II. Point out the attributes of that love that constitutes obe
dience to the law of God; and as I proceed, I will call atten
tion to those states of the Intelligence and of the Sensibility,
and also to the course of outward conduct implied in the exis
tence ol this love in any mind, implied in it as necessarily re
sulting from it as an effect does from its cause.
/. Call attention to certain facts in mental philosophy as they
are revealed in consciousness.
1., Moral agents possess Intelligence or the faculty of knowl
edge. 2. They also possess Sensibility, or Sensitivity, or in other \
words, the faculty or susceptibility of feeling.
3. They also possess Will, or the power of choosing or re
fusing in every case of moral obligation.
4. These primary faculties are so correlated to each other
that the Intellect or the Sensibility may control the will, or
the will may, in a certain sense, control them. That is, the
will is free to choose in accordance with the demands of the
intellect, or with the desires and impulses of the sensibility.
It is free to be influenced by the impulses of the sensibility,
or by the dictates of the intelligence, or to control and direct
fliem both; It can directly control the attention of the intel
lect, and consequently its perceptions, thoughts, &c. It can
indirectly control the states of the sensibility, or feeling facul
ty, by controlling the perceptions amffhoughts of the intelli-
18* -"¦

210 SYSTEMATIC theology.
gence. We also know from consciousness, as was shown in
a former lecture, that the voluntary muscles of the body are
directly controlled by the will, and that the relation of out
ward action, as well as the states of the intelligence and the
sensibility, to the action of the will, is that of necessity.
That is, the law which obliges the attention, the feelings, and
the actions of the body to obey the decisions of the will, is
physical law or the law of necessity. The attention of the
intellect and the outward actions are controlled directly, and
. the feelings indirectly, by the decisions ofthe will. The will
can either command or obey. It can suffer itself to be en
slaved by the impulses of the sensibility, or it can assert its
sovereignty and control them. The will is not influenced by
^either the intellect or the sensibility, by the law of necessity
or force; so that the will can always resist either the demands
of the intelligence or the impulses of the sensibility. But
while they can not lord it over the will through the agency of
any law of force, the will has the aid of the law of necessi
ty or force by which to control them.
Again: We are conscious of affirming to ourselves our ob
ligation to obey the law of the intelligence rather than the
impulses of the sensibility; that to act virtuously we must act
rationally or intelligently, and not give ourselves up to the
blind impulses of our feelings.
Now, inasmuch as the love required by the moral law con
sists in choice, willing, intention, as has been repeatedly
shown, and inasmuch as choice, willing, intending, controls
the states of the intellect and the outward actions directly by
a law of necessity, and by the same law controls the feelings.
or states of the sensibility indirectly, it follows that certain
states of the intellect and the sensibility and also certain
outward actions must be implied in the existence of the love
which^the law of God requires. I say implied in it, not as
making a part of it, but as necessarily resulting from it. The
thoughts, opinions, judgments, feelings, and outward actions
must be moulded and modified by the state of the heart or
will. Here it is important to remark that in common parlance,
the same word is often used to express either an action or
state of the will, or a state of the sensibility, or both. Thisi
is true of all the terms that represent what are called the
christian graces or virtues, or those various modifications of
virtue of which Christians are^onscious and which appear in
their life and temper.-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 211
Of this truth we shall be constantly reminded as we pro
ceed in our investigations, for we shall find illustrations of it
at every step of our progress. , Before I proceed to point out
the attributes of benevolence, it is important to remark that
all the moral attributes of God and of all holy beings, are
only attributes of benevolence. Benevolence is a term that
comprehensively expresses them all. God is love. This term
expresses comprehensively God's whole moral character.
This love, as We have repeatedly seen, is benevolence. Be
nevolence is good willirig, or the choice of the highest good of
God and the universe as an end. But from this comprehen
sive statement, accurate though it be, we are apt to receive
very inadequate conceptions of what really belongs to as im
plied in benevolence. To say that love is the fulfilling of the
whole law; that benevolence is the whole of true religion;
that the whole duty of man to God and his neighbor, is ex
pressed in one word, love — these statements, though true, are
so comprehensive as to need with all minds much amplifica
tion and explanation. The fact is, that many things are im
plied in love or benevolence. By this is intended that benevo
lence needs to be viewed under various aspects and in various
relations, and its dispositions or willings considered in the va
rious relations in which it is called to act. Benevolence is an
ultimate intention, or the choice of an ultimate end. Now if
we suppose that this is all that is implied in benevolence we
shall egregiously err. Unless we inquire into the nature of
the end which benevolence chooses, and the means by which
it seeks to accomplish that end, we shall understand but little
of the import of the word benevolence. Benevolence has
many attributes or characteristics. These must all harmonize
in the selection of its end, and in its efforts to realize it. Wis
dom, justice, mercy, truth, holiness, and many other attributes,
as we shall see, are essential elements or attributes of benevo
lence. To understand what true benevolence is, we must in
quire into its attributes. Not every thing that is called love
has at all the nature of benevolence. Nor has all that is
called benevolence any title to that, appellation. There are
various kinds of love. Natural affection is callec] love. The
affection that exists between the sexes is also called love.
Our preference of certain kinds of diet is called love. Hence
we say we love fruit, vegetables, meat, milk, &c. Benevo
lence is also called love; and is the kind of love, beyond all
question, required by the law&of God. But there is more
than one state of mind that is called benevolence. There is

212 SYSTEMATIC, THEOLOGY.
a^onstitutional or phrenological benevolence, which is often
mistaken for and confounded with the benevolence which con
stitutes virtue. This so called benevolence is in truth only an
imposing form of selfishness; nevertheless it is called benevo
lence. Many of its manifestations are like those of true be
nevolence. Care, therefore, should be taken in giving reli
gious instruction, to distinguish accurately between them.
Benevolence, let it be remembered, is the obedience of the
will to the law of the reason. It is willing good as an end,
for its own sake, and not to gratify self. Selfishness consists
in the obedience of the will to the impulses of the sensibility.
It is a spirit of self-gratification. The will seeks to gratify
the desires and propensities for the pleasure of the gratifica
tion. Self gratification is sought as an end and as the supreme
end. It is preferred to the claims of God and the good of
heing. Phrenological or constitutional benevolence is only
'obedience to the impulse of the sensibility — a yielding to a
feeling of compassion. It is only an effort to gratify a desire-
It is, therefore, as really selfishness, as is an effort to gratify
any constitutional desire whatever.
It is impossible to get a just idea of what constitutes obe-
dierice to the Diyine l^w, and what is implied in it, without
considering attentively the various attributes or aspects of be
nevolence, properly so called. Upon this discussion we are
about to enter. But before I commence the enumeration and
definition of these attributes, it is important further to remark
that the moral attributes of God, as revealed in his works,
providence, and word, throw much light upon the subject be
fore us. Also the many precepts of the Bible, and the de
velopments of benevolence therein revealed, will assist us
much as we proceed in our inquiries upon this important
subject. As the Bible expressly affirms that love compre
hends the whole character of God — that it is the whole that
the law requires of man — that the end' of the commandment
is charity or love — we may be assured that every form of
true virtue is only a modification of love or benevolence, that
is, that every state of mind required by the Bible, and recog
nized as virtue is, in its last analysis, resolvable into love or
benevolence. In other words, every virtue is only benevo
lence viewed under certain aspects, or in certain relations.
In other words still, it is only one of the elements, peculiari
ties,, characteristics, or attributes of benevolence., This is
true of God's moral attributes.,, They are, as has been said,
only attributes of benevolence. They are only benevolence

MORAL GOVERNMENT. * 213
viewed in certairi relations and aspects. All his virtues^re
only so many attributes of benevolence. This is and must
be true of every holy being. ^, ¦
II. / will now proceed, agreeably to my purpose, to point out
the attributes of that love which constitutes obedience to the law
of God.
As I proceed I will call attention to the states of the in
telligence and of the sensibility, and also to the courses of
outward conduct imphed in the existence of this love in any
mind — implied in its existence as necessarily resulting from
it by the law of cause and effect. These attributes are,
1. Voluntariness. That is, it is a phenomenon of the
will. There is a state of the sensibility often expressed;
by the term love. Love may, and often does exist, as every
one knows, in the form of a mere feeling or emotion. The
term is often used to express the emotion of fondness or
attachment as distinct from a voluntary state of mind; or a
choice of the will. This emotion or feeling, as we are all
aware, is purely an involuntary state of mind. Because it is
a phenomenon of the sensibility, and of course a passive
state of mind, it has in itself no moral character. The law
of God requires voluntary love or gobd will, as has beeri re
peatedly shown. This love consists in, choice, intention. It
is choosing the highest well-being of God and the universe of
sentient beings as an end. Of course voluntariness must be
one of its characteristics.
If it be voluntary, or consist in choice, if it be a phenome
non of the will, it must control the thoughts and states of the
sensibility as Well as the outward action. This love, then,
not only consists in a spirit or state of consecration to God
and the universe, but also implies deep emotions of love to
God and man. Though a phenomenon of the will, it implies
the existence of all those feelings of love and affection to God
and man that necessarily result from the consecration of the
heart or will to their highest well-being. It alsoj4inplies all
that outward course of life that necessarily flows from a state
of will consecrated to this end. Let it be borne in mind that
when these feelings do not arise in the sensibility, and when
this course of life is not, then the true love or voluntary con
secration to God and the universe required by the law, is not.
These follow from this by a law of necessity. Those, that
is, feelings or emotions of love and a correct outward life,
may exist without this voluntary love, as I shall have occasion
to show in its proper place; but this can not exist' without

214 *, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
those, as they follow from it by a law of necessity. These
emotions will vary in their strength as constitution and cir
cumstances vary, but exist they must in some sensible degree
whenever the will is in a benevolent attitude.
2. Liberty is an attribute of this love. The mind is free
and spontaneous in its exercise. It makes this choice when it
has the power at every moment to choose self-gratification as
an end. Of this)every moral agent is conscious. It is a free
and therefore a responsible choice.
3. Intelligence. That is, the mind makes choice of this end
intelligently. It not only knows what it chooses, and why it
chooses, but also that it chooses in accordance with the dic
tates of the intelligence; that the end is worthy of being
chosen, and that for this reaspn the intelligence demands that
it should be chosen; and also, that for its own intrinsic value
it is chosen.
Because voluntariness, liberty, and intelligence are natural
attributes of this love, therefore the following are its moral
attributes. 4. Virtuousness or rightness is an attribute of it Moral
rightness is moral perfection, righteousness, or uprightness.
Virtuousness must be a moral element or attribute. The term
marks or designates its relation to moral law and expresses
its conformity to it.
In the exercise of this love or choice, the mind is conscious
of uprightness or of being conformed to moral law or moral
obligation, In other words, it is conscious of being virtuous
or holy; of being like God; of loving what ought to be loved,
and of consecration to the right end.
Because this choice is in accordance with the demands of
thp, intelligence, therefore the mind in its exercise is conscious
of the approbation of that power of the intelligence which we
call conscience. The conscience must approve this love,
choice, or intention.
Again: Because the conscience approves of this choice,
therefore there is and must be a corresponding state of the
sensibility. There is and must be in the sensibility a feeling
of happiness or satisfaction} a feeling of complacency or de
light in the love that is in the heart or will. This love, then,
always produces self-approbation in the conscience, and a
felt satisfaction in the sensibihty, and, these feehngs are often
very acute and joyous, in so much that the soul in the exer
cise of this love of the heart is sometimes led to rejoice with
joy unspeakable and full of glory. This state of mind does

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 215
not alwaysnand necessarily amount to joy. Much depends in
this respect on the clearness of the intellectual views, upon the
state ofthe sensibility, and upon the manifestation of Divine
approbation to the soul. But when peace or approbation of
conscience, and consequently a peaceful state of the sensi
bility are not, this love is not. They are connected with it
by a law of necessity, and must of course appear on the field
of consciousness where it exists. These, then, are implied
in obedience to the law of God. Conscious peace of mind
and conscious joy in God must be where true love to God is.
5. Disinterestedness is another attribute of this love. By
disinterestedness is not intended that the mind takes no inte
rest in the object loved, for it does take a supreme interest in
it. Bnt this term expresses the mind's choice of an end for
its own sake, and not merely upon condition that the good be
longs to self. This love is disinterested in the sense that the
highest well-being of God and the universe is chosen,, not
upon condition of its relation to self, but for its own intrinsic
and infinite value. It is this attribute particularly that distin
guishes this love from selfish love. Selfish love makes the
relation of good to self the condition of choosing it. The
good of God and of the Universe, if chosen at all, is only
chosen as a means or condition of promoting the highest good
of self. But this love does not make good to self its end;
but good to God and being in general is its end.
As disinterestedness is an attribute of this love, it does not
seek its own but the good of others. " Charity (love) seeketh
not her own." It grasps the good of being in general, and
of course, of necessity, secures a correspondirig outward life
and inward feeling. The intelligence will be employed in
devising ways and means for the promotion oi its end. The
sensibility will be tremblingly alive to the good of all and of
each, will rejoice in the good of others as in its own, and
will grieve at the misery of others as in its own. '-^M " will re
joice with them who do rejoice, and weep witWthem that
weep." There will not, can not be envy at the prosperity of
others, but unfeigned joy, joy as real and often as exquisite
as in its own. Benevolence enjoys every body's good things,
while selfishness is too envious at the good things of others
even to enjoy its own. There is a Divine economy in benevo
lence. Each benevolent soul not only enjoys his own good •
things but also enjoys the good things of all others so far as
he knows their happiness. He drinks at the river of God's
pleasure. He not only rejoices in doing good to- others, but

I
216 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
also in .beholding their enjoyment of good things^ He joys
in God's joy and in the joy of angels and of sainfs. He
also rejoices in the good things of all sentient existences. He
is happy in beholding the pleasure of the beasts of the field,
the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea. He sympa
thizes with all joy and all suffering known to him. Nor is
his sympathy with the suffering of others a. feeling of un-
mingled pain. It is a real luxury to sympathize in the woeS
of others. He would not be without this sympathy. It so
accords with his sense of propriety and fitness, that mingled
with the painful emotion there is a sweet feeling of self-appro
bation, so that a benevolent sympathy with the woes of oth*
ers is by no means inconsistent with happiness, and with per
fect happiness. God has this sympathy. He often expresses
and otherwise manifests it. There is, indeed, a mysterious;
and an exquisite luxury in sharing the woes of others. God
and angels and all holy beings know what it is. Where this
result of love is not manifested,'there love itself is not. Envy
at the prosperity, influence, or good of others, the absence of
sensible joy in view of the good enjoyed by others, and of
sympathy with the sufferings of others, prove conclusively
that this love does not exist. There is an expansiveness, an
ampleness of embrace, a universality and a Divine disinter
estedness in this love that necessarily manifests itself in the
liberal devising of liberal things for Zion, and in the copious
outpourings of the floods of sympathetic feeling, both of joys
and sorrows, as their occasions present themselves before the
mind. 5. Impartiality is another attribute of this love. By this
term is not intended that the mind is indifferent to the char
acter of him who is happy or miserable; that it would be as
well pleased to see the wicked as the righteous eternally and
perfectly blessed. But it is intended that, other things being
equal, it is the intrinsic value of their well-being which is
alone regarded by the mind. Other things being equal, it
matters not to whom the good belongs. It is no respecter of
persons. The good of being is its end and it-seeks to pro
mote every interest according to its relative value. Selfish
love is partial. It seeks to promote self-interest first, and
secondarily those interests (hat sustain such a relation to self as
will at least indirectly promote the gratification of self. Sel
fish ove has its favorites, its prejudices, unreasonable and ri-
diculous. Color, family, nation, and many other things of
hke nature modify it. But benevolence knows neither Jew

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 217
nor Greek, neither bond nor free, white nor black, Babarian,
Cythian, European, Asiatic, African, nor American, but ac
counts all men as men, and by virtue of their common manhood
calls every man a brother, and seeks the interest of all and of
each. Impartiality being an attribute of this love, will of
course manifest itself in the outward life and in the temper
and spirit of its subject. This love can have no fellowship
with those absurd and ridiculous prejudices that are so often
rife among nominal Christians. Nor will it cherish them for
a moment in the sensibility of him who exercises it. Benevo
lence recognizes no privileged classes on the one hand, nor
proscribed classes on the other. It secures in the sensibility
an utter loathing of those discriminations so odiously mani
fested and boasted of and which are founded exclusively in a
selfish state of the will. The fact that a man is a man, and
not that he is of our party, of our complexion, or of our town,
state or nation — that he is a creature of God, that he is ca
pable of virtue and happiness, these are the considerations
that are seized upon by this divinely impartial love. It is
the intrinsic value of his interests, and not that they are the
interests of one connected with self, that the benevolent mind
regards. But here it is important to repeat the remark that the econo
my of benevolence demands that where two interests are, in
themselves considered, of equal value, in order to secure the
greatest amount of good, each one should bestow his efforts
where they can be bestowed to the greatest advantage. For
example: Every man sustains such relations that he can ac
complish more good by seeking to promote the interest and
happiness of certain persons rather than of others. His famr
ily, his kindred, his companions, his immediate neighbors and
those to whom, in the providence of God, he sustains such re
lations as to give him access to them and influence over them.
It is not unreasonable, it is not partial, but reasonable and iim
partial to bestow our efforts more directly upon them. There-:
fore, while benevolence regards every interest according to its
relative value, it reasonably puts forth its efforts in the direc
tion . where there is a prospect of accomplishing the most
good. This, I say, is not partiality, butampartiality; for be
it understood, it is not the particular persons to whom good
can be done,.but the amount of good that can be accomplished
that directs the efforts of benevolence. It is not because my
family is my own, nor because their well-being is, of course,.
more valuable in itself than that of my neighbors' families,

218 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
but because my relations afford me higher facilities for doing
them good, I am under particular obligation to aim first
at promoting their good. Hence the apostle says: "If any
man provide not for his own, especially for those of his own
household, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an in
fidel." Strictly speaking, benevolence esteems every known
good according to its intrinsic and relative value; but prac
tically treats every interest according to the perceived
probability of securing on the whole the highest amount of
good. This is a truth of great practical importance. It is
developed in the experience and observation of every day
and hour. It is manifest in the conduct of God and of Christ,
of apostles and of martyrs. It is every where assumed in
the precepts of the Bible, and every where manifested in the
history of benevolent effort. Let it be understood, then, that
impartiality, as an attribute of benevolence, does not imply
that its effort to do good will not be modified by relations and
circumstances. But, on the contrary, this attribute implies
that the efforts to secure the great end of benevolence, to
wit, the greatest amount of good to God and the universe,
will be modified by those relations and circumstances that af
ford the highest advantages for doing good.
The impartiality of bpnevolence causes it always to lay
supreme stress upon God's interests, because His well-being
is of infinite value, and of course benevolence must be su
preme to Him, Benevolence being impartial love, of course
accounts God's interests and well-being, as of infinitely great
er value than the aggregate of all other interests. ; Benevo
lence regards our neighbor's interests as our own, simply be
cause they are in their intrinsic value as our own. Benevo
lence, therefore, is always supreme to God and equal to man.
6. Another attribute of this love is Universality. > Benevo
lence chooses the highest good of being in general. It ex
cludes none from its regard; but on the contrary embosoms
all in its ample embrace. But by this it is not intended that
it seeks to promote the good of every individual. It seeks the
highest practicable amount of good. The interest of every
individual is estimated according to its intrinsic value, what- •
ever the circumstances or character- of each may be. But
character and relations may and must modify the manifesta
tions of benevolence, or its efforts in seeking to promote this
end. A wicked character and governmental relations and
considerations may forbid benevolence to seek the good of
some. Nay, they may demand that positive misery shall be

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

219

inflicted on some as a warning to others to beware of their
destructive ways. By universality, as an attribute of benevo
lence, is intended that good will is truly exercised towards all
sentient beings, whatever their character and relations may be ;
and that when the higher good of the greater number does not
forbid it, the happiness of all and of each will be pursued
with a degree of stress equal to their relative value and the
prospect of securing each interest. Enemies as well as
friends, strangers and foreigners as well as relations and im
mediate neighbors will be enfolded in its sweet embrace. It
is the state of mind required by Christ in the truly Divine
precept, " I say unto you, love your enemies, pray for them
that hate you, and do good unto them that despitefully use
and persecute you." This attribute of benevolence is glori
ously conspicuous in the character of God. His love to sin
ners alone accounts for our being to-day out of hell. His
aiming to secure the highest good of the greatest number is
illustrated by the display of his glorious justice in the pun
ishment of the wicked. His universal care for all ranks and
conditions of sentient beings manifested in His works and
providence, beautifully and gloriously illustrates the truth that
" His tender mercies are over all His works."
It is easy to see that universality must be a modification
of true benevolence. It consists in good willing, that is, in
choosing the highest good of being as such and for its own
sake. Of course it must, to be consistent with itself, seek
the good of all and of each, so far as the good of each is con
sistent with the greatest good upon the whole. Benevolence
not only wills and seeks the good of moral beings, but also
the good of every sentient existence, from the minutest ani-
malculum to the highest order of beings. It of course begets
a state of the sensibility that is tremblingly alive to all happi
ness and to all pain. It will be pained with the agony of an
insect, and also rejoice in its joy. God does this and all ho
ly beings do this. Where this sympathy with the joys and
sorrows of universal being is not, there benevolence is not
Observe, good is its end; where this is promoted by the proper
means the feelings are gratified. Where evil is witnessed
the benevolent spirit deeply and necessarily sympathizes,

LECTURE XV.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in obedience to the Law of God.
7. Efficiency is another attribute or characteristic of be
nevolence. Benevolence consists in choice, intention. Now
we know from consciousness that choice or intention consti
tutes the mind's deepest activity. If I honestly intend a thing
I can not but make efforts to accomplish that which I intend,
provided that I believe the thing possible. If I choose an
end, this choice must and will energize to secure its end;
When benevolence is the supreme choice, preference, in
tention of the soul, it is plainly impossible that it should not
produce efforts to secure its end. It must cease to exist or
manifest itself in exertions to secure its end as soon as and
whenever the intelligence deems it wise to dd so. If the will
lias yielded to the intelligence in the choice of an end, it will
certainly obey the intelligence in pursuit of that end. Choice,
intention, is the cause of all the outward activity of moral
agents. They all have chosen some end, either their own grat
ification Or the highest good of being; and all the busy bustle
of this world's teeming population is nothing else than choice
or intention seeking to compass its end.
Efficiency therefore is an attribute of benevolent intentions.
It must, it will, it does energize in God, in angels, in saints
on earth and in Heaven. It was this attribute of benevolence
that led God to give His only begotten Son, and that led the
Son to give himself "that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish but have everlasting life."
If Love is efficient in producing outward action and effi
cient in producing inward feelings ; it is efficient to wake up
the intellect and set the world of thought on fire in devising
ways and means to realize its end. It wields all the infinite
natural attributes of God. It is the mainspring that moves
all-heaven. It is the mighty power that is heaving the mass
of mind and rocking the moral world like a smothered vol
cano. Look to the heavens above. It was benevolence that
hung them out. It is benevolence that sustains those mighty
rolling orbs in their courses. It was good will endeavoring
to realize its end that at first put forth creative power. The
same power for the same reason still energizes and will con
tinue to energize for the realization of its end so long as God
is benevolent. And O what a glorious thought that infinite

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

221

benevolence is wielding and will forever wield infinite attri
butes for the promotion of good. No mind but an infinite one
can begin to conceive of the amount of good that Jehovah
will secure. O blessed glorious thoughts! But it is, it must
be a reality as surely as God and the universe exist. It is no
imagination, it is one of the most stable as well as the most
glorious truths in the universe. Mountains of granite are but
vapor in the comparison of it. But will the truly benevolent
on earth and in heaven sympathize with God? The power
that energizes in him, energizes in them. One principle ani
mates and moves them all, and that principle is love,' good
will to universal being. Well may our souls cry out, Amen,
go on, God-speed, let the mighty power heave and wield uni
versal mind until all the ills of earth shall be put away and un
til all that can be made holy are clothed in the garments of
everlasting gladness.
Since benevolence is necessarily, from its very nature, ac
tive and efficient in putting forth efforts to secure its end, and
since its end is the highest good of being, it follows that all
who are truly religious will and must, from the very nature of
true rehgion, be active in endeavoring to promote the good of
being. While effort is possible to a christian, it is as natu
ral to him as his breath. He has within him the very main*
spring of activity, a heart set on the promotion of the highest
good of universal being. This is the end for which he lives
and moves and has his being. While he has life and activity
at all, it will, and it must be directed to this end. Let this
never be forgotten. An idle, an inactive, inefficient christian
is a misnomer. Religion is an essentially active principle, and
when and while it exists, it must exercise and manifest itself.
It is not merely good desire, but it is good willing. Men may
have desires, and hope and live on them, without making ef
forts to realize their desires. They may desire without ac*
tion. If their will is active, their life must be. If they really
choose an ultimate end, this choice must manifest itself. The
sinner does and must manifest his selfish choice, and so like
wise must the saint manifest his benevolence.
8. Penitence must be a characteristic of benevolence, in
one who has been a sinner. Penitence, as we have briefly
said and shall more folly illustrate hereafter, is not a phenom
enon of the sensibility, but of the will. Every form of virtue
must, of necessity, be a phenomenon of the will, and not of
the intellect or of the sensibility. This word is commonly
used also to designate a certain phenomenon of the sensibili-
19*

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ty, to wit, sorrow for sin. This sorrow, though called peni
tence, is not penitence regarded as a virtue. Evangelical
penitence consists in a peculiar attitude of the will toward
our own past sins. It is the will's continued rejection of and
opposition to our past sins — the will's aversion to them. This
rejection, opposition, and aversion, is penitence, and is always
a peculiarity in the history of those benevolent minds that
have been sinners. This change in the will, most deeply and
permanently affects the sensibility. It will keep the intelli
gence thoroughly awake to the nature, character, and tenden
cies of sin, to its unspeakable guilt, and all its intrinsic odious-
ness. This will of course break up the fountains of the great
deep of feeling; the sensibility will often pour forth a torrent
of burning sorrow in view of past sin; and all its loathing
and indignation will, be kindled against it when it is beheld.
This attribute of benevolence will secure confession and resti
tution, that is, these must necessarily follow from genuine re
pentance. If the soul forsake sin, it will of course make all
possible reparation when it has done an injury. Benevo
lence seeks the good of all, of course it will and must seek
to repair whatever injury it has inflicted on any.
Repentance will arid must secure a God-justifying and self-
condemning spirit. It will take all shame and all blame to
self, arid fully acquit God of blame. This deep self-abase
ment is always and necessarily a characteristic of the true
penitent. Where this is npt, true repentance is not.
It should, however, be here remarked that feelings of self-
loathing, of self-abasement, and of abhorrence of sin, depend
upon the view which the intelligence gains of the nature and
guilt and aggravation of sin. In a sensible and manifested
degree, it will always exist when the will has honestly turned
or repented; but this feeling I have described gains strength
as the soul from time to time gains a deeper insight into the
nature, guilt and tendencies of sin. It is probable that re
pentance as an emotion will always gain strength, not only in
this world but in heaven. Can it be that the saints can in
heaven reflect upon their past abuse of the Savior, and not
feel their sorrow stirred within them? Nor will this diminish
their happiness. Godly sorrow is not unhappiness. There
is a luxury in the exercise. Remorse can not be known in
heaven, but godly sorrow, I think, must exist among the saints
forever. However this may be in heaven, it certainly is im
plied in repentance on earth. This attribute must and will
secure an outward life conformed to the law of love. There

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 223
may be an outward morality without benevolence, but there
cannot be benevolence without corresponding purity of out
ward life.
9. Another characteristic or attribute of benevolence is
Faith. Evangelical faith is by no means, as some have sup
posed, a phenomenon of the intelligence. The term, however,
is often used to express states both of the sensibility and of
the intellect. Conviction, or a strong perception of truth,
such as banishes doubt, is in common language called faith or
belief, and this without any reference to the state of the will,
whether it embraces or resists the truth perceived. But, cer
tainly, this conviction can not be evangelical faith. In this
belief, there is no virtue; it is but the faith of devils. The
term is often used in common parlance to express a mere feel
ing of assurance, or confidence, and as often respects a false
hood as the truth. That is, persons often feel the utmost con
fidence in a lie. But whether the feeling be in accordance
with truth or falsehood, it is not faith in the evangelical sense
of the term. Itis not virtue. Faith, to be a virtue, must be
a phenomenon of the will. It must be an attribute of be
nevolence or love. As an attribute of benevolence, it is the
will's embracing and loving truth. It is the soul's yielding or
.committing itself to the influence of truth. It is trust. It is
the heart's embracing the truths of God's existence, attributes,
works and word. It implies intellectual perception of truth,
and consists in the heart's embracing all the truth perceived.
It also implies that state of the sensibility which is called
faith. B°th the state of the intellect and the state, of the
sensibility just expressed are implied in faith, though neither
of them make any part of it. Faith always begets a reali
zing state of the sensibility. The intellect sees the truth
clearly, and the sensibility feels it deeply, in proportion to the
strength of the intellectual perception. But the clearest pos
sible perception and the deepest possible felt assurance of
the truth may consist with a state of the utmost opposition of
the will to truth. But this can not be trust, confidence, faith.
The damned in hell, no doubt, see the truth clearly, and have
a feeling of the utmost assurance of the truth of Christianity,
but they have no faith.
Faith then must certainly be a phenomenon of the will, and
must be a modification or attribute of benevolence. It is good
will or benevolence considered in its relations to the truth of
God. It is good will to God, confiding in his veracity and
faithfulness. It can not be too distinctly borne in mind that

224 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
every modification or phase of virtue is only benevolence
existing in certain relations, or good will to God and the uni
verse manifesting itself in the various circumstances and rela
tions in which it is called to act
10. Complacency in holiness or moral excellence, is an
other attribute of benevolence. This consists in benevo
lence contemplated in its relations to holy beings.
This term also expresses both a state of the intelligence
and of the sensibility. Moral agents are so constituted, that
they necessarily approve of moral worth or excellence; and
when even sinners behold right character, or moral goodness,
they are compelled to respect and approve it by a' law o
their intelhgence. This they not unfrequently regard as
evidence of goodness in themselves. But this is doubtless
just as common in hell as it is on earth. The veriest sinners
on earth or in hell, have by the unalterable constitution of
their nature, the necessity imposed upon them of paying in
tellectual homage to moral excellence. When a moral agent
is intensely contemplating moral excellence, and his intellec
tual approbation is emphatically pronounced, the natural, and
often the necessary result, is a corresponding feeling of com
placency or delight in the sensibility. But this being alto
gether an involuntary state of mind, has no moral character.
Complacency as a phenomenon of will consists in willing the
actual highest blessedness of the holy being as a good in itself
and upon condition of his moral excellence.
This attribute of benevolence is the cause of a complacent
state of the sensibility. It is true that feelings of complacency
may exist when complacency of will does not exist. But
complacency of feeling surely will exist when complacency
of will exists. Complacency of will implies complacency of
conscience, or the approbation of the intelligence. When
there is a complacency of intelligence and of will, there will
be of course complacency of the sensibility.
It is highly worthy of observation here, that this com
placency of feeling is that which is generally termed love to
God and to the saints, in the common language of christians, and
often in the popular language of the bible. It is a vivid and
pleasant state of the sensibility, and very noticeable by con
sciousness of course. Indeed it is perhaps the general usage
now to call this phenomenon of the sensibility, love, and for
want of just discrimination, to speak of it as constituting re
ligion. Many seem to suppose that this feeling of delight
in and fondness for God, is the love required by the moral
law.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

225

They are conscious of not being voluntary in it, as well
they may be. They judge of their religious state, not by the
end for which they live, that is, by their choice or intention,
but by their emotions. If they find themselves strongly exer
cised with emotions of love to God they look upon themselves
as in a state well-pleasing to God. But if their feelings or
emotions of love are not active, they of course judge them
selves to have little or no religion. It is remarkable to what
extent religion is regarded as a phenomenon of the sensibility
and as consisting in mere feelings. So common is it, indeed,
that almost uniformly when professed Christians speak of
their experience, they speak of their feelings or the state of
their sensibility, instead of speaking of their conscious conse
cration to God and the good of being.
It is also somewhat common for ||>em to speak of their
views of Christ, and of truth, in a manner that shows that they
regard the states of the intelligence as constituting a part at
least of their religion. It is of great importance that just
views should prevail among Christians upon this momentous
subject. Virtue or religion, as has been repeatedly said, must
be a phenomenon of the heart or will. The attribute of be
nevolence which we are considering, that is, complacency of
heart or will in God, is the most common light in which the
Scriptures present it, and also the most common form in which
it lies revealed on the field of consciousness. The Scriptures
often assign the goodness of God as a reason for loving Him,
and Christians are conscious of having much regard to His
goodness in their love to Him. I mean in their good will to
Him. They will good to Him and ascribe all praise and glo
ry to Him upon the condition that He deserves it. Of this
they are conscious. Now, as was shown in a former lecture,
in their love or good will to God they do not regard His good
ness as the fundamental reason for willing good to Him. Al
though His goodness is that which at the time most strongly
impresses their minds, yet it must be that tiie intrinsic value of
His well-being is assumed and had in view by them, or they
would no sooner will that than any thing else to Him- In
willing His good they must assume its intrinsic value to Him
as the fundamental reason for willing it, and His goodness as
a secondary reason or condition, but they are conscious of being
much influenced in willing His good in particular by a regard to
his goodness. Should you ask the Christian why he loved God or
why he exercised good will to Him, he would probably reply, it is
because God is good. But suppose he should be further asked

226 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
why he willed good rather than evil to God,he would say because
good is good or valuable to Him. Or if he returned the same
answer as before, to wit, because God is good, he would give
this answer only because he would think it impossible for any
one not to assume and to know that good is willed instead of
evil because of its intrinsic value. The fact is, the intrinsic
value of well-being is necessarily taken along with the mind,
and always assumed by it as a first truth. When a virtuous
being is perceived, this first truth being spontaneously and
necessarily, assumed, the mind thinks only of the secondary
reason or condition, or the virtue of the being in willing good
to Him.
The philosophy of the heart's complacency in God may
be illustrated by many familiar examples. For instance:
The law of causality is, a first truth. Every one knows it.
Every one assumes it and must assume it. No one ever did
or can practically deny it. Now I have some important end
to accomplish. In looking around for means to accomplish
my end, 1 discover a certain means which I am sure will ac
complish it. Itis the tendency of this to accomplish my cni
that my mind is principally affected with at the time. Should
I be asked why I choose this I should naturally answer be
cause of its utility or tendency, and I should be conscious that
this reason was upon the field of consciousness. But it is
perfectly plain that the fundamantal reason for this choice,
and one which was assumed, and had in fact the prime and
fundamental influence in producing the choice was the intrin
sic value of the end to which the thing chosen sustained the
relation of a means. Take another illustration: That happi
ness is intrinsically valuable is a first truth. Every body
knows and assumes it as such. Now I behold a virtuous
character. Assuming the first truth that happiness is intrinsi
cally valuable, I affirm irresistibly that he deserves happiness
and that it is my duty to will his happiness. Now, in this case
the affirmation thal^he deserves happiness, and that I ought
to will it, is based upon the assumption that happiness is in
trinsically valuable. The thing with which I am immedi
ately conscious of being affected, and which necessitated the
affirmation of the obligation to will his good, and which in
duced me to will it, was the perception of his goodness or de
sert of happiness. Nevertheless, it is certain that I did as
sume, and was fundamentally influenced both in my affirma
tion of obligation and in my choice by the first truth, that happi
ness is intrinsically valuable. I assumed it and was influenced

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 227
by it, though unconscious of it And this is generally true of first
truths. They are so universally and so necessarily assumed
in practice, that we lose the direct consciousness of being in-
. flenccd by them. Myriads of illustrations of this are arising
all around us. We do really love God, that is, exercise good
will to Him. Of this we are strongly conscious. We are
also conscious of willing His actual blessedness upon condi
tion that He. is good. This reason we naturally assign to our
selves and to others. But in this we may overlook the fact
that there is still another and a deeper, and a more fundamen
tal reason assumed for willing His good, to wit, its intrinsic
value. And this reason is so fundamental that we should ir
resistibly affirm our obligation to will His good upon the bare
perception of His susceptibility of Happiness wholly irre
spective of His character.
Before I quit this subject, I must advert again to the sub-:
ject of complacent love as a phenomenon of the sensibility
and also as a phenomenon of the intelligence. There are
sad mistakes and gross and ruinous delusions entertained by
many upon this subject, if I mistake not. . The intelligence
of necessity, perfectly approves of the character of God wherp
it is apprehended. The intelligence is so correlated to the
sensibility that where it perceives in a strong light the Divine
excellence, or the excellence of the Divine law, the sensibility
is affected by the perception of the intelligence as a thing of
course and of necessity. So that emotions of complacency
and delight in the law, and in the Divine character may and
often do glow and burn in the sensibility while the heart is un
affected. The will remains in a selfish choice, while the
intellect and the sensibility are strongly impressed with thte
perception of the Divine excellence. This state of the intel
lect and the sensibility are, no doubt, often mistaken for true
religion. We have undoubted illustrations of this in the Bible,
and great multitudes of cases of it in common life. "Yet they
seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation
that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their
God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice, they take de
light in approaching to God." Isaiah 58: 2. "And, lo, thou
art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleas
ant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear
thy words, but they do them not." Ezekiel 33: 32.
Nothing is of greater importance than forever to under
stand that religion is always and necessarily a phenomenon of
the will; that it always and necessarily produces outward ac-

228 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
tion and inward feeling; that on account of the,iCorrelationof
the intellect and sensibility, almost any and every variety of
feeling may exist in the mind, as produced by the perceptions
of the intelligence whatever the state of the will may be;
that unless we are conscious of good will or of consecration
to God and the good of being — unless we are conscious of
hving for this end, it avails us nothing, whatever our views
and feehngs may be.
And also it behooves us to consider that although these
views and feelings may exist while the heart is wrong,
they will certainly exist when the heart is right; that there
may be feeling, and deep feeling when the heart is wrong,
yet that there will and must be deep emotion and strenuous
action when the heart is right. Let it be remembered, then,
that complacency, as a phenomenon of the will, is always a
striking characteristic of true love or benevolence to God;
that is, that the mind is affected and consciously influenced in
willing the actual and infinite blessedness of God.by a regard
to His goodness. The goodness of God is not, as has been
repeatedly shown, the fundamental influence or reason of the
good will, but it is one reason or a condition both of the possi
bility of willing, and of the obligation to will his actual bles
sedness. It assigns to itself and to others, as has been said,
this reason for loving God, or willing His good, rather than
the truly fundamental one, to wit the intrinsic valueof good,
because that is so universally and so necessarily assumed,
that it thinks not of mentioning that, taking it always for
granted, that that will and must be understood.

LECTURE XVI.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in entire obedience to the Law of God.
12. Opposition to sin is another attribute or characteristic
of true love to God.
This attribute is simply benevolence contemplated in its
relations to sin. This attribute certainly is implied in the
very essence and nature of benevolence. Benevolence is
good willing, or willing the highest good of being as an end.
Now there is nothing in the universe more palpably and dia
metrically opposite to this end than sin. Benevolence can
not do otherwise than be forever opposed to sin as that, abom
inable, thing which it necessarily hates. It is absurd and a
contradiction to affirm that benevolence is not opposed to sin.
God is love or benevolence. He must, therefore, be the un
alterable opponent of sin — of all sin, in every form and degree.
But there is a state, both of the intellect and of the sensi
bility, that are often mistaken for the opposition ofthe will to
sin. Opposition to sin as a virtue, is and must be ,a pheno
menon ofthe will. But it also often exists as a phenomenon
of the intellect, and likewise of the sensibility. The intelli-"
gence cannot contemplate sin without disapprobation. This
disapprobation is often mistaken for opposition of heart, or of
will, to it. When the intellect strongly disapproves of arid
denounces sin, there is naturally and necessarily a corre
sponding feeling of opposition to it in the sensibility, an
emotion of loathing, of hatred, of abhorrence. This is often
mistaken for opposition of the will, or heart. This is mani
fest from the fact, that often the most notorious sinners mani
fest strong indignation in view of oppression, injustice, false
hood, and many forms of sin. This phenomenon of the sensi
bility and of the intellect, as 1 said, is often mistaken for a
virtuous opposition to sin.
But let it be remembered, that the only virtuous opposition
to sin, is a phenomenon of the will. It is a characteristic of
love to God and man, or of benevolence. This opposition to
sin can not possibly 'co-exist with any degree of sin in the
heart. That is, this opposition can not co-exist with a sinful
choice. The will can not at the same time be opposed to sin,
and commit sin- This is impossible, and the supposition inn
volves a contradiction. Opposition to sin as a phenomenon
20

230 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. ,
of the intellect, or of the sensibility may exist—in other
words, the intellect may strongly disapprove of sin, and the
sensibility may feel strongly opposed to it, while at the same
time the will may cleave to self-indulgence, or to that which
constitutes sin. This fact, no doubt, accounts for the common
mistake, that we can at^he same time have a virtuous oppo
sition to sin, and still continue to commit it
Many are, no doubt, laboring under this fatal delusion.
They are conscious not only of an intellectual disapprobation
of sin, but also at times of strong feelings of opposition to it
And yet they are also conscious of continuing to commit it
They, therefore, conclude that they have a principle of holiness
in them, and also a principle of sin, that they are partly holy
and partly sinful at the same time. Their opposition of intel
lect and of feeling, they suppose to be a holy opposition, when,
no doubt, it is just as common in hell, and even more so than
it is on earth, for the reason that sin is more naked there than
it generally is here.
But now the enquiry may arise, how is it that both the in
tellect and the sensibility are opposed to it, and yet that it
is persevered in? What reason can the mind have for a sinful
choice when urged to it neither by the intellect nor the sen
sibility ? * The philosophy of this phenomenon needs explana
tion. Let us attend to it,
I am a moral agent. My intelligence necessarily disap
proves of sin. My sensibility is so correlated to my intellect
that it sympathizes with it, or is affected by its perceptions
and its judgments. I contemplate sin. I necessarily disap
prove of it and condemn it. This affects my sensibility. I
loathe and abhor it. I nevertheless commit it. Now how is
this to be accounted for? The usual method is by ascribing
it to a depravity in the will itself, a lapsed or corrupted state
of the faculty, so tfiat it perversely chooses sin for its own sake.
Although disapproved by the intelligence and loathed by the
sensibility, yet such, it is said, is the inherent depravity of the
will, that it pertinaciously cleaves to sin notwithstanding, and
will continue to do so until the faculty is renewed by the Holy
Spirit, and a holy bias or inclination is impressed upon the
will itself.
But here is a gross mistake. In order .to see the truth upon
this subject, it is of indispensable importance to inquire what
sin is.
It is admitted, on all hands, that selfishness is sin. Com
paratively few seem to understand that selfishness is the whole

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

231

of sin, and that every form of sin may be resolved into selfish
ness, just as every form of virtue may be resolved into benevo
lence. It is not my purpose now to show that selfishness is
the whole of sin. It is sufficient for the present to take the
admission that selfishness is sin. But what is selfishness? It
is the choice of self gratification as^an end. It is the prefer
ence of our own gratification to the highest good of universal
being. Selfgratification is the supreme end of selfishness.
This choice is sinful. That is, the moral element, quality or
attribute of this selfish choice is sin. Now in no case is or
can sin be chosen for its own sake or as an end. Whenever
any thing is chosen to gratify self, it is not chosen because
the choice is sinful, but notwithstanding it is sinful. It is not
the sinfulness of the choice upon which the choice fixes as an
end or for its own sake, but it is the gratification to be afforded
by the thing chosen. For example: theft is sinful. But the
will in an act of theft does not aim at and terminate on the
sinfulness of theft, but upon the gratification expected from
the stolen object. Drunkenness is sinful, but the inebriate
does not intend or choose the sinfulness for its own sake or as
an end. He does not choose strong drink because the choice
is sinful, but notwithstanding it is so. We choose the gratifi
cation, but not the sin, as an end. To choose the gratification
as an end is sinful, but it is not the sin that is the object of
choice. Our mother Eve ate the forbidden fruit. This
eating was sinful. But the thing that she chose or intended
was not the sinfulness of eating, but the gratification expected
from the fruit. It is not, it can. not in any case be true that
sin is chosen as an end or for its own sake. Sin is only a
quality of selfishness. Selfishness is the choice, not of sin as
an end or for its own sake, but of self-gratification; and this
choice of self-gratification as an end is sinful. That is, the
moral element, quality or attribute of the choice is sin. To
say that sin is or can be chosen for its own sake is absurd. It
is the same as saying that a choice can terminate on an ele
ment, quality or attribute of itself; that the thing chosen is
really an element ofthe choice itself. This is absurd.
But it is said that sinners are sometimes conscious of choos
ing sm for its own sake, or because it is sin; that they possess
such a malicious state of mind that they love sin for its own
sake; that- they "roll sin as a sweet morsel under their
tongue;" that "they eat up the sins of God's people as they eat
hread;" that is, that they love their sins and the sins of others
as they do their necessary food, and choose it for that reason, J.

232 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
or just as they do their food. That they not only sin them
selves with greediness,' but also have pleasure in them that do
sin. Now all this may be true, yet it does not at all disprove
the position which I have taken, namely, that sin never is and
never can be chosen as an end, or for its own sake. Sin may
be sought and loved as a means, but never as an end, The
choice of food will illustrate this. Food is never chosen as an
ultimate end: it never can be so chosen/ It is always as a
means. It is the gratification or the utility of it in some point
of view that constitutes the reason for choosing it. Gratifi
cation is always the end for which a selfish man eats, It may
not be merely the present pleasure of eating which he alone
or principally seeks. But, nevertheless, if a selfish man, he
has his own gratification in view as an end. It may be that
it is not so much a present as a remote gratification he has in
view. Thus he iriay choose food to give him health and
strength to pursue some distant gratification, the acquisition
of wealth or something else that will gratify him.
It may happen that a sinner may get into a state of rebel
lion against God and the universe of so frightful a character
that he shall take pleasure in willing and in doing and saying
things that are sinful because they are sinful and displeasing
to God and to holy beings. But in' this case, sin is not chosen-
as an end, but as a means of gratifying this malicious feeling.
It is, after all, self-gratification that is chosen as an end, and
not sin, Sin is the means, and self-gratification is the end.
Now we are prepared to understand how it is that both the
intellect and sensibility can often beopposed to sin, and yet
the will cleave to the indulgence. An inebriate is contem
plating the moral character of drunkenness. He instantly
and necessarily condemns the abomination. His sensibility
sympathizes with the intellect. He loathes the sinfulness of
drinking strong drink, and himself on account of it. He is
ashamed, and were it possible, he would spit in his, own
face. Now in this state it would surely be absurd to suppose
that, he could choose sin, the sin of drinking as an end, ox for
its own sake. This would be choosing it for an impossible
reason, and not for no reason. But still he may choose to
continue his drink, not because it is sinful, bnt notwithstanding
it is so. For while the intellect condemns the sin of drinking
strong drink, and the sensibility loathes the sinfulness of the
indulgence, nevertheless there still exists so strong an appetite,
not for the sin, but for the liquor, that the will seeks the; grati
fication notwithstanding, the sinfulness of it.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 233
So it is and so it must be in every case where sin is com
mitted in the face ofthe remonstrances of the intelligence and
the loathing of the sensibility. The sensibility loathes the
sinfulness, but more strongly desires the thing the choice of
which is sinful. The will in a selfish being yields to the strong
est impulse of the sensibility, and the end chosen is in no case
sin, but self-gratification. Those who suppose this opposition
of the intellect or of the sensibility to be a holy principle, are
fatally deluded. This kind of opposition to sin, as I have said,
is doubtless common and always must be in hell. It is this
kind of opposition to sin that often manifests itself among
wicked men, and that leads them to take credit for goodness
which they do not possess. They will not believe themselves
to be morally and totally depraved, while they are conscious
of so much hostility to sin within them. But they should un
derstand that this opposition is not of the will or they could
not go on in sin; that it is purely an involuntary state of
mind, and has no moral character whatever. Let it be ever
remembered, then, that a virtuous opposition to sin is always
and necessarily an attribute of benevolence, a phenomenon of
the will, and that it is naturally impossible that this opposition
of will should co-exist with the commission of sin.
As this opposition to sin is plainly implied in, and is an es
sential attribute of benevolence, or true love to God, it follows
that obedience to the law of God can not be partial in the
sense that we can both love God and sin at the same time.
13. Compassion for the miserable is also an attribute of be
nevolence, or of pure love to God and man. This is, benevo
lence viewed in its relations to misery and to guilt.
There is a compassion also which is a phenomenon of the
sensibility. It may, and does often exist in the form of an
emotion. But this emotion being involuntary, has no moral
character in itself. The compassion which is a virtue and
which is required of us as a duty, is a phenomenon of the will,
and is of course an attribute of benevolence. Benevolence,
as has been often said, is good willing, or willing the highest
happiness and weltbeing of God and the universe for its own
sake, or as an end. It is impossible, therefore, from its own
nature, that compassion for the miserable should not be one
of its attributes. Compassion of will to misery is the choice
that it should not exist. Benevolence wills that happiness
should exist for its own sake. It must therefore, will that
misery should not exist. This attribute or peculiarity of be
nevolence consists in willing the happiness of the miserable,
20*

234 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Benevolence simply considered, is willing the good or happi-
ness'of being in general. Compassion of will is a willing par
ticularly that the miserable should be happy.
Compassion of sensibility is a feeling of pity in view of
misery. As has been said, it is not a virtue. It is only a
desire, but not willing; consequently does not benefit its
object. It is the state of mind of which James speaks:-^
James 2: 15, 16: "If a brother or sister be naked, and desti
tute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in
peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them
not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it
profit?" This kind of compassion may consist and co-exist
with selfishness. But compassion of heart or will can not ; for
it consists in willing the happiness of the miserable for its own
sake, and of course impartially. It will, and from its very
nature must deny self to promote its end whenever it wisely
can, that is, when it is demanded by the highest general good.
Circumstances may exist that may render it unwise to express
this compassion by actually extending relief to the miserable.
Such circumstances forbid that God should extend relief to
the lost in hell. But for their character and governmental
relations, God's compassion would mo doubt make immediate
efforts for their relief.
Many circumstances may exist in which although compas
sion would hasten to the relief of its object, yet on the whole
the misery that exists is regarded as the less of two evils, and
therefore the wisdom of benevolence forbids it to put forth
exertion's to save its object. y
But it is of the last importance to distinguish carefully be
tween compassion as a phenonenon of the sensibility or
as a mere feeling, and compassion considered as a phenome
non of the will. This, be it remembered, is the only form of
virtuous compassion. Many, who from the laws of their men
tal constitution, feel quickly and deeply, often take credit to
themselves for being compassionate while they seldom do
much for the poor, the down-trodden, the miserable. Their
compassion is a mere feeling. It says, "Be ye warmed and
clothed," but does not that for them which is needful. Itis this
particular attribute of benevolence that was so conspicuous
in the hfe of Howard, Wilberforce and many other Christian
philanthropists. It should ibe said before I leave the consideration of this
attribute, that the will is often influenced by the/eeftng-of
.compasmn. Ja this case the mind is no less selfish in seeking

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 235
to promote the relief and happiness of its object than it is in
any other form of selfishness. In such cases self-gratifica
tion is the end sought, and the relief of the suffering is only a
means. Pity is stirred, and the sensibility is deeply pained
and excited by the contemplation of misery. The will is in
fluenced by this feeling, and makes efforts to relieve the pain
ful emotion on the one hand, and to gratify the desire to see
the sufferer happy on the other. This is only an imposing
form of selfishness. We, no doubt, often witness this exhi
bition of self-gratification. The happiness of the miserable
is not in this case sought as an end or for its own sake, but as
a means of gratifying our own feelings. This is not obedi
ence of will to the law of the intelligence, but obedience to
the impulse of the sensibility. It is not a rational and intel
hgent compassion, but just such compassion as we often see
mere animals exercise. They will risk, and even lay down
their lives to give relief to one of their number, or to a man
who is in misery. In them this has no moral character. Hav
ing no reason, it is not sin for them to obey their sensibility,
nay, this is a law of their being. This they can not but do.
For them, then, to seek their own gratification as an end is
not sin. But man has reason ; he is bound to obey it. He
should will and seek the relief and the happiness of the mis
erable for its own sake, or for its intrinsic value. When he
descends to seek it for no higher reason than to gratify his
feelings, he denies his humanity. He seeks it, not out of re
gard to the sufferer, but in self-defence, or to relieve his own
pain, and to gratify his own desires. This in him is sin.
Many, therefore, who take to themselves much credit for
benevolence, are after all only in the exercise of this impo
sing form of selfishness. They take credit for holiness when
their holiness is only sin. What is especially worthy of no
tice here, is, that this class of persons appear to themselves and
to others to be all the more virtuous by how much more mani
festly and exclusively they are led on by the impulse of feel
ing. They are conscious of feeling deeply, of being most
sincere and earnest in obeying their feelings. Every body
who knows them can also see that they feel deeply and are
influenced by the strength of their feelings rather than by
their intelligence. Now so gross is the darkness of most per
sons upon this subject, that they award praise to themselves
and to others just in proportion as they are sure that they are
actuated by the depth of their feelings rather than by their
sober judgment.

236 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
But I must not leave this subject without also observing
that when compassion exists as a phenomenon of the will, it
will certainly also exist as a feeling ofthe sensibility. A
man of a compassionate heart will also be a man of a com
passionate sensibility. He will feel and he will act. Nev
ertheless his actions will not be the effect of his feelings, but
will be the result of his sober judgment. These classes
suppose themselves and are generally supposed by others
to be truly compassionate persons. The one class exhibit
much feeling of compassion; but their compassion does not
influence their will, hence they do not act for the relief of
suffering. These content themselves with mere desires and
tears! They say, Be ye warmed and clothed, but give not
the needed relief. Another class feel deeply, and give up to
their feelings. Of course they are active and energetic in
the relief of suffering. But being governed by feeling, in
stead of being influenced by their intelligence, they are not
virtuous but selfish. Their compassion is only an imposing
form of selfishness. A third class feel deeply, but are not
governed by blind impulses of feeling. They take a rational
view of the subject, act wisely and energetically. They
obey their reason. Their feelings do not lead them, and they
do not seek to gratify their feelings. But these last are tru
ly virtuous, and altogether the most happy of the three.
Their feelings are all the more gratified by how much less
they aim at the gratification. They obey their intelligence,
and therefore have the double satisfaction of the applause of
conscience while their feelings are also fully gratified by see
ing their desire accomplished.

LECTURE XVII.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in obedience to the Law of God.
14. Mercy is also an attribute of benevolence. And this
term likewise expresses a state of feeling and represents a
phenomenon of the sensibility. Mercy is often understood
to be synonymous with compassion, but it is not rightly under
stood. Mercy, considered as a phenomenon of the will, is a dispo
sition to pardon crime. It consists in willing the pardon and
the well-being of one who deserves punishment. It is good
will viewed in relation to one who deserves punishment.
Mercy, considered as a feeling or phenomenon of the sensi
bility, is a desire for the pardon or good of one who deserves
punishment. It is only a feeling, a desire; of course it is in
voluntary, and has in itself no moral character.
Mercy, as an attribute of benevolence, is a willing the par
don and the good of the culprit. It will, of course, manifest
itself in action and in effort to pardon or to procure a pardon,
unless the attribute of wisdom prevent. It may be unwise to
pardon or to seek the pardon of a guilty one. In such cases,
as all the attributes of benevolence must necessarily harmo
nize, no effort will be made to realize its end.
' It was this attribute of benevolence modified and limited in
its exercise by wisdom and justice, that energized in provi-:
ding the means and in opening the way for the pardon of our
guilty race.
'' As wisdom and justice are also attributes of benevolence,
mercy can never manifest itself by efforts to secure its end
except in a manner and upon conditions that do not set aside
justice and wisdom. No one attribute of benevolence is or
can be exercised at the expense of, or in opposition to another.
The moral attributes of God, as has been said, are only attri
butes of benevolence, for benevolence comprehends and ex
presses the whole of them. From the term benevolence we
learn that the end upon which it fixes is good. And we must
infer too, from the term itself, that the means are unobjec
tionable, because it is absurd to suppose that good would be
chosen because it is good, and yet that the mind that makes
this choice should not hesitate to use objectionable and inju
rious means to obtain its end. This would be a contradiction,

238 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
to will good for its own sake or out of regard to its intrinsic
value, and then choose injurious means to accomplish this end.
This can not be. The mind that can fix upon the highest
well-being of God and the universe as an end, can never con
sent to use efforts for the accomplishment of this end that are
seen to be inconsistent with it, that is, that tend to prevent
the highest good of being. »
Mercy, I have said, is that attribute of benevolence that
wills the pardon of the guilty. But this attribute can not go
out in exercise but upon conditions that consist with the other
attributes of benevolence. Mercy viewed by itself would
pardon without repentance or condition ;$would pardon with
out reference to public justice. But viewed in connection
with the other attributes of benevolence, we learn that al
though a real attribute of benevolence, yet it is not and can
not be exercised without the fulfilment of those conditions
that will secure the consent of all the other attributes of be
nevolence. This truth is beautifully taught and illustrated in
the doctrine and fact of atonement, as we shall see. Indeed,
without consideration of the various attributes of benevo
lence, we are necessarily all in the dark and in confusion in
respect to the character and government of God; the spirit
and meaning of his law; the spirit and meaning of the go$-
pel; our own spiritual state, and the developments of charac
ter around us. Without an acquaintance with the attributes
of love or benevolence, we shall not fail to be perplexed — to
find apparent discrepancies in the Bible and in the Divine ad
ministration — and in the manifestation of christian character
both as revealed in the Bible and as exhibited in common life.
For example: how universalists have stumbled for want of
consideration upon this subject! God is love! Well, with
out considering the attributes of this love, they infer that if
God is love. He can not ha,te sin and sinners. If He is mer
ciful He can not punish sinners in hell, &c. Unitarians
have stumbled in the same way. God is merciful, that is, dis
posed to pardon sin. Well then, what need of an atonement?
If merciful, He can and will pardon upon repentance with
out atonement. But we may inquire, if He is merciful, why
not pardon without repentance? If His mercy alone is to be
taken into view, that is simply a disposition to pardon, that by
itself would not wait for repentance. But if repentance is
and must be a condition of the exercise of mercy, may there
not be, nay must there not be other conditions of its exercise?
If wisdom and public justice are also attributes of benevo-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 239
lence and conditionate the exercise of mercy, and forbid that
it should be exercised but upon condition of repentance, why
may they not nay, why must they not equally conditionate its
exercise upon such a satisfaction of public justice as would
secure as full and as deep a respect for the law as the execu
tion of its penalty would do? In other words, if wisdom and
justice be attributes of benevolence, and conditionate the ex
ercise of mercy upon repentance, why may and must they
not also conditionate its exercise upon the fact of an atone
ment? As mercy is an attribute of benevolence, it will natu
rally and inevitably direct the attention of the intellect to de
vising ways and means to render the exercise of mercy con
sistent with the other attributes of benevolence. It will em-
. ploy the intelligence in devising means to secure the repent
ance of the sinner, and to remove all the obstacles out of the
way of its free and full exercise.
It will also secure the state of feeling which is alsd called
mercy or compassion. Hence it is certain that mercy will
secure efforts to procure the repentance, and pardon of sin
ners. It will secure a deep yearning in the sensibility over
them, and energetic action to accomplish its end, that is, to
secure their repentance and pardon. This attribute of be
nevolence led the Father to give His Only Begotten and Well-
beloved Son, and it led the Son to give Himself to die to se
cure the repentance and pardon of sinners. It is this attri
bute of benevolence that leads the Holy Spirit to make such
mighty and protracted efforts to secure the repentance of sin
ners. It is also this attribute that energized in prophets and
apostles and martyrs, and in saints of every age, to Secure the
conversion of the lost in sin. It is an amiable attribute. All
its sympathies are sweet, and tender, and kind as heaven.
15. Justice is another attribute of benevolence.
This term also expresses a state or phenomenon of the sensi
bility. As an attribute of benevolence it is the opposite of mer
cy, when viewed in its relations to crime. It consists in a dispo
sition or willing to treat every moral agent according to his in
trinsic desert or merit In its relations to crime, the criminal,
and; the public, it consists in a willing his punishment according
to law. Mercy would pardon— justice would punish for the
public good.
Justice as a feeling or phenomenon of the sensibility, is a
feeling that the guilty deserves punishment, and a desire that
he may be punished. This is an involuntary feeling, and has
no moral character. Itis often strongly excited, and is often

,4.-
240 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the cause of mobs and popular commotions. When it takes
the control of the will, as it often does with sinners, it leads
to lynching, arid a resort to those summary methods of exe
cuting vengeance which are 6ften so appalling.
I have said that the mere desire has no moral character.
But when the will is governed by this desire'and yields itself
up to seek its gratification, this state of will is selfishness un
der one of its most odious and frightful forms. Under the
providence of God, however, this form of selfishness, like
every other in its turn, is overruled for good, like earthquakes,
tornadoes, pestilence, and war, to, purify the moral elements of
society, and scourge away those moral nuisances with which
communities are sometimes infested. Even war itself is often
but an instance and an illustration. of this.
Justice, as an attribute of benevolence, is virtue, and ex
hibits itself in the execution of the penalties of law, and in
support of public order, and in various other ways.
There are several modifications of this attribute. That is,
it may and must be viewed under various aspects and in va
rious relations. One of these is public justice. This is a
regard to the public interests, and secures a due administra
tion of law. for the public good. It will in no case suffer the
execution of the penalty to be set aside, unless something
be done to support the authority of the law and of the law
giver. It also secures the due administration of rewards} and
iooks narrowly after the public interests, always insisting that
the greater interest shall prevail over the lesser; that private
interest shall never set aside or prejudice a public one of
greater value. Public justice is modified in its exercise by
the attribute of mercy. It conditionates the exercise of mer
cy, and mercy conditionates its exercise. Mercy can not con
sistently with this attrihute, extend a pardon but upon condi
tions of repentance, and an equivalent being rendered to the
government. So on the other hand, justice is conditionated
by mercy, and can not, consistently with that attribute, pro
ceed to take vengeance when the highest good does not re
quire it, and when punishment can be dispensed with without
public loss. Thus these attributes mutually limit each oth
er's exercise, and render the whole character of benevolence
perfect, systematical, and heavenly.
Justice is reckoned among the sterner attributes of benevo
lence; but it is indispensable to the filling up of the entire
circle of moral perfections. Although solemn and awful, and
sometimes inexpressibly terrific in its exercise, it is neverthe-

MORAL GOVERNMENT ¦ 241
less one of the glorious modifications and manifestations of
benevolence. Benevolence without justice would be any thing
but morally lovely and perfect. Nay it could not be benevo
lence. This attribute of benevolence appears conspicuous in
the character of God as revealed in His law, in His gospel, and
sometimes is indicated most impressively by His providence.
It is also conspicuous in the history of inspired men. The
Psalms abound with expressions of this attribute. We find
many prayers for the punishment of the wicked. Samuel
hewed Agag in pieces, and David abounds in expressions
that show that this attribute was strongly developed in his
mind; and the circumstances under which he was placed,
often rendered it proper to express and manifest in various
ways the spirit of this attribute. Many have stumbled at
such prayers, expressions, and manifestations as are here al
luded to. But this is for want of due consideration. They
have supposed that such exhibitions were inconsistent with a
right spirit. Oh, they say, how unevangelical ! How un-
christlike! How inconsistent with the sweet and heavenly
spirit of Christ and of the gospel! But this is all a mistake.
These prayers were dictated by the spirit of Christ. Such
exhibitions are only the manifestations of one of the essential
attributes of benevolence. Those sinners deserved to die.
It was for the greatest good that they should be made a
public example. This the spirit of inspiration knew, and
such prayers under *such circumstances are only an 'expres
sion of the mind and will of God. They are truly the spirit
of justice pronouncing sentence upon them. These prayers
and such hke things found in the Bible are no vindication of
the spirit of fanaticism and denunciation that so often have
taken shelter under them. As well might fanatics burri
cities and lay waste countries, and seek to justify them
selves by an appeal to the destruction of the old world by '
flood and the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire
and brimstone, " i
Retributive justice is, another modification of this attri
bute. This consists in a disposition to visit the offender with
that punishment which he deserves, because it is fit and prop
er that a moral agent should be dealt with according to his
deeds. In a future lecture I shall enlarge upon this modifi
cation of justice.
Another modification of this attribute is commercial jus
tice. This consists in willing exact equivalents, and up
rightness in business transactions.
21

342 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
There are some other modifications of this attribute, but
the foregoing may suffice to illustrate sufficiently the various
departments over which this attribute presides.
This attribute, though stern in its spirit and manifestations,
is nevertheless one of prime importance in all governments of
moral agents whether human or Divine. Indeed without it
government could not exist. It is vain for certain philoso
phers to think to disparage this attribute, and to dispense
with it altogether in the administration of government. They
will, if they try the experiment, find to their cost and confu
sion that no one attribute of benevolence can say to another,
" I have no need of thee." In shprt, let any one attribute
of benevolence be destroyed or overlopked, and you have de
stroyed its perfection, its beauty, its harmony, its propriety,
its glory. It is no longer benevolence, but a sickly, and inef
ficient, and limping sentimentalism, that has no God, no vir
tue, no beauty, or form, or comeliness in it, that when we
see it we should desire it.
This attribute stands by, nay it executes law. It aims to
secure commercial honesty. It aims to secure public and pri
vate integrity and tranquility. It says to violence, disorder,
and injustice, Peace, be still, and there must be a great calm.
We see the evidences and the illustrations of this attribute
in the thunderings of Sinai and in the agony of Calvary.
We hear it in the wail of a world when the fountains of the
great deep were broken up, and when the windows of heaven
were opened, and the floods descended, and the population of
a globe were swallowed up. We see its manifestations in the
descending torrent that swept the cities of the plain; and
lastly, we shall forever see its bright but awful and glorious
displays in the dark and curling folds of that pillar of smoke
of the torment of the damned, that ascends up before God
forever and ever.
Many seem to be afraid to contemplate justice as an attri
bute of benevolence. Any manifestation of it among men,
causes them to recoil and shudder as if they saw a demon.
But let it have its place in the glorious circle of moral attri
butes. It must have. It will have. It can not be otherwise
Whenever any policy of government is adopted, in family or
state, that excludes the exercise of this attribute, all must be
failure, defeat, and ruin.
Again : Justice being an attribute of benevolence, will pre
vent the punishment of the finally impenitent from deroga
ting from the happiness of God and of holy beings. They

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 243
will never delight in misery for its own sake. But they will
take pleasure in the administration of justice. So that when
the smoke of the torment of the damned comes up in the
sight of heaven, they will, as they are represented, shout
"Allelulia! the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth." "Just and
righteous are thy ways thou King of saints!"
Before I relinquish the consideration of this topic, I must
not omit to insist that where true benevolence is, there must
be exact justice, commercial or business honesty and integrity.
This is as certain as that benevolence exists. The rendering
of exact equivalents, or the intention to do so, must be a
characteristic of a truly benevolent mind. Impulsiye benev
olence may exist; that is, phrenological or constitutional be
nevolence, falsely so called, may exist to any extent and yet
justice will not exist. The mind may be much and very often
carried away by the impulse of feeling so that a man may
at times have the appearance of true benevolence while the
same individual is selfish in business and overreaching in all
his commercial relations. This has been a wonder and an
enigma to many, but the case is a plain one. The difficulty
is, the man is not just, that is, not truly benevolent. His
benevolence is only an imposing species of selfishness. "He
that hath an ear to hear, let him hear." His benevolence
results from feehng and is not true benevolence.
Again: Where benevolence is, the golden rule will surely
be observed. " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them." The justice of benevolence
can not fail to secure conformity to- this rule. Benevolence
is a just state of the will. Itis a willing justly. It must then
by a law of necessity, secure a just exterior. If the heart
is just, the life must be.
This attribute of benevolence must secure its possessor
against every species and degree of injustice. He can not
be unjust to his neighbor's reputation, his person, his proper
ty, his soul, his body, nor indeed be unjust in any respect to
God or man. It will and must secure confession and restitu
tion in every case of remembered wrong, so far as this is
practicable. It should be distinctly understood, that abenev-
ofent or a truly religious man cannot be unjust. He may in
deed appear to be so to others; but he can not be truly reli
gious or benevolent and unjust at the same time. If he ap
pears to be so in any instance, he is not and can not be really
so, if he is at the time in a benevolent state of mind*. The
attributes- of selfishness, as we shall see in its proper place,

244 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
are the direct opposite of those of benevolence. The two
states of mind are as opposite as heaven and hell and can no
more co-exist in the same mind than a thing Can be and
not be at the same time. I said that if a man truly, in
the exercise of benevolence, appears to be unjust in any
thing, he is only so in appearance and not in fact. Observe;
I am speaking of one who is really at the time in a benevo
lent state of mind. He may mistake and do that which
would be unjust, did he see it differently and intend different
ly. Justice and injustice belong to the intention. No out
ward act can in itself be either just or unjust. To say that
a man, in the exercise of a truly benevolent intention, can at
the same time be unjust is the same absurdity as to say that
he can intend justly and unjustly at the same time and in re
gard to the same thing ; which is a contradiction. It must all
along be borne in mind that benevolence is one identical thing,
to wit, good will, willing for its own sake the highest good of
being and every known good according to its relative val
ue. Consequently, it is impossible that justice should not be
an attribute of such a choice. Justice consists in regard
ing and treating or rather in willing every thing just agreea
bly to its nature or intrinsic and relative value and relations.
To say, therefore, that present benevolence admits of any
degree of present injustice is to affirm a palpable contradic
tion. A just man is a sanctified man, is a perfect man, in the
sense that he is at present in a sinless state.
16. Truthor Truthfulness is another attribute of benevolence.
Truth is objective and subjective. Objective truth may be
defined to be the reality of things. Truthfulness is subjective
truth. It is the conformity of the will to the reality of things.
Truth in statement is conformity of statement to the reality
of things. Truth in action is action conformed to the nature
and relations of things. Truthfulness is a disposition to con
form to the reality of things. It is willing in accordance with
the reality of things. It is willing the right end by the right
means. It is willing the intrinsically valuable as an end and
the relatively valuable as a means. Iri short it is the willing
of every thing according to the reality or facts in the case.
Truthfulness, then, must be an attribute of benevolence.
It is, like all the attributes, Only benevolence viewed in a
certain aspect or relation. It Can not be distinguished from
benevolence, for it is not distinct from it, but only a phase or
form of benevolence. The universe is so constructed that if
every thing proceeds and is conducted and willed according

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

245

to its nature and relations, the highest possible good must re
sult. Truthfulness seeks the good as an end and truth as a
means to secure this end. It wills the good and that it shall
be secured only by means of truth. It wills truth in the end
and truth in the means. The end is truly valuable and chosen
for that reason. The means are truth, and truth is the only
appropriate or possible means.
Truthfulness of heart, begets, of course, a state of the
sensibility which we call the love of truth. It is a feeling of
pleasure that spontaneously arises in the sensibility of one
whose heart is truthful, in contemplating truth. This feeling
is not virtue; it is rather a part of the reward of truthfulness
of heart.
Truthfulness as a phenomenon of the will, is also often
called and properly called a love of the truth. Itis a willing
in accordance with objective truth. This is virtue, and is an
attribute of benevolence. Truth as an attribute of the Di
vine benevolence is the ground of confidence in Him as a
moral govenor. Both the physical and moral law of the uni
verse evince and are instances and illustrations of the truth
fulness of God. Falsehood, in the sense of lying, is naturally
regarded by a moral agent with disapprobation, disgust and
abhorrence. Truth is as necessarily regarded by him with
approbation, and if the will be benevolent, with pleasure.
We necessarily take pleasure in contemplating objective truth
as it lies in idea on the field of consciousness. We also take
pleasure in the perception and contemplation of truthfulness,
in the concrete realization of the idea of truth. Truthfulness
is moral beauty. We are pleased with it just as we are with
natural beauty by a law of necessity, when the necessary con
ditions are fulfilled. This attribute of benevolence secures
it against every attempt to promote the ultimate good of being
by means of falsehood. True benevolence will no more, can
no more resort to falsehood as a means of promoting good
than it can contradict or deny itself. The intelligence af
firms that the highest ultimate good can be secured only
by a strict adherence to truth, for this adherence is a demand
of the intelligence, and the mind can not be satisfied with any
thing else. Indeed to suppose the contrary is to suppose a
contradiction. It is the same absurdity as to suppose that
the highest good could -be secured only by the violation arid
Betting asideof the nature and relations of things.1 Since the
inteUigence affirms this unalterable relation of truth tP the
highest ultimate good, benevolence or that attribute of benev-
21*

246 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
olence which we denominate truthfulness or love of the truth,
can no more consent to falsehood than it can consent to relin
quish the highest good of being as an end. And in no case
then, does or can a moral agent violate truth, except as he has
for the time being at least become selfish and prefers a present
gratification to the highest ultimate good of being. There
fore, every resort to falsehood, every pious fraud, falsely so
called, is only a specious but real instance of selfishness. A
moral agent can not lie for God, that is, he can not tell a sin
ful falsehood thinking and intending thereby to please God.
He knows by intuition that God can not be pleased or truly
served by a resort to lying. There is a great difference be
tween concealing or withholding the truth for benevolent pur
poses and telling a wilful falsehood. An innocent persecuted
and pursued man, has taken shelter from one who pursued
him to shed his blood, under my roof. His pursuer comes
and inquires after him. I am not under obligation to declare
to him the fact that he is in my house. I may, and indeed
ought to withhold the truth in this instance, for the wretch
has no right to know it. The public and highest good de
mands that he should not know it. He only desires to know
it for selfish and bloody purposes. But in this case I should
not feel, or judge myself at liberty to state a known false
hood,. I could not think that this would ultimately conduce to
the highest good. The person might go away deceived, or
under the impression that his victim was not there. But he
could not accuse me of telling him a he. He might have
drawn his own inference from my refusing to give the desired
information. But even to secure my own life or the life of
my friend, I am not at liberty to tell a lie. If it be said that
lying implies telling a falsehood for selfish purposes, and that
therefore it is not lying to tell a falsehood for benevolent pur
poses, I reply, that our nature is such that we can no more
state a wilful falsehood with a benevolent intention, than we
can commit a sin with a benevolent intention. We necessa
rily regard falsehood as inconsistent with the highest good of
being, just as we regard sin as inconsistent with the highest
good of being, or just as we regard holiness and truthfulness
as the indispensable conditions of the highest good of being.
The correlation of the will and the intelligence forbids that foe
mistake should ever be fallen into that wilful falsehood is or
can be the means or conditions of the highest good. Univ
ersal truthfulness, then, will always characterize a truly
benevolent man. While he is truly benevolent he is, he

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 247
must be, faithful, truthful. So far as his knowledge goes, his
statements may be depended upon with as much safety as
the statements of an angel, or as the statements of God
himself. Truthfulness is necessarily an attribute of benevo
lence in all beings. No liar has or can have a particle of
virtue or benevolence in him.

LECTURE XVIII.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in obedience to Moral Law.
17. Patience is another attribute of benevolence.
This term is frequently used to express a phenomenon of
the sensibility. When thus used, it designates a calm and
unruffled state ofthe sensibility or feelings under ' circum
stances that tend to excite anger or impatience of feeling.
The calmness of the sensibility, or patience as a phenomenon
ofthe sensibility, is purely an involuntary state of mind, and
although it is a pleasing and amiable manifestation, yet it is
not properly virtue. It may be, and often is an effect of pa
tience as a phenomenon ofthe will, and therefore an effect of
virtue. But it is not itself virtue. This amiable temper may,
and often does proceed from the constitutional temperament,
and from circumstances and habits.
Patience as a virtue must be a voluntary state of mind. It
must be an attribute of love or benevolence; for all virtue, as
we have seen and as the bible teaches, is resolvable into love
or benevolence. The term, upomone so often rendered pa
tience in the New Testament, means perseverance under trials,
continuance, bearing up under afflictions or privations, stead
fastness of purpose in despite of obstacles. The word may be
used in a good or in a bad sense. Thus a selfish man may
patiently, that is, perseveringly pursue his end, and may bear
up under much opposition to his course.
This is patience as an attribute of selfishness, and patience
in a bad sense of the term. Patience in the good sense, or in
the sense in which I am considering it, is an attribute of be
nevolence. It is constancy of intention, a fixedness, a bear
ing up under trials, afflictions, crosses, persecutions or dis
couragements. This must be an attribute of benevolence.
Whenever patience ceases, when it holds out no longer, when
discouragement prevails and the will reliquishes its end, bene
volence ceases of course.
Patience as a phenomenon of the will, tends to patience as
a phenomenon of the sensibility. That is, fixedness and stead
fastness of intention naturally tends to keep down and allay
impatience of temper. As however the states ofthe sensi
bility are not directly under the control ofthe will, there may
be irritable or impatient feelings when the heart remains

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

249

steadfast. Facts or falsehoods may be suggested to the mind
that may in despite ofthe will produce a ruffling ofthe sensi
bility even when the heart remains patient. The only way in
which a temptation, (for it is only a temptation while the will
abides firm to its purpose,) I say the only way in which a
temptation of this kind can be disposed of, is by diverting the
attention from that view of the subject that creates the dis
turbance in the sensibility. I should have said before, that
although the will controls the feelings by a law of necessity,
yet, as it does not do so directly but indirectly, it may
and does often happen that feelings corresponding to the
state of the will do not always exist in the sensibility.
Nay, for a time, a state of the sensibility may exist which
is the opposite of the state of the will. From this source
arise many and indeed most of our temptations. We could
never be properly tried or tempted at all if the feelings
must always by a law of necessity correspond with the
state of the will. Sin consists in willing to gratify our
feelings or constitutional impulses in opposition to the
law of our reason. But if these desires and impulses could
never exist in opposition to the law of the reason, and conse
quently in opposition to a present holy choice then a holy
being could not be tempted. He could have no motive or
occasion to sin. If our mother Eve could have had no feelings
of desire in opposition to the state of her will, she never could
have desired the forbidden fruit, and of course could not have
sinned. I wish now, then, to state distinctly what I should
have said before, that the state or choice ofthe will does not
necessarily so control the feelings, desires or emotions, but
that these are sometimes strongly excited by Satan or by cir
cumstances in opposition to the will, and thus become power
ful temptations to seek their gratification instead of seeking
the highest good of being. Feelings the gratification of which
would be opposed to every attribute of benevolence, may at
times co-exist with benevolence, and be a temptation to self
ishness; but opposing acts of will can not co-exist with bene
volence. AU that can be truly said is, that as the will has an
indirect control of the feelings, desires, appetites, passions,
&c, it can suppress any class of feelings when they arise by
diverting the attention from their causes, or by taking into con
sideration such views and facts as will calm or change the
state ofthe sensibility. Irritable feelings, or what is com
monly called impatience, may be directly caused by ill health,
irritable nerves, and by many things over which the will has

250 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
no control. But this is not impatience in the sense of sin. If
these feelings are not suffered to influence the will; if the will
abides in patience; if such feelings are not cherished and are
not suffered to shake the integrity of the will; they are not
sin. That is, there can be no sin in themselves. They are
only temptations. If they are allowed to control the will, to
break forth in words and actions, then there is sin ; but the sin
does not consist in the feelings, but in the consent of the will,
in the will's consent to gratify them. Thus, the apostle says
"Be angry and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your
wrath." That is, if anger arise in the feelings and sensibility,
do not sin by suffering it to control your will. Do not cherish
the feeling, and let the sun go down upon it. For this cherish
ing it is sin. When it is cherished, the will consents and
broods over the cause of it; this is sin. But if it be not
cherished, it is not sin.
That the outWard actions will correspond with the states and
actions of the will, provided the integrity of the nerves of
voluntary motion be preserved, and provided also that no op
posing force of greater power than that of my volitions be
opposed to them, is a universal truth. But that feelings and de
sires can not exist contrary to the states or decisions of my will
is not true. If this were a universal truth, temptation, as I have
said, could not exist. The outward actions will be as the will
is always; the feelings generally. Feelings corresponding to
the choice of the will, will be the rule, and opposing feelings
the exception. But these exceptions may and do exist in per
fectly holy beings. They existed in Eve before she consented
to sin, and had she resisted them, she had not sinned. They
doubtless existed in Christ or he could not have been tempted
in all points like as we are. If there be no desires or im
pulses of the sensibility contrary to the state of the will,
there is not properly any temptation. The desire or impulse
must appear on the field of consciousness before it isa motive
to action, and of course before itis a temptation to self-indul
gence. Just as certainly then as a holy being may be tempted
and not sin, just so certain it is that emotions of any kind or
of any strength may exist in the sensibility without sin. If
they are not indulged, if the will does not consent to them
and to their indulgence or gratification, the soul is not the
less but all the more virtuous for their presence. Patience as
a phenomenon of the will must strengthen and gird itself
under such circumstances, so that patience of will maybe,
and if it exist at all, must be, in exact proportion to the itn-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 251
patience of the sensibility. The more impatience of sensibility
there is, the more patience of will there must be, or virtue will
cease altogether. So that it is not always true that virtue is
the strongest when the sensibility is the most calm, placid and
patient. When Christ passed through his greatest conflicts,
his virtue as a man was undoubtedly most intense. When in
his agony in the garden so great was the agony of his sensi
bility, that he sweat as it were great drops of blood. This,
he says, was the hour of the Prince of Darkness. This was
his great trial. But did he sin' No, indeed. But why?
Was he calm and placid as a summer's evening? As far from
it as possible.
Patience then as an attribute of benevolence consists, not in
placid feeling, but in perseverance under trials and states ofthe
sensibility that tend to selfishness. This is only benevolence
viewed in a certain aspect. It is benevolence under circum
stances of discouragement, of trial or temptation. " This is the
patience of the saints."
Before I dismiss the subject of patience as an emotion, I
would observe that the steadfastness of the heart tends so
strongly to secure it, that if an opposite state of the sensibility
is more than of momentary duration, there is strong presump
tion that the heart is not steadfast in love. The first risings
of it will produce an immediate effort to suppress it. If it con
tinues, this is evidence that the attention is allowed to dwell
upon the cause of it. This shows that the will is in some
sense indulging it.
If it so far influence the will as to manifest itself in impa
tient words and actions there must be a yielding of the will.
Patience as an attribute of benevolence is overcome. If
the sensibihty were perfectly and directly under the control
of the Will, the least degree of impatience would imply sin.
But as it is not directly but indirectly under the control of
the will, momentary impatience of feeling where it does not
at all influence the will, and when it is not at all indulged, is
not sure evidence of a sinful state of the will. It should al
ways be borne in mind that neither patience nor impatience
in the form of mere feeling existing for any length of time and
in any degree is in itself either holy on the one hand or sinful
on the other. AH that can be said of these states of the
sensibility is, that they indicate as a general thing th%attitude
ofthe will. When the will is for a long time steadfast in its
patience, the result is great equanimity of temper and great
patience of feeling. This comes to be a law of the sensibility

252 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
insomuch, that very advanced saints may and doubtless do
experience the most entire patience of feeling for many years
together. This does not constitute their holiness, but is a
sweet fruit of it. It is to be regarded rather in the light ofa
reward of holiness than of holiness itself.
18. Another attribute of this benevolence is Meekness.
Meekness considered as a virtue is a phenomenon of the
will. This term also expresses a state of the sensibility.
When used to designate a phenomenon of the sensibility it
is nearly synonymous with patience. It designates a sweet
and forbearing temper under provocation. As a phenome
non of the will and as an attribute of benevolence, it repre
sents a state of will which is the opposite of resistance to
injury or retaliation. It is properly and strictly forbearance
under injurious treatment. This certainly is an attribute of
God, as our existence and our being out of hell plainly demon
strate. Christ said of himself that he was " meek and lowly
in heart;" and surely this was no vain boast. How ad
mirably and how incessantly did this attribute of his love
manifest itself! The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is a prophe
cy exhibiting this attribute in a most affecting light. Indeed
scarcely any feature of the character of God and of Christ
is more strikingly exhibited than this. This must be an attri
bute of benevolence. Benevolence is good will to all beings.
We are naturally forbearing toward those whpse good we
honestly and diligently seek. If our hearts are set upon do
ing them good we shall naturally exercise great forbearance
toward them. God has greatly commended his forbearance
to us in that while we were yet His enemies, He forbore to
punish us, and gave His son to die for us. Forbearance is a
sweet and amiable attribute. How affectingly it displayed
itself in the hall of Pilate, and on the cross. " As a lamb for
the slaughter and as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, so
he opened not his mouth."
This attribute' has in this world abundant opportunity to
develop and display itself in the person of the saints. There
are daily occasions for the exercise of this form of virtue.
Indeed all the attributes of benevolence are called into fre
quent exercise in this school of discipline. This is indeed a
noble world in which to train God's children, to develop and
strengthen every modification of holiness. ' This attribute,
must always appear where benevolence exists, wherever there
is an occasion for its exercise.
It .is delightful to contemplate the perfection and glory of

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 253
that love that constitutes obedience to the law of God. As
occasions arise, we behold It developing one attribute after
another, and there may be many of its, attributes and modifi
cations of which we have as yet no idea whatever. Circum
stances will call them into exercise. It is probable, if not cer
tain, that the attributes of benevolence were very imperfect
ly known in heaven previous to the existence of sin in the
universe, and that but for sin many of these attributes would
never have been manifested in exercise. But the existence of
sin, great as the evil is, has afforded an opportunity for be
nevolence to manifest its beautiful phases and to develope its
sweet attributes in a most enchanting manner. Thus the
Divine economy of benevolence brings good out of so great
an evil.
A hasty and unforbearing spirit is always demonstra
tive evidence of a want of benevolence or true religion.
Meekness is and must be a peculiar characteristic of the saints
in this world where there is so much provocation. Christ fre
quently and strongly enforced .the obligation to forbearance.
"But I say unto you that ye resist not evil: but whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other al
so. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall
compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." How beautiful !
19. Long-suffering is another attribute of benevolence.
This attribute is hardly distinguishable from meekness Or
forbearance. It seems to be an intense form of forbear
ance; or it is forbearance exercised long and under great
suffering from persecution and unreasonable opposition. God's
forbearance is lengthened out to long suffering. Christ's for
bearance also, was and is often put to the severest trial, and
is lengthend out to most affecting long-suffering. This is an
intense state or form of benevolence, when it is most sorely
tried, and as it were put upon the rack. The Prophets, and
Christ, and the Apostles, the martyrs and primitive saints, and
many in different ages of the church have given forth a glori
ous specimen and illustration of this sweet attribute of love.
But for the existence of sin, however, it is probable and per
haps certain that no being but God could have hadan idea of
its existence. The same no doubt may be said of many of
the attributes of Divine love, God has no doubt irOjjended to
strongly exhibit this attribute in himself and in all His saints
and angels. The introduction of sin, excuseless and abomin
able, has given occasion for a most thorough' development and
22

254 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
a most affecting manifestation of this attribute of love. It is
a sweet, a heavenly attribute. It is the most opposite to' the
spirit and maxims of this world. It is the very contrast of
the law and the spirit of honor as it appears in this world.
The law of honor says, If you receive an injury or an insult,
resent it and retaliate. This gentle spirit say s, If you receive
many insults and injuries, do not resent them nor retaliate,
but bear and forbear even to long suffering.
20. Humility, is another modification or attribute of love.
This term seems often to be used to express a sense of
unworthiness, of guilt, of ignorance, and of nothingness, to
express a feeling of ill-desert. It seems to be used in com
mon parlance to express sometimes a state of the intelligence,
when it seems to indicate a clear perception of our guilt.
When used to designate a state ofthe sensibility, it represents
those feelings of shame and unworthiness, of ignorance and
of nothingness of which those are so conscious who have been
enlightened by the Holy Spirit in respect to their true char
acter. '
But as a phenomenon of the will, and as an attribute of
love, it consists in a willingness to be. known and appreciated ac
cording to our real character. Humility as a phenomenon ei
ther of the sensibility or of the intelligence may co-exist with
great pride of heart. Pride is a disposition to exalt self, to
get above others, to hide our defects and to pass for more than
we are. Deep conviction of sin and deep feelings of shame,
of ignorance, and of desert of hell, may co-exist with a great
unwillingness to confess and be known just as we are, and to
be appreciated just according to what our real character has
been and is. There is no virtue in such humility. But hu
mility, considered as a virtue, consists in the consent of the
will to be known, to confess, and to take our proper place in
the scale of being. It is that peculiarity of love that wills
the good of being so disinterestedly as to will to pass for no
other than we really are. This is an honest, a sweet and ami
able feature of love. It must, perhaps, be peculiar to those
who have sinned. It is only love acting under or in a certain
relation or set of circumstances. It would under the same
^circumstances develop and manifest itself in all truly benev
olent minds. This attribute will render confession of sin to
God and^man natural, and even make it a luxury. It is easy
to see that but for this attribute the saints could not be happy
in heaven. God has promised to bring into judgment every.
work and every secret thing whether it be good or whether it

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

255

be evil. Now while pride exists, it would greatly pain the
soul to have all the character known. So that unless this at
tribute really belongs to the saints, they would be ashamed at
the judgment and filled with confusion even in heaven itself.
But this sweet attribute will secure them against that shame
and confusion of face that would otherwise render heaven it
self a hell to them. They will be perfectly willing and happy
to be known and estimated according to their characters.
This attribute will secure in all the saints on earth that con
fession of faults one to another which is so often enjoined in
the bible. By this it is not intended that Christians always
think it wise and necessary to make confession of all their
secret sins to man. But it is intended that they will confess
to those whom they have injured and to all to whom benevo
lence demands , that they should confess. This attribute se
cures its possessor against spiritual pride, against ambition
to get above others. It is a modest and unassuming state of
mind.

LECTURE XIX.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in obedience to the Law or God.
21. Self-denial is another attribute of love.
If we love any being better than ourselves, we of course
deny ourselves when our own interests come in competition
with his. Love is good will. If I will good to others
more than to myself, it is absurd to say that I shall not deny
myself when my own inclinations conflict with theirs.
Now the love required by the law of God we have repeat
edly seen to be good will, or willing the highest good of
being for its own sake or as an end.
As the interests of self are not at all regarded because they
belong to self, but only according to their relative value, it
must be certain that self-denial for the sake of promoting the
higher interests of God and ofthe universe, is and must be a
peculiarity or attribute of love.
But again. The very idea of disinterested benevolence,
(and there is no other true benevolence,) implies the aban
donment of the spirit of self-seeking or of selfishness. Itis
impossible to become benevolent without ceasing to be selfish.
In other words, perfect self-denial is implied in beginning to
be Vbenevolent Self-indulgence ceases when benevolence
begins. This must be. Benevolence is the consecration of
our powers to the highest good of being in general as an end.
This is utterly inconsistent with consecration to self-interest or
self-gratification. Selfishness makes good to self the end of
every choice. Benevolence makes good to being in general
the end of every choice. Benevolence, then, implies complete
self-denial. That is, it implies that nothing is chosen merely
because it belongs to self, but only because of and in propor
tion to its relative value.
I said there was no true benevolence but disinterested be
nevolence; no true love but disinterested love. There is
such a thing as interested love or benevolence. That is, the
good of others is willed, though not as an end or for its in
trinsic value to them, but as a means of our own happiness
or becausg of its relative value to us. Thus a man might will
the good of his family or of his neighborhood or country or of
any b,ody or any thing that sustained such relations to self as
fo involve his own interests. When the ultimate reason of

MORAL GOVERNMENT, 257
his willing good to others is that his own may be promoted,
this is selfishness. It is making good to self his end. This a
sinner may do toward God, toward the church, and toward
the interests of religion in general. This is what I call in
terested benevolence. It is willing good as an end only to
self, and to all others only as a means of promoting our own
good. But again. When the will is governed by feeling in will
ing the good of others, this is only the spirit of self-indulgence,
and is only interested benevolence. For example: the feel
ing of compassion is strongly excited by the presence of
misery. The feeling is intense and constitutes, like all the
feelings, a strong impulse or motive to the will to consent to
its gratification. For the time being, this impulse is stronger
than the feeling of avarice or any other feeling." 1 yield to it
arid give all the money I have to relieve the sufferer. I even
take my clothes from my back and give them to him. Now
in this case, I am just as selfish as if I had sold my clothes to
gratify my appetite for strong drink. The gratification of my
feelings was my end. This is one of the most specious and
most delusive forms of selfishness.
Again. When one makes his own salvation the end of
prayer, of almsgiving, and of all his religious duties, this is
only selfishness and not true religion, however much he may
abound in them. This is only interested benevolence or bp-
nevolence to self. *%
Again. From the very nature of true benevolence it is impos
sible that every interest should not be regarded according to
its relative value. When another interest is seen by me to
be more valuable in itself or of more value to God and the
universe than my own, and when I see that by denying myself
I can promote it, it is certain, if I am benevolent, that I shall
do it. I can not fail to do it without failing to be benevolent,
Two things in this case must be apprehended by the mind.
(1.) That the interest is either intrinsically or relatively
more valuable than my own.
(2.) That by denying myself I can promote or secure a
greater good to being than I sacrifice of my own. When
these two conditions are folfilled, it is impossible that I should
remain benevolent unless I deny myself and seek the higher
good. Benevolence is an honest and disinterested consecration of the
whole being to the highest good of God and of the universe.
The benevolent man will, therefore, and must, honestly weigh
22*

258 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
each interest as it is perceived in the balance of his own best
judgment, and will always give the preference to the higher
interest provided he believes that he can by endeavor and by
self-denial secure it.
That self-denial is an attribute of the divine love, is mani
fested most gloriously and affectingly in the gift of his Son to
die for men. This attribute was also most conspicuously mani
fested by Christ in denying himself and taking up his cross
and suffering for his enemies. Observe. It was not for
friends that Christ gave himself. It was not unfortunate but
innocent sufferers for whom God gave his Son or for whom he
gave himself. It was enemies. It was not that he might
make slaves of them that he gave his Son nor from any selfish
consideration whatever, but because he foresaw that by
making this sacrifice himself, he could secure to the universe
a greater good than he should sacrifice. It was this attribute
of benevolence that caused him to give his son to suffer so
much. It was disinterested benevolence alone that led him
to deny himself for the sake of a greater good to the universe.
Now observe: this sacrifice would not have been made unless
it had been regarded by God as the less of two evils. That
is, the sufferings of Christ, great and overwhelming as they
were, were considered as an evil of less magnitude than the
eternal sufferings of sinners. This induced him to make the
sacrifice although for his enemies. It mattered not whether
for friends or for enemies, if so be he could by making a less
Sacrifice secure a greater good to them. When I come to con
sider the economy of benevolence I may enlarge upon this topic.
Let it be understood that a self-indulgent spirit is never and
can never be consistent with benevolence. No form of self-
indulgence, properly so called, can exist where true benevo
lence exists. The fact is, self-denial must be and universally is
wherever benevolence reigns, Christ has expressly made
whole-hearted self-denial a condition of discipleship; whichis
the same thing as to affirm that it is an essential attribute of
holiness or love; that there can not be the beginning of true
virtue without it.
Again. Much that passes for self-denial is only a specious
form of self-indulgence. The penances and self-mortifications,
as they are falsely called, of the superstitious, what are they
bnt a self indulgent spirit after all? A popish priest abstains
from marriage to obtain the honor and emoluments and the
influence of the priestly o#ice here, and eternal glory here
after. ,

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

259

A nun takes the vail and a monk immures himself in a
monastery; a hermit forsakes human society, and shuts him
self up in a cave; a devotee makes a pilgrimage to Mecca, and
a martyr goes to the stake. Now if these things are done
with an ultimate reference to their own glory and happiness,
ilthough apparently instances of great self-denial, yet they are
in fact only a spirit of self-indulgence and self-seeking. They
are only following the strongest desire. They are instances
of making good to self the end.
There are many mistakes upon this subject. For example,
it is common for persons to deny self in one form for the sake
of gratifying self in another form.
In one man avarice is the ruling passion. He will labor
hard, rise early, and sit up late and eat the bread of careful
ness, deny himself even the necessaries of life for the sake of
accumulating wealth. Every one can see that this is denying
self in one form merely for the sake of gratifying self in an
other form. Yet this man will complain bitterly of tbe self
indulgent spirit manifested by others, their extravagance and
want of piety.
One man will deny all his bodily appetites and passions for
the sake of a reputation with men. This is also an instance
of the same kinih Another will give the fruit of his body for
the sin of his soul; will sacrifice every thing else to obtain an
eternal inheritance, and be just as selfish as the man who
sacrifices to the things of time his soul and all the riches of
eternity. But it should be remarked that this attribute of benevo
lence does and must secure the subjugation of all the propen
sities. It must, eithersuddenly or gradually, so far subdue and
quiet them that their imperious clamor will cease. They will
as it were be slain either suddenly or gradually, so that the
sensibility will become in a great measure dead to those
objects that so often and so easily excited it. It is a law of
the sensibility — of all the desires and passions, that their in
dulgence develops and strengthens them and their denial sup
presses them. Benevolence consists in a refusal to gratify the
sensibility and in obeying the reason. Therefore it must be
true that this denial of the propensities will greatly suppress
them until they become tame and easily denied. While on
the contrary, the denial of the propensities and the indulgence
of the intelligence and of the conscience will greatly develop
them. Thus selfishness tends to stultify, while benevolence
tends greatly to strengthen the intelligence.

260 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
22. Condescension is another attribute of love.
This attribute consists in a willingness to descend to the
poor, the ignorant, or the vile for the purpose of securing their
good. It is a willing the good of those whom Providence has
placed in any respect below us, together with the means of
securing their good, particularly our own stooping, descend
ing, coming down to them for this purpose. It is. a peculiar
form of self-denial. God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, manifest infinite condescension in efforts to secure the
well-being of sinners, even the most vile and degraded. This
attribute is called by Christ lowliness of heart. God is said
to humble himself, that is, to condescend when He beholds the
things that are done in heaven. This is true, for every crea
ture is and must foreyer be infinitely below Him in every
respect. But how much greater must that condescension be
that comes down to earth, and even to the lowest and most
degraded of earth's inhabitants, for purposes of benevolence.
This is a lovely modification of benevolence. It seems to be
entirely above the gross conception of infidelity. Condescen
sion seems to be regarded by most people, and especially by
infidels, as rather a weakness than a virtue. Skeptics clothe
their imaginary God with attributes in many respects the op
posite of true virtue. They think it entirely beneath the
dignity of God to come down even to notice, and much more
to interfere, with the concerns of men. But hear the word of
the Lord: "Thus saith the High and Lofty One who inhabit-
eth eternity, whose name is Holy. — I dwell in the high and
holy place; with him also that is of a contrite and humble
spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the
heart of the contrite ones." And again, " Thus saith the
Lord, the heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool,
where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the
place of my rest? For all those things hath my hand made,
and all those things have been, saith the Lord. But to this
man will I look even to him that is poor and of a contrite
spirit, and trembleth at my word." Thus the Bible repre
sents God as clothed with condescension as with a cloak.
This is manifestly an attribute of benevolence and of true
greatness. The natural perfections of God appear all the
more wonderful when we consider that He can and does know
and contemplate and control not only the highest but the low
est of all his creatures; that he is just as able to attend to
every want and to every creature as if this were the sole ob
ject of attention with Him. So His moral attributes appear

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

261

all the more lovely and engaging when we consider that His
" tender mercies are over all His works," that not a sparrow
falleth to the ground without Him;" that He condescends to
number the very hairs of the heads of His servants, and that
not one of them can fall without Him. When we consider
that no creature is too low, too filthy, or too degraded for Him
to condescend to, this places'His character in a most ravish
ing light. Benevolence is good will to all beings. Of course
one of its characteristics must be condescension to those who
are below us. This in God is manifestly infinite. He is infi
nitely above all creatures. For Him to hold communion with
them is infinite condescension.
This is an attribute essentially belonging to benevolence or
love in all benevolent beings. With the lowest of moral be
ings it may have no other development than in its relations
to sentient existences below the rank of moral agents, for the
reason that there are no moral agents below them to whom
they can stoop. God's condescension stoops to all ranks of
sentient existences. This is also true with every benevolent
mind, as to all inferiors. It seeks the good of being in general,
and never thinks any being too low to have his interests attend
ed to and cared for, according to their relative value. Be
nevolence can not possibly retain its own essential nature, and
yet be above any degree of condescension that can affect the
greatest good. Benevolence does not, can not know any thing
of that loftiness of spirit that considers it too degrading to stoop
any where or to any being whose interests need to be and can
be promoted by such condescension. Benevolence has, its end,
and it can not but seek this, and it does not, can not think
any thing below it that is demanded to secure that end. O,
the shame, the infinite folly and madness of pride, and every
form of selfishness ! How infinitely unlike God it is ! Christ
could condescend to be born in a manger; to be brought up
in humble life; to be poorer than the fox of the desert or the
fowls of heaven; to associate with fishermen; 'to mingle with
and seek the good of all classes; to be despised in life, and
die between two thieves on the cross. His benevolence " en
dured the cross and despised the shame." He was " meek
and lowly in heart." The Lord of heaven and earth is as
much more lowly in heart than any of his creatures as he is
above them in his infinity. He can stoop to any thing but
sin. He can stoop infinitely low.
23. Candor is another attribute of benevolence.
Candor is a disposition to treat every subject with fairness

262 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and honesty; to examine and weigh all the evidence in the
case, and decide according to testimony. It is a state of mind
which is the opposite of prejudice. Prejudice is pre-judg
ment. It is a decision made up with but partial information.
It is not a mere opinion. It is a committal of the will.
Candor is holding the intelligence open to conviction. It
is that state of the will in which all the light is sought upon
all questions, that can be obtained. Benevolence is an im
partial, a disinterested choice of the highest good of beingr-
not of some parts of it— not of self— but of being in general.
It inquires not to whom an interest belongs, but what is its
intrinsic and relative value, and what is the best means of
promoting it. Selfishness, as we shall see, is never candid.
It never can be candid. It is contrary to its very nature.
Benevolence can not but be candid. It has no reasons for
being otherwise. Its eye is single. It seeks to know all truth
for the sake of doing it. It has no by-ends-, no self-will or
self-interest to consult. It is not seeking to please or profit
self. It is not seeking the interest of some favorite. No, it
is impartial and must be candid.
It should always be borne in mind that where there is preju
dice, benevolence is not, can not be. There is not, can not
be such a thing as honest prejudice. There may be an hon
est mistake for want of light, but this is not prejudice. If
there be a mistake and it be honest, there will be and must be
a readiness to receive light to correct the mistake. But where
the will is committed, and there is not candor to receive evi
dence, there is and there must be selfishness. Few forms of
sin are more odious and revolting than prejudice. Candor is
an amiable and a lovely attribute of benevolence. It is cap
tivating to behold it. To see a man where his own interest
is deeply concerned, exhibit entire candor, is to witness a
charming exhibition of the spirit of the law of love.
24. Stability is another attribute of benevolence. This love
is not a mere feeling or emotion, that effervesces for a mo
ment, and then cools down and disappears. But it is choice,
not a mere volition which accomplishes its object and then
rests. It is the choice of an end, a supreme end. It is an
intelligent choice — the most intelligent choice that can be
made. It is considerate choice — none so much so; a delibe
rate choice ; a reasonable choice which will always commend
itself to the highest perceptions and intuitions of the intelli
gence. It is intelligent and impartial, and universal conse
cration to an end, above all others the most important and

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 263
captivating in its influence. Now, stability must be a charac
teristic of such a choice as this. By stability, it is not intend
ed that the choice may not be changed. Nor that it never is
changed-; but that when the attributes of the choice are con
sidered, it appears as if stability, as opposed to instability,
must be an attribute of this choice. It is a new birth, a new
nature, a new creature, a new heart, a new life. These and
such like are the representations of Scripture. Are these
representations of an evanescent state? The beginning of
benevolence in the soul — this choice is represented as the
death of sin, as a burial, a being planted, a crucifixion of the
old man, and many such like things. Are these representa
tions of what we so often see among professed converts to
Christ? Nay verily. The nature of the change itself would
seem to be a guaranty of its stability. We might reasonably
suppose that any other choice would be relinquished sooner
than this; that any other state of mind would fail sooner than
benevolence. It is vain to reply to this that facts prove the
contrary to be true. I answer, what facts? Who can prove
them to be facts? Shall we appeal to the apparent facts in
the instability of many professors of religion; or shall we
appeal to the very nature of the choice and to the Scriptures?
To these, doubtless. So far as philosophy can go, we might
defy the world to produce an instance of choice which has so
many chances for stability. The representations of Scripture
are such as I have mentioned above. What then shall we
conclude of those effervescing professors of religion, who are
soon hot and soon cold; whose religion is a spasm; " whose
goodness as the morning cloud and the early dew goeth
away?" Why, we must conclude that they have never had
the root of the matter in them. That they are not dead to
sin and to the world, we see. Thatthey are not new creatures;
that they have not the spirit of Christ; that they do not keep
his commandments, we see. What then shall we conclude
but this, that they are stony ground Christians?
25. Kindness is another attribute of Love.
The original word rendered kindness is sometimes render
ed gentleness. This term designates that state of the heart
that begets a gentleness and kindness of outward demeanor
towards those around us. Benevolence is good will. It must
possess the attribute of kindness or gentleness toward its ob
ject. Love seeks to make others happy. It can not be oth
erwise than that the beloved object should be treated kindly
and gently, unless circumstances and character demand a

264 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
different treatment. A deportment regardless of the sensi
bilities of those around us, indicates a decidedly ' and detest
ably selfish state of mind. Love always manifests a tender
regard for the feelings and well-being of its object; and as
benevolence is universal love, it will and must manifest the
attribute of gentleness and kindness toward all except in
those cases When either the good of the individual or of
the public shall demand a different treatment. In such
cases it will be love and only love that leads to different treat
ment; and in no case will benevolence treat any even the
worst of beings more severely than is demanded by the high
est good. Benevolence is a unit. It does every thing for one
reason. It has but one end, and that is the highest good of being
in general. It will and must treat all kindly unless the pub
lic good demands a different course. But it punishes when it
does punish for the same reason that it forgives when it does
forgive. It gives life and takes it away. It gives health and
sickness, poverty and riches; it smiles and frowns; it blesses
and curses, and does, and says, and omits, gives and withholds
every thing for one and the same reason, to wit, the promo
tion of the highest good of being. It will be gentle or severe
as occasions arise which demand either of these exhibitions.
Kindness is its rule, and severity is its exception. Both, how
ever, as we shall soon see, are equally and necessarily attri
butes of benevolence.
The gentleness and kindness of God and of Christ are stri
kingly manifested in providence and in grace. Christ is
called a Lamb no doubt because of the gentleness and kind
ness of his character. He is called the good shepherd and
represented as gently leading his flock and carrying the lambs
in his bosom. Many such affecting representations are made
of him in the bible, and he often makes the same manifesta
tions in his actual treatment of his servants not only, but also
of his enemies. Who has not witnessed this? and who can
not testify to this attribute of his character as a thousand
times affectingly manifested in his own history? Who can
call to mind the dealings of his Heavenly Father without be
ing deeply penetrated with the remembrances of his kindness
not only, but his loving kindness, and tender mercy, its ex
ceeding greatness ? There is a multitude of tender represen
tations in the bible which are all verified in the experience of
every saint "As the eagle stirreth up her nest, fhittereth
over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them,
beareth them on her wings": so the Lord alone did lead him

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 265
and there was no strange God with him." This lovely attri
bute will and must always appear where. benevolence is. It
is important however to remark that constitutional tempera
ment will often greatly modify the expression of it. "Chari
ty is kind"-^this is one of its attributes; yet as I just said,
its manifestations will be modified by constitution, education
&c. A manifest absence of it in cases where it would be
appropriate is sad evidence that benevolence is wanting.
26. Severity is another attribute of benevolence. "Behold"
says the Apostle " the goodness and severity of God." They
greatly err who suppose that benevolence is all softness un
der all circumstances. Severity is not cruelty, but is love
manifesting strictness, rigor, purity, when occasion demands.
Love is universal good-will, or willing the highest good pf be
ing in general. When therefore any one or any number so
conduct as to interfere with and endanger the public good,
severity is just as natural and as necessary to benevolence as
kindness and forbearance under other circumstances. Christ
is not only a Lamb, but a Lion also. He is not only gentle as
mercy, but stern as justice; not only yielding as the tender
bowels of mercy, but as inflexibly stern as infinite purity and
justice. He exhibits the one attribute or the other as occasion
demands. At one time we hear him praying for his murder
ers, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
At another time, we hear him say by the pen of an apostle,
" If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be ac
cursed." At another time, we hear him in the person of the
Psalmist praying for vengeance on bis enemies: "Reproach
hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness, and I looked
for some to take pity, but there was none, and for comforters
but I found none. They gave me gall for my meat, and in
my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Let their table be
come a snare before them, and that which should have been
for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be dark-
end that they see not, and make their leins continually tp
shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy
wrathful anger take hold upon them. Let their habitation be
desolate, and let none dwell in their tents. Add iniquity
(punishment) to their iniquity and let them not come into thy
righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the
living and not be written with the righteous." Many such
like passages might be quoted from the records of inspiration
as the breathings of the Spirit of the God of Love.
Now it is perfectly manifest that good will to the universe
23

266 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
of being implies opposition to whatever tends to prevent the
highest good. Benevolence is and must be severe in a good
sense towards incorrigible sinners like those against whom
Christ prays in the Psalm just quoted.
The term severity is used sometimes in a good and some
times in a bad sense. When used in a bad sense, it desig
nates an unreasonable state of mind and of course a selfish
state. It then represents a state which is the opposite of be
nevolence. But when used in a good sense, as it is when
applied to God and Christ, and when spoken of as an attribute
of benevolence, it designates the sternness, firmness, purity
and justice of love, acting for the public good in cases where
sin exists and where the public interests are at stake. In such
circumstances, if severity were not developed as an attribute
of benevolence, it would demonstrate that benevolence could
not be the whole of virtue, even if it could be virtue at all.
The intelligence of every moral being would affirm in such
circumstances, that if severity did not appear, something was
wanting to make the character perfect, that is, to make the
character answerable to the emergency.
It is truly wonderful to witness the tendency among men to
fasten upon some one attribute of benevolence and overlook
the rest They perhaps have been affected particularly by
the manifestation of some one attribute, which leads them to
represent the character of God as* all summed up in that attri
bute. But this is fatally to err, and fatally to misrepresent
God. God is represented in the Bible as being slow to anger,
and of tender mercy; as being very pitiful; long-suffering;
abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands;
forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin ; but as also visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and that will by
no means clear the guilty; and as being angry with the wicked
every day. These are by no means contradictory representa
tions. They only exhibit benevolence manifesting itself un
der different circumstances, and in different relations. These
are just the attributes that we can see must belong to benevo
lence, and just what it ought to be and must be when these
occasions arise. Good will to the universe ought to be and
must be, in a good sense, severe where the public weal de
mands it, as it often does. It is one of the most shallow of
dreams that the Divine character is all softness and sweet
ness in all its manifestations and in all circumstances. The
fact is that sin has " enkindled a fire in the Divine anger that
shall set on fire the foundations of the mountains and shall

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 267
hum to the lowest hell." Severity is also always and necessa
rily an attribute of benevolence in good angels and in good
men. When occasions arise that plainly demand it, this attri
bute must be developed and manifested or benevolence must
cease. It is, indeed, impossible that good will to the whole
should not manifest severity and indignation to a part who
should rebel against the interests of the whole. Benpvnlence
will seek the good of all so long as there is hope. It will bear
and forbear, and be patient, kind, meek even to long suffering,
while there is not a manifestation of incorrigible wickedness.
But where there is, the Lamb is laid aside and the Lion is
developed; and his "wrathful anger" is as awful as his ten
der mercies are affecting. Innumerable instances of this are
on record in this world's history. Why then should we seek
to represent God's character as all made ,up of one attribute?
It is, indeed, all comprehensively expressed in one word, love.
But it should be forever remembered that this is a word of
vast import, and that this love possesses, and as occasions
arise, developes and manifests a great variety of attributes;
all harmonious, and perfect, and glorious. This attribute al
ways developes itself in the character of holy men when oc
casions offer that demand it. Behold the severity of Peter in
the case of Ananias and Sapphira. Witness the rebuke ad
ministered by Paul to Peter when the latter dissembled and
endangered the purity of the church. Witness also his seve
rity in the case of Elymas, the sorcerer, and hear him say to
the Galatians, " I would that they who trouble you were even
cut off," — and many such like things in the conduct and spirit
of holy men. Now, I know that such exhibitions are some
times regarded as unchristlike, as legal, and not evangelical.
But they are evangelical. These are only manifestations of
an essential attribute of benevolence, as every one must see
who will consider the matter. It very often happens that such
manifestations, whatever the occasion may be, are denounced
as the manifestations of a wicked spirit, as anger, and as sin
ful anger. Indeed, it seems to be assumed by many that every
kind and degree of anger is sinful, of course. But so far is
all this from the truth, that. occasions often, or at least some
times, arise, that call for such manifestations; and to be any
otherwise than indignant, to manifest any other man indigna
tion and severity, were to be and manifest any thing but that
which is demanded by the occasion.
I know that this truth is liable in a selfish world to abuse.
But I know also that it is a truth of revelation; and God has

268 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
not withheld it for fear of its being abused. It is a truth of
reason, and commends itself to the intuitions of every mind.
It is a truth abundantly manifested in the moral and providen
tial government of God. Let it not be denied nor concealed;
but let no one abuse and pervert it.

LECTURE XX.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in obedience to the Law of God.
27. Holiness^ or purity, is another attribute of benevolence.
Holiness is a term that seems sometimes to be used as ex
pressive of all the moral attributes of God. As an attribute
of benevolence, it signifies purity. It denotes the moral
purity or moral character or quality of God's benevolence,
and indicates or expresses the intention to promote the happi
ness of moral beings by means of moral purity or virtue.
Benevolence simply considered, is a willing or choosing the
highest good of being, and especially of moral agents. Holi
ness as an attribute of benevolence, is that element of the
choice that aims to secure the end of benevolence by means
of virtue. Moral purity is uprightness or righteousness.
This attribute is hardly distinguishable from righteousness or
uprightness. Uprightness or integrity are generally used as
synonymous with holiness.
That holiness is an attribute of God is every where as
sumed and frequently asserted in the bible.
If an attribute of God, it must be an attribute of love; for
God is love. This attribute is celebrated in heaven as one of
those aspects of the divine character that give ineffable de
light. Isaiah saw the seraphim standing around the throne
of Jehovah, and crying one to another, Holy! holy! holy!
John also had a vision of the worship of heaven, and says
"they rest not day nor night saying Holy! holy! holy! Lord
God Almighty." When Isaiah beheld the holiness of Jehovah
he cried out "Wo is me! I am undone. I am a man of un
clean lips, and I dwell in the midst ofa people of unclean lips;
for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts !" God's
holiness is infinite, and it is no wonder that a perception of it
should thus affect the prophet.
Finite holiness must forever stand and feel itself to be com
parative rottenness and impurity when brought into compari
son with infinite holiness. The seraphim are represented as
being affected much as the prophet was. At least, had the
vision of his holiness been as new to them as it was to him,
it might no doubt have impressed them as it did him. Their
holiness in the comparison or light of his might have appeared
to them like pollution. They vailed their faces in his pres-
23*

270 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ence. They covered their faces as if afraid, or as if they had
considered that in his eyes the most holy creatures in the uni
verse were comparatively unclean. Every christian of much
experience knows well what it is to be confounded in the pres
ence of his awful holiness. Job says, "I have heard of thee
by the hearing ofthe ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: where
fore I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes." There is
noebmparing finite with infinite. The time will never come
when creatures can behold the awful holiness of Jehovah
without shrinking into comparative rottenness in his presence.
This must be, and yet in another sense they may be and are
as holy as he is. They may be as perfectly conformed to what
light or truth they have as he is. This is doubtless what
Christ intended when he said " Be ye perfect even as your
Father which, is in heaven is perfect." The meaning is, that
they should live to the same end and be as entirely conse
crated to it as he is. This they must be to be truly virtuous
or holy iri any degree. But when they are so, a full view of
the holiness of God would confound and overwhelm them. If
any one doubts this, he has not considered the matter in a
proper light. He has not lifted up his thoughts as he needs
to do to the contemplation of Infinite Holiness. No creature,
however benevolent he be, can witness the divine benevolence
without being overwhelmed with a clear vision of it. This is
no doubt true of every attribute ofthe divine love. However
perfect creature virtue may be, it is finite, and brought into the
light ofthe attributes of infinite virtue, it will appear as com
parative rottenness. Let the most just man on earth or in
heaven witness and have a clear apprehension of the infinite
justice of Jehovah, and it would no doubt fill him with unut
terable awe of him. So, could the most merciful saint. on
earth or in heaven have a clear perception of the divine
mercy in its fulness, it would swallow up all thought and
imagination and no doubt overwhelm him. And so also of
every attribute of God. Oh ! when we speak of the attributes
of Jehovah, we often do not know what we say. Should God
unvail himself to us our bodies would instantly perish.
"No man," says he, "can see my face and live." When
Moses prayed, Show me thy glory, God condescendingjy hid
him in the cleft of a rock arid covering him with his hand, he
passed by and let Moses see only his back parts, informing
him that he could not behold his face, that is, his unvailed
glories and live.
Holiness is an essential attribute of disinterested love, It

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

271

must be so from the laws of our being, and from the very
nature of benevolence. In man it manifests itself in great
purity of conversation and deportment, in a great loathing of
all impurity of flesh and spirit. Let no man profess piety
who has not this attribute developed. The love required by
the ' law of God is pure love. It seeks to make its object
happy only by making him holy. It manifests the greatest
abhorrence of sin and all uncleanness. In creatures it pants
and doubtless ever will pant and struggle towards infinite
purity or holiness. It will never find a resting place in such
a sense as to desire to ascend no higher. As it perceives
more and more ofthe fullness and infinity of God's holiness,
it will no doubt pant and struggle to ascend the eternal
heights where God sits in light too dazzling, for the strong
vision ofthe highest cherubim.
Holiness of heart begets a desire or feeling and love of
purity in the sensibility. The feelings become exceedingly
alive to the beauty of holiness and to the hatefulness and de
formity of all spiritual and even physical impurity. The
sensibility becomes ravished with the great loveliness of holi
ness, and unutterably disgusted with the opposite. The least
impurity of conversation or of action exceedingly shocks one
who is holy. Impure thoughts, if suggested to the mind ofa
holy being, are exceedingly detestable, and the soul heaves
and struggles to cast them out as the most loathsome abomi
nations. 28. Modesty is another attribute of love.
This may exist either as a phenomenon of the sensibility,
or of the will.
As a phenomenon of the sensibility, it consists in a feeling
of delicacy or shrinking from whatever is impure, unchaste;
or from all boasting, vanity or egotism; a feeling like retiring
from public observation, and especially from public applause.
It is a feeling of self diffidence, and is as a feeling the oppo
site of self-esteem and self-complacency. It takes on as a
mere feeling a great variety of types, and when it controls
the will, often gives its subject a very lovely and charming
exterior; especially is this true when manifested by a female.
But when this is only a phenomenon of the sensibility, and
manifests itself only as this feeling takes control ofthe will,
it is not virtue but only a specious and delusive form of selfish
ness. It appears lovely because it is the counterfeit of a
sweet and charming form of virtue.
As a phenomenon of the will and as an attribute of bene-

272 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
volence it consists in a disposition opposed to display and
self-exaltation. It is nearly allied to humility. It is a state
of heart the opposite of an egotistical spirit. It seeks not per
sonal applause or distinction. It is the unostentatious cha
racteristic of benevolence. "Love sepketh not its ownj is
not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly." Benevo
lence seeketh not its own profit, nor its own honor. It
seeks the good of being, with a single eye, and it is no part of
its design to set off self to advantage. Hence modesty is one
of its lovely characteristics. It manifests itself very much as
the feeling of modesty manifests itself when it takes control
ofthe will, so that often it is difficult to distinguish modesty as
a virtue, or as an attribute of religion, from that modesty of
feeling which is a peculiarity ofthe constitution of some, and
which comes to control the will.
True piety is always modest It is unassuming, unosten
tatious, anti-egotistical, content to seek with a single eye its
object, the highest good of being. In this work it seeks not
public notice or applause. It finds a luxury in doing good no
matter how unobserved. If at any time it seeks to be known,
it is entirely disinterested in this. It seeks to be known only
to make " manifest that its deeds are wrought in God," and to
stimulate and encourage others to good works. Modesty as
a virtue shrinks ' from self display, from trumpeting its own
deeds. It is prone to " esteem others better than self;" to
give the preference to others, and hold self in very moderate
estimation. It is the opposite of self-confidence and self-ex
altation. It aims not to exhibit self, but God and Christ.
This form of virtue is often conspicuous in men and women
whom the providence of God has placed on high, so thatthey
are exposed to the public gaze. They seem never to aim at
the exhibition or exaltation of self; they never appear flat
tered by applause, nor to be disheartened by censure and
abuse. Having this attribute largely developed, they pursue
their way very much regardless both of the praise and the
censure of men. Like Paul they can say "With me it is a
small thing to be judged of man's judgment." It seeks only
to commend itself to God and to the consciences of men.
29. Sobriety is another attribute of benevolence.
Sobriety as a virtue is the opposite of levity. There is, as
every one knows, a remarkable difference in the constitutional
temperament of different persons in regard to levity and so-
.briety considered as a tendency of the sensibility. Sobriety
considered as a constitutional peculiarity, is often attributable

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

273

to a diseased state of the organs of organic life, and i3 then
not unfrequently termed hypochondriasis. In other instances
it seems not to result from or to indicate ill health, but is a
peculiarity not to be accounted for by any philosophy of ours.
Sobriety as a phenomenon of the sensibility often results
from conviction of sin and fear of punishment, and from
worldly troubles, and indeed from a multitude of causes.
But sobriety considered as a virtue and as a characteristic
or attribute of benevolence, consists in that solemn earnest
ness which must belong to an honest intention to pursue to
the utmost the highest good of being.
Sobriety is not synonymous with moroseness. It is not a
sour, fault-finding, censorious spirit. Neither is it inconsistent
with cheerfulness — I mean the cheerfulness of love. It is the
contrast of levity and not of cheerfulness. Sobriety is serious
earnestness in the choice, and promotion of the highest good
of being. It has no heart for levity and folly. It can not
brook the spirit of gossip and of giggling. Sober earnestness
is one ofthe essential attributes of love to God and souls. It
can not fail to manifest this characteristic. Benevolence su
premely values its object. It meets with many obstacles in
attempting' to secure it. It too deeply prizes the good of
being, and sees too plainly how much is to be done to have
any time or inclination to levity and folly. God is always in
serious earnest. Christ was always serious and in earnest.
Trifling is an abomination to God and to benevolence also.
But let it never be forgotten that sobriety, as an attribute
of benevolence, has nothing in it ofthe nature of moroseness
and peevishness. It is not melancholy. It is not sorrowful
ness. It is not despondency. It is a sober, honest, earnest,
intense state of choice or of good will. It is not an affected
but a perfectly natural and serious earnestness. Benevolence
is in earnest and it appears to be so by a law of its own nature;
It puts on no affectation of solemnity. It has need of none.
It can laugh and weep for the same reason and at the same
time. It can do either without levity on the one hand and
without moroseness, melancholy or discouragement on the
other. Abraham fell on his face and laughed when God
promised him a son by Sarah. But it was not levity. It
was benevolence rejoicing in the promise ofa faithful God.
We should always be careful to distinguish between so
briety as a mere feeling and the sobriety of the heart. The
former is often easily dissipated and succeeded by trifling and
levity! The former is stable as benevolence itself because it

274 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
is one of its essential attributes. A trifling Christian is a
contradiction. It is as absurd as a light and foolish benevo
lence. These are of a piece with a sinful holiness. Benevo
lence has .and must have its changeless attributes. Some of
them are manifest only on particular occasions that develop
them. Others are manifest on all occasions as every occa
sion calls them into exercise. This attribute is one of that
class. Benevolence must be in serious earnest on all occa
sions. The benevolent soul may and will rejoice with those
who rejoice and weep with those that weep. He may be
always cheerful in faith and in hope, yet he always has too
great business on hand to havea heart for trifling or for folly.
30. Sincerity is another attribute of benevolence.
Sincerity is the opposite of hypocrisy. The terms sincerity
ana perfection seem, as used in the bible, to be synonymous.
Sincerity as an attribute of benevolence implies whole-hearted
honesty, singleness of aim, true uprightness of purposei
Where this attribute is? there is a consciousness of its presence.
The soul is satisfied that it is really and truly whole-hearted.
It can not but respect its own honesty of intention and of pur
pose. It has not to affect sincerity — it has it. When the soul
has this attribute developed it is as deeply conscious of whole-
heartedness as of its own existence. It is honest. It is
earnest. It is deeply sincere. It knows it, and never thinks
of being suspected of insincerity, and of course has no reason
for affectation.
This also is one of those attributes of benevolence that are
manifest on all occasions. There is a manifestation of sin
cerity that carries conviction in the spirit and deportment of
the truly benevolent man. Itis exceedingly difficult so to
counterfeit it that the deception shall not be seen. The very
attempt to counterfeit sincerity will manifest hypocrisy to a
discerning mind. There is a cant, a grimace, a put-on seri
ousness, a hollow, shallow, long-facedness that reveals a want
of sincerity; and the more pains is taken to cover up insin
cerity, the more surely it reveals itself. There is a simplicity
and unguardedness, a right up and down frankness, an open-
heartcdness, a transparency in sincerity that is charming. It
tells the whole story, and carries with it on its very face the
demonstration of its honesty. Sincerity is its own passport,
its own letter of commendation. It is transparent as light and
as honest as justice, as kind as mercy, and as faithful as truth.
It is all lovely and praiseworthy. It needs no hoods or gowns
or canonicals or ceremonials to set it off; it stands on its own

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

275

foundation. It walks abroad unsuspecting, and generally
unsuspected of hypocrisy. It lives and moves and has its
being in open day-light. It inhabits love as its dwelling
place; and where benevolence is, there is its rest.
31. Another attribute of benevolence is Zeal. Zeal is not
always a phenomenon of will, but this term often expresses
an effervescing state of the sensibility. It often expresses
enthusiasm in the form of excited feeling. Zeal is also often
an attribute of selfishness. The term expresses intensity
whether used of the will or of the emotions, whether desig
nating a characteristic of selfishness or of benevolence. Be
nevolence is an intense action ofthe will or an intense state
of choice. The intensity is not uniform, but varies with vary
ing perceptions of the intellect. When the intellectual appre
hensions of truth are clear, when the Holy Spirit shines on
the soul, the actings of the will become proportionably in
tense. This must be, or benevolence must cease altogether.
Benevolence is the honest choice ofthe highest gopd of being
as an end. Of course it has no sinister or bye ends to prevent
it from laying just that degree of stress upon the good of
being which its importance seems to demand. Benevolence
is yielding the will up unreservedly to the demands ofthe in
telligence. Nothing else is benevolence. Hence it follows
that the intensity of benevolence will and must vary with
varying hght. When the light of God shines strongly upon
the soul, there is often a consuming intensity in the action of
the will, and the soul can adopt the language of Christ, " The
zeal of thy house hath eaten me up."
In its lowest estate, benevolence is zealous. That is, the
intellectual perceptions never sink so low as to leave benevo
lence to become a stagnant pool. It is never lazy, never slug
gish, never inactive. It is aggressive in its nature. It is es
sential activity in itself. It consists in choice, the supreme
choice of an end — in consecration to that end. Zeal, there
fore, must be one of its essential attributes. A lazy benevo
lence is a misnomer. In a world where sin is, benevolence
must be aggressive. In such a world it can not be conserva
tive. It must be reformatory. This is its essential nature.
In such a world as this a conservative, anti-reform benevo
lence is sheer selfishness. To baptize anti-reform and con
servatism with the name of Christianity, is to steal a robe of
light to cover the black shoulders of a fiend. Zeal, the zeal
of benevolence, will not, can not rest while sin is in the
world, God is represented as clothed with zeal as with a

276 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
cloak; and after making some of his exceeding great and
precious promises, he concludes by saying, " The zeal of the
Lord of Hosts will perform this,"
32. Unity is another attribute of benevolence.
Benevolence or love has but one end. It consists in one
choice,, one ultimate intention. It is always one and indi
visible. It possesses many attributes or characteristics; but
they are all only so many phases of one principle. Every
modification of virtue, actual or conceivable, may be and must
be resolvable into love, for in fact it is only a modification of
love or benevolence. It is easy to see that an honest choice of
the highest good of being as an end, will sufficiently and fully
account for every form in which virtue has appeared, or ever
can appear. The love or good will of God is a unit. He
has bwt one end. All he does is for one and the same reason.
Se it is and must be with love or benevolence in all beings.
God's conduct is all equally good and equally praiseworthy.
(1.) Because he always has one intention.
(2.) Because he always has the same degree of light
With creatures this light varies, and consequently they, at
though benevolent, are not always equally praiseworthy.
Their virtue increases as their light increases, and must forever
do so if they continue benevolent. But their end is always
one and the same. In this respect their virtue never varies.
They have the same end that God has.
It is of great importance that the unity of virtue should be
understood. Else that which really constitutes its essence is
overlooked. If it be supposed that there can be various sorts
of virtue, this is a fatal mistake. The fact is, virtue consists
in whole-hearted consecration to one end, and that end is, as
it ought to be and must be, the highest well-being of God and
of the universe. This and nothing else, more nor less, is vir
tue. It is one and identical in all moral agents, in all worlds,
and to all eternity. It can never be changed. It can never
consist in any thing else. God could not alter its nature, nor
one of its essential attributes. The inquiry and the only in
quiry is, for what end do I live? To what end am I consecra
ted? Not, how do I feel, and what is my outward deport
ment? These may indicate the state of my will. But these
can not settle the question! If a man know any thing, it
must be that he knows what his supreme intention is. That
is, if he .considers at all and looks at the grand aim of his
mind, he cannot fail to see whether he is really living for
God and .the universe or for himself.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 277
If God is love, His virtue or love must be a unit. If all
the law is fulfilled in one word; if love is the fulfiUingof the
law; then all virtue must resolve itself into love; and this
unity is and must be an attribute of benevolence.
33. Simplicity is another attribute of benevolence,
By simplicity is intended singleness, without mixture. It
has and can have but one simple end. It does not, and can
not mingle With selfishness* It is simple or single in its aim.
It is and must be simple or single in all its efforts to secure its
end. It does noA, can not attempt to serve God and mammon.
But as I have dwelt at length upon this subject in a former
lecture, I mustxefer you to that and not enlarge upon it here.

24

LECTURE XXI.
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.
What is implied in obedience to the Law of God.
34. Gratitude is another characteristic of Love.
This term also designates a state of the sensibility, or a mere
feeling of being obliged or benefitted by another. This feel
ing includes an emotion of love and attachntent to the bene
factor who has shown us favor. It also includes a feeling of
obligation' and of readiness to make such returns as we are
able, to the being who has shown us favor. But as a mere
feeling or phenomenon of the sensibility gratitude has no
moral character. It may exist in the sensibility of one who
is entirely selfish. For selfish persons love to be obliged, and
love those who love to oblige them, and can feel grateful for
favors shown to themselves.
Gratitude, as a virtue, is only a modification or an attribute
of benevolence or of good will. It consists in willing good
to a benefactor either of ourselves or of others upon condition
of favor bestowed. Gratitude always assumes of course
the intrinsic value of the good willed as the fundamental rea
son for willing it. But it always has particular reference to
the relation of benefactor as a secondary reason for willing
good to him. This relation can not be the foundation ofthe
obligation to love Or will the good of any being in the uni
verse; for the obligation to will his good, would exist if this
relation did not exist, and even if the relation of persecutor
existed in its stead. But gratitude always assuming the ex
istence of the fundamental reason, to wit, the intrinsic value
ofthe well-being of its object for its own sake, has, as I have
just said, particular reference to the relation of benefactor;
so particular reference to it that if asked why he loved or
willed the good of that individual, he would naturally assign
this relation as a reason. He would, as has been formerly
shown, assign this as the reason, not because it is or can be
or ought to be the fundamental reason, but because the other
reason ' lies in the mind as a first truth, and is not so much
noticed on the field of consciousness at the time as the se
condary reason, to wit, the relation just referred to.
This attribute of benevolence may never have occasion for
its exercise in the divine mind. No one can sustain to him
the relation of benefactor. Yet in his mind, it may and no

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

279

doubt does exist in the form of good will to those who are the
benefactors of others, and for that reason, just as finite minds
may be affected by that relation.
That love will ever have an opportunity to develop all its
attributes and manifest all its loveliness and take on every pos
sible peculiarity, is more than we can know. All its loveliness
can never be known nor conceived of by finite minds except
so far as occasions develop its charming attributes.. The love*"
of gratitude finds abundant occasions of development in all
finite minds, and especially among sinners of our race. Our
ill-desert is so infinite, and God's goodness, mercy and long-
suffering are so infinite and so manifested to us, that if we have
any attribute of benevolence largely developed, it must be
that of gratitude. Gratitude to God will manifest itself to
God in a spirit of thanksgiving, and in a most tender regard
to his feelings, his wishes, and all his commandments. A
grateful soul will naturally raise the question on all occasions,
will this or that please God? There will be a constant en
deavor of the grateful soul to please him- This must be;
it is the natural and inevitable result of gratitude. It
should be always borne in mind that gratitude is good will
modified by the relation of benefactor. It is not a mere feel
ing of thankfulness, but will always beget that feeling. It is
a living, energizing attribute of benevolence and will and must
manifest itself in corresponding feeling and action.
It should also be borne in mind that a selfish feeling of
gratitude or thankfulness often exists, and imposes upon its
subject and often upon others who witness its manifestation.
It conceals its selfish foundation arid character and passes in
this world for virtue; but it is not I recollect well weeping
with gratitude to God years previous to my conversion. The
same kind of feeling is often no doubt mistaken for evangeli
cal gratitude.
Benevolence is a unifying principle. The benevolent
soul regards all interests as his own and all beings as parts
of himself in such a sense as to feel obligations of gratitude for
favors bestowed on others as well as himself. Gratitude, as
an attribute of benevolence, recognizes God as a benefactor
to self in bestowing favors on others. Benevolence regarding
all interests as our own acknowledges the favors bestowed
upon any and upon all. It will thank God for favors bestowed
upon the beasts of the field and the fowls ofthe air, and for
" opening his hand and supplying the wants of every living
thing." 35. Wisdom is another attribute of benevolence.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
, Wisdom is love directed by knowledge. It consists in the
choice of the best and most valuable end and of the most ap
propriate means of obtaining it. It is like all the other attri
butes, only benevolence viewed in a certain relation, or only
a particular aspect of it-
Wisdom is a term that expresses the perfectly intelligent
character of love. It represents it as not a blind and unintel-
- ligent choice, but as being guided only by the highest intelli
gence. This attribute like all the others is perfect in God in
an infinitely higher sense than in any creature. It must be
perfect in creatures in such a sense as to be sinless, but can in
them never be perfect in such a sense as to admit of no increase.
The manifold displays of the divine wisdom in creation,
providence and grace, are enough when duly considered to
overwhelm a finite mind. An -inspired apostle could cele
brate this attribute in such a strain as this: "O the depths of
the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out!"
The wisdom of the saints appears in their choice of an end.
They choose invariably the same end that God does, butdo not,
for want, of knowledge, always use the best means. This,
hoWevervis not a sinful defect in them, provided they act ac
cording to the best light within their teach.
Wisdom is a term that is often and justly used to express
true religion and to distinguish it from every thing else.
It expresses both benevolence or good will and the intelli
gent character of that choice, that is, that.the choice is dictated
by the intelligence as distinguished from selfish choice or
choice occasioned by the impulses of feeling.
36, Grace is another; attribute of benevolence.
Grace is a disposition to bestow gratuitous favor, that is,
favor on the undeserving and on the ill-deserving.
Grace is not synonymous with mercy. It is a term of
broader meaning.
Mercy is a disposition to forgive the guilty. Grace expresr
ses not only a wUJingnessJo pardon, but to bestow other favors.
Mercy might pardon but unless great grace were bestowed
our pardon would by no means secure our salvation.
" Grace first contrived the way
To save rebellious man ;
And all the steps that grace display,
That drew the wondrous plan."
Grace does not wait for merit as a condition of bestowing
favor. It causes its sun to shine on the evil and on; the good
and sends its rain upon the just and the unjust.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 281
Grace in the saints manifests itself in acts of beneficence
to the most unworthy as well as to the deserving. It seeks to
do good to all whether meritorious or not. It seeks to do
good from a love to being. It rejoices in opportunities to be
stow its gratuities upon all classes that need them. To
grace, necessity or want is the great recommendation. When
we come to God his grace is delighted with the opportunity
to supply our wants. The grace of God is a vast ocean
without shore or bound or bottom. It is infinite. It is an
ever overflowing ocean of beneficence. Its streams go forth
to make glad the universe. All creatures are objects of his
grace to a greater or less extent. All are not objects of his
saving grace, but all are or have been the recipients of his
bounty. Every sinner that is kept out of hell, is sustained
every moment by grace. Every thing that any one receives
who has ever sinned which is better than hell, is received of
grace. Repentance is a condition of the exercise of mercy. But
grace is exercised in a thousand forms without any reference
to character. Indeed, the very term expresses good will
to the undeserving and ill-deserving. Surely it must have been
a gracious disposition, deep and infinite, that devised and exe
cuted the plan of salvation for sinners of our race. A sym
pathy with the grace of God must manifest itself in strenuous
and self-denying efforts to secure to the greatest possible
number the benefits of tiu| salvation. A gracious heart in
man will leap forth to declare the infinite riches of the grace
of God in the ears of a dying world. No matt certainly has
or can have a sympathy with Christ who will or can hesitate
to do his utmost to carry the gospel and apply his grace to a
perishing world. What! shall the gracious disposition of
Christ prepare the way, prepare the feast; and can they
have any sympathy with him who can hesitate to go or send to
invite the starving poor? If Christ both lived and died to re
deem man, is it a great thing for us to live to serve them?
No, indeed : he only has the spirit of Christ who would, not
merely live, but also die for them.
37. Economy is another attribute of benevolence.
This term expresses that peculiarity of benevolence that
makes the best use, and the most that can be made of every
thing to promote the public good. This attribute appears at
every step in the works and government of God. It is truly
wonderful to see how every thing is made and conducted to
one end ; and nothing exists or can exist in the universe which
24*

282 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
God will riot overrule to some good account Even ^the
wrath of man shall praise Him, and the remainder of wrath
He will restrain." A most Divine economy is. every where
manifest in the works and ways of God. If He is love, we
might expect this. Nay if He is love, it -is impossible that
this Should not be. He lives only for one end. AU things
were created and are ruled or overruled by Him. AH things,
then, must directly or indirectly work together for good. He
will secure some benefit from every thing. Nothing has oc
curred, or will occur, or can ever occur to. all eternity that
will not in some way be used to promote the good of being.
Even sin and punishment will not be without their use. God
has created nothing, nor has He suffered any thing to occur
in vain. There is, nothing without its use. Sin, inexcusable
and ruinous as it is, is not without its use. And God will
take care to glorify Himself in sinners whether they consent
or not. He says, " He has created all things for Himself,
even the wicked for the day of evil." That is, He created
no man wicked, but He created those whohave become wick
ed. He created them not for the sake of punishing them,
but knowing that they would become incorrigible sinners, He
designed to punish them, and by making them,a public exam
ple, render them useful to Hisgovernment He created them,
not because He deKghted in their punishment forfts own sake,
¦but that He might make their deserved punishment useful to
the nniverse. In this sense, it may be truly said, that he cre
ated them for the day of evil. ^Foreseeing that they would
.become incorrigible sinners, He designed, wheaHe created
them, to make them a public example.
God's glorious economy in husbanding alt events for the
public good, is affectingly displayed in the factthat all things
are made to work together for good to them who love God.
AU beings, saints and sinners, good and evil angels, sin* and
holiness; in short there is. not a being nor an event in the
universe that is- not all used up for the. promotion of the high
est good. Whether men mean it or not, God? means it. If
men do not mean it, no thanks to them whatever use God may
make of them He WiBi give them, as he say*,' according to
their endeavors or intentions, but He will .Jake care to use
them in one way'or another for His glory. If shifters will con
sent to live and die for His glory and the good of being, well;
they shall have their reward. But if they will not- consent,.
•He will take care to dispose of them for the public benefit.
He wiU make the best use of them He can. If they are will-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 283
ing, and obedient, if they sympathize with Him in promoting
the good of the universe, welh But if not, He can make
them a public example, and make the influence of their pun
ishment useful to His kingdom. Nothing shall be lost in the
sense that God will not make it answer some useful purpose.
No, not even sin with all its deformities and guilt, and blas
phemy with all its guilt and desolating tendencies shall be
suffered to exist in vain. It will be made useful in innumera
ble ways. But no thanks to the sinner; he means no such
thing as that his sin shall be useful. He is set upon his own
gratification regardless of consequences. Nothing is farther
from his heart than to do good and glorify God. But God
has His eye upon him; has laid His plans in view of his fore
seen wickedness; and so surely as Jehovah lives, so surely
¦shall the sinner in one way or another be used all up for the
glory of God and the highest good of being.
Economy is necessarily an attribute of benevolence in all
minds. The very nature of benevolence shows that it must
be so. It is consecration to the highest good of being. It
lives for no other end. Now all choice must respect means
or ends. Benevolence has but one end ; and all its activity,
every Volition that it puts forth, must be to secure thatend.
The intellect will be used to devise means to promote that
end. The whole life and activity of a benevolent being is
and must be a life of strenuous economy for the promotion of
the one great end of benevolence. Extravagance, self-indul
gence, waste, are necessarily foreign to love. Every thing is
devoted to ofre end. Every thing is scrupulously and wisely
directed to secure the highest good of God and being, in gene
ral. This is, this must be the universal and undeviating aim
of every mind just so far as it is truly benevolent " He that
hath an ear to hear, let him hear."
There are many other attributes of benevolence that might
be enumerated and enlarged upon, all of which are implied
in entire obedience to the law of God. Enough has been
said I hope to fix your attention strongly upon the fact that
every modification of virtue; actual, conceivable or possible,
is only an attribute or form of benevolence. That atttribute
is always a phenomenon of wilB and a» attribute of benevo
lence. And where benevolence is, there all virtue is and
must be, and every form in which virtue does or can exist,
must develop itself as itsoccasions shall arise, if benevolence
really exists.-

LECTURE XXII.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
What constitutes disobedience to Moral Law,
In discussing this question, I will,
/. Revert to some points that have been settled.
II. Showwhat disobedience to the Moral Law can not consist in.
III. What it must consist in.
I. Revert to some points that have been settled.
1. That moral law requires love or benevolence, and that
this is the sum of its requirements.
2. That benevolence is good will to being in general. In
other words, that it consists in the impartial choice of the good
of being, as an end, or for its own sake*.
3. That obedience to moral law is a unit or that it invari
ably consists in disinterested benevolence. That consecra
tion to the highest good of being is virtue and the whole of
virtue. 4. That feeling and outward action are only results'of ulti
mate intention, and in themselves neither virtue nor vice.
5. That all choice and volition must terminate upon some
object, and that this object must be chosen as an end or as a
means. 6. That the choice of any thing as a means to an end is in
fact only carrying into execution the ultimate choice or the
choice of an end.
7. That the mind must have chosen an end, or it can not
choose the means. That is, the choice of means implies the
previous choice of an end.
8. That moral character belongs to the ultimate intention
only, or to the choice of an end.
9. Thatvirtue or obedience to moral law consists in choos
ing in accordance with the demands of the intelligence in op
position to following the feelings, desires, or impulses of the
sensibility. 10. That whatever is chosen for its own sake, and not as a
means to an end, is and must be chosen as an end.
11. That the mind must always have an end in view, or it
can not choose at all. That is, as has been said, the will
must have an object of choice, and this object must be re
garded as an end or as a means.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 285
12. That the fundamental reason for choosing an end and
the end chosen are identical. That is, the fundamental rea
son of the obligation to choose a thing must be found in the
nature of the thing itself, and this reason is the end or thing
chosen. Example: If the intrinsic value of a thing be the
foundation of the obligation to choose it, the intrinsically val
uable is the end or thing chosen.
//. Show what disobedience to moral law can not consist in.
1. It can not consist in malevolence, or in the choice of evil
or misery as an ultimate end. This will appear if we consider,
(1.) That the choice of an end implies the choice of it not for
no reason, but for a reason and for its own intrinsic value, or
because the mind prizes it on its own account. But moral
agents are so constituted that they can not regard misery as
intrinsically valuable. They can not, therefore, choose it as
an ultimate end, nor prize it on its own account.
(2.) To will misery as an ultimate end, would imply, the
choice of universal misery and every degree of it according to
its relative amount
(3.) The choice of universal misery as an end implies the
choice of all the means necessary to that end.
(4.) The end chosen is identical with the reason for choos
ing it. To say that a thing can be chosen without any rea
son is to say that nothing is chosen, or that there is no object
of choice, or that there is no choice. Misery may be chpsen
to assert our own sovereignty, but this were to choose self-
gratification and not misery as an ultimate end. To choose
misery as an ultimate end is to choose it, not to assert my own
sovereignty, nor for any other reason than because it is misery.
(5.) To choose an end is not to choose without any reason,
as has been said, but for a reason.
(6,) To choose misery as an end is to choose it for the rea
son thatit is miseryvantl that misery is preferred to happiness
for its own sake, which is absurd. Such a suppositipn over
looks the very nature of choice.
(7.) To will misery as a means is possible, but this is not
malevolence, but might be either benevolence or selfishness.
(8.) The constitution of moral beings renders malevolence,
or the willing of misery for its own sake impossible. There
fore disobedience to moral law can not consist in it.
2. Disobedience to moral law can not consist in the consti
tution of soul or body. The law does not command us to have
a certain constitution, nor forbid us' to have the constitution
with which we came into being.

286 SYSTEMATIC theology.
3. It can not consist in any state either of the sensibility or
of the intelligence; for these, as we have seen, are involunta
ry and are dependent upon the actings of the will.
4. It can not consist in outward actions; for these, we have
seen, are controlled by the actions of the will, and therefore
can have no moral character in themselves.
5. It can not consist in inaction: for total inaction is to a
moral agent impossible. Moral agents are necessarily active.
That is, they can not exist as moral agents without choice.
They must by a law of necessity choose either in accordance
with, or in opposition to the law of God. They are free to
choose in either direction, but they are not free to abstain from
choice altogether. Choose they must. The law directs how
they shall or ought to choose. If they do not choose thus, it
must be because they choose otherwise, and not because they
do not choose at all.
6. It can not consist in the choice of moral evil or sin as an
ultimate end. Sin is but an element or attribute of choice or
intention, or it is intention itself. If it be intention itself, then
to make sin an end of intention would be to make intention or
choice terminate on itself, and the sinner must choose his own
choice or intend his own intention as an end : this is absurd.
If sin is but an element or attribute of choice or intention,
then to suppose the sinner to choose it as an end, were to make
choice or intention terminate on an element or attribute of it
self, to suppose him to choose as an end an element of his own
choice. This also is absurd and a contradiction.
The nature of a moral being forbids that he should choose
sin for its own sake. He may choose those things the choosing
of whichis sinful, but it is not the sinfulness ofthe choice upon
which the intention terminates. This is naturally impossible.
Sin may be chosen as a means of gratifying a malicious feel
ing, but this is not choosing it as an end, but as a means. Ma
levolence, strictly speaking, is impossible to a moral agent.
That is, the choice of moral or natural evil for its own sake
contradicts the nature of moral agents and the nature of ulti
mate choice, and is therefore impossible.
///. What disobedience to moral lain must consist in. .
1. It must consist in choice or ultimate intention, for moral
character belongs strictly only to ultimate intention.
2. As all choice must terminate on an end or on means, and
as the means can not be chosen until the end is chosen and but
for its sake, and as the cnc-ice of means for the sake of an end
is but an endeavor to secure the end chosen, therefore it fol-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 287
lows that disobedience to the moral law must consist in the
choice of some end or ends inconsistent with its requisitions.
3. We have seen that misery or natural evil can not be cho
sen as an end by a moral agent. So this can not be the end
chosen. 4. We have seen also that moral evil or sin can not be cho
sen as an ultimate end.
5. Disobedience to God's law must consist in the choice of
self gratification as an end. In other words, it must consist in
selfishness. Self-gratification is generally distinguished from self-love,
but I apprehend without foundation. Self-love has been de
fined to be the desire of happiness. But desire is not love.
Men constitutionally desire, not only their own happiness, but
the happiness of others; but this desire for the happiness of
others is not benevolence. It is not the love of being in gen
eral. But why may it not as properly be called the love of
being in general, as the desire of our own happiness may be
called self-love? Love, properly speaking is a voluntary state
of mind: Self-love, properly speaking, is a choice to gratify
our desires as an end, that is, for the sake of the gratification.
The desire is not self-love. It is constitutional, and has no
moral character. Self-love, strictly speaking, is the choice to
gratify our desires. So that selfishness and self-love are iden
tical. . But as this distinction between selfishness and self
love has been common, and as the error lies only in giving a
false definition to self-love, and in calling desire love, I will not
insist on the identity of selfishness and self-love, but proceed
to establish the position that disobedience to the moral law,
or sin, consists wholly and exclusively in selfishness, or in ma
king good to self and not the good of God and the universe of
sentient beings an ultimate end.
In other words still, sin consists in choosing self-gratifica
tion as an end or for its own sake, instead of choosing, in ac
cordance with the law ofthe reason, the highest well-being of
God and of the universe as ah ultimate end. In other words
still, sin or disobedience to the moral law consists in the con
secration of the heart and life to the gratification of the consti
tutional and artificial desires rather than in obedience to the
law of the intelligence. Or, to state it once more, sin consists
in being governed by'the sensibility instead of being govern
ed by the law of God as it lies revealed^ in the reason.
That this is sin and the whole of sin will appear if we con
sider:

288 systematic theology.
1. That this state of mind, or this choice is the " carnal mind
or the minding of the flesh which the Apostle affirms to be
enmity against God."
2. Itis the universal representation of Scripture that sin
consists in the spirit of self-seeking.
3. This spirit of self-seeking is always in the Bible repre
sented as the contrast or opposite of disinterested benevo
lence, or the love which the law requires. " Ephraim bringeth
forth fruit to himself," is the sum of God's charges against
sinners. 4. Selfishness is always spoken of in terms of reprobation
in the Bible.
5. It is known by every moral agent to be sinful.
6." It is the end in fact which all unregenerate men pur
sue, and the only end they pursue.
7. When we come to the consideration of the attributes of
selfishness, it will be seen that every form of sin, not only
may, but must resolve itself into selfishness just as We have
seen that every form of virtue does and must resolve itself
into love or benevolence.
6. From the laws of its constitution, the mind is shut up
to the necessity of choosing that as an ultimate end which is
regarded by the mind as intrinsically good or valuable in itself.
This is the very idea of choosing an end, to wit, something
chosen for its own sake, orfor whatitisinand of itself, that is,
because it is regarded by the mind as intrinsically valuable to
self, or to being in general, or to both.
6. The gratification or good of being is necessarily regard
ed by the mind as a good in itself, or as intrinsically valuable.
7. Nothing else is or can be regarded as valuable in itself
but the good of being.
8. Moral agents are, therefore, shut up to the necessity of will
ing thegood of being either partially or impartially. Nothing
else can possibly be chosen as an end or forits own sake. Will
ing the good of being impartially, we have seen is virtue. To
will it partially is to will it not for its own sake, but upon con
dition of its relation to self. That is, it is to will self good or
good to self. In other words, it is to will the gratification of
self as an end, in opposition to willing the good of universal
being as an end, and every good, or the good of every being
according to its intrinsic value.
9. But may not one will the good of a part oi being as an
end, or for the sake of the intrinsic value of their good ? This
would not be benevolence, for that, as We have seen, must

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 289
consist in willing good, for its own sake, and implies the will
ing of every good and of the highest good of universal being.
It would not be selfishness, as it would not be willing good to,
or the gratification of, self. It would be sin, for it would be
the partial love or choice of good. It would be lovipg some
of my neighbors, but not all of them. It would therefore he
sin, but not selfishness. If this can be, then there is such a
thing possible, whether actual or not, as sin that does not con
sist in selfishness.
To say that I choose good for its own sake or because it is
valuable to being, that is, in obedience to the law of my rea
son, implies that I choose all possible good, and every good
according to its relative value. If then a being chooses his
own good or the good of any being as an ultimate end, in obe
dience to the law of reason, it must be that he chooses, for
the same reason, the highest possible good of all sentient be
ing- The partial choice of good implies the choice of it, not mere
ly for its own sake, but upon condition of its relations to self,
or to certain particular persons. It is its relations that con
ditionate the choice. When its relations to self conditionate
the choice so that it is chosen, not for its intrinsic value irre
spective of its relations, but for its relations to self, this is
selfishness. It is the partial choice of good. If I choose the
good of others besides myself and choose good because of its
relations to them, it must be either,
(1.) Because I love their persons with the love of fondness,
and will their good for that reason, that is, so gratify my affec
tion for them, which is selfishness ; or,
(2.) Because of their relations to me so that good to them
is-iiTsorne way a good to me, which also is selfishness; or,
(3.) Upon condition that they are worthy, which is benev
olence: for if I will good to a being upon condition that he is
worthy, I must value the good for its own sake, and will it par
ticularly to him, because he deserves it This is benevolence
and not the partial choice of good, because it is obeying the
law of my reason. If I will the good of any being or number
of beings, it must be for some reason. I must will it as an end,
or as a means. If I will it as an end, it must be the universal
or impartial choice of good. If I will it as a means, it must be
as a means to some end. The end can not be their good for
its own sake, for this would be willing it as an end and not as
a means. If I will it as a means, it must be as a means of my
own gratification. 25

290 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Again: If I will the good of any number of beings, I mast
do it in obedience to the law either of my intelligence or of
my sensibility. But if I will in obedience to the law of my in
telligence, it must be the choice of the highest good of univer
sal being. But if I will in obedience to the law or impulse of
my sensibility, it must be to gratify my feelings or desires.
This is selfishness.
Again: As the will must either follow the law of the reason,
or the impulses of the sensibility, it follows that moral agents
are shut up to the necessity of being selfish or benevolent, and
that there is no third way, because there is no third medium
through which any object of choice can be presented. The
mind can absolutely know nothing as an object of choice that
is not recommended by one of these faculties. Selfishness,
then, and benevolence are the only two alternatives.
Therefore, disobedience to the moral law must consist in sel
fishness and in selfishness alone.
It has been said that a moral agent may will the good of oth
ers for its own sake, and yet not will the good of all. That is,
that he may will the good of some for its intrinsic value, and
yet not Will universal good. But this is absurd. To make
the valuable the object of choice for its own sake without re
spect to any conditions or relations, is the same as to will all
possible and universal good; that is, the one necessarily implies
arid includes the other. It has been asserted, for example,
that an infidel abolitionist may be conscious of willing and
seeking the good of the slave for its own sake or disinter
estedly, and yet not exercise universal benevolence. I reply,
he deceives himself just as a man would who should say he
chooses fruit for its own sake. The fact is, he is conscious of
desiring fruit for its own sake. But he does not and can not
choose it for its own sake. He chooses it in obedience to his
desire, that is, to gratify his desire. So it is and must be with
the infidel abolitionist. It can not be that he chooses the
good of the slave in obedience to the law of his intelligence;
for if he did, his benevolence would be universal. It must be,
then, that he chposes the good of the slave because he desires
it, or to gratify a constitutional desire. Men naturally desire
their own happiness and the happiness of others. This is
constitutional. But when in obedience to these desires they
will their own or others' happiness, they seek to gratify their
sensibility or desires. This is selfishness.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 291
Let it be remembered, then, that sin is a unit, and always
and necessarily consists in selfish ultimate intention and in no
thing else. This intention is sin; and every phase of sin re
solves itself into selfishness. This will appear more and more,
as we proceed to unfold the subject ofmoral depravity.

LECTURE XXIII.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
What is not implied in disobedience to Moral Law.
In this discussion, I will
I. State briefly what constitutes disobedience.
II. Show what is not implied in it.
I. What constitutes disobedience.
We have seen that all sin or disobedience to moral law
is a unit, and that it consists in selfishness, or in the choice of
self-gratification as an end; in other words, that it consists in
comriUling the will to the impulses of the sensibility, to the
desires, emotions, feelings and passions, instead of committing
it to the good of being in general in obedience to the law of
the reason or to the law of God as it is revealed in the reason.
Selfishness is the intention to gratify self as an end. It is the
preference of self-interest to other and higher interests.
II. What is not implied in disobedience to the law of God.
1. It does not necessarily imply an intention to do wrong.
The thing intended in selfishness is to gratify self as an end.
This is wrong; but it is not necessary to its being wrong
that the wrongness should be aimed at or intended. There
may be a state of malicious feeling in a moral agent that
would be gratified by the commission of sin. A sinner may
have knowingly and intentionally made war upon God and
man, and this may have induced a state of the sensibility so
hostile to God as that the sinner has a malicious desire to
offend and abuse God, to violate his law, and trample upon his
authority. This state of feeling may take the control of tbe
will, and he may deliberately intend to violate the laW and to
do what God hates for the purpose of gratifying this feeling.
This, however, it will be seen, is not malevolence or willing
either natural or moral evil for its own sake, but as a means of
self-gratification." It is selfishness, and not malevolence.
But in the vast majority of instances, where the law is vio
lated and sin committed, it is no part of the aim or intention
of the sinner to do wrong. He intends to gratify himself at
all events. This intention is wrong. But it is not an inten
tion to do Wrong, nor is the wrong the object in any case,
or end upon which the intention terminates. There is a
great mistake often entertained upon this subject. Many seem
to think that they do not sin unless they intend to sin. The

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

293

important truth that sin belongs only to the ultimate inten
tion, than which nothing is more true or more important,
has been perverted in this manner. It has been assumed by
some that they had not done wrong nor intended wrong, be
cause they were conscious that the wrong was not the end at
which they aimed. " I did not intend the wrong," say they,
and " therefore I did not sin." Now here is a fatal mistake,
and a total perversion of the great and important truth that
sin and holiness belong only to the ultimate intention.
2. Disobedience to the moral law does not imply that
wrong, or sin, or in other words, disobedience is ever intended
as an end or for its own sake. Gross mistakes have been
fallen into upon this subject Sinners have been represented
as loving sin and as choosing it for its own sake. Theyhave
been represented as having a natural and constitutional crav
ing or appetite for sin, such as carnivorous animals have for
flesh. Now, if this craving existed, still it would not prove
that sin is sought or intended for its own sake. I have a con
stitutional desire for food and drink. My desires terminate
on these objects, that is, they are desired for their own sake.
But they are never and never can be chosen for their own
sake or as an end. They are chosen as a means of gratifying
the desire, or may be chosen as a means of glorifying God.
Just so, if it were true that sinners have a constitutional appe
tency for sin, the sin would be desired for its own sake or as
an end, but could not be chosen except as a means of self-
gratification. But again. It is not true that sinners have a constitutional
appetency and craving for sin. They have a constitutional
appetite or desire for a great many things around them.
They crave food and drink and knowledge. So did our first
parents; and when these desires were strongly excited, they
were a powerful temptation to prohibited indulgence. Eve
craved the fruit, and the knowledge which she supposed she
might attain by partaking of it. These desires led her to seek
their indulgence in a prohibited manner. She desired and
craved the food and the knowledge, and not the sin of eating.
So all sinners have constitutional and artificial appetites
and desires enough. But not one of them is a craving for sin,
unless it be the exception already named when the mind has
come into such relations to God as to have a mali
cious satisfaction in abusing him. But this is not natural to
man, and if it ever exists, is only brought about by rejecting
great light and inducing a most terrible perversion of the
25*

294 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sensibility. But such cases are extremely rare; whereas it
has been strangely and absurdly maintained that all sinners in
consequence' of the fall of Adam, have a sinful constitution or
one that craves sin as it craves food and drink. This is false
in fact and absurd in philosophy, and wholly inconsistent with
Scripture, as we shall see when we make moral depravity the
special subject of attention. The facts are these: men have
constitutional desires, appetites and passions. These are not
sinful. They all terminate on their respective objects. Self
ishness or sin consists in choosing the gratification of these
desires as an end or in preferring their gratification to other
and higher interests. This choice or intention is sinful. But
as I have said, sin is not the object intended, but self-gratifi-
catioWis the end intended.
Again. That disobedience to the law of God does not
imply the choice of sin or the wrong for its own sake, has
been shown in a former lecture. But I must so far repeat
as to say that it is impossible that sin should be chosen
as an end. Sin belongs to the ultimate intention. It either
consists in and is identical with selfish intention or it is the
moral element or attribute of that intention; If it be identical
with it, then to intend sin as an end or for its own sake, were
to intend my own intention as an end. If sin be but the
moral element, quality or attribute of the intention, then to
intend sin as an end, I must intend an attribute of my inten
tion as an end. Either alternative is absurd and impossible.
3. Disobedience to moral law does not imply that the
wrongness or sinfulness of the intention is so much as thought
of at the time the intention is formed. The sin not only need
not be intended, but it is not essential to sin that the moral
character of the intention be at all taken into consideration or
so much as thought of at the time the intention is formed.
The sinner ought to* will the good of being. This he knows,
and if he be a moral agent, which is implied in his being a
sinner, he can not but assume this as a first truth that he ought
to will the good of being in general and not his own gratifica
tion as an end. This truth he always and necessarily takes
with him in the form of an assumption of a universal truth.
He knows and Can not but know that he ought to will the good
of God and of the universe as an end instead of willing his
own good as an end. Now this being necessarily assumed
by him as a first truth, it is no more essential to sin that he
should think at the time that a particular intention is or would
be sinful, than it is essential to murder that the law of caus-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 295
ality should be distinctly before the mind as an object of at
tention when the murderer aims the fatal weapon at his vic
tim. Murder consists in a selfish intention to kill a human
being. I aim a pistol at my neighbor's head with an intention
to gratify a spirit of revenge or of avarice or some desire by
taking his life. I am, however, so exasperated and so intent
on self-indulgence as not to think of the law of God or of God
himself or of my obligation to do otherwise. Now, am I
hereby justified? No, indeed. I no more think of that law
of causality which alone will secure the effect at which I aim,
than I do of my obligation and of the moral character of my
intention. Nevertheless I assume and can not but assume
these first truths at the moment of my intention. The^ first
truths of reason are those, as has been repeatedly said, that
are necessarily known and assumed by all moral agents.
Among these truths are those of causality, moral obligation,
right, wrong, human free agency, &c. Now whether I think
of these truths or not at every moment, I can not but assume
their truth at all times. In every endeavor to do any thing I
assume'the truth of causality, and generally without being con
scious of any such assumption. I also assume the truth of
my own free agency, and equally without being conscious of
the assumption. I also assume that happiness is a good, for I
am aiming to realize it. I assume that it is valuable to myself,
and can not but assume that it is equally valuable to others. I
can not but assume also that it ought to be chosen because of
its intrinsic value, and that it ought to be chosen impartially,
that is, that the good of each should be chosen according to its
relative or intrinsic value. This is assuming my obligation
to will it as an end, and is also assuming the rightness of
such willing and the wrongness of selfishness.
Now every moral agent does and must (and this fact consti
tutes him a moral agent) assume all these and divers other
truths at every moment of his moral agency. He assumes
them all, one as really and as much as the other, and they are
all assumed as first truths; and in the great majority of in
stances, the mind is not more taken up .with the conscious
ness of the assumption or with attending to those truths as a
subject of thought than it is with the first truths that space
exists and is infinite, that duration exists and is infinite. It is
ofthe highest importance that this should be distinctly under
stood— that sin does not imply that the moral character of an
act or intention should be distinctly before the mind at the
time of its commission. Indeed it is perfectly common for

296 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sinners to act thoughtlessly as they say, that is without reflect
ing upon the moral character of their intentions* But hereby
they are not justified. Indeed this very fact is often but
an evidence and an instance of extreme depravity. Think
you that an angel could sin thoughtlessly? Could he form a
selfish intention without reflection or thinking of its wicked
ness? Sinners in sinning thoughtlessly, give the highest evi
dence of their desperate depravity. A sinner may1 become so
hardened and his conscience so stupified, that he may go on
from day to day without thjnking of God, ofmoral obligation,
of right or wrong; and yet his sin and his guilt are real. He
does and must know and assume all these truths at every step,
just as he assumes his own existence, the law of causality, his
own liberty or free agency, &c. None of these need to be
made the object ofthe mind's attention: they are known and
not to be learned. They are first truths, and we can not act
at all without assuming them.
4. Disobedience to moral law does not necessarily imply
an outwardly immoral life. A sinner may outwardly conform
to every precept of the Bible from selfish motives or with a
selfish intention, to gratify himself, to secure his own reputa
tion here and his salvation hereafter. This is sin; but itis
not outward immorality, but on the contrary is outward mo
rality. 5. Disobedience to moral law does not necessarily imply
feelings of enmity to God or to man. The will may be set
upon self-indulgence, and yet as the sinner does not appre
hend God's indignation against him and his opposition to
him on that account, he may have no hard feelings or
feelings of hatred to God. Should God reveal to him His
abhorrence of him on account of his sins, His determination to
punish him for them, the holy sovereignty with which He will
dispose of him; in this case the sinner might and probably
would feel deeply malicious and revengeful feelings towards
God. But sin does not consist in these feelings, nor necessa
rily imply them.
6. Sin or disobedience to moral law does not imply in any
instance a sinful nature; or a constitution in itself sinful.
Adam and Eve sinned. Holy angels sinned. Certainly in
their case sin or disobedience did not imply a sinful nature or
constitution. Adam and Eve, certainly, and holy angels also,
must have sinned by yielding to temptation. The constitu
tional desire being excited by the perception of their corr
related objects, they consented to prefer their own gratifica-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 297
tion to obedience to God, in other words, to make their grati
fication an end. This was their sin. But in this there was
no sin in their constitutions, and no other tendency to sin than
this, that these desires, when strongly excited, are a tempta
tion to unlawful indulgence.
It has been strangely and absurdly assumed that sin in action
implies a sinful nature. But this is contrary to fact and to
sound philosophy, as well as contrary to the Bible, which we
shall see in its proper place.
As it was with Adam and Eve, so it is with every sinner.
There is not, there can not be sin in the nature or the consti
tution. But there are constitutional appetites and passions,
and when these are strongly excited, they are a strong temp
tation or inducement to the will to seek their gratification as
an ultimate end. This, as I have said, is sin, and nothing else
is or can be sin. It is selfishness. Under its appropriate head,,
I shall show that the nature or constitution of sinners has be
come physically depraved or diseased, and that as a conse
quence, the appetites and passions are more easily excited,.
and are more clamorous and despotic in their demands; and
that, therefore, the constitution of man in its present state,
tends more strongly than it otherwise would, to sin. But to
affirm that the constitution is in itself sjnful, is to talk mere
nonsense.

LECTURE XXIV.
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS.
What is implied in disobedience to moral law.
In the discussion of this question I must,
/. Remind you of what constitutes disobedience to moral law.
II. Show zohat is implied in it.
I. What constitutes disobedience to moral law?
1. We have seen that disobedience to moral law consist?
always in selfishness.
2 Selfishness consists in the ultimate choice of our own
gratification. 3. An ultimate choice is the choice of an end, of the choice
of something for its own sake or for its own intrinsic value. ,
4. The choice of our own gratification as an ultimate 'end,
is the preference of our own gratification, not merely because
gratification is a good, but because and upon condition that it
is our own gratification or a good to self.
5. Selfishness chooses and cares for good only upon condi
tion that it belongs^ to self. It is not the gratification of. he
ing in general, but self gratification upon which selfishness
terminates. It is a good because it belongs to self or is cho
sen upon that condition. But when it is affirmed that selfish
ness is sin and the whole of sin, we are in danger of miscon
ceiving the vast import of the word and of taking a very nar
row and superficial and inadequate view of the subject It is
therefore indispensable to raise and push the inquiry, What
is implied in selfishness ? What are its characteristics and es
sential elements ? What modifications or attributes does it
develop and manifest under the various circumstances in which
in the providence of God it is placed? It consists in the
committal of the will to the gratification of desire. The Apos
tle calls it "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind."
What must be implied in the state of mind which consists in
the committal of the whole being to the gratification of self
as an end? What must be the effect upon the desires them
selves to be thus indulged? What must be the effect upon
the intellect to have its high demands trampled under foot?
What must be the developments of it in the outward fife?
What must be the effect upon the temper and spirit to have
self-indulgence the law of the soul? This leads to the inves
tigation ofthe point before us namely,
II. What is implied in disobedience to moral law ?

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 299
The inquiry, it will be seen, naturally divides itself into
two branches. The first respects the moral character of sel
fishness. The second respects the attributes of selfishness.
We will attend to these two inquiries in their order, and,
1. What is implied in the fact that selfishness is a breach
of moral law? Why is selfishness blame-worthy? Why is
not a spirit of self-seeking in mere animals or brute beasts
as much a breach of moral law as is the same spirit in man?
If this spirit of self-seeking in man is sin, what is implied in
this fact? In other words, what conditions are necessary to
render a spirit of self-seeking a breach of moral law? These
conditions whatever they are, must be implied in disobedi
ence to moral laW. This brings us to the direct consideration
of the things that belong to the first branch of our inquiry.
(1.) Disobedience to moral law implies the possession of the
powers of moral agency. These have been so often enumer
ated as to render any enlargement upon this point unnecessa
ry, except to saf^ that it is impossible for any but a moral
agent to violate moral law. Mere animals may do that which
the moral law prohibits in moral agents. But the moral law
does not legislate over them; therefore those things in them
are not sin, not a violation of moral law.
(2.) It implies knowledge Of the end which a moral agent is
bound to choose. We have seen that the moral law requires
love and that this love is benevolence, and that benevolence
is the disinterested and impartial choice of the highest good
of God and of being in general as an end. Now it follows
that this end must be apprehended before we can possibly
choose it. Therefore obligation to choose it implies the per
ception or knowledge of it. Disobedience to moral law, then,
implies the development in the reason of the idea of the good
or valuable to being. A being therefore who has not reason,
or the ideas of whose reason on moral subjects are not at all
developed, can not violate the law of God; for over such tbe
moral law does not extend its claims.
(3.) It implies the development of the correlative of the idea
of the good or the valuable, to wit, the idea of moral obliga
tion to will or choose it for the sake of its intrinsic value.
When the idea of the valuable to being is once developed, the
mind is so constituted that it can not but instantly or simulta
neously affirm its obligation to will it as an end and every
good according to its perceived relative Yalue.
(4.) Disobedience to moral law implies the development of
the correlative of the idea of moral obligation, to wit, the

300 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
idea of right and wrong. That it is right to will good and
wrong not to will it, or to will it only partially. This idea is
the correlative of the idea of moral obligation and the devel
opment of the former necessitates the development of the
latter. (5.) Disobedience ore, also implies the development of the
correlative of the ideas of right and wrong, namely: The
, idea of praise or blame-worthiness, or of virtue and vice, or
in other words of guilt and innocence. This idea, that is,
the idea of moral character is the correlative of that of right
and wrong in such a sense that the idea of right and wrong
necessitates and implies the idea of moral character or of
praise and blame-worthiness. When these conditions are ful
filled and not till then does the spirit of self-seeking or the
choice of our own gratification as an end become sin or con
stitute a breach of moral law. It will follow that no beings
are subjects of moral government and capable of disobedience
to moral law but such as are moral ag-<|pts, that is, such as
possess both the powers of moral agency and have these
powers in such a state of development and integrity as to render .
obedience possible. It will follow that neither brute animals
nor idiots, nor lunatics, nor somnambulists, nor indeed any
being who is not rational and free, can disobey the moral law.
2. We come now to the second branch of the inquiry,
namely: What is implied in selfishness, what are its attributes,
and what states of the sensibility, and What outward devel
opments are implied in selfishness? This, it will be seen,
brings us to the immensely interesting and important task pf
contrasting selfishness with benevolence. But a little time
since we considered the attributes of benevolence, and also
what states of the sensibility and of the intellect, and also
what outward actions were implied in it, as necessarily result
ing from it. We are now to take the same course with self
ishness, and,
(1.) Voluntariness is an attribute of selfishness.
Selfishness has often been confounded with mere desire. But
these things are by no means identical. Desire is constitutional.
It is a phenomenon of the sensibility. It is a purely involun
tary state of mind, and can in itself produce no action, and
can in itself have no moral character. Selfishness is a phe
nomenon of the will, and consists in committing the will to
the gratification of the desires. The desire itself is not self
ishness, but submitting the will to be governed by the desires
is selfishness. It should be understood that no kind of more

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 301
desire, and no strength of mere desire constitutes selfishness.
Selfishness commences when the will yields to the desire and
seeks to obey it in opposition to the law of the intelligence.
It matters not what kind of desire it is; if it is the desire that
governs the will, this is selfishness. It must be the will in a
state of committal to the gratification of desire.
(2.) Liberty is another attribute of selfishness.
That is, the choice of self-gratification ia not necessitated
by desire. But the will is always free to choose in opposition
to desire. This every moral agent is as conscious of as of his
own existence*. The desire is not free, but the choice to grati
fy it is and must be free. There is a sense, as I shall have
occasion to show, in which slavery is an attribute of selfish
ness, but not in the sense that the will chooses to gratify de
sire by a law of necessity. Liberty, in the sense of ability to
make an opposite choice, must ever remain an attribute of
selfishness, while selfishness continues to be a sin, or while it
Continues to sustain any relation to moral law.
3. Intelligence is another attribute of selfishness.
By this it is not intended that inteUigence is an attribute or
phenomenon of will, nor that the choice of self-gratifica
tion is in accordance with the demands of the intelligence.
But it is intended that the choice is made with the knowledge
of the moral character that will be involved in it. The mirid
knows its obligation to make an opposite choice. It is not a
mistake. It is not a choice made in ignorance of moral obli
gation to choose the highest good of being as an end in oppo
sition to self-gratification. It is an intelligent choice in the
sense that it is a known resistance of the .demands of the in
telligence. It is a known rejection of its claims. It is a known
setting up self-gratification, and preferring it to all higher in
terests. 4. Unreasonableness is another attribute of selfishness.
By this it is intended that the selfish choice is in direct op- /
position to the demands of the reason. The reason was given
to rule. It imposes law and moral obligation. Obedience to
morallaw as it is revealed in the reason, is virtue. Obedience
to the sensibility in opposition to the reason is sin. Selfish
ness consists in this. It is a dethroning of reason from the
seat of government, and an enthroning of blind desire in op
position to it. Selfishness is always and necessarily unrea
sonable. It is a denial of that Divine attribute that allies
man to God, makes him capable of virtue, and is a sinking
him to the level of a brute. It is a denial of his manhood, of
26

302 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
his rational nature. It is a contempt of the voice of God
within him, and a deliberate trampling down the sovereignty
of his own intelligence. Shame on selfishness! It dethrones
human reason and would dethrone the Divine, and place mere
blind lust upon the throne of the universe.
5. Interestedness is another attribute of selfishness.
By interestedness is meant se/^interestedness. It is not the
disinterested choice of good, that is, it i3 not the choice of the
good of being in general as an end, but it is the choice of
self-good, of good to self. Its relation to self is the condition
of the choice of it. But for its being the good of self it
would not be chosen. The fundamental reason, or that which
should induce choice, to wit, the intrinsic value of good, is
rejected as insufficient, and the secondary reason, namely, its
relation to self, is the condition of determining the will. This
is really making self-good the Supreme end. In other
words it is making self-gratification the end. Nothing is prac
tically regarded as worthy of choice except as it sustains to
self the relation of a, means of self-gratification.
This attribute of selfishness secures a corresponding state
of the sensibility. The sensibility under the indulgence, at
tains to a monstrous development, sometimes generally, but
more frequently in some particular directions. Selfishness is
the committal of the will to the indulgence of the propensi
ties. But from this it by no means follows that all of the pro
pensities will be indiscriminately indulged and thereby great
ly developed. Sometimes one propensity and sometimes
another has the greatest natural strength, and thereby gains
the ascendency in the control of the will. Sometimes cir
cumstances tend more strongly to the development of one ap
petite or passion than another. Whatever propensity is most
indulged will gain the greatest development. The propensi
ties can not all be indulged at once, for they are often op
posed to each other. But they may all be indulged and de
veloped in their turn. For example: The licentious propen
sities, the propensities to various indulgences can nbt be in
dulged consistently with the simultaneous indulgence of the
avaricious propensities, the desire of reputation and of ulti
mate happiness. Each of these, and of all the propensities
may come in for a share, and in some instances may gain
so equal a share of indulgence as upon the whole to be about
equally developed. But in general, either from constitutional
temperament, or from circumstances, some one or more of
the propensities will gain so uniform a control of the will as

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

303

to occasion its monstrous development. It may be the love
of reputation; and then there will be at least a public decent
exterior, more or less strict according to the state of morals
in the society in which the individual dwells. If it be ama
tiveness that gains the ascendency over the other propensi
ties, licentiousness will be the result. If it be alimentiveness,
then gluttony and epicurianism will be the resnlt. The re
sult of selfishness. must be to develop in general, or in par
ticular, the propensities of the sensibility, and to beget a cor
responding exterior.
If avarice take the control of the will, we have the hag
gard and ragged miser. All the other propensities wither
under the reign of this detestable one.
Where the love of knowledge prevails, we have the scholar,
the philosopher, the man of learning. This is one of the
most decent and respectable forms of selfishness, but is nev
ertheless as absolutely selfishness as any other form.
When compassion, as a feeling, prevails, we have as a re
sult the philanthropist and often the reformer; not the re
former in a virtuous sense, but the selfish reformer. Where
love of kindred prevails, we often have the kind husband, the
affectionate father, mother, brother, sister, and so on. These
are the amiable sinners, especially among their- own kindred.
When the love of country prevails, we have the patriot, the
statesman, and the soldier. This picture might be drawn at
full length, but with these traits I must leave you to fill up the
outline. I would only add that several of these forms of
selfishness so nearly resemble certain forms of virtue as often
to be confounded with them and mistaken for them.
6. Partiality is another attribute of selfishness. Partiality
consists in giving the preference to certain interests on ac
count of their being either directly the interests of self, or so
connected with self-interest as to be preferred on that account.
It matters not whether the interest to which the preference is
given be of greater or of less value, if so beit is preferred not
for the reason of its greater value, but because of its relation
to self. In some instances the practical preference may justly
be given to a less interest on account of its sustaining such a
relation to us that we can secure it, when the greater interest
could not be secured by us. If the reason of the preference
in such case be not that it is se//-interest but an interest that
can be secured while the greater can not, the preference is a
just one, and not partiality. My family, for example, sus
tain such relations to me that I can more readily and surely

304 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
secure their interests than I can those of my neighbor or of a
stranger. For this reason I am under obligation to give the
practical .preference to the interests of my own family, not be
cause they are my own, or because their interests sustain
such a relation to my own,, but because I can more readily
secure their interests, although they may be of no greater, or
even of less intrinsic value than the interests of many other -
families. The question here turns upon the amount I am able to secure,
and not on their intrinsic value merely. It is a general truth
that we can secure more readily and certainly the interests of
those to whom we sustain certain relations, and therefore,
God and reason point out these interests as particular objects
of our attention and effort. This is not partiality but impar
tiality. It is treating interests as they should be treated.
But selfishness is always partial. If it gives any interest
whatever the preference, it is because of its relation to self,
Italways, and continuing to be selfishness, necessarily lays
the greatest stress upon, and gives the preference to those in
terests the promotion of which will gratify self.
Here care should be taken to avoid delusion. Oftentimes
selfishness appears to be very disinterested and very impartial.
For example: Here is a man whose compassion, as a mere
feeling or state of the sensibihty, is greatly developed. He
meets a beggar, an object that strongly excites his ruling pas
sion. He empties his pockets, and even takes off his coat and
gives it to him, and in his paroxysm he will divide his all with
him or even give him all. Now this would generally pass for
most undoubted virtue, as a rare and impressive instance of
moral goodness. But there is no virtue, no benevolence in it.
Itis the mere yielding ofthe will to the control of feeling and
has nothing in it of the nature of virtue. Innumerable exam
ples of this might be adduced as illustrations of this truth. .It
is only an instance and an illustration of selfishness. It is
the will seeking to gratify the feeling of compassion.
We constitutionally desire not only our own happiness but
also that of men in general, when their happiness in no way
conflicts with our own. Hence selfish men will often mani
fest a deep interest in the welfare of those whose welfare will
not interfere with their own. Now, should the will be yield
ed up to the gratification of this desire, this would often be re
garded as virtue. For example: A few years since much in
terest and feeling was excited in this country by the cause and
sufferings of the Greeks in their struggle for liberty, and since

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 305
in the cause of the Polanders. A spirit of enthusiasm appear
ed, and many were ready to give and do almost any thing for
the cause of liberty. They gave up their will to the gratifica
tion of this excited state of feeling. This, they may have
supposed, was virtue ; but it was not, nor was there a semblance
of virtue about it, when it is once understood that virtue con
sists in yielding the will to the law of the intelligence, and
not to the impulse of excited feelings.
Some writers have fallen into the strange mistake of making
virtue to consist in seeking the gratification of certain desires,
because, as they say, these desires are virtuous. They make
some of the desires selfish and some benevolent To yield
the will to the control of the selfish propensities is sin. To
yield the will to the control of the benevolent desires, such
as the desire of my neighbor's happiness and of the public
happiness, is virtue, because these are good desires while the
selfish desires are evil. Now this is and has been a very
common view of virtue and vice. But it is fundamentally er
roneous. None of the constitutional desires are good or evil
in themselves. They are all alike involuntary and all alike
terminate on their correlated objects. To yield the will to
the control of any one of them, no matter which, is sin. It is
following a blind feeling, desire or impulse of the sensibility
instead of yielding to the demands of the intelligence; To
flfill the good of my neighbor or of my country and of God
because ofthe intrinsic value of those interests, that is to will
them as an end and in obedience to the law of the reason, is
virtue; but to will them to gratify a constitutional but blind
desire is selfishness and sin. The desires to be sure ter
minate on their respective objects, but the will in this case
seeks the objects, not for their own sake, but because they are
desired,-that is to gratify the desires. This is choosing them,
not as an end, but as a means of self gratification. This is
making self-gratification the end after all. This must be a
universal truth when a thing is chosen in obedience to desire.
The benevolence of these writers is sheer selfishness, and
their virtue is vice.
The choice of. any thing whatever because it is desired, is
selfishness and sin. It matters not what it is. The very state
ment that I choose a thing because I desire it, is only another
form of saying that I choose it for my own sake, or for the
sake of appeasing the desire, and not on account of its own
intrinsic value. All such choice is always and necessarily par
tial. It is giving one interest the preference over another
26*

806 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
not because of its perceived intrinsic and superior value, but
because it is an object of desire. If I yield to desire in any
case it must be to gratify the desire. This is, and in the case
supposed, must be the end for which the choice is made. To
deny this is to deny that the will seeks the object because it
is desired. Partiality consists in giving one thing the prefer
ence of another for no good reason. That is, not because the
intelligence demands this preference, but because the sensi
bility demands it. Partiality is therefore always and neces
sarily an attribute of selfishness.
7. Impenitence is another modification of selfishness. Per
haps it is more proper to say that impenitence is only anoth
er name for selfishness, Penitence or repentance is the turn
ing of the heart from selfishness to benevolence. Impenitence
is the heart's cleaving to the commission of sin, or more prop
erly cleaving to that, the willing and doing of which is sin.
8. Unbelief 'is another modification or attribute of selfish
ness. Unbelief is not a mere negation or the mere absence
of faith. Faith is the reposing of confidence in God. Unbe
lief is the withholding of confidence in Him. Faith is a com
mittal or yielding up ofthe will to be moulded and influenced
by truth. Unbelief is trusting in self and refusing'to trust our
souls and our interests in God's hands and to commit them to his
disposal. It is saying, I will take care of my own interests and
let God take care of His. " Who is God that I should serve
Him, and what profit should I have should'I pray unto Him?"
It is a refusal to commit ourselves to the guidance of God and
trusting to our own guidance. It is self-trust, self-dependence;
and whatis this but selfishness and self-seeking? Christ says to
the Jews, " How can ye believe which seek honor one of an
other, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?"
This assumes that unbelief is a modification of selfishness;
that their regard to their reputation with men, rendered
faith, while that self-seeking spirit was indulged, impossible.
They withheld confidence in Christ because it would cost
them their reputation with men to believe. So every sin
ner who ever heard the gospel and has not embraced it,
withholds confidence in Christ because it will cost self too
much to yield this confidence. This is true in every case of
unbelief. Confidence is withheld because to yield it involves
and implies the denying of ourselves all ungodliness and every
worldly lust. Christ requires the abandonment of every
form and degree of selfishness. To believe is to receive
with the heart Christ's instruction, and requirements. To

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 307
trust in them — to commit our whole being to be moulded by
them. Now who does not see that unbelief is only a selfish
withholding of this confidence, this committal? The fact is
that faith imphes and consists in the yielding up of selfishness;
and unbelief is only selfishness contemplated in its relations
to Christ and His gospel.

LECTURE XXV.
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS.
What is implied in disobedience to the Law of God.
9. Efficiency is another attribute of selfishness.
Desire never produces action until it influences the will.
It has no efficiency or causality in itself. It can not without
the concurrence of the will, command the attention of the
intellect, or move a muscle of the body. The whole causality
of the mind resides in the wilL In it lies the power of ac
complishment. Again. The whole efficiency of the mind as it respects ac
complishment, resides in the choice of an end or in the ulti
mate intention. All action ofthe will or all willing must
consist in choosing either an end or the means of accomplish
ing an end. If there is choice, something is chosen. That
something is chosen for some reason. To deny this is a deni
al that any thing is chosen. The reason for the choice and
the thing chosen are identical. This we have repeatedly
seen. Again: We have seen that the means can not be chosen
until the end is chosen. The choice of the end is distinct
from the volitions or endeavors of the mind to secure the end.
But although the choice of an end is not identical with the
subordinate choices and volitions to secure the end, yet it ne
cessitates them. The choice once made, secures or necessi
tates the executive volitions to secure the end. By this it is not
intended that the mind is not free to relinquish its end, and of
course to relinquish the use of the means to accomplish it;
but only that, while the choice or intention remains, the choice
of the end is efficient in producing efforts to realize the end.
This is true both of benevolence and selfishness. They are
both choices of an end, and are necessarily efficient in produ
cing the use of the means to realize this end. They are
choices of opposite ends, and of course will produce their re
spective results.
The bible represents sinners as having eyes full of adultery
and that can not cease from sin; that while the will is com
mitted to the indulgence of the propensities, they can not
cease from the indulgence. There is no way therefore for the
sinner to escape from the commission of sin, but to cease to
be selfish. While selfishnegs continues you may change the

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 309
form of outward manifestation, you may deny one appetite
or desire for the sake of indulging another; but it is and must
be sin still. The desire to escape hell and to obtain heaven
may become the strongest, in which case selfishness will take
on a most sanctimonious type. But if the will is following
desire, it is selfishness still; and all your religious duties as
you call them, are only selfishness robed in the stolen habili
ments of love.
Be it remembered then that selfishness is choice. It is
ultimate intention. It is and must be efficient in producing
its effects. It is cause; the effect must follow. The whole
life and activity of sinners is founded in it. It constitutes
their life, or rather their spiritual death. They are dead in
trespasses and in sins. It is in vain for them to dream of do
ing any thing good until they relinquish their selfishness.
While this continues, they can not act at all except as they use
the means to accomplish a selfish end. It is impossible while
the will remains committed to a selfish end or to the promotion
of self-interest or self gratification thatit should use the means
to promote a benevolent end. The first thing is to change the
end, and then the sinner can cease from outward sin. Indeed,
if the end be changed, the same acts which were before sinful
will become holy. While the selfish end continued whatever
the sinner did, was all selfish. Whether he ate, or drank, or
labored, or preached, or in short whatever he did, was to pro
mote some form of self-interest. The end being wrong, all
was and must have been wrong.
But let the end be changed; let benevolence take the
place of selfishness, and all is right. With this end in view
the mind is absolutely incapable of doing-any thing or of
choosing any thing except as a means of promoting the good
of the universe.
I wish to impress this truth deeply upon the mind. Let me
therefore give the substance of the preceding remarks in the
form of definite propositions.
1. All action consists in or results from choice.
2. All choice must respect or consist in the choice of an end
or of means. The mind is incapable of choosing unless it has
an object of choice, and that object must be regarded by the
mind either as an end or as a means.
3. The mind can have but one ultimate end at the same time.
4. It can not choose the means until it has chosen the end.
5. It can riot choose one end and use means to accomplish
another, at the same time.

310 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
6. Therefore, while the will is benevolent or committed to
the glory of God and the good of being, it can not use the
means of self gratification, or in other words it can not put
forth selfish volitions. *.
' 7. When the will is committed to self-indulgence " it can not
use the means designed to glorify God and promote the good
of men as an end. This is impossible.
8. The carnal heart or mind can not but sin; it is not sub
ject to the law of God neither indeed can be," because it is
"enmity against God."
9. The new or regenerate heart can not sin. It is benevo
lence, love to God and man. This can not sin. These are
both ultimate choices or intentions. They are from their
own nature efficient each excluding the other, and each se
curing for the time being, the exclusive use of means to pro
mote its end. To deny this, is the same absurdity as to main
tain, either that the will can at the same time choose two op
posite ends, or that it can choose one end only, but at the
same time choose the means to accomplish another end not
yet chosen. Now either alternative is absurd. Then holi
ness and sin can never co-exist in the same mind. Each as
has been said, for the time being, necessarily excludes the oth
er. Selfishness and benevolence co-exist in the' same mind!
A greater absurdity and a more gross contradiction was never
conceived or expressed. No one for a moment ever supposed
that selfishness and benevolence could co-exist in the same
mind, who had clearly defined ideas of what they are.
When desire is mistaken on the one hand for benevolence, and
on the other for selfishness, the mistake is natural that selfish
ness and benevolence can co-exist in the same mind. ' But as
soon as it is seen that benevolence and selfishness are supreme
ultimate opposite choices, the affirmation is instantaneous and
irresistible that they can neither co-exist, nor can one use
meaps to promote the other. While benevolence remains the
mind's whole activity springs from it as from a fountain; This
is the philosophy of Christ. " Either make the tree good,
and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit
corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit A good man out
of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things:
and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil
things."— Matt 12: 33, 35. "Doth a fountain send forth at
the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my
brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine figs? so can no
fountain both yield salt water and fresh."— James 3: 11,12.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

311

"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither
doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is
known by his own fruit: for of thorns men do not gather figs<,
nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out
of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth that Which is
good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart,
bringeth forth that which is evil; for out of the abundance of
the heart his mouth speaketh." — Luke 6:43,44,45.
10. Opposition to benevolence or to virtue, or to holiness and
true religion, is one of the attributes of selfishness.
.- Selfishness is not, in its relations to benevolence a mere
negation. It can not be. It is the choice of self-gratifi
cation as the supreme and ultimate end of life. While the
will is committed to this end, and benevolence or a mind
committed to an opposite end is contemplated, the will can
not remain in a state of indifference to benevolence. It must
either yield its preference of self-indulgence, or resist the be
nevolence which the intellect perceives. .The will can no|
remain in the exercise of this selfish choice without as it were
bracing and girding itself against that virtue which it does not
imitate. If it does not imitate it, it must be because it refuses
to do so. The intelligence does and must strongly urge the
will to imitate benevolence and to seek the same end. The
will must yield or resist, and the resistance must be more or
less resolute and determined as the demands of the intelli
gence are more or less emphatic. This resistance to benevo
lence or to the demands of the intelligence in view of it, is
what the bible calls hardening the heart. It is obstinacy of
will under the light of the presence of true religion and the
claims of benevolence.
This opposition to benevolence or true religion must be de
veloped whenever the mind apprehends true religion, or self
ishness must be abandoned. Not only must this opposition
be developed, or selfishness abandoned under such circum
stances, but it must increase as true religion displays more and
more of its loveliness. As the light from the radiant sun of
benevolence is poured more and more upon the darkness of
selfishness, the opposition ofthe heart must of necessity in
crease in the same proportion, or selfishness must be aban
doned. Thus selfishness remaining under light, must mani
fest more and more opposition just in proportion as light in
creases and the soul has less the color of an apology for its
opposition. This peculiarity of selfishness has always been manifested!

312 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
justin proportion as it has been dragged into the light of true
religion. This accounts for all the opposition that has been
made to true religion since the world began. It also proves
that where there are impenitent sinners, and they retain their
impenitence and manifest no hostility to the religion which they
witness, that there is something defective in the professed pie
ty which they behold, or at least they do not contemplate all
the attributes of true piety. It also proves that persecution
will always exist where much true religion is manifested to
those who hold fast their selfishness.
The fact is, that selfishness and benevolence are just as
much opposed to each other, and just as much and as neces
sarily at war with each other as God and Satan, as heaven
and hell. There can never be a truce between them; they
are essential and eternal opppsites. They are not merely
opposites,. but they are opposite causes. They are essential
activities. They are the two, and the only two great antago
nistic principles in the universe of mind. Each is heaving
and energizing like a volcano to realize its end. A war of
mutual and uncompromising extermination necessarily exists
between them. Neither can be in the presence of the other
without repellance and opposition. Each energizes to sub
due and overcome the other; and already selfishnesshas' shed
an ocean of the blood of the saints, and also the precious
blood of the Prince of life. There is not a more gross and
injurious mistake than to suppose that selfishness ever, under
any circumstances, becomes reconciled to benevolence* The
supposition is absurd and contradictory; since for selfishness
to become reconciled to benevolence, were the same thing as
for selfishness to become benevolence. Selfishness may
change the mode of attack or of its opposition:, but its real op
position it can never change while it retains its own nature
and continues to be selfishness.
The opposition of the heart to benevolence often begets
deep opposition of feeling. The opposition of the will en
gages the intellect in fabricating excuses, and cavils, and
lies, and refuges, and often greatly perverts the thoughts,
and begets the most bitter feelings imaginable toward God
and toward the saints. Selfishness will strive to justify its
opposition and to shield itself against the reproaches of con
science, and will resort to every possible expedient to cover
up its real hostility to holiness. It will pretend that it is not
hohness, but sin that it opposes. But the fact is, it- is not sin
but holiness to which it stands forever opposed. The opposi-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 313
¦
tion of feeling is only developed when the heart is brought
into a strong light and makes deep and strong resistance. In
such cases the sensibility sometimes boils with feelings of
better opposition to God and Christ and to all good.
The question is often asked, may not this opposition exist in
the sensibility, and those feelings of hostility to God exist
when the heart is in a truly benevolent state? To this inqui
ry I would reply: If it can it must be produced by infernal
or some other influence that misrepresents God and places
His character before the mind in a false light. Blasphemous
thoughts may be suggested, and as it were injected into the
mind. ' These thoughts may have their natural effect in the
sensibility, and feelings of bitterness and hostility may exist
without the consent of the will. The will may all the while be
endeavoring to repel these suggestions, and divert the atten
tion from such thoughts, yet Satan may continue to hurl his
fiery darts, and the soul may be racked with torture under the
poison of hell, which seems to be taking effect in the Sensi
bility. The mind, at such times, seems to itself to be filled,
so far as feeling is concerned, with all the bitterness of helk
And so it is, and yet it may be that in all this there is no self
ishness. If the will holds fast its integrity; if it holds out in
the struggle, and where God is maligned and misrepresented
by the infernal suggestions, it says with Job, "Although He
slay me yet will I trust in Him." However sharp the conflict
in such cases, we can look back and say, we are more than
conquerors through Him that loved us. In such cases it is
the selfishness of Satan and not our own selfishness that kin
dled up those fires of hell in our sensibility. " Blessed is he
that endureth temptation ; for when he is tried he shall have
a crown of life."
11. Cruelty is another attribute of selfishness.
This term is often used to designate a state of the sensi
bility. It then represents that state of feeling that has a bar
barous or savage pleasure in the misery of others.
Cruelty, as a phenomenon of the will, or as an attribute of
selfishness, consists, first, in a reckless disregard of the well-
being of God and the universe, and, secondly, in persevering
in a course that must ruin the souls of the subjects of it, and
so far as they have influence, ruin the souls of others. What
should we think of a man who was so intent on securing some
petty gratification that he would not give the alarm if a city
were on fire, and the sleeping citizens in imminent danger oi
perishing in the flames? Suppose that sooner than deny him-
27

314 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
self some momentary gratification, he would jeopard many
lives. Should we not call this cruelty? Now there are many
forms Of cruelty. Because sinners are not always brought
into circumstances where they exercise certain forms of it,
they flatter themselves that they are not cruel. But the fact
is, that selfishness is always and necessarily cruel-^cruel to
the soul and highest interests of the subject of it; cruel to the
souls of Others in neglecting to care and do for their salvation
what may be done; cruel to God in abusing Him in ten thou
sand ways; cruel to the whole universe. If we should be
shocked at the cruelty of him who should see his neighbor's
house on fire, and the family asleep, and neglect to give them
warning because too self-indulgent to rise from his bed, what
shall we say of the cruelty of one who shall see his neigh
bor's soul in' peril of eternal death, and yet neglect to give
him warning?
Sinners are apt to possess very good dispositions, as they
express it. They suppose they are the reverse of being cruel.
They possess tender feelings, are often very compassionate in
their feelings toward those who are sick and in distress, and
'who are m circumstances of any affliction. They are ready
to do many things for them. Such persons would be shock
ed, should they be called cruel. And many professors would
take their part, and consider them abused. Whatever else, it
would be said, is an attribute of their character, surely cruelty
is not. Now it is true that there are certain forms of cruelty
with which such persons are not chargable. But this is only
because God has so moulded their constitution that they are
not delighted in the misery of their fellow men. However,
there is no virtue in their not being gratified at the sight of
suffering, nor in their painstaking to prevent it while they
continue selfish. They follow the impulses of their feelings,
and if their temperament were such that it would gratify them
to inflict misery on others; if this" were the strongest tenden
cy of their sensibility; their selfishness would instantly take
on that type. But notwithstanding cruelty in all its forms is
not common to all selfish persons; it is still true that some form
of cruelty is practised by every sinner. God says: "the ten
der mercies ofthe wicked are cruel." The fact that they live
in sin, that they set an example of selfishness, that they do
nothing for their own souls or for the souls of others; — these
are really most atrocious forms of cruelty, and infinitely ex
ceed all those comparatively petty forms that relate to the
miseries of men in this life.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 315
12. Unreasonableness is another attribute of selfishness. )
The very definition of selfishness implies that unreasona
bleness is one of its attributes. Selfishness consists in the
will's yielding itself to the impulses of the sensibility in op-.
position to the demands of the intelligence. Therefore, every
act or choice of the will is necessarily altogether unreasona
ble. The sinner, while he continues such, never says or does
one thing that is in accordance with right reason. Hence the
Bible says that "madness is in their heart while they live."
They have made an unreasonable choice of an end, and all
their choices of means to secure their end are only a carrying
out of their ultimate choice. They are, every one of them,
put forth to secure an end contrary to reason. Therefore,
no sinner who has never been converted, has, even in a smgle
instance, chosen otherwise than in direct opposition to rea
son. They are not merely sometimes unreasonable, but uniform
ly, and while they remain selfish, necessarily so. The very
first time that a sinner acts or wills reasonably, is when he
turns to God, or repents and becomes a christian. This is
the first instance in which he practically acknowledges that
he has reason. All previous to this, every one of the actions
of his will and of his life, is a practical denial of his manhood,
of his rational nature, of his obligation to God or his neigh
bor. We sometimes hear impenitent sinners spoken of as
being unreasonable, and in such a manner as to imply that
all sinners are not so. But this only favors the delusion of
sinners by leaving them to supppse that they are not all of
them at all times altogether unreasonable. But the fact is,
that there is not, and there never can be in earth or hell one
impenitent sinner who in any instance acts otherwise than in
direct and palpable opposition to his reason.
.It had, therefore, been infinitely better for sinners if they
had never been endowed with reason. They do not merely
act without consulting their reason, but in stout and deter
mined, opppsition to it.
Again : They act as directly in opposition to it as they pos
sibly can. They not only oppose it, but they oppose it as
much and in as aggravated a manner as possible. What can
be more directly and aggravatedly opposed to reason than
the choice which the sinner makes of an end? Reason was
given him to direct him in regard to the choice of the great
end of hfe. It gives him the idea ofthe eternal and the infi
nite. It spreads out before him the interests, of God and of

316 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the universe as of absolutely infinite value. It affirms their
value and the infinite obligation Of the sinner to consecrate
himself to these interests and it promises him endless rewards
¦if he will do so. On the contrary it lays before him the con
sequences of refusal. It thunders in his ear the terrible sanc
tions of the law. It points him to the coming doom that
awaits his refusal to comply with its demands. But behold
in the face of all this the sinner, unhesitatingly in the face of
these affirmations, demands and threatens, turns away and
consecrates himself to the gratification of his desires with the
certainty that he could not do greater despite to his own na
ture than in this most mad, most preposterous, most blasphe
mous choice. Why do not sinners consider that it is impossi
ble for them to offer a greater insult to God who gave them
reason, or more truly and deeply to shame and degrade them
selves, than they do in their beastly selfishness. Tptal, uni
versal, and shameless unreasonableness is the universal char
acteristic of every selfish mind.
13. Injustice,is another attribute of selfishness.
Justice is a disposition to treat every being and interest
accordingto its intrinsic worth.
Injustice is the opposite of this. It is a disposition to give
the preference to self interest, regardless ofthe relative value
of the interests. The nature of selfishness demonstrates that
injustice is always and necessarily one of its attributes? and
one that is universally and constantly manifested.
(1.) There is the utmost injustice in the end chosen. It is
the practical preference of a petty self-interest over infinite
interests. This is injustice as great as possible. This is
universal injustice to God and man. It is the most palpable
and most flagrant piece of injustice possible to every being in
the universe. Not one known by him to exist has not reason
to bring against him the charge of most flagrant and shocking
injustice. This injustice extends to every act and to every
moment of life. He is never in the least degree just to any
being in the universe. Nay he is perfectly unjust. He cares
nothing for the rights of others as such, and never even in ap
pearance regards them except for selfish reasons. This, then,
is and can be only the appearance of regarding, while in fact
no right of any being in the universe is or can be respected by
a selfish mind any farther than in appearance. To deny this,
is to deny his selfishness. He performs no act whatever but
for one reason, that is, to promote his own gratification. > This
is his end. For the realization of this end every effort

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 317
' is made and every individual act and volition put forth.
Remaining selfish, it is impossible that he should act at
all but with reference directly or indirectly to this end.
But this end has been chosen and must be pursued, if pursued
at all, in the most palpable and outrageous violation of the
rights of God and of every creature in the universe. Justice
demands that he should devote himself to the promotion ofthe
highest good of God and the universe, that he should love God
with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. Every sinner
is openly and universally and as perfectly unjust as possible
at every moment of his impenitence.
It should, therefore, always be understood that no sinner at
any time is at all just to any being in the universe. All his
paying of his debts, and all his apparent fairness and justice,
is only a specious form of selfishness. He has, and if a sinner
itis impossible that he should not have, some selfish reason for
all he does, is, says, or omits. His entire activity is selfish
ness, and while he remains impenitent, it is impossible for him
to think, or act, or will, or do, or be, or say, any thing more or
less than he judges expedient to promote his own interest.
He is not just He can not be just, nor begin in any instance
or in the least degree to be truly just either to God or man
until he begins life anew, gives God his heart, and consecrates
his entire being to the promotion ofthe good of universal be
ing. This, justice demands. There is no beginning to be
just unless the sinner begin here. Begin and be just in the
choice of the great end of life, and then you can not but be
just in the use of means. But be unjust in the choice of an
end, and it is impossible for you, in any instance, to be other
wise than totally unjust in the use of means. In this case
your entire activity is', and can be nothing else than a tissue
ofthe most abominable injustice.
The only reason why every sinner does not openly and
daily practice every species of outward commercial injus
tice, is that he is so circumstanced that upon the whole he
judges it not for his interest to practice those things. This
is the reason universally, and no thanks to any sinner for ab
staining in any instance from any kind or degree of injustice
in practice, for he is only restrained and kept from it by sel
fish considerations. That is, he is too selfish to do it. His
selfishness and not the love of God or man prevents.
He may be prevented by a constitutional or phrenological
conscientiousness, or sense of justice. But this is only a feel
ing ofthe sensibility, and if restrained only by this, he is just

318 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
as absolutely selfish as if he had stolen a horse in obedience
to acquisitiveness. God so tempers the constitution as to re
strain men, that is, that one form of selfishness shall prevail
over another. Approbativeness is in most persons so large
that a desire to be applauded by their fellow men so modi
fies the developments of their selfishness that it takes on a
type of outward decency and appearance of justice. But this
is no less selfishness than if it took on altogether a different
type.

LECTURE XXVI.
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS.
What is implied in disobedience to the Law of God.
14. Oppression is another attribute of selfishness.
Oppression is the spirit of slaveholding. It consists in a
disposition to deprive others of their rights for the purpose of
contributing to our own interest or gratification. To define
it comprehensively: it is a disposition to enslave God and all
the universe; to make them all give up their interest and
happiness and glory and seek and live for ours. It is a will
ing that all beings should live to and for us; that all interests
should bend and be sacrificed to ours. It is a practical denial
of all rights but our own, and a practical setting up the claim
that all beings are ours, our goods and chattels, our property.
It is a spirit that aims at making all beings serve us and all
interests subserve our own.
This must be an attribute of selfishness. Self-interest is
the ultimate end; and the whole life and activity and aim and
effort is to secure this end. The sinner, while he remains
such has absolutely no other end in view and no other ulti
mate motive in any thing he does. Selfishness or self-grati
fication under some form is the reason for every volition,
action and omission. For this end alone he lives and moves
and has his being. This being his only end, it is impossible
that oppression should not be an attribute of his character.
The whole of oppression is included in the choice of the end of
Ufe. Nothing can be more oppressive to the whole universe
than for a being to set up his interest as the sole good and
account all other interests as of no value except as they con
tribute to his own. This is the perfection of oppression, and
it matters not what particular course it takes to secure its
end. They are all equally oppressive. If he does not seek
the good of others for its own sake, but simply as a means of
securing his own, which must be the fact, it matters not at ah
whether he pamper and fatten his slaves or whether he
starve them, whether he work them hard or let them lounge,
whether he lets them go naked or arrays them in costly at
tire. All is done for one and but one ultimate reason, and
that is to promote self-interest and not at all for the intrinsic
value of any interest but that of self. If such an one prays
to God it is because he is unable to command and govern him

320 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
by authority, and not at all out of any true regard to the
rights or character or relations of God. He desires God's
services; and because he can not get them by force, he in-
treats. God's interests and rights are practically treated as
of no value by every sinner in the universe. They care no
thing for God except to enslave him, that is, to make Him
serve them without wages. They have no design to live to
and for Him but that He should live to and for them. They
regard all other beings just in the same manner. If there is
in any instance the semblance of a regard to their interest for
its own sake, it is only a semblance and not a reality. It is
not, and it can not be a reality. The assertion that it is any
thing more than a hypocritical pretence, is absurd and con
tradicts the supposition that he is a sinner, or selfish.
There are innumerable specious forms of oppression that
to a superficial observer appear very like a regard to the real
interest ofthe oppressed for its own.sake.
It may be gratifying to the pride, the ambition or to some
other feeling of a slaveholder to see his slaves well fed, well
clad, full fleshed, cheerful, contented, attached to their mas
ter. For the same reason he might feed his dog, provide him
a warm kennel, and ornament his neck with a brazen collar.
He might do the same for his horse and for his swine. But
what is the reason of all this? Why to gratify himself. God
has so moulded his constitution that it would give him pain
to whip his slave or his dog or his horse, or to see them hun
gry or naked. It would trouble his conscience and endanger
his peace and his soul. There may often be the appearance
of virtue in a slaveholder and in slaveholding; but it can ab
solutely be only an appearance. If it be properly slavehold
ing it is and must be oppression; it is and must be selfishness.
Can it be that slaveholding is designed to promote the good
of the slave for its own sake. But this could not be slave-
holding. Should an individual be held to service for his own benefit;
should the law of benevolence really demand it; this could no
more be the crime of slaveholding and oppression than it is
murder or any other crime. It would not be selfishness, but
benevolence, and therefore no crime at all, but virtue. But
selfishness embodies and includes every element of oppression.
Its end, the means, and its every breath is but an incessant
denial of all rights but those of self. All sinners are oppres
sors and slaveholders in heart and in fact. They practice
continual oppression and nothing else. They make God

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 321
serve them without wages, and they, as he says* "make Him
to serve with their sins." God, all men and all things and
events are as far as possible made to serve them without the
return of the least disinterested regard to their interests.
Disinterested regard! Why the very term contradicts the sup
position that he is a sinner. He has, he can have in no in
stance any other than selfish aims in appearing, to care for
any one's interest for its own sake.
All unconverted abolitionists are slaveholders in heart and so
far as possible in life. There is not one of them who would
not enslave every slave at the South and his master too and all
at the North and the whole universe and God himself so far
as he could. Indeed he does, and remaining selfish, he can
not but aim to enslave all beings, to make them so far as pos
sible contribute to his interest and pleasure without the least
disinterested regard to their interest in return.
Oppression is an essential attribute of selfishness and always
develops itself according to circumstances. When it has
power, it uses the chain and the whip. When it has not
power, it resorts to other means of securing the services of
others without disinterested return. Sometimes it supplicates ;
but this is only because it is regarded as necessary or expe
dient. It is oppression under Whatever form it assumes. It
is in fact a denial of all rights but those of self, and a practical
claiming of God and of all beings and events as ours. It is to
all intents the chattel principle universally applied. So that
all sinners are both slaves and slaveholders; in heart and en
deavor they enslave God and all men ; and other sinners in
heart and endeavor enslave them. Every sinner is endea
voring in heart to appropriate to himself all good. "
15. War is another attribute of selfishness.
War is strife. It is opposed to peace or amity. Selfish
ness on the very face of it, is a declaration of war with all
beings. It is setting up self-interest in opposition to all other
interests. It is an attempt- and a deliberate intention to seize
upon and subordinate all interests to our own. It is impossi
ble that there should not be a state of perpetual hostility be
tween a selfish being and all benevolent beings. They are
mutually and necessarily opposed to each other. The benev
olent are seeking the universal good, and the selfish are seek
ing their own gratification without the least voluntary regard
to any interest but that of self. Here is opposition and war
of course and of necessity.
¦But it is no less true that every selfish being is at war with

322 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
every other selfish being. Each is, seeking and fully conse
crated to his own interest and denying all rights but his own.
Here is and must be war. There is no use in talking of put
ting away slavery or war from earth while selfishness is in it;
for they both inhere in the very nature of selfishness; and
every selfish being is an oppressor, a slaveholder, a tyrant, a
warrior, a duelist, a pirate, and all that is implied in making
war upon all beings. This is no railing accusation, but sober
verity. The forms of war and of oppression may be modified
indefinitely. The bloody sword may be sheathed. The
manacle and the lash may be laid aside, and a more refined
mode of oppression and of war toay be carried on; but op
pression and war must continue under some form so long as
selfishness continues. It is impossible that it should riot.
Nor will the more refined and specious, and if you please,
baptized forms of oppression and war that may succeed those
now practised involve less guilt and be less displeasing to God
than the present. No indeed. As light increases and com
pels selfishness to lay aside the sword and bury the manacle
and the whip and profess the religion of Christ the guilt of
selfishness increases every moment. The former manifesta
tion is changed, compelled by increasing light and advancing
civilization and christianization. Oppression and war, al
though so much changed in form are not at all abandoned in
fact. Nay, they are only strengthened by increasing light.
Nor can it be told or so much as rationally conjectured
whether the more refined modifications of oppression and war
that may succeed, will upon the Whole be a real benefit to
mankind. Guilt will certainly increase as light increases.
Sin abounds and becomes exceeding sinful just in proportion
as the light of truth is poured upon the selfish mind; and
whether it is a real good tp promote mere outward reform
without reforming the heart, who can tell? The fact is self
ishness must be done away; the ax must be laid at the root
of the tree. It is a mistaken zeal that wastes its energies
in merely modifying the forms in which selfishness manifests
itself in changing the modes of oppression and war and bring
ing about mere refinements in sin. I can not for my life re
spect in myself or in others such efforts. What do they
amount to after all but to whitewash and baptize a sinner and
gather about him a delusion deep as death and send him by
tbe shortest way to hell? All such efforts remind me of an
affirmation I once heard a preacher make, namely, "that self-
righteousness is good so far as it goes, but is like a coat witiurat
sleeves."

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 323
Many seem to think that to bring about mere outward re
form is a good so far as it goes. But it is no real good un
less true virtue and happiness be gained. Unless selfishness
be put away it is no positive good. Whether, then, outward
reforms will prove to be the less of two evils, who can tell?
Do you ask, then, what shall we do? Shall we do nothing,
but let things go on as they are? I answer, no, by no means.
Do, if possible, ten times more than ever to put away these and
all the evils that are under the sun. But aim at the annihila
tion of selfishness, and when you succeed in reforming the
heart, the life can not but be reformed. Put away selfishness,
and oppression and war are no more. But engage in bring
ing about any other reform, and you are but building dams of
sand. Selfishness will force for itself a channel; and who
can say that its desolations may not be more fearful and ca
lamitous in this new modification than before? Attempting
to reform selfishness and teach it better manners, is like darn
ing up the waters of the Mississippi. It will only surely
overflow its banks, and change its channel, and carry devasta
tion and death in its course. I am aware that many will re
gard1 this as heresy. But God seeth not as man seeth. Man
looketh on the outward appearance, but God looketh on the
heart. All the wars and filthiness of heathenism God winks
at as comparatively a light thing when put into the scale
against the most refined form of intelligent but heartless Chris
tianity that ever existed.
But to return. Let it be forever understood that selfishness
is at war with all nations and with all beings. It has no ele
ment of peace in it any further than all beings and all inte
rests are yielded to the gratification of self. This is its essen
tial, its unalterable nature. This attribute can not cease
while selfishness remains.
All selfish men who are advocates of peace principles, are
necessarily hypocrites. They say and do not. They preach
but do not practice. Peace is on their lips, but war is on
their hearts. They proclaim peace and good will to men,
while under their stolen robe of peace, they conceal their
poisoned implements of war agaist God and the universe.
This is, this must be. I am anxious to make the impression
and lodge it deep in your inmost hearts, so that you shall al
ways practically hold, and teach, and regard this as a funda
mental truth both of natural and revealed religion, that a
'splosh man, be he who he may, instead of being a christian, a
man of peace, and a servant of the Prince of peace, is, in

324 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
heart, in character, in spirit, in fact, a rebel, an enemy, a war
rior, truly and in fact at war with God and all beings. ,
16. Unmercifulness is another attribute qf selfishness.
Mercy is a disposition to pardon crime, and will and must
manifest itself in efforts to secure the conditions upon whiph
crime can be reasonably forgiven, if such condition pan
be secured. Unmercifulness is an unwillingness to forgive
sin. and of course manifests itself either by resisting efforts
to secure its forgiveness, or by treating such efforts with cold
ness or contempt. The manner in which sinners treat the
plan of salvation, the atonement of Christ, the means used by
God and the church to bring about the pardon of sin, demon
strates that their tender mercies are cruelty- The apostle
charges them with being ^implacable, unmerciful." Their
opposition to the gospel, to revivals of religion, and to all the
exhibitions of the mercy of God which he has made tp, our
world, show that unmercifulness is an attribute of .their char
acter. Sinners generally profess to be the friends of mercy. They
with their lips extol the mercy of God. But how do they
treat it? Do they embrace it? Do they honor it as some
thing which they favor? Do they hold it forth to all men as
worthy of all acceptation? Or do they wage an unrelenting
war with it? How did they treat Christ when he came on his
errand of mercy? They brought forth the appalling demon
stration that unmercifulness is an essential attribute of their
character. They persecuted unto death the very impersona
tion and embodiment of mercy. And this same attribute of
selfishness has always manifested itself under some form when
ever a development and an exhibition of mercy has been
made. Let the blood of prophets and aposties, the blood of
millions of martyrs — and above all let the blood of the Gpd
of mercy speak. What is their united testimony? Why,
this— that the perfection of unmercifulness is one of the es
sential and eternal attributes of selfishness.
Whenever, therefore, a selfish being appears to be of a
merciful disposition, it is, it can be, only in appearance. His
feelings may be sensitive, and he may sometimes, nay often,
or always yield to them, but this is only selfishness. The rea
son and the only reason why every. sinner does not exhibit
every appalling form of unmercifulness and cruelty, is, that
God has so tempered his sensibility, and so surrounded him
with influences as to modify the manifestation of selfishness
and to deyelop other attributes more prominently than this.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

325

Unmerciful he is, and unmerciful he must be while he remains
in sin. To represent him as other than an unmerciful wretch
were to misrepresent him. No matter who it is. That delicate
female Who would faint at the sight of blood! if she is a sin
ner, she is spurning and scorning the mercy of God, She lets
others go down to hell unpardoned without an effort to secure
their pardon. Shall she be represented as other than unmer
ciful? No language can describe the hardness of her heart
See! the cup of salvation is presented to her lips by a Savior's
bleeding hand. She nevertheless dashes it from her, and tram
ples its contents beneath her feet. It passes from lip to lip. But
she offers no prayer that it may be accepted; or if she does,
itis only the prayer of a hypocrite while she rejects it her
self. No, with all her delicacy, her tender mercies are utter
cruelty. With her own hands she crucifies the Son of God
afresh and would put him to open shame! O monstrous! a
woman murdering the Savior of the world ! Her hands and
garments all stained with blood! And call her merciful! O
shame, where is thy blush?
17. Falsehood or Lying is another attribute of selfishness.
Falsehood may be objective or subjective. Objective false
hood is that which stands opposed to truth. Subjective false
hood is a heart conformed to error and to objective falsehood.
Subjective falsehood is a state of mind or an attribute of sel
fishness. It is the will in the attitude of resisting truth and
embracing error and lies. This is always and necessarily an
attribute of selfishness.
Selfishness consists in the choice of an end opposed to all
truth, and can not but proceed to the realization of that end
in conformity with error or falsehood instead of truth. If at
any time it seize upon objective truth, as it often does-, it is
with a false intention. It is with an intention at war with
the truth, the nature, and the relations of things.
If any sinner, at any time and under any circumstances, tell
the truth, it is for a selfish reason; it is to compass a false end.
He has a lie in his heart and a lie in his right hand. He
stands upon falsehood. He lives for it, and if he does not uni
formly and openly falsify the truth, it is because objective
truth is consistent with subjective falsehood. His heart is
false, as false as it can be. It has embraced and sold itself to
the greatest lie in the universe. The selfish man has practi
cally proclaimed thathis good is the supreme good; nay, that
there is no Other good but his own, that there are no other
tights but his own, that all are bound- . to serve him, and
28

326 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
that all interests are to yield to his. Now all this, as I said, is
the greatest falsehood that ever was or can be. Yet this is
the solemn practical declaration of every sinner. His choice
affirms that God has no rights, that he ought not to be loved
and obeyed; that he has no right to govern the universe, but
that God/and all beings ought to obey and serve the sinner.
Can there be a greater, a more shameless falsehood than all
this? And shall such an one pretend to regard the truth?
Nay, verily. The very pretence is only an instance and an
illustration ofthe truth that Falsehood is an essential element
of his character.
If every sinner on earth does not openly and at all times
falsify the truth, it is not because of the truthfulness of his
heart, but for some purely selfish reason. This must be.
His heart is utterly false. It is impossible that, remaining a
sinner, he should have any true regard to the truth. He is a
liar in his heart: this is an essential and an eternal attribute of
his character. It is true that his intelligence condemns false
hood and justifies truth, and that oftentimes through the intel
ligence, a deep impression is or may be made on his sensibil
ity in favor of the truth; but if the heart is unchanged, it
holds on to lies, and perseveres in the practical proclamation of
the greatest lies in the universe, to wit: that God ought not to
be trusted; that Christ is not worthy of confidence; that one's
own interest is the supreme good; and that all interests ought
to be accounted of less value than one's own,
18. Pride is another attribute of selfishness.
Pride is a disposition to exalt self above others, to get out
of one's proper place in the scale of being, and to climb up
over the heads of our equals or superiors. Pride is a species
of injustice on the one hand, and is nearly allied to ambition
on the other. It is not a term of so extensive an import as
either injustice or ambition. It sustains to each of them a
near relation, but is not identical with either. It is a kind of
self-praise, self-worship, self-flattery, self-adulation, a spirit of
self-consequence, of self-importance. It is an exalting not
merely one's interest, but one's person above others, and
above God, and above all other beings. A proud being su
premely regards himself. He worships and can worship no
one but self. He does not, and remaining selfish, he can not,
practically admit that there is any one so good and worthy as
himself. He aims at conferring supreme favor upon himself
and practically admits no claim of any being in the universe
to any good or interest that will interfere with his own. He

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 327
can stoop to give; preference to the interest, the reputation,
the authority of no one, no not of God himself. His practical
language is, Who is Jehovah that /should bow down to him?
It is impossible that a selfish soul should be humble. Pride
is an essential modification or attribute of selfishness. Sin
ners are represented in the bible as proud, as "flattering them
selves in their own eyes."
Pride is not a vice distinct from selfishness, but is only a
modification pf selfishness. Selfishness is the root or stock in
which every form of sin inheres. This it is important to show.
Selfishness has been scarcely regarded by many as a vice,
much less as constituting the whole of vice; consequently,
when selfishness has been most apparent, it has been suppo
sed and assumed that there might be along with it many forms.
of virtue. It is for this reason that I take up your time and
my own in showing what are the essential elements of selfish
ness. So it has been supposed that selfishness might exist in
any heart without implying every form of sin; that a man
might be selfish and yet not proud. In short, it has been over
looked that where selfishness is, there must be every form of
sin, that where there is one form of selfishness manifested,
it is a breach of every commandment of God and implies in
fact the real existence of every possible form of sin and abom
ination in the heart. My object is to pursue this course of
instruction so far and no farther than will fully develop in
your minds the great truth that where selfishness is, there
must be in a state either of development or of undevelopment
every form of sin that exists in earth or hell; that all sin is a
unit, and some form of selfishness; and that where this is, all
sin must be.
The only reason that pride, as a form of selfishness, does not
appear in all sinners in the most disgusting forms is only this,
that their constitutional temperament and providential circum
stances are such as to give a more prominent development to
some other attribute of selfishness. It is important to remark
that where any one form of unqualified sin exists, there selfish
ness must exist, and there of course every form of sin must
exist, at least in embryo, and waiting only for providential cir
cumstances to develop it. When therefore you see any form
of sin, know assuredly that selfishness, the root, is there, and
expect nothing else, if selfishness continues, than to see devel
oped, one after one, every form of sin as the providence of
God shall present the occasion. Selfishness is a volcano,
sometimes smothered, but which must have vent. The prov-

328 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
idence of God cannot but present occasions upon which its
lava-tides will burst forth and carry desolation before them.
That all these forms of sin exist has been known and admit
ted. But it does not appear to me that the philosophy of sin
has been duly considered by many. It is important that we
should get at the fundamental or generic form of sin, that form
which include sand implies all others, or more properly, which
constitutes the whole of sin. Such is selfishness. "Let it be
written with the point ofa diamond and engraved in the rock
forever," that it may be known that where selfishness is, there
every precept of the law is violated, there is the whole of sin.
Its guilt and ill desert must depend upon the light with
which the selfish mind is surrounded. But sin, the whole of
sin, is there.

LECTURE XXVII.
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS.
What is implied in disobedience to the Law of God.
19. Enmity against God is also an attribute of selfishness.
Enmity is hatred. Hatred may exist either as a phenome
non of the sensibility or as a state or attitude of the Will. Of
course I am now to speak of enmity of heart or will. It is
selfishness viewed in its relations to God. That selfishness
is enmity against God will appear,
(I.) From . the Bible. The Apostle expressly says that
" the carnal mind (minding the flesh) is enmity against God."
It is fully evident that the Apostle by the carnal mind means
obeying the propensities or gratifying the desires. But this
is selfishness as I have defined it.
(2.) Selfishness is directly opposed to the will of God as
expressed in his law. That requires benevolence. Selfish
ness is its opposite, and therefore enmity against the lawgiver.
(3.) Selfishness is as hostile to God's government as it can
be. It is directly opposed to every law and principle and
measure of his government.
(4.) Selfishness is opposition to God's existence. Opposi
tion to a government, is opposition to the will of the governor.
It is opposition to his existence in that capacity. It is and must
be enmity against the existence of the ruler as such. Selfish
ness must be enmity against the existence, of God's govern
ment, and as He does and must sustain the relation of Sov-
reign Ruler, selfishness must be enmity against his life.
Selfishness will brook no restraint in respect to securing its
end. There is nothing in the universe it will not sacrifice to
self. This is true, or it is not selfishness. If then God's
happiness, or government, or hfe come into competition with
it, they must be sacrificed.
(5.) But God is the uncompromising enemy of selfishness.
It is the abominable thing his soul hateth. He is more in the
way of selfishness than all other beings. The opposition of
selfishness to Him is and must be supreme and perfect.
(6.) That selfishness is mortal enmity against God, is not
left to conjecture nor to a mere deduction or inference. God
once took to himself human nature and tried the experiment.
Men could not brook his presence upon earth, and they rested
not until they had murdered him.
28*

330 systematic theology.
(7.) Again. Selfishness is supreme enmity against God.
That is, it is more opposed to God than to all other beings.
[!.}• This must be because God is more opposed to it and
more directly and eternally in its way. Selfishness must be
relinquished or put itself in supreme opposition to God.
[2.] Enmity against any body or thing besides God can be
overcome more easily than against him. All earthly enmities
can be overcome by kindness and change of circumstances;
but what kindness, what change of circumstances can change
the human heart, can overcome the selfishness and enmity
that reigns there?
(8.) Selfishness offers all manner and every possible degree
of resistance to God. It disregards God's commands. It
contemns his authority. It spurns his mercy. It tramples
on his feelings. It tempts his forbearance. Selfishness in
short is the universal antagonist and adversary of God. It
can no more be reconciled to God or subject to his law than
it can cease to be selfishness.
20. Madness is another attribute of selfishness.
Madness is used sometimes to mean anger, sometimes to
mean intellectual insanity, and sometimes to mean moral in
sanity. I speak of it now in the last sense.
Moral insanity is not insanity of the intelligence, but of the
heart. Insanity of the intelligence destroys for the time
being moral agency and accountability.
Moral insanity is a state in which the intellectual powers
are not deranged, but the heart refuses to be controlled by
the intelligence and acts unreasonably as if the intellect were
deranged. That madness or moral insanity is an attribute of
selfishness or of a sinful character is evident,
(1.) From the bible. " The heart of the sons of men is full
of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live."— Eccles.
9: 3. *
(2.) It has been shown that sinners or selfish persons act in
every instance directly opposite to right reason. Indeed, no
thing can be plainer than the moral insanity of every selfish
soul. He prefers to seek his own interest as an end and pre
fers a straw to a universe. But not only so: he does this
with the certain knowledge that in this way he can never
secure his own highest interest. What an infinitely insane
course that must be, first to prefer his own petty gratification
to the infinite interests of God and of the Universe, and se
condly, to do this with the knowledge that in this way nothing

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 331
can be ultimately gained even to self, and that if the course is
persisted in, it must result in endless evil to self, the very
thing which is supremely dreaded! Sin is the greatest mys
tery and the greatest absurdity, and the greatest contradic
tion in the universe.
But madness is an essential element or attribute of selfish
ness. All sinners, without any exception, are and must be
mad. Their choiee of an end is madness. It is infinitely
unreasonable. Their pursuit of it is madness persisted in.
Their treatment of every thing that opposes their course is
madness. All, all is madness infinite. This world is amoral
Bedlam, an insane hospital where sinners are under regimen.
If they can be cured, well. If not, they must be confined in
the mad-house of the universe for eternity.
The only reason why sinners do not perceive their own and
each other's madness is, that they are all mad together and
their madness is all of one type. Hence they imagine that they
are sane, and pronounce Christians mad. This is no wonder.
What other conclusion can they come to unless they can dis
cover that they are mad?
But let it not be forgotten that their madness is of the
heart, and not of the intellect. It is voluntary and not una
voidable. If it were unavoidable it would involve no guilt.
But it is a choice made and persisted in in the integrity of
their intellectual powers, and therefore they are without ex
cuse. Sinners are generally supposed to act rationally on many-
subjects. But this is an evident mistake. They do every
thing for the same ultimate reason and are as wholly irra
tional in one thing as another. There is nothing in their
whole history and hfe, not an individual thing, that is not
entirely and infinitely unreasonable. The end is mad; the
means are mad; all, all is madness and desperation of spirit.
They no doubt appear so to angels, and so they do to saints;
and were it not so common to see them their conduct would
fill the saints and angels with utter amazement.
21. Impatience is another attribute of selfishness.
This term expresses both a state of the sensibility and of
the will. Impatience is a resistance of Providence. When
this term is used to express a state of the sensibility, it de
signates fretfulness, ill temper, anger in the form of emotion.
It is an unsubmissive and rebellious state of feeling in regard
to those trials that occur under the administration of the
providential government of God.

332 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
When the term is used to express a state of the will, it de
signates an attitude of resistance to God's providential dis
pensations. Selfishness has no faith in God, no confidence in
his wisdom and goodness, and being set upon self-gratification,
is continually exposed to disappointment God is infinitely
wise and benevolent He also exercises a universal provi
dence. He is conducting every thing with reference to the
greatest good of the whole universe. He of course will often
interfere with the selfish projects of those who are pursuing
an opposite end to that which He pursues. They will of
course be subject to almost continual disappointment under the
providence of one who disposes of all events in accordance
with a design at war with their own. It is impossible that
the schemes of selfishness under such a government should not
frequently be blown to the winds, and that such an one should
not be the subject of incessant crosses, vexations and trials.
Self will can not but be impatient under a benevolent govern
ment. Selfishness would of course have every thing so dis
posed as to favor self-interest and self-gratification. But infi
nite wisdom and benevolence can not accommodate itself to
this state of mind. The result must be a constant rasping
and collision between the selfish soul and the providence of
God. Selfishness must cease to be selfishness before it can
be otherwise.
A selfish state of will must of course not only resist crosses
and disappointments, but must also prodrice a feverish and
fretful state of feeling in relation to the trials incident to life.
Nothing but deep sympathy with God and that confidence in
his wisdom and goPdness and universal providence that anni
hilates self-will and begets universal and unqualified submis
sion to him, can prevent impatience. Impatience is always
a form of selfishness. It is resistance to God. It is self-will.
Selfishness must be gratified or displeased of course. It
should always be understood that when trials produce impa
tience of heart the will is in a selfish attitude. The trials of
this life are designed to develop a submissive, confiding and
patient state of mind. A selfish spirit is represented in the
bible as being, under the providence of God, like a bullock un
accustomed to the yoke, restive, self-willed, impatient and re
bellious. When selfishness or self-will is subdued and benevolence
is in exercise, we are in a state not to feel disappointments,
trials and crosses. Having no way or will of our own about
any thing, and having deep sympathy with and confidence in

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 333
God, we can not be disappointed in any such sense as to vex
the spirit and break the peace ofthe soul.
The fact is that selfishness must be abandoned, or there is,
there can be no peace to us. " There is no peaee to the
wicked, saith my God." " The wicked are like the troubled
sea, when it can not rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt."
An impressive figure this to represent the continually agitated
state in which a selfish mind must be under a perfectly bene
volent providence. Selfishness demands partiality in provi
dence that will favor self. But benevolence will not bend to
its inclinations. This must produce resistance and fretting,
or selfishness must be abandoned. Let it be borne in mind
that impatience is an attribute of selfishness and will always
be developed under crosses and trials.
Selfishness will of course be patient while providence favors
its schemes, but when crosses come, then the peace of the
soul is broken.
22. Intemperance is also a form or attribute of selfishness.
Selfishness is self-indulgence. It consists in the committal
of the will to the indulgence of the propensities. Of course
some one, or more, of the propensities have taken the control
of the will. Generally there is some ruling passion or pro
pensity the influence of which becomes overshadowing and
overrules the will for its own gratification. Sometimes it is
acquisitiveness or avarice, the love of gain; sometimes ali-
mentiveness or epicurianism; sometimes it is amativeness or
sexual love; sometimes philoprogenitiveness or the love of our
own children ; sometimes self-esteem or a feeling of confidence
in self; sometimes one and sometimes another of the great
variety of the propensities, is so largely developed as to be
the ruling tyrant that lords it over the will and over all the
other propensities. It matters not which of the propensities
or whether their united influence gains the mastery of the
will: whenever the will is subject to them, this is selfishness.
It is the carnal mind.
Intemperance consists in the undue or unlawful indulgence
of any propensity. It is therefore an essential element or
attribute of selfishness. All selfishness is intemperance: of
course it is an unlawful indulgence of the propensities. In
temperance has as many forms as there are constitutional and
artificial appetites to gratify. A selfish mind can not be tem
perate. If one or more of the propensities is restrained, it is
only restrained for the sake of the undue and unlawful indul
gence of another. Sometimes the tendencies are intellectual,

334 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and the bodily appetites are denied for the sake of gratifying
the love of study. But this is no less intemperance and selfish
ness than the gratification of amativeness or alimentiveness.'
Selfishness is always and necessarily intemperate. It does not
always or generally develop every form of intemperance in
the outward life, but a spirit of self-indulgence must be the
spirit of intemperance.
Some develop intemperance most prominently in the form
of self-indulgence in eating; others in sleeping; others in
lounging and idleness; others are gossippers; others love ex
ercise and indulge that propensity; others study and impair
health and induce derangement or seriously impair the
nervous systems. Indeed there is no end to the forms which
intemperance assumes because of the great number of pro
pensities natural and artificial that in their turns seek and
obtain indulgence.
It should be always borne in mind that any form of self-in
dulgence is equally an instance of selfishness and wholly in
consistent with any degree of virtue in the heart. But it may
be asked, are we to have no regard whatever to our tastes,
appetites and propensities? I answer we are to have no such
regard to them as to make their gratification the end for which
we live even for a moment. But there is a kind of regard
to them which is lawful and therefore a virtue. For exam
ple: I am on a journey for the glory of God. Two ways are
before me. One affords nothing to regale the senses; the
other conducts me through variegated scenery, sublime moun
tain passes, deep ravines; along brawling brooks and mean
dering rivulets; through beds of gayest flowers and woods of
richest foliage; through aromatic groves and forests vocal
with feathered songsters. The two paths are equal in dis
tance and in all respects that have a bearing upon the busi
ness I have in hand. Now reason dictates and demands that
I should take the path that is most agreeable and edifying.
But this is not being governed by the propensities, but by the
reason. It is its voice which I hear and to which I listen
when I take the sunny path. The delights of this path are a
real good. As such they are not to be despised or neglected.
But if taking this path would embarrass and hinder the end
of my journey, I am not to sacrifice the greater public good
for a less one of my own. I must not be guided by my feel
ings but by my reason and honest judgment in this and in
every case of duty. God has not given us propensities to be
our masters and to rule us but to be our servants and to

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 335
to minister to our enjoyment when we obey the biddings
of reason and of God. They are given to render duty
pleasant, and as a reward of virtue; to make the ways
of wisdom pleasant. The propensities are not therefore to
be despised, nor is their annihilation to be desired. Nor
is it true that their gratification is always selfish. But when
their gratification is sanctioned and demanded as in the case
just supposed and in myriads of other cases that occur to
the intelligence, the gratification is not a sin but a virtue. It
is not selfishness but benevolence. But let it be remem
bered that the indulgence must not be sought in obedience
to the propensity itself, but in obedience to the law of reason
and of God. When reason and the will of God are not con
sulted, it must be selfishness.
Intemperance, as a sin, does not consist in the outward act
of indulgence, but in an inward disposition. A dyspeptic who
can eat but just enough to sustain life, may be an enor
mous glutton at heart. He may have a disposition, that is, he
may not only desire, but he may be willing to eat all before
him, but for the pain indulgence occasions him. But this is
only the spirit of self-indulgence. He denies himself the
amount of food he craves to avoid pain or to gratify a stronger
propensity, to wit, the dread of pain. So a man who was nev
er intoxicated in his life, may be guilty of the crime of drunk
enness every day. He may be prevented from drinking to
inebriation every day only by a regard to reputation or health,
or by an avaricious disposition. It is only because he is pre
vented by the greater power of some other propensity. If
one is in such a state of mind that he would indulge all his
propensities without restraint were it not that it is impossible
on account of the indulgence of some being inconsistent with"
the indulgence of the others, he is just as guilty as if he did!
indulge them all. For example: He has a disposition, that is,.
a will to accumulate property. He is avaricious in heart.
He also has a strong tendency to luxury, to licentiousness and
prodigality. The indulgence of these propensities is incons-
sistent with the indulgence of avarice. But for this contrari
ety he would in his state of mind indulge them all. Now he
is really guilty of all those forms of vice, and just as blame
worthy as if he indulged in them.
Again: That selfishness is the aggregate of all sin, and that
he who is selfish, is actually chargeable with breaking the
whole law, and of every form of iniquity, will appear, if we
consider,

336 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(1.) That it is the committal of the will to self-indulgence;
and of course and of necessity,
(2.) No one propensity will be denied but for the indulgence
of another.
(3.) But if no better reason than this exists for denying any
propensity, then the selfish man is chargeable in the sight of
God with actually in heart gratifying every propensity.
(4.) And this conducts to the plain conclusion that a selfish
man is foil of sin and actually in heart guilty of every possi
ble or conceivable abomination.
(5.) " He that looketh on a woman to lust afer her hath com
mitted adultery with her already in his heart." He may not
have committed the outWard act for want of opportunity, or
for the reason that the indulgence is inconsistent with the love
of reputation or fear of disgrace, or with some other propen
sity. Nevertheless he is in heart guilty of the deed.
Intemperance, as a crime is a state of mind. It is the atti
tude of the will. It is an attribute of selfishness. It consists
in the choice or disposition to gratify the propensities regard
less of the law of benevolence. This is intemperance; and
so far as the mind is considered, it is the whole of it. Now
inasmuch as the will is committed to self-indulgence, and no
thing but the contrariety there isbetwenthe propensities pre
vents the unlimited indulgence of them all, it follows that every
selfish person, or in other words every sinner, is chargeable
in the sight of God with every species of intemperance actual
or conceivable. His lusts have the reign. They conduct
him whithersoever they list. He has sold himself to self-in
dulgence. If there is any form of self indulgence that is not
actually developed in him, no thanks to him. The provi
dence of God has restrained the outward indulgence while
there has been in him a readiness to do it.
23. Recklessness is another attribute of selfishness. Reck
lessness is carelessness, or a state of( mind that seeks to grat
ify self regardless of consequences. It is a spirit of infatua
tion, a rushing upon ruin heedless of what may come.
This is one of the most prominent attributes of selfishness.
It is universally prominent and manifest What can be more
manifest and striking and astonishing than the recklessness of
every sinner ? Self-indulgence is his motto ; and the only ap
pearance of consideration and moderation about him is, that
he is careful to deny one propensity for the sake and only for the
sake of indulging another. He hesitates not whether he shall
indulge himself, but sometimes hesitates and ponders and de-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 337
i
liberates in respect to the particular propensity to be indulged
or denied. He is at all times perfectly reckless as it respects
self-indulgence. This is settled. Whenever he hesitates
about any given course, it is because of the strength of the
self-indulgent spirit and with design upon the whole to realize
the greatest amount of self-indulgence. When sinners hesi
tate abput remaining in sin and think of giving up self-indul
gence, it is only certain forms of sin that they contemplate
relinquishing. They consider what they shall lose to them
selves by continuing in sin, arid what they shall gain to them
selves by relinquishing sin and turning to God. It is a ques
tion of loss and gain with them. They have no idea of giv
ing .up every form of selfishness; nor do they consider that
until they do, they are at every moment violating the whole
law, whatever interest of self they may be plotting to secure,
whether the interest be temporal or eternal, physical or spir
itual. In respect to the denial or indulgence of one or anoth
er of the propensities, they may and indeed can not but be
considerate consistently with selfishness. But. in respect to
duty; in respect to the commands and threatenings of God;
in respect to every moral consideration, they are entirely and
universally reckless. And when they appear not to be so, but
to be thoughtful and considerate, it is only selfishness plot
ting its own indulgence and calculating its chances of loss
and gain. Indeed it would appear, when we take into con
sideration the known consequences of every form of selfish
ness, and the sinner's pertinacious cleaving to self-indulgence
in the face of such considerations, that every sinner is appal
lingly reckless, and that it may be said that his recklessness
is infinite. 24. Unity is another attribute of selfishness.
By unity is intended that selfishness, and consequently all
sin is a unit. That is, there are not various kinds of sin, nor
various kinds of selfishness, nor, strictly speaking, are there
various forms of selfishness. Selfishness is always one and
but one thing.. It has but one end, and not diverse ends.
The indulgence of one appetite or passion, or another, does
not imply different ends or forms of selfishness, strictly speak
ing. It is only one choice, or the choice of one end and
the different forms are only the use of different means to ac
complish this one end. Strictly speaking, there is but one
form of virtue; and when we speak of various forms, we
speak loosely and in accommodation to the general notions of
mankind. Virtue, as we have before seen, is, a unit. It
29

338

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

always consists in ultimate intention; and this ultimate inten
tion is always one and the same. It is the choice of the high
est well-being of God and of the universe as an end. This
intention never changes its form, and all the efforts which the
mind makes to realize this end, and which we loosely call dif
ferent forms of virtue, are after all only the one unchanged
and unchangable, uncompounded and indivisible intention,
energizing to realize its one great end. Just so with selfishness.
It is one choice, or the choice of one and only one end, to
wit, self gratification or self-indulgence. All the various, and
every varying shifts and turns and modes of indulgence which
make up the entire history of the sinner, imply no complexi-
ty in the form or substance of his choice. All are resorted
to for one and only one reason. They are only this one un
compounded and uncompoundable, this never varying choice
of self-indulgence, energizing and using various means to re
alize its one simple end. The reason why the idea is so com
mon, and why the phraseology of men implies that there are
really various forms of sin and of holiness is, that they unwit
tingly lose sight of that in which sin and holiness alone con
sist, and conceive of them as belonging to the outward act, or to
the causative volition that is put forth by the intention to se
cure its end. Let it but always be remembered that holiness
and sin are but the moral attributes of selfishness and benevo
lence, and that they are each the choice of one end and only
one; and the delusion that there are various forms and kinds
of sin and holiness will flee away forever.
Holiness is holiness, in form and essence one and indivisi
ble. It is the moral element or quality of disinterested be
nevolence. Sin is sin, in form and essence one and indivisi
ble; and is the moral attribute of selfishness or of the choice
of self-indulgence as the end of life. This conducts us to the
real meaning of those Scriptures which assert * that all the
law is fulfilled in one word, love^" that this is the whole of
virtue, and comprises all that we loosely call the different
virtues, or different forms of virtue. And it also explains
this, " Whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offendin
one point, he is guilty of all." That is, offending in one point
implies the real commission of all sin. It implies, and is self
ishness, and this is the whole of sin. It is of the greatest im
portance that religious teachers should understand this; and
no longer conceive of sin as original and actual; as sins of
heart and sins of life; as sins of omission and commission;
as sins of licentiousness and gluttony, intemperance arid the

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

339

like. Now such notions and such phraseology will do for
those who can not, or have no opportunity to look deeper into
the philosophy of moral government; but it is time that the
veil were taken away, and both sin and holiness laid open to
the public gaze.
Let it not be inferred that because there is but one form or
kind of sin or of holiness, strictly speaking, that therefore all
sin is equally blameworthy, and that all holiness is equally
praiseworthy. This does not follow, as we shall see under
its proper head. Neither let it be called a contradiction that
I have so often spoken and shall so often speak of the differ
ent forms of sin and of holiness. All this is convenient and
as I judge indispensable in preparing the way, and to con
duct the mind to tbe true conception and apprehension of
this great and fundamental truth; fundamental in the sense
that it lies at the foundation of all truly clear and just con
ceptions of either holiness or sin. They are both units and
eternal and necessary opposites and antagonists. They can
never dwell together or coalesce any more than heaven and
hell can be wedded to each other.

LECTURE XXVIII.
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS.
What is implied in Disobedience to the Law or God.
25. Egotism is another attribute of selfishness.
Egotism, when properly considered, does not consist in ac
tually talking about and praising self; but in that disposition
of mind that manifests itself in self-laudation. Parrots talk
almost exclusively of themselves, and yet we do not accuse
them of egotism, nor feel the least disgust toward them on that
account. Moral agents may be under circumstances that render it
necessary to speak much of themselves. God's character and
relations are such and the ignorance of men so great that itis
necessary for Him to reveal himself to them, and consequent
ly to speak to them very much about Himself. The same is
true of Christ. Christ's principal object was to make the
world acquainted with himself and with the nature and design
of his mission. Of course he spake much of himself. But
who ever thought of accusing either the Father or the Son of
egotism? The fact is that real egotism is a selfish' state of the will.
It is a selfish disposition. Selfishness is the supreme prefer
ence of self, of self-interest, self-indulgence; of course, this
state of mind can not but manifest egotism. The heart is ego
tistical, and the language and deportment must be.
An egotistical state of mind manifests itself in a great vari
ety of ways; not only in self-commendation and laudatipn,
but also in selfish aims and actions, exalting self in action as
well as in word. An egotistical spirit speaks of itself and its
achievments in such a way as reveals the assumption that self
is a very important personage. It demonstrates that self is
the end of every thing and the great idol before which all,
ought to bow down and worship. This is not too strong lan
guage. The fact is, that selfishness is nothing short of a prac
tical setting up of the shameless claim that self is of more im
portance than God and the whole universe ; that self ought to
be universally worshiped ; that God and all other beings ought
to be entirely consecrated to its interests and to thp promotion
of its glory. Now what but the most disgusting egotism can be
expected from such a state of mind as this? This state of
mind is essentially and necessarily egotistical. If it does not

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 341
manifest itself in one way, it will and must in another. The
thoughts are upon self; the heart is upon self. Self-flattery is
a necessary result or rather attribute of selfishness. A selfish
man is always a self-flatterer, and a self-deceiver, and a self-
devotee. This must be.
Self may speak very sparingly of self for the reason that it
thinks too much of self to willingly incur the charge of egotism.
A man may have a spirit too egotistical to speak out, and may
reveal his superlative disposition to be praised by a studied
abstinence from self-commendation. Nay, he may speak of
himself in terms the most reproachful and self-abasing in the
spirit of supreme egotism; to evince his humility and the deep
self-knowledge which he possesses. But a spirit of self-deifica
tion, which selfishness always is, if it does not manifest itself
in words, must and will in deeds. The great and supreme
importance of self is assumed by the heart, and can not but
in some way manifest itself. It may, and often does put on
tbe garb of the utmost self-abasement. It stoops to conquer,
and to gain universal praise, affects to be most empty of self.
But this is only a refined egotism. It is only saying, Come
see my perfect humility and self-emptiness, Indeed there
are myriads of ways in which an egotistical spirit manifests
itself, and so subtle and refined are many of them that they re
semble Satan robed in the stolen habiliments of an angel of
light. An egotistical spirit often manifests itself in selfconsequen-
tial airs, and by thrusting self into the best seat at table, in a
stage coach, a rail road car, or into the best state room in a
steam boat. In short, it manifests in action what it is apt to
manifest in word, to wit: a sense of supreme self-importance.
I said that the mere fact of speaking of self is not of itself
proof of an egotistical spirit. The thing to be regarded is the
manner and manifest design of speaking of self. A benevo
lent man may speak much of self because it may be important
to others that he should do so, on account of his relations.
When the design is the benefit of others and the glory of God,
it is as far as possible from the spirit of egotism. A benevo
lent man might speak of himself just as he would of others.
He has merged his interests in, or rather identified them with
the interests of others and of course would naturally treat oth
ers and speak of them much as he treats and speaks of him
self. If he sees and censures the conduct of others, and has
ever been guilty of the like, he will censure his own baseness
quite as severely as he does the same thing in others. If he
29*

342 systematic theology.
commends the virtues of others, it is but forthe glory of God;
and for the very same reason} he might speak of virtues of
Which he is conscious in himself, that God may have glory. A
perfectly simple-hearted and guileless state of mind might na
turally enough manifest itself in this manner. An egotistical
spirit in another might, and doubtless would lead him to misun
derstand such open heartedness and transparency of character.
There would be nevertheless a radical difference in the spirit
with which two such men would speak either of their own
faults or virtues.
26. Simplicity is another attribute of selfishness.
By this term it is intended to express two things, to wit:
(1.) Singleness, unmixed or unmingled, and
(2.) That selfishness is always as intense as under the cir
cumstances it can be. I will consider these two branches of
the subject separately and in order.
(1.) Selfishness is simple in the sense of uncompounded or
unmixed. It consists, as we have repeatedly seen in ultimate choice or
intention. It is the choice, of an end, of course the supreme
as well as the ultimate choice of the soul. Now it must be
self-evident \that no other and opposing choice can consist
with it. Nor can the mind while in the exercise of this choice
of an end possibly put forth any volitions inconsistent with it.
Volitions are never and can never be put forth but to secure
some end, or in other words, for some reason. If they could,
such volitions would have no moral character because there
would be no intention. Volitions always imply intention.
It is therefore impossible that benevolent volitions should co
exist with a selfish intention or that selfish volitionsfchould co
exist with a benevolent intention. Simplicity, in the sense
of uncompounded or unmixed, must be an attribute of selfish
ness. This is evidently the philosophy assumed in the teach
ings of Christ and of inspiration. "Ye can not serve two
masters" — (that is, certainly, at the same time) says Christ.
And again : " Ye can not serve God and Mammon " — that is,
of course at the same time. " Can a fountain at the same
place send forth sweet water and bitter?" says James. Thus
we see that the bible assumes and expressly teaches the phi
losophy here insisted on.
(2.) Selfishness is always as intense as under the circum
stances it can be.
It is a choice. It is the choice of self-indulgence as an ulti
mate end. Therefore, if it lounge, it is only because the pro-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 343
pensity to lounge at the time preponderates. If energetic, it
is to secure some form of self-indulgence, which, at the time,
is preferred to ease. If at one time it is more or less intense
than at another, it is only because self-gratification at the
time demands it. Indeed it is absurd to say that it is more
intense at one time than at another except as its intensity is
increased by the pressure of motives to abandon it, and be-
- come benevolent If a selfish man give himself up to idleness,
lounging, and sleeping, it is not for want of intensity in the
action of his will, but because his disposition to self indulgence
in this form is so strong. So if his selfishness take on any
possible type, it is only because ofthe strength of his disposi
tion to indulge self in that particular way. Selfishness
fives only for one end, and it is impossible that that end while
it continues to be chosen should not have the supreme con
trol. Indeed, the choice of an ultimate end implies the con
secration of the will to it, and it is a contradiction to say that
the will is not true to the end which it chooses, and that it
acts less intensely than is demanded by the nature of the end
and the apprehensions of the mind in regard to the readiest
way to realize it. The end is chosen without qualification or
not at all as an ultimate end. The moment any thing should
intervene that should cause the mind to withhold the requisite
energy to secure it, that moment it would cease to be chosen*as
an ultimate end. That which has induced the will to with
hold the requisite energy has become the supreme object
of regard. It is palpably absurd to say that the spirit of
self-indulgence should not always be as intense as will most
indulge self. The intensity of the spirit of self-indulgence is
always just what and as it is, because, and only because self is
the most indulged and gratified thereby. If upon the whole
self would be more indulged and gratified by greater or less
intensity, it is impossible that that should not be. The pres
ence of considerations inducing to benevolence must either
annihilate or strengthen selfishness. The choice must be
abandoned, or its intensity and obstinacy must increase with,
and in proportion to increasing light But at every moment
the intensity of the selfish choice must be as great as is con
sistent with its nature, that is, with its being the choice of self-
indulgence. 27. Total Moral Depravity is implied in selfishness as one
of its attributes.
By this I intend that every selfish being is at every moment
as wicked and as blameworthy as with his knowledge he can
be. To establish this proposition, I must

344 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(1.) Remindyou of that in which moral character consists.
(2.) Ofthe foundation ofmoral obligation.
(3.) Ofthe conditions of moral obligation.
(4.) Show the unity ofmoral obligation.
(5.) The unity of virtue and of vice.
(6.) How to measure moral obligation.
(7.) The guilt of transgression to be equal to the degree of
obligation. (8.) Moral agents are at all times either as holy or as sinful
as with their 'knowledge they can be.
(9.) Consequently, total moral depravity is an attribute of
selfishness in the sense that every sinner is as wicked as with
his present light he can be.
(1.) In what moral character consists.
It has been repeatedly shown that moral character belongs
only to ultimate intention, or that it consists in the choice of
an ultimate end, or the end of life.
2.) The foundation ofmoral obligation.
1.] Moral character implies- moral obligation.
'2.' Moral obligation respects ultimate intention.
3.] Ultimate choice or intention; is the choice of an ulti
mate end, or the choice of something for its own sake.
[4.] The foundation of the obligation to choose or intend
an end or something for its own sake, must consist in the intrin
sic value of the thing to be chosen.
[5.] The highest good or well-being of God and of the uni
verse is of intrinsic and infinite value.
[6.] Therefore the highest well-being of God and of the
universe of sentient beings is the foundation of moral obliga
tion, that is, this is the ultimate end to which all moral agents
ought to consecrate themselves.
(3.) Conditions of moral obligation.
[1.] The powers of moral agency: Intellect, Sensibility,
and Free Will.
[2.] The existence and perception of the end that ought to
be chosen.
(4.) Unity of Moral Obligation.
[1.] Moral obligation strictly belongs only to the ultimate
intention. [2.] It requires but one ultimate choice or intention.
£3.] It requires universally and only that every moral agent
should at all times, and under all circumstances, honestly will,
choose, intend the highest good of being as an end, or for its

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 345
own intrinsic value. Therefore moral obligation is a unit.
(5.) Unity of virtue and vice.
[1] Virtue must be a unit, for it always and only consists
in compliance with moral obligation, which is a unit.
[2.] It always and only consists in one and the same choice,
or in the choice of one and the same end.
[3.] It has been fully shown that sin consists in selfishness
and that selfishness is an ultimate choice, to wit, the choice
of self-gratification as an end or -for its own sake.
[4.] Selfishness is always one and the same choice or the
choice of one and the same end.
'5.] Therefore, selfishness or sin must be a unit.
6.] Or more strictly virtue is the moral element or attri
bute of disinterested benevolence or good willing. And sip
or vice is the moral element or attribute of selfishness. Vir
tue is always the same attribute of the same choice. They
are therefore always and necessarily units.
(6.) . How to measure moral obligation.
[ 1.] It is affirmed both by reason and revelation that there
are degrees of guilt; that some are more guilty than others;
and that the same individual may be more guilty at one time
than at another.
[2.] The same is true of virtue. One person may be more
virtuous than another when both are truly virtuous. And
also the same person may be more virtuous at one time than
at another, although he may be virtuous at all times. In oth
er words, it is affirmed both by reason and revelation that
there is such a thing as growth both in virtue and vice.
[3.] It is matter of general belief also that the same indi
vidual with the same degree of hght or knowledge, is more or
less praise or blameworthy as he shall do one thing or anoth
er; or in other words, as he shall pursue one course or anoth
er, to accomplish the end he has in view; or, which is the
same thing, that the same individual with the same knowl- ,
¦edge or light, is more or less virtuous or vicious according to
the course of outward life which he shall pursue. This I shall
attempt to show is human prejudice, and a serious and most
injurious error.
[4.] It is also generally held that two or more individuals
having precisely the same degree of light or knowledge, and
being both equally benevolent or selfish, may nevertheless
differ in their degree of virtue or vice according as they pur
sue different courses of outward conduct. This also I shall
attempt to show is fundamental error.

346 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
We can arrive at the truth upon this subject only by clearly
understanding how to measure moral obligation, and of course
how to ascertain the degree of virtue and sin. The amount
or degree of virtue or vice or of praise or blame-worthiness
is and must be decided by reference to the degree of obliga
tion. It. is very important to remark here that virtue does not
merit so much praise and reward as vice does blame and pun
ishment. This is the uuiversal and necessary affirmation of
reason and the plain doctrine of inspiration. The reason is
this: Virtue is a compliance with obligation. Christ says,
"When you have done all, say, we are unprofitable servants:
wc have done what it was our duty to do." To suppose that
virtue is as deserving of reward as vice is of punishment were
to overlook obligation altogether, and make virtue a work of
supererogation, or that to which we are under no obligation.
Suppose I owe you a hundred dollars. When I pay you 1 only
discharge my obligation, and lay you under no further obliga
tion to me, except to treat me as an honest man when and as
long as I am such. This is all the reward which the discharge
of duty merits.
But suppose I refuse to pay you when it is in my power.
Here my desert of blame, as every body must know, and as
the Bible every where teaches, is vastly greater than my
desert of praise in the former case. The difference lies in
this, namely, that virtue is nothing more than a compliance
with obligation. It is the doing of that which could not have
been neglected without sin. Hence all the reward which it
merits is that the virtuous being, so long as he is virtuous,
shall he regarded and treated as one who does his duty and
complies with his obligations.
But vice is the violation of obhgation. It is a refusal to do
what ought to be done. In this case it is clear that the guilt
i is equal to the obligation, that is, the measure of obligation is
the measure of guilt. This brings us to the point of inquiry
now before us, namely, now is moral obligation to be meas
ured ? What is the criterion, the rule, or standard by which
the amount or degree of obligation is to be estimated?
And here I would remind you,
a That moral obligation is founded in the intrinsic value of
the highest well-being of God and the universe, and,
b That the conditions of the obligation are the possession
of the powers of moral agency and hght, or the knowledge of
the end to be chosen.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 347
c Hence it follows that the obligation is to be measured by .
the mind's honest apprehension or judgment of the intrinsic val- \
ue of the end to be chosen. That this and nothing else is the
rule or standard by which the obligation, and consequently
the guilt of violating it is to be measured, will appear if we
consider, a That the obligation can not be measured by the infinity
of God, apart from the knowledge of the infinite value of His
interests. He is an infinite being, and His well-being must
be of intrinsic and of infinite value. But unless this be known
to a moral agent, he can not be under obligation to will it as
an ultimate end. If he knows it to be of some value he is
bound to choose it for that reason. But the measure of his
obligation must be just equal to the clearness of his apprehen
sion of its intrinsic value.
Besides if the infinity of God were alone or without refer
ence to the knowledge of the agent the rule by which moral
obligation is to be measured, it would follow that obligation is
in all cases the same, and of course that the guilt of disobe
dience would also in all cases be the same. But this, as has
been said, contradicts both reason and revelation. Thus it
appears that moral obligation, and of course guilt, can not be
measured by the infinity of God without reference to the
knowledge of the agent.
b It can not be measured by the infinity of His authority
without reference to the knowledge of the agent for the same
reasons as above.
c It can not be measured by the infinity of his moral excel
lence without reference both to the infinite value of his inte
rests and of the knowledge of the agent; for his interests are
to be chosen as an end or for their own value, and without
knowledge of their value, there can be no obligation; nor can
obligation exceed knowledge.
d If, again, the infinite excellence of God were alone or with
out reference to the knowledge of the agent to be the rule by
which moral obligation is to be measured, it would follow that
guilt in all cases of disobedience, is and must be equal. This
we have seen can not be.
e It can not be measured by the intrinsic value of the good
or well being of God and the universe without reference to
the knowledge of the agent, for the same reason as above.
/ It can not be measured by the particular course of life
pursued by the agent. That the guilt of sin can not be meas
ured by the particular course of life pursued, will appear, if

348 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
we consider that moral obligation has directly nothing to do
with the outward life. It respects the ultimate intention only
and that decides the course of outward action or life. The
guilt of any outward action can not be decided by reference
to the kind of action without regard to the intention, for the
moral character of the act must be found in the intention, and
not in the outward act or life. This leads me, _
g To remark that the degree of moral obligation, and of
course the degree of the guilt of disobedience can not be
properly estimated by reference to the nature of the inten
tion without respect to the degree of the knowledge of the
agent Selfish intention is, as we have seen, a unit, always
the same; and if this were the standard by which the degree
of guilt is to be measured, it would follow that it is always
the same.
h Nor can obligation, nor of course guilt, be measured by
the tendency of sin. All sin tends to infinite evil, to ruin the
sinner, and from its contagious nature, to spread and ruin the
universe. Nor can any finite mind know what the ultimate
results of any sin may be, nor to what particular evil it may
tend. As all sin tends to universal and eternal evil, if this
were the criterion by which the guilt is to be estimated, all
sin would be equally guilty, which can not be.
Again: That the guilt of sin can not be measured by the
tendency oi sin is manifest from the fact that moral obligation
is not founded in the tendency of action or intention, but in ¦
the intrinsic value of the end to be intended. Estimating
moral obligation or measuring sin or holiness by tendency, is
iri accordance with the utilitarian philosophy which, we have
seen to be false. Moral obligation respects the choice of an
end, and is founded upon the intrinsic value of the end, and is
not so much as conditionated upon the tendency of the choice
to secure its end. Therefore tendency can never be the rule
by which obligation can be measured, nor, of course, the
rule by which guilt can be estimated.
i Nor can moral obligation be estimated by the results of a
moral action or course of action. Moral obligation respects
intention and respects results no farther than they were inten
ded. Much good may result, as in the death of Christ, with
out any virtue but with much guilt. So, much evil may result
as in the creation of the world, without guilt, but with great
virtue. If moral obligation is not founded or conditionated
on results, it follows that guilt can not be duly estimated by
results without reference to knowledge and intention.

MORAL GOVERNMENT, 349
j What has been said has, I trust rendered it evident that
moral obligation is to be measured by the mind's honest appre
hension or judgment of the intrinsic value of the end to be cho
sen and which is rejected, to wit, the highest well-being of
God and the universe.
It should be distinctly understood that selfishness implies
the rejection of the interests of God and of the universe for
the sake of one's own. It refuses to will good but upon con
dition that it belongs to self. It spurns God's interests and
those of the universe, and seeks only self interest as an .ulti
mate end. It must follow that the selfish man's guilt is just
equal to his knowledge of the intrinsic value of those interests
that he rejects. _ This is undeniably the doctrine of the biblef.
I will introduce a few paragraphs from one of my reported
sermons upon this subject.
1. The scriptures assume and affirm it.
Acts 17: 30 affords a plain instance. The apostle alludes
to those past ages when the heathen nations had no written
revelation from God, and remarks that "those times of igno
rance God winked at." This does not mean that God conni
ved at their sin because of their darkness, but it does mean that
he passed over it with comparatively slight notice, regarding
it as a sin of far less aggravation than that which men would
now commit if they turned away when God commanded them
all to repent. True, sin is never absolutely a light thing; but
comparatively, some sins incur small guilt when compared
with the great guilt of other sins. This is implied in our
text. I next cite James 4: 17. "To him that knoweth to dp
good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This plainly implies
that knowledge is indispensable to moral obligation ; and even
more than this is implied, namely, that the guilt of any
sinner is always equal to the amount of his knowledge on the
subject It always corresponds to the mind's perception of the
value of the end which should have been chosen, but is rejec
ted. If a man knows he ought in any given case to do good, and
yet does not do it, to him this is sin — the sin plainly lying in the
fact of not doing good when he knew he could do it, and be
ing measured as to its guilt by the degree of that knowledge.
John 9: 41 — "Jesus said unto them, if ye were blind, ye
should have no sin: but now ye say, we see; therefore your
sin remaineth." Here.Christ asserts that men without knowl
edge would be without sin: and that men who have knowledge,
and sin notwithstanding, are held guilty. This plainly affirms
30

350 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
that the presence of light or knowledge is requisite to the
existence of sin, and obviously imphes that the amount of
knowledge possessed is the measure of the guilt of sin.
It is remarkable that the Bible everywhere assumes first
truths. It does not stop to prove them, or even assert them —
it always assumes their truth, and seems to assume that every
one knows and will admit them. As I have been recently
writing on moral government and studying the Bible as to its
teachings on this class of subjects, I have been often struck
with this remarkable fact.
John 15: 22 — 24 " If I had not come and spoken unto them,
they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their
sin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had
not done among them the works which none other man did,
they had not had sin : but now have they both seen and hated
both me and my Father." Christ holds the same doctrine here
as in the last passage cited ; light essential to constitute sin, and
the degree of light, constituting the measure of its aggravation.
Let it be observed^ however, that Christ probably did
not mean to affirm in the absolute sense that if he had
not come, the Jews would have had no sin; for they would
have had some light if He had not come. He speaks, as I
suppose, comparatively. Their sin if He had not come would
have been so much less as to justify his strong language.
Luke, 12: 47, 48 — "And that servant which knew his
Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according ,
to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that
knew not and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be
beaten with few stripes. Foj unto whomsoever much is given,
of him shall be much required; and to whom men have com
mitted much, of him they will ask the more."
Here we have the doctrine laid down and the truth assumed
that men shall be punished according to knowledge. To whom
much light is given, of him shall much obedience be required.
This is precisely the principle, that God requires of men ac
cording to the light they have.
1 Tim. 1 : 13 — " Who was before a blasphemer, and a
persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I
did it ignorantly in unbelief." Paul had done things in
form as bad as well they could be; yet his guilt was far less
because he did them under the darkness of unbelief; hence
he obtained mercy, when otherwise, he might not. The plain
assumption is that his ignorance abated from the malignity of
his sin and favored his obtaining mercy.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 351
In another passage, (Acts 26: 9) Paul says of himself —
"I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things
contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." This had every
thing to do with the degree of his guilt in rejecting the Mes
siah, and also with his obtaining pardon.
Luke, 23: 34 — "Then said Jesus, Father forgive them: for
they know not what they do." This passage presents to us
the suffering Jesus, surrounded with Roman soldiers and ma
licious scribes and priests yet pouring out his prayer for them,
and making the only plea in their behalf which could be
made — ilmfor they know not zohat they do." This does not im
ply that they had no guilt, for if this were true they would
not have needed forgiveness; but it did imply that their guilt
was greatly palliated by their ignorance. If they had known
him to be the Messiah, their guilt might have been unpardon
able. Matt. 11: 20 — 24 — "Then began he to upbraid the cities
wherein most of his mighty works were done because they
repented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! — woe unto thee,
Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were done in you
had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented
long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you it shall be
more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment
than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto
heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty
works which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom,
it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you,
that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom, in the
day of judgment, than for thee." But why does Christ thus
upbraid these cities? Why denounce so fearful a woe on
Chorazin and Capernaum? Because most of his' mighty works
had been wrought there. His oft-repeated miracles which
proved him to be the Messiah had been wrought before their
eyes. Among them he had taught daily, and in their synagogues
every Sabbath day. They had great light — hence their great
— their unsurpassed guilt. Not even the men of Sodom had
guilt to compare with theirs. The city most exalted, even as
it were to heaven, must be brought down to the deepest hell.
Guilt and punishment, evermore, according to light enjoyed,
but resisted.
Luke 11 : 47 — 51 — " Woe unto you! for ye build the sepul
chres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly
ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for
they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. There-

352 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
fore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets
and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the
foundation of the world may be required of this generation.
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which
perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto
you it shall be required of this generation." Now here, I ask,
on what principle was it that all the blood of martyred pro
phets ever since the world began was required of that genera
tion? Because they deserved it; for God does no such thing
us injustice. It never was known that he punished any peo
ple or any individual beyond their desert.
But why and how did they deserve this fearful and aug
mented visitation of the wrath of God for past centuries of
persecution? The answer is two-fold: they sinned against accumulated
light, and they virtually endorsed all the persecuting deeds of
their fathers, and concurred most heartily in their guilt They
had all the oracles of God. The whole history of the nation
lay in their hands. They knew the blameless and holy char
acter of those prophets who had been martyred; they could
read the' guilt of their persecutors and murderers. Yet un
der all this light, themselves go straight on and perpetrate
deeds of the same sort, but of far deeper malignity.
Again: in doing this they virtually endorse all that their
fathers did. Their conduct towards the Man of Nazareth put
into words would read thus — " The holy men whom God sent
to teach and rebuke our fathers, they maliciously traduced
and put to death; they did right, and we will do the same
thing toward Christ." Now it was not possible for. them to
give a more decided sanction to the bloody deeds of their
fathers. They underwrote for every crime — assumed upon
their own consciences all the guilt of their father. In inten
tion, they do those deeds over again. They say, " if we had
lived then, we should have done and sanctioned all they did."
On the same principle the accumulated guilt of all the
blood and miseries of Slavery since the world began rests on
this nation now. The guilt involved in every pang, every
tear, every blood-drop forced out by the knotted scourge — all
lie at the door of this generation.
Why? Because the history of all the past is before the
pro-slavery men of this generation, and they endorse the
whole by persisting in the practice of the same system and of
the same wrongs. No generation before us ever had the light

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 353
on the evils and the wrongs of Slavery that we have; hence
our guilt exceeds that of any former generation of slave-hold
ers; and moreover, knowing all the cruel wrongs and miseries
of the system from the history of the past, every persisting
:Slave-holder endorses all the crimes and assumes all the guilt
involved in the system and evolved out of it since the world
began. Rom. 7: 13 — "Was then that which is good made death
unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin,
worketh death in me by that which is good, that sin by the
commandment might become exceeding sinful." The last
clause of this verse brings out clearly the principle that under
the light which the commandment, that is, the law affords,
sin becomes exceeding guilty. This is the very principle,
which, we have seen, is so clearly taught and implied in nu
merous passages of Scripture.
The diligent reader of the Bible knows that these are only
a part ofthe texts which teach the same doctrine: we need
not adduce any more.
2. I remark that this is the rule and the only just rule by
which the guilt of sin can be measured. If I had time to turn
the subject over and over — time to take, up every other con
ceivable supposition, I could show that none of them can pos
sibly be true. No supposition can abide a close examination
except this, that the rule or measure of guilt is the mind's
knowledge pertaining to the value of the end to be chosen.
There can be no other criterion by which guilt can be mea
sured. It is the value of the end that ought to be chosen, which
constitutes sin guilty, and the mind's estimate of that value
measures its own guilt. This is true according to the Bible, as
we have seen; and every man needs only consult his own con
sciousness faithfully, and he will see that it is equally affirmed
by the mind's own, intuitions to be right.
(7.) The guilt oi transgression is just equal to the degree
of obligation.
[1.] The guilt of sin lies in its being the violation of an obli
gation. •
[2.] It must follow that the degree of the guilt of violation
must be just equal to the degree of obligation. This, as we have
seen, is not true of virtue, for obvious reasons. But it must
be true of vice.
[3.] Moral obligation respects the choice of an end. ^ The
amount ofthe obligation must be just equal to the mind's ap
prehension of the intrinsic value of the end to be chosen. The
30*

354 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
guilt of transgression is and must be just equal to the amount
of the obligation. This conducts us to the conclusion or
truth to be demonstrated, namely:
(8.) That moral agents are at all times either as holy or as
sinful as with their knowledge they can be.
This will more fully appear if we consider,
[1.] That moral obligation respects ultimate intention
alone. [2.] That obligation to choose or intend an end is founded
in the apprehended intrinsic value of the endl.
[3.] That when this end is chosen in accordance with ap
prehended value all present obligation is met or complied with.
Virtue is now complete in the sense that it can only be in
creased by increased light in regard to the value of the end.
New relations and interests may be discovered, or the mind
may come to apprehend more clearly the intrinsic value of
those partially known before. In this case virtue may in
crease and not otherwise It matters not what particular
course is taken to realize this end. The intention is honest.
It is and must, to be honest, be intense according to the mind's
apprehension of the intrinsic value of the end. The mind
can not but act in accordance with its best judgment in regard
to the use of means to compass its end. Whatever it does it
does for one and the same reason. Its virtue belongs to its
intention. The intention remaining, virtue does not, can not
vary hut with varying light. This renders it evident that the
virtuous man is as virtuous as with his present light he can be.
The same must be true of sin or selfishness. We
have seen in former lectures that malevolence, strictly speak
ing, is impossible; that selfishness is ultimate intention, or the
choice of self gratification as an end; that the obligation to
benevolence is founded in the intrinsic value of the good of
God and the universe, that the amount of obligation is equal to
the mind's apprehension or knowledge of the value of the end;
that sin is a unit and always consists in violating this obligation
by the choice of an opposite end; that the guilt of this viola
tion depends upon and is equal to the mind's apprehen
sion of the intrinsic value of the end it ought to choose.
Selfishness is the rejection of all obligation. It is the vio
lation of all obligation. The sin of selfishness i3 then com
plete; that is, the guilt of selfishness is as great as with its
present light it can be. What can make it greater With pres
ent hght? Can the course that it takes to realize its end miti
gate its guilt? No.: for whatever course it takes it is for a

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 355
selfish reason, and therefore in no wise lessens the guilt of the
intention. Can the course it takes to realize its end without
more or less light increase the guilt ofthe sin? No: for the
sin lies exclusively in having the selfish intention. The inten
tion necessitates the use of the means; and whatever means
the selfish person uses, it is for one and the same reason, to grat
ify himself. As I said in a former lecture, if the selfish man
were to preach the gospel, it would be only because upon the
whole it was most pleasing or gratifying to himself, and not at
all for the sake of the good of being, as an end. If he should
become a pirate, it would be for exactly the same reason, to
wit, that this course is upon the whole most pleasing or grati
fying to himself, and not at all for the reason that that course
is evil in itself. Whichever course he takes, he takes it for
precisely the same reason ; and with the same degree of light
it must involve the same degree of guilt. Which of these
courses may tend ultimately to the most evil, no finite being
can say, nor which shall result in the greatest evil; and if one
could, guilt is not to be measured by tendency nor by results,
but belongs to the intention; and its degree is to be measured
alone by the mind's apprehension of the reason of the obliga
tion violated, namely the intrinsic value of the good of God
and the universe which selfishness rejects. Now it should be
remembered that whichever course the sinner takes to realize
his end, it is the end at which he aims. He intends the end.
If he become a preacher of the gospel for a selfish reason, he
has no right regard to the good of being. If he regards it at
all, it is only as a means of his own good. So, if he becomes
a pirate, it is not from malice or a disposition to do evil for its
Own sake, but only to gratify himself. If he has any regard
at all to the evil he may do, it is only to gratify himself that
he regards it. Whether therefore he preach or pray, or rob and
plunder upon the high seas, he does it only for one end, that
is, for precisely the sariie reason; and of course bis sinfulness
is complete in the sense that it can be varied only by varying
fight This I know is contrary to common opinion, but it is
the truth and must be known; and it is of the highest import
ance that these fundamental truths of morahty and of immo
rality should be held up to the minds of all.
Should the sinner abstain from any course of vice because
it is wicked, it cannot be because he is benevolent, for this
would contradict the supposition that he is. selfish or that he
is. a sinner. If in consideration that an act or course is wick
ed he abstains from it, it must be for a selfish reason. It may

356 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
be in obedience to phrenological conscientiousness, or it may
be from fear of hell, or of disgrace, or from remorse; at all
events, it can not but be for some selfish reason.
(9.) Total moral depravity is an attribute of selfishness, in
the sense that every selfish person is at all times just as wick
ed and blame-worthy as with his present light he can be.
[1.] He, remaining selfish, can take no other course than to
please himself, and only that course which is upon the whole
most pleasing to him for the time being. If he takes one
course of outward conduct rather than another, it is only to
please and gratify himself.
[2.] But if for this reason he should take any other out
ward course than he does, it would not vary his guilt, for his
guilt lies in the intention and is measured by the light under
which the intention is maintained.
A few inferences may be drawn from our doctrine.
1. Guilt is not to be meaaured by the nature of the inten
tion; for sinful intention is always a unit — always one and
the same thing — being nothing more nor less than an intention
to gratify self.
2. Nor can it be measured by the particular type of self-
gratification which the mind may prefer. No matter which of
his numerous appetites or propensities the man may choose
to indulge — whether for food, or strong drink — for power,
pleasure, or gain— it is the same thing in the end — self-gratifi
cation, and nothing else. For the sake of this he sacrifices
every other conflicting interest, ,and herein lies his guilt
Since he tramples on the greater good of others with equal
recklessness, whatever type of self gratification he prefers, it
is clear that we can not find in this type the true measure of
his guilt.
3. Nor again is the guilt to be decided by the amount of
evil which the sin may bring into the universe. An agent not
enlightened may introduce great evil, and yet no guilt attach
to jthis agent. This is true of evil often done by brute ani
mals. In fact it matters not how much or how little evil may
result from the misdeeds of a moral agent, you can not deter
mine the amount of his guilt from this circumstance. God
may overrule the greatest sin so that but little evil shall re
sult from it, or he may leave its tendencies uncounteracted,
so that great evils shall result from the least sin. Who can
tell how much or how little overruling agency may inter
pose between any sin, great or small, and its legitimate re
sults?

Moral government. 357
Satan sinned in tempting Judas, and Judas sinned in be
traying Christ Yet God so overruled these sins, that most
blessed results to the universe followed from Christ's betrayal
and consequent death. Shall the sins of Satan and Judas be
estimated from the evils actually resulting from them? If it
should appear that the good immensely overbalanced the evil,
does their sin thereby become holiness — meritorious holiness?
Is their guilt at all the less for God's wisdom and love in over
ruling it for good ?
It is not therefore the amount of resulting good or evil
which determines the amount of guilt, but is the degree of
light enjoyed under which the sin is committed.
4. Nor again can guilt be measured by the common opin
ions of men. Men associated in society are wont, to form
among themselves a sort of public sentiment which becomes
a standard for estimating guilt; yet how often is it errone
ous! Christ warns us against adopting this standard, and al
so against ever judging according to the outward appearance.
Who does not know that the common opinions of men are
exceedingly incorrect? It is indeed wonderful to see how
far they diverge in all directions from the Bible standard.
5. The amount of guilt can be determined, as I have said,
only by the degree in which those ideas are developed which
throw light upon obligation. Just here sin lies, in resisting
the light and acting in opposition .to it, and therefore the .de
gree of light should naturally measure the amount of guilt
incurred. ; r REMARKS.
1. We see from this subject the principle on which many
passages of scripture are to be explained. It might seem
strange that Christ should charge the blood of all the martyr
ed prophets of past ages on that generation. But the subject
before us reveals the principle upon which this is done and
ought to be done.
Whatever of apparent mystery may attach to the fact de
clared in our text — "The times of this ignorance God wink
ed at" — finds in our subject an adequate explanation. Does
it seem strange that for ages God should pass over almost
without apparent notice the monstrous and reeking abomi
nations of the heathen world ? The reason is found in their
ignorance. Therefore God winks at those odious and cruel
idplatries. For all, taken together, are a trifle compared with
the guilt of a single generation of pnlightend men.
2. One sinner may be in such circumstances as to have

358 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. ' ;^
more light and knowledge than the whole heathen world.
Alas! how little the heathen know! How little compared
with what is known by sinners in this land, even by very
young sinners! #
Let me call up and question some impenitent sinner of
Oberlin. It matters but little whom — let it be any Sabbath
School child.
What dp you know about God? I know that there is one
God and only one. — The heathen believe there are hundreds
of thousands.
What do you know about God?
I know that he is infinitely great and good. — But the heath
en thinks some of his gods are both mean and mischievous —
wicked as can be and the very patrons of wickedness among
men. What do you know about salvation? I know that God so
loved the world as to give his only begotten Son that whoso
ever would believe on him might live forever. O, the heath
en never heard of that. They would faint away methinks in
amazement if they should hear and really believe the start
ling, glorious fact. And that Sabbath (School child khows that
God gives his Spirit to convince of sin. He has perhaps often
been sensible of the presence and power of that Spirit. But
the heathen know nothing of this.
You too know that you are immortal — that beyond death
there is still a conscious unchanging state of existence, bliss
ful or wretched according to the deeds done here. But the
heathen have no just ideas on this subject It is to them
as if all were a blank.
The amount of it then is that you know every thing— the
heathen almost nothing. You know all you need to know to
be saved, to be useful — to honor God and serve your genera
tion according to his will. The heathen sit in deep dark
ness, wedded to their abominations, groping, yet finding no
thing. As your light, therefore, so is your guilt immeasurably great
er than theirs. Be it so that their idolatries are monstrous-
guilt in your impenitence under the light you have^is vastly
more so. See that heathen mother dragging her shrieking
child and tumbling it into the Ganges ! See her rush with an
other to throw him into the burning arms of Moloch. Mark;
see that pile of wood flashing, lifting up its lurid flames to
ward heaven. Those men are dragging a dead husband —
they heave his senseless corpse on that burning pile.—

, MORAL GOVERNMENT. 359
There comes the widow — her hair all disheveled and flying —
gaily festooned for such a sacrifice; — she dances on; — she
rends the air with her howls and her waitings; — she shrinks
and yet she does not shrink — she leaps on the pile, and the
din of music with the yell of spectators buries her shrieks of
agony; she is gone! O, my blood curdles and runs cold in
my veins; — my hair stands on end; I am horrified with such
scenes — but what shall we say of their guilt? Ah yes — what
do they know of God — of worship — of the claims of God upon
their heart and life? Ah, you may well spare your censure of
the Heathen for their fearful orgies of cruelty and lust, and
give it where light has been enjoyed and resisted.
3. You see then that often a sinner in some of our congre
gations may know more than all the heathen world know.
If this be true, what follows from it as to the amount of his
comparative guilt ? This, inevitably, that such a sinner deserves
a direr and deeper damnation than all the heathen world! This
conclusion may seem startling; but how can we escape from
it? We can not escape. It is as plain as any mathematical
demonstration. This is the principle asserted by Christ
when he said — "That servant which knew his Lord's will and
prepared not himself, neither did according to his will shall be
beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not and did com
mit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
How solemn and how pungent the application of this doctrine
would be in this congregation ! I could call out many a sin
ner in this place and show him that beyond question his guilt
is greater than that of all the heathen world. Yet how few
ever estimated their own guilt.
Not long since, an ungodly young man, trained in this coun
try, wrote back from the Sandwich Islands a glowing and
perhaps a just description of their horrible abominations, mor
alizing on their monstrous enormities, and thanking God that
he had been born and taught in a Christian land. Indeed! he
might well have spared this censure ofthe dark-minded heath
en! His own guilt in remaining an impenitent sinner under
all the hght of Christian America was greater than the whole
aggregate guilt of all those Islands.
So we may all well spare our expressions of abhorrence ait
the guilty abominations of idolatry. , You are often perhaps
saying in your heart: Why does God endure these hornd
abominations another day ? See that rolling car of Juggernaut
Its wheels move axle-deep in the gushing blood and crushed
bones oi its deluded worshipers I And yet God looks on and

360 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. f.
no red bolt leaps from his right hand to smite such wicked
ness. They are indeed guilty; but O how small their guilt
compared with the guilt of those who know their duty per
fectly, yet never do it ! God sees their horrible abominations,
yet does he wink at them because they are done in so much
ignorance. But see that impenitent sinner. Convicted of his sin under
the clear gospel light that shines all around him, he is driven
to pray. He knows he ought to repent, and almost thinks he
is willing to, and will try. Yet still he clings to his sins and will
not give up his heart to God. Still he holds his heart in a
state of impenitence. Now mark me; — his sin, in thus with
holding his heart from God under so much light, involves
greater guilt than all the abominations of the heathen world.
Put together the guilt of all those widows who immolate them
selves on the funeral pile — of those who hurl their children
into the Ganges, or into the burning arms of Moloch — all does
not begin to approach the guilt of that convicted sinner's
prayer who comes before God under the pressure of his con
science, and prays a heartless prayer, determined all the
while to withhold his heart from God. O, why does this Bin-
ner thus tempt God, and thus abuse his love, and thus tram
ple on his authority? O, that moment of impenitence,
while his prayers are forced by conscience from hi§ burning
lips, and yet he will not yield the controversy with his Maker
— that moment involves direr guilt than rests on all the
heathen world together! He knows more than they all, yet
sins despite of all his knowledge. The many stripes belong
to him — the few to them.
4. This leads me to remark again that the Christian world
may very well spare their revilings and condemnations of the
heathen. Of all the portions of earth's population, Christen
dom is infinitely the most guilty — Christendom, where the
gospel peals from ten thousand pulpits — where its praises are
sung by a thousand choirs, but where many thousand hearts
that know God and duty, refuse either to reverence the one
or perform the other! All the abominations of the heathen
world are a mere trifle compared with the guilt of^Christen-
dom. We may look down upon the filth and meanness and
degradation ofa heathen people, and feel a most polite disgust
at the spectacle — and far be it from me to excuse these degra
ding, filthy or cruel practices; but how small their light and
consequently their guilt, compared with our own ! We there
fore ask the Christian world to turn away from the spectacle of

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 361
Heathen degradation, and look nearer home upon the specta
cle of Christian guilt! Let us look upon ourselves.
5. Again: let us not fear to say what you must all see to be
true, that the nominal church is the most guilty part of Christ
endom. It can not for a moment be questioned, that the
church has more light than any other portion; therefore has
she more guilt Of course I speak of the nominal church —
not the real church whom He has pardoned, and cleansed
from her sins. But in the nominal church, think of the sins
that live and riot in their corruption. See that backslider.
He has tasted the waters of life. He has been greatly en
lightened. Perhaps he has really known the Lord by true
faith — and then see, he turns away to eat the husks of earth
ly pleasure! He turns his back on the bleeding Lamb ! Now,
put together all the guilt of every Heathen soul that has gone
to hell — of every soul that has gone from a state of utter mor
al darkness; and your guilt, backsliding Christian, is greater
than all theirs !
Do you, therefore, say: may God then have mercy on my
soul ? So say we all ; but we must add, if it be possible ; for who
can say that such guilt as yours can be forgiven! Can Christ
pray for you as he prayed for his murderers — "Father, forgive
them, for they know nor what they do?" Can he plead in
your behalf that you know not what you are doing? Awful!
awful!! Where is the sounding line that shall measure the
ocean-depth of your guilt! •
6. Again: if our children remain in sin we may cease to
congratulate ourselves that they were not born in Heathenism
or Slavery! How often have I done this! How often, as I
have looked upon my sons and daughters, have I thanked
God that they were not born to be thrown into the burning
arms ofa Moloch, or to be crushed under the wheels of
Juggernaut! But if they will live in sin, we must suspend
our self-congratulations for their having Christian light and
privileges. If they will not repent, it were infinitely better
for them to have been born in the thickest Pagan darkness— -
better to have been thrown in their tender years into the
Ganges, or into the fires which idolatry kindles — better be
any thing else, or suffer any thing earthly, than have the gos
pel's light only to shut it out and go to hell despite of its ad
monitions. '
Let us not, then, be hasty in congratulating ourselves, as
if this great light enjoyed by us and by our children, were of
course a certain good to them; but this we may do — we may
31

362 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
rejoice that God will honor himself—his mercy if he can, and
his justice if he must. God will be honOred, and we may glo
ry in this. But oh, the sinner, the sinner! Who can meas
ure the depth of his guilt, or the terror of his final doom! It
will be more tolerable for all the heathen world together than
for you.
7. It is time that we all understood this subject fully, and
appreciated all its hearings. It is no doubt true, that howev
er moral our children may be, they are more guilty than any
other sinners under heaven, if they live in sin, and will not
yield to the light under which they live. We may be per
haps congratulating ourselves on their fair morality; but if we,
saw their case in all its real bearings, our souls would groan
with agony — our bowels would be all liquid with anguish— '
our very hearts within us would heave as if volcanic fires
were kindled there — so deep a sense should we have of their
fearful guilt and of the awful doom they incur in denying the
Lord that bought them, and setting at nought a known salva
tion. O, if we ever pray, we should, pour out our prayers for
our offspring as if nothing could ever satisfy us or stay our im
portunity, but the blessings ofa full salvation realized in their
souls. Let the mind contemplate the guilt of these children. I
could not: find a Sabbath School child, perhaps not one in all
Christendom, who could not tell me more of God's salvation
than all the hearthen world know. That dear little boy who
comes from his Sabbath school knows all about the gospel. He
is almost ready to be converted, but not quite ready; yet that
little boy, if he knows his duty and yet will not do it, is cov
ered with more guilt than all the heathen world together.
Yes, that boy, who goes alone and prays, yet holds back his
heart from God, and then his mother comes and prays over
him, and pours her tears on his head, and his little heart al
most melts, and he seems on the very point of giving up his
whole heart to the Savior; yet if he will not do it, he commits
more sin in that refusal than all the sin of all the heathen
world — his guilt is more than the guilt of all the murders, all
the drownings of children, and burnings of widows, and deeds
of cruelty and violence in all the heathen world. All this
combination of guilt shall not be equal to the guilt of the lad
who knows his duty, but will not yield his heart to its righte
ous claims.
8. "The Heathen," says an apostle, "sin without law and
stall therefore perish without law." In their final doom they

MORAL GOVERNMENT,

363

will be cast away from God: this will be perhaps about all.
The bitter reflection, "I had the light of the gospel and would
not yield to it — I knew all my duty, yet did it not" — this can
not be a part of their eternal doom. This is reserved for
those who gather themselves into our sanctuaries and around
our family altars, yet will not serve their own Infinite Father.
9. One more remark. Suppose I should call out a sinner
by name — one of the sinners of this congregation, a son of
pious parents, and should call up the father also. — I might say
Is this your son? Yes. What testimony can you bear about
this son of yours ? I have endeavored to teach him all the
ways of the Lord. Son, what can you say? I knew my duty
—I have heard it a thousand times. • I knew I ought to repent,
but I never would.
O, if we understood this matter in all its bearings, it would
fill every bosom with consternation and grief. How would
our bowels yearn and our bosoms heave as a volcano. There
would be one universal outcry of anguish and terror at the
awful guilt and fearful doom of such a sinner!
Young man, are you going away this day in your sins?
Then, what angel can compute your guilt? O how long has
Jesus held out his hands, yes, his bleeding hands, and besought
you to look and live? A thousand times, and in countless va
ried ways has he called, but you have refused; stretched out
his hand, and you have not regarded. O, will youTiot repent?
Why not say at once: It is enough that I have sirined'so lorig.
I can not live so any longer! O, sinner, why will you live so?
Would you go down to hell — ah, to the deepest hell-^-where,
if we would findyou, we must work our way down for a thou
sand years through ranks of lost spirits less guilty than you,
ere we could reach the fearful depth to which you have sunk!
O, sinner, what a hell is that which can adequately punish
such guilt as thine !

LECTURE XXIX.
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
I. Obedience to Moral Law is and must be, undeh
every dispensation of the Divine Government, the unal
terable condition of salvation.
H. Under a gracious dispensation Obedience to Moral
Law is not dispensed with as the condition of salvation,
but that Obedience to Law is secured by the indwelling
spirit and grace of Christ.
I. Obedience to Moral Law is and must be, under
EVERY DISPENSATION OF THE DlVINE GOVERNMENT THE UNAL
TERABLE CONDITION OF SALVATION.
In discussing this proposition I will,
1. Show what is not intended by it.
2. What is intended by it, and
3. Show that it must be true.
1. What is not intended by it.
It is not intended that no one can be saved who has at any
time broken the law. For this would shut all sinners out
from the possibility of salvation,
2. What is. intended.
That no one can be saved who does not return to full obe
dience to the law,
3. Prove the proposition.
(I.) Salvation upon any other condition is naturally impos
sible. Without holiness salvation is out of the question.
But holiness and full obedience to the moral law are the same

f2.) The gospel is not a repeal of the law, but designed to
establish it.
(3.) As the moral law is the law of nature, it is absurd to
suppose that entire obedience to it should not be the unalter
able condition of salvation, that is, that salvation should be
possible upon a less condition than a return on the part of
sinners to the state of mind required by this law of nature.
(4.) The bible everywhere represents the perfect love re
quired by the law as indispensable to salvation. It is natu
rally indispensable.
Perhaps some one will say thatit is true indeed that one can
not enter heaven without first becoming entirely obedient to
the divine law, but that this obedience may first take f lace

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

365

immediately after death. I reply,— that the uniform re
presentation of the bible is that men shall be judged accord
ing to the deeds done in the body, and that the state of mind
in which they enter the eternal world shall decide their destiny
forever. It is nowhere so much as hinted in the bible that
men shall be saved in consequence or upon condition ofa
change that take's place after death. But the opposite of this
is the unvarying teaching of the bible. If men are not holy
here, they never will be holy. If they are not sanctified by
the Spirit and the belief ofthe truth in this life, there is no in
timation in the bible that they ever will be; but the contrary
of this is the plain and unequivocal teaching of the bible.
The work of regeneration and sanctification' is always repre
sented as being instrumentally effected by the instrumentality
and agency of those means that Christ has provided in this
world. "But unto every one of us is given grace according
to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith,
When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and
gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but
that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth.
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far
above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave
some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists;
and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the
measure ofthe stature ofthe fullness of Christ." — Eph. 4: 7 —
13. This passage is only a specimen of scripture declara
tions and teachings upon this subject. It unequivocally
teaches the entire sanctification of the whole mystical body or
church of Christ in this life, or by the means which he has pro
vided, and which means relate exclusively to this life.
II. Under a gracious dispensation, a return to full
OBEDIENCE TO MoRAL Law IS NOT DISPENSED WITH AS A CON
DITION OF SALVATION, BUT THIS OBEDIENCE IS SECURED BY *THE
INDWELLING SPIRIT OF CHRIST RECEIVED BY FAITH TO REIGN
IN THE HEART.
In discussing this proposition I shall endeavor to show,
1." That salvation by grace does not dispense with a return
to full obedience to law as a condition of salvation, and
2. That the grace of the gospel is designed to restore sinners
to fuljgfiedience to the law.
3. That the efficient infiu ence that secures this conformity to
t 31*

366 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
law is the Spirit of Christ or the Holy Spirit received into and
reigning in the heart by faith.
1. Salvation by grace does not dispense with a return to full
obedience as a condition of salvation.
There is a class of scripture texts which have been quoted
by antinomians in support ofthe doctrine that salvation is not
conditionated upon personal holiness or upon a return to full
obedience. It has been found very convenient by many who
were lovers of sin and never conscious of personal holiness,
to adopt the idea of an imputed holiness, contenting them
selves with an outward righteousness imputed to them instead
of submitting by faith to have the righteousness of God
wrought in them. Unwilling to he personally pious they be
take themselves to an imputed piety. Because the scriptures
declare that men are not saved by works of the law, they infer
that a return to that state of love required by the law is not
even a condition of salvation. The texts above referred to are
such as these. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus jQhrist oven we
have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by
the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." — Gal. 2: 16.
This and sundry other passages that hold the same language
are grossly misunderstood and misapplied by antinomians.
They merely declare that' men are not justified and saved by
their own works, which of course they can not be if they
have committed even one sin. But they do not intimate, and
there is no passage rightly understood that does intimate,
that men are saved or justified upon conditions short of per
sonal holiness or a return to full obedience to the moral law.
Again: James wrote his epistle to establish this point
Grace can not save by dispensing; with personal holiness or a
return to full obedience to the law. Grace must not only
pardon, but secure personal holiness, or the soul is not fitted
either for the employments or enjoyments of heaven. It is
naturally impossible for grace to save the soul but upon con
dition of entire sanctification.
2. The grace of the Gospel was designed to restore sinners to
full obedience to the moral law.
This is abundantly evident from almost every part of the
Bible. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart,
and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all
thine heart, and with all thy soul that thou mayest live." —
Deuteronomy 30: 7. "And I will give them a heart to know
r

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 367
me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I
wili be their God: for they shall return unto me with their
whole heart." — Jeremiah 24:7. "Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel, and with the house of Judah. And they shall
teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me,
from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the
Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31: 31 — 34. "And I will
give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you:
and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give
them a heart of flesh." — Eze. 11: 19. "Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your
filthiness and from all your idols I will cleanse you." — Eze.
36:25. "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the
days come, saith the Lord, when I wilji make a new cove
nant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
not according to the covenant that I made With their fathers
in the day wfrlen I took them by the hand to lead them out of
the land of Egypt because they continued not in my covenant,
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the co
venant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those
days saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and
they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know
the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."— He
brews 8: 8 — 12. "And he shall bring forth a son, and thou
shalt call his name JESUS^ for he shall save his people from
their sins." — Matt. 1: 21i "And the very God of peace
sanctify you wholly: anil pray God your whole spirit, and
soul, and body, be preserved- blameless unto the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who
also will do it." — 1. Thess. 5: 23, 24. " For sin shall not have
dominion over you : for ye are not under the law, but under
grace." — Rom. 6: 14. These and many other passages of
like import plainly teach the truth of the proposition we are
considering, namely, that grace was designed to secure per
sonal holiness and full return to the love required by the law
rather^than to dispense with this hohness or obedience as a
condMon of salvation.

368 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
/
3. The efficient influence that secures this return to full obe
dience to the law is the Holy Spirit received to reign in the heart
by faith.
That God writes his law in the heart by his indwelling
Spirit, is abundantly taught in the bible. Writing his law in
the heart is begetting the spirit or love required by the law
in their heart.
By his reigning in the heart is intended his setting up and
continuing his dominion in the heart by writing bis law there,
or as is said just above, by begetting the love required by
the law iri the heart.
Also by reigning in the heart is intended that He leads,
guides and controls the soul by enlightening and drawing it
into conformity in all things to his will. Thus it is said, "It
is God that worketh in you to will and to do of his good
pleasure." By the assertioriljthat the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ
is received by faith to reign in the heart it is intended that
He is actually trusted in or submitted to by faith, and His in
fluence suffered to control us. He does not guide and control
us by irresistible power or force, but faith confides the gui
dance of our souls to Him. Faith receives and confides in
Him,, and consents to be governed and directed by Him. As
His influence is moral and not physical, it is plain that He
can influence us no farther than we have confidence in Him,
that is, no farther than we trust, confide in Him. But I
must cite some passages that sustain these positions. " That
the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith."— Gal. 3: 14. "Until the Spirit be poured
upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful fieldy
and the fruitful field be counted for a forest." — Isaiah 32: 15.
" For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods
upon the dry ground : I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed,
and my blessing upon thine offspring." — Isaiah 44: 3. "But
this shall be the covenant which I will make with the house
of Israel ; After those days saith the Lord, I will put my law
in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be
their God, and they shall be my people." — Jer. 31 : 33. " And
I Will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will
not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put
my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." —
Jer. 32 : 40. " And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your daugh-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 369
ters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your
young men shall see visions." — Joel 2: 28, 29. " And I will
pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of
Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication; and they shall
look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn
for him as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bit
terness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born."
— Zechariah 12: 10. "But this spake he of the Spirit which
they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost
was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."
John 7: 39. " Therefore being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of
the Holy Ghost he hath shed forth this which ye now see and
hear."— Acts 2: 33. "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the
world can not receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him: but ye know him; for 'he dwelleth with you
and shall be in you." — John 14: 17. "There is therefore
now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that
are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh ; but they
that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. But ye are
not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of
God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ he is none of his. But if the Spirit of him that raised
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised np Christ
frOm the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his
Spirit that dwelleth in you. For if ye live after the flesh, ye
shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of
the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit
of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received
the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God."— Romans 8: 1—5—9—11—13, 14, 15, 16.
" But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." —
Gal. 5: 18. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"— 1 Cor. 3:16.
'f What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the
Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye
are not your own'?" — 1 Cor. 6: 19. "But the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness,
faith. If we live in the Spirit let us also walk in the Spirit."
—Gal. 5: 22— 25. "That Christ may dwell in your hearts
by faith, that ye, being rooted arid grounded in love." — Eph.

370 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
3: 17. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."— Eph. 2:8. « And
be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which
is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ,
the righteousness which is of God by faith." — Phil. 3: 9.
" Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with
him through the faith of the Operation of God, who hath raised
him from the dead."— Col. 2: 12.
These passages abundantly support the position for the es
tablishment of which they are quoted. It is only necessary
to remark here,
1. That the Holy Spirit controls, directs, and sanctifies the
soul, not by a physical influence, nor by impulses or by impres
sions made on the sensibility, but by enlightening and con
vincing the intelligence.
2. The fundamentally important doctrine of an in dwelling
Christ, that the Spirit of Christ must be received by faith to
reign in the heart, has been extensively overlooked. " Christ
our sanctification!" said a minister to me a few months since,
" I never heard of such a thing." Also said a Doctor of Di
vinity to me, "I never heard Christ spoken of as our sanctifi
cation until the Perfectionists affirmed it." Indeed it is ama
zing to see how this blessed truth has been overlooked.
Christ, by his Spirit, must actually dwell within and reign
over us, and this is an unalterable condition of salvation.
He is our King. He must be received by faith to set up and
establish His kingdom in the heart, or salvation is impossible.

LECTURE XXX. .
MORAL GOVERNMENT.
Sanctions of moral law, natural and governmental.
Ir the discussion of this subject, I shall show,
/. What constitutes the sanctions of law.
II. That there can be no law without sanctions.
III. In what light the sanctions of law are to be regarded.
IV. The end to be secured by law and the execution of penal
sanctions. V. The rule by which sanctions ought to be graduated.
I. What constitutes the sanctions of law.
1. The sanctions of law are the motives to obedience, that
which is to be the natural and the governmental consequence
or result of obedience and of disobedience.
2. They are remuneratory* that is, they promise reward to
obedience. 3. They are vindicatory, that is, they threaten the diso
bedient with punishment.
4. They are natural, that is,
(1.) AH moral law is that rule of action which is in exact
accordance with the nature and relations of moral beings;
(2.) Happiness is to some extent naturally connected with,
and the necessary consequence of obedience to moral law.
(3.) Misery is naturally and necessarily connected with and
results from disobedience to moral law, or from acting contrary
to the nature and relations of moral beings.
5. Sanctions are governmental. By governmental sanctions
are intended,
(1.) The favor of the government as doe to obedience.
(2.) A positive reward bestowed upon the obedient by gov
ernment. (3.) The displeasure of government towards the disobe
dient (4.) Direct punishment inflicted by the government as due
to disobedience.
6. AH happiness and misery resulting from obedience or
disobedience, either natural or from the favor or frown of gov
ernment, are to be regarded as constituting the sanctions of
law. //. There can be no law without sanctions.
1. It has been said in a former lecture that precepts without
sanctions are only counsel or advice, and no law.

372 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
2. Nothing is law, but the rule of action which is founded
in the nature and relations of moral beings. It is therefore
absurd to say, that there should be no natural sanctions to
this rule of action. It is the same absurdity as to say, that con
formity to the laws of our being would not produce happi
ness, and that disconformity to the laws of our being would
not produce misery: which is a contradiction; for what do we
mean by acting in conformity to the laws of our being, but
that course of conduct in which all the powers of our being
will sweetly harmonize, and produce happiness? And what
do we mean by disconformity to the laws of our being, but
that course of action that creates mutiny among our powers
themselves, that produces discord instead of harmony, misery
instead of happiness?
3. A precept, to have the nature and the force of law, must
be founded in reason, that is, it must have some reason
for its existence. And it were unjustte hold out no motives to
obedience where a law is founded in a necessity of our
nature. 4. But whatever is unjust is no law. Therefore a precept
without a sanction is not law.
5. Necessity is the condition of all rightful government. There
would be and could be no just government, but for the neces
sities of the universe. But these necessities can not be met,
the great end of government can not be secured without mo
tives or sanctions. Therefore that is no government, no law,
that has no sanctions.
///. In what light sanctions are to be regarded,.
1. Sanctions are to be regarded as an expression of the be
nevolent regard of the' law-giver for his subjects: the motives
which he exhibits to induce in the subjects the course of con
duct that will secure their highest well-being.
2. They are to be regarded as an expression of his estima
tion of the justice, necessity, and value of the precept
3. They are to be regarded as an expression of the amount
or strength of his desire to secure the happiness of his sub
jects. 4. They are to be regarded as an expression of his opinion
in respect to the desert of disobedience.
The natural sanctions are to be regarded as a demonstra
tion of the justice, necessity, and perfection of the precept.
IV. The end to be secured by law, and the execution of penal
sanctions. 1. The ultimate end of all government is blessedness.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 373
. 2 This is the ultimate end of the precept and the sanction
of law.
3. This can be secured only by the prevention of sin and
the promotion of holiness.
4. Confidence in the government is the sine qua non of all
virtue. 5. Confidence results from a revelation of the lawgiver to
his1 subjects. Confidence in God results from a revelation of
himself to his creatures.
6. The moral law, in its precepts and sanctions, is a revela
tion of God.
7. The execution of penal sanctions, is also a revelation of
the mind, will, and character of the lawgiver.
8. The highest and most influential sanctions of govern
ment are those motives that most fully reveal the true charac
ter of God.
V. By what rule sanctions ought to be graduated.
1. We have seen in a former lecture that moral obligation is
founded in the intrinsic value of the well-being of God and of
the universe, and conditionated upon the perception of its
value. 2. That guilt ought always to be measured by the perceiv
ed value of the end which moral beings ought to choose.
3. The sanctions of law should be graduated by the intrin
sic merit or demerit of holiness and sin.
SANCTIONS OF GOD'S LAW.
I. God's law has sanctions.
II. What constitutes the remuneratory sanctions of the law of
God. III. The perfection and duration ofthe remuneratory sanctions
ofthe law of God.
IV. What constitutes the vindicatory sanctions of the law of God.
V. Their duration.
I. God's law has sanctions.
1. That sin or disobedience to the moral law, is attended
With, and results in misery, is a matter of consciousness.
2. That virtue or holiness is attended with and results
in happiness, is also attested by consciousness.
3. Therefore that God's law has natural sanctions, both
remuneratory and vindicatory, is a matter of fact
4. That there are governmental sanctions added to the
natural, must be true, or God in fact has no Government.
5. The Bible expressly and in every variety of form teach-
32

374 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
e* that God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked.
//. What constitutes the remuneratory sanctions ofthe law of God.
' 1. The happiness that is naturally and necessarily con
nected with, and results from holiness or obedience.
2. The merited favor, protection, and blessing of God.
3. All the natural and governmental rewards of virtue.
///. The perfection and duration ofthe remuneratory sanc
tions ofthe law of God.
1. The perfection of the natural reward is and must be
proportioned to the perfection of virtue.
2. The duration of the remuneratory sanction must be
equal to the duration of obedience. This can not possibly be
otherwise. 3. If the existence and virtue of man are immortal his hap
piness must be endless.
4. The Bible most unequivocally asserts the immortality
both ofthe existence and virtue ofthe righteous, and also that
their happiness shall be endless.
5. The very design and end of government make it ne
cessary that governmental rewards should be as perfect and
unending as virtue.
IV. What constitutes the vindicatory sanctions of the law of God,
1. The misery naturally and necessarily connected with,
and the result of disobedience to moral law. Here again let
it be understood that moral law is nothing else than that rule
of action which accords with the nature and relations of moral-
beings. Therefore the natural vindicatory sanction of the
law of God is misery resulting from a violation of man's own
nature. 2. The displeasure of God, the loss of his protection and
governmental favor, together with that punishment which itis
his duty to inflict upon the disobedient.
¦3, The rewards of holiness and the punishment of sin, are
described in the Bible in figurative language. The rewards of
virtue are called eternal life. The punishment of vice is call
ed death. By life is intended, not only existence, but that hap
piness which makes life desirable. By death is intended, not
annihilation, but that misery which renders existence an evil.
V. Duration ofthe penal sanctions of the law of God..
1. Examine the question in the light of natural theology.
2. In the light of revelation.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

375

In examining it in the light of natural theology, I shall,
1. Inquire into the meaning ofthe term infinite.
2. Show that infinites may differ indefinitely in amount.
3. Remind you ofthe rule by which the degrees of guilt are
to be estimated.
4. That all and everysin must,from its very nature, involve
infinite guilt, in the sense of deserving endless punishment.
5. That notwithstanding all sin deserves endless punishment;
yet the guilt of different persons may vary indefinitely, and
that punishment although always endless in duration may and
ought to and must vary in degree, in proportion as guilt varies.
6. That the duration of penal inflictions under the govern
ment of God will be endless.
/. Inquire into the meaning of the term Infinite.
1. It literally and properly means not finite, not limited,
not bounded, or unlimited, boundless. This is the meaning of
the term and the sense in which I shalfuse it in this discus
sion. //. Infinites may differ indefinitely in amount.
1. This is the doctrine of Sir Isaac Newton, and of natural
and mathematical science, as most persons at all acquainted
with this subject know.
2. It is a plain matter of fact. For example: suppose that
from this point radiate mathematical lines endlessly in every
direction. Let each two of these lines make an angle of one
degree and let the points be sufficiently numerous to fill up the
whole circle. Now as these lines extend endlessly in every di
rection every pair of them form the legs of a triangle whose sides
extend endlessly and which has no base or which has no
bound in one direction. It is self-evident that the superficial
afea contained between any two of those radii is infinite in
the sense that its superficial amount is unlimited. Thus the
whole of space is no more than infinite, and yet there is in the
sense of unlimited an infinite amount of space between every
two of those radii.
The same would be true upon the supposition of parallel
mathematical lines of infinite length no matter how near to
gether: the superfices or area between them must be infinite
in amount. Any thing is infinite which has no whole, which
is boundless in any sense. In the sense in which it is bound
less it is infinite. For example, in the cases supposed the
area between any two of the radii of the circle or ofthe paral
lel lines is not infinite in the sense that it has no bounds in
any direction. For it is bounded on its sides. But it is infi-

376 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
nite ia the sense of its superficial measure or contents, So,
endless happiness or misery may be finite in one sense aud in
finite in another. They may be infinite in amount taking mto
view their endlessness, however small they may be in degree.
So that ia degree they may, and with finite creatures must
be finite in degree but infinite in amount. There is and can
be no whole of them and therefore in amount they are infinite.
God's happiness may be and is infinite both in degree and in
duration, which amounts to infinite in the absolute sense.
///. I must remind you of the rule by which degrees of guilt
are to be estimated.
And here let it be remembered,
1. That moral obligation is founded in the intrinsic value
of those interests which moral agents are bound to choose as
an end.
2. That the obligation is conditionated upon the knowl
edge of this end, and,
3. That the degree of obligation is just equal to the degrefe
of light which the mind has in regard to the intrinsic value
of those interests which it is bound to choose.
4. That the guilt of refusal to will these interests is in pro
portion, or is equal to the amount of the obligation, and,
5. That consequently the mind's honest apprehension or
judgment of the value of those interests which it refuses to
will, is and must be the rule By which the degree of guilt in
volved in that refusal ought to be measured. I do not mean
that guilt is to be measured by the mind's actual but dishonest
estimate of the value of the interests it rejects; but guilt is to
be measured by the light enjoyed or by the estimate which the
mind would have with the light that now shines around it, were
ithonest and disposed to receive the light and judge according-
IV. That all and every sin must from its very nature involve
infinite guilt in the sense of deserving endless punishment.
1. Sin implies moral obligation.
2. Moral obligation implies moral agency.
3. Moral agency implies light, or the knowledge of the
end that moral agents ought to will.
4. This end is the highest well-being of God and of the
universe. 5. The idea or apprehension of this end implies the knowl
edge that the intrinsic value of those endless interests must
be infinite.
If the idea of God and of the good of being be developed,

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

377

which is implied in moral agency, there must be in the mind
the idea or first truth that the good of God and of the uni
verse is infinitely valuable. The idea may lie in comparative
obscuration. Nevertheless it is and must be in the mind. If
this is so, (and it must be so,) it follows that every refusal to
will the highest well-being of God and of the universe in
volves infinite guilt. Every moral agent must be able to
affirm, and indeed must affirm to himself that the intrinsic
value of the happiness of God and the universe must be bound
less, unlimited, infinite. He must affirm that there can be no
limit to it. By this affirmation or by the apprehension that
necessitates this affirmation, his guilt ought to be measured, if
he refuses to consecrate himself to the promotion of those in
terests. V. Notwithstanding all sin deserves- endless punishment,
yet the guilt of different persons may vary indefinitely, and
punishment, although always endless in duration, may, and
ought to vary in degree according to the guilt of each indi
vidual. The guilt of different persons may vary indefinitely. —
This also may be true of the same person at different periods of
life. Observe: the degree of guilt depends on the degree of
intellectual development on moral subjects — upon the clear
ness with which the mind apprehends moral relations, espe
cially the intrinsic value of those interests which it ought to
choose. These apprehensions vary, as every moral agent is
conscious, almost continually. The obligation to will an end
lies in the intrinsic value of the end. The obligation is great
er or less as the mind's honest estimate of the value of it is
greater or less. Every moral agent knows that the value of the
end is unbounded. Yet some have an indefinitely larger con
ception of what infinite and boundless means. Some minds
mean indefinitely more by such language than others do. As
light increases and the mind obtains enlarged conceptions of
God, of the universe, of endless happiness or misery, and of all
those great truths that cluster around these subjects, its obli
gation increases in exact proportion to increasing light, and so
does the guilt of selfishness.
VI. That penal inflictions under the government of God must
be endless.
Here the inquiry is, what kind of death is intended where
death is denounced against the transgressor as the penalty oi
the law of God?
I, It is not merely natural death, for,
32*

378 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
1. This would in reality be no penalty at all. But it would
be offering a reward to sin. If natural death is all that is in
tended, and if persons, as soon as they are naturally dead
have suffered the penalty ofthe law, and their souls go imme
diately to heaven, the case stands thus: If your obedience is
perfect and perpetual, you shall live in this world forever: but
if you sin, you shall die and go right to heaven. This would
be hire and salary, and not punishment.
2. If natural death be the penalty of God's law, the righte
ous who are forgiven, should not die a natural death.
3. If natural death be the penalty of God's law, there is no
such thing as forgiveness, but all must actually endure the
penalty. 4. If natural death be the penalty, then infants and animals
suffer this penalty as. well as the most abandoned transgress
ors. 5. If natural death be the penalty it sustains no proportion
whatever to the guilt of sin.
6. Natural death would be no adequate expression of the
importance of the precept.
II. The penalty of God's law is not spiritual death.
1. Because spiritual death is a state of entire sinfulness.
2. To make a state of entire sinfulness the penalty of the
law of God, would be to make the penalty and the breach of
the precept identical.
3. It would be making God the author of sin, and would
represent him as compelling the sinner to commit one sin as
the punishment for another, as forcing him into a state of to
tal depravity as the reward of his first transgression.
III. But the penal sanction of the law of God is eternal
death or that state of suffering which is the natural and govern
mental result of sin or spiritual death.
Before I proceed to the proof of this, I will notice an ob
jection which is often urged against the doctrine of eternal
punishments. The objection is one, but it is stated in three dif
ferent forms. This, and every other objection to the doctrine
of endless punishment, with which I am acquainted, is leveled
against the justice of such a governmental infliction.
1. It is said that endless punishment is unjust because life
is so short that men do not live long enough in tiiis world to
commit so great a number of sins as to deserve endless pun
ishment. To this I answer,
(1.) That it is founded in a ridiculous ignorance or disre
gard of a universal principle of government, viz: that one

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 379
breach of the precept always incurs the penalty of the law,
whatever that penalty is.
(2.) The length of time employed in committing a sin, has
nothing to do with its blameworthiness or guilt. It is the de
sign which constitutes the moral character of the action, and
Hot the length of time required for its accomplishment.
(3.) This objection takes for granted that it is the number
Of sins and not the intrinsic guilt of sin that constitutes its
blameworthiness, whereas it is the intrinsic desert or guilt of
sin, as we shall soon see, that renders it deserving of endless
punishment. 2. Another form of the objection is, that a finite creature
can not commit an infinite sin. But none but an infinite sin
can deserve endless punishment: therefore endless punish
ments are unjust.
(1.) This objection takes for granted that man is so diminu
tive a creature, so much less than the Creator, that he can
not deserve his endless frown.
(2.) The fact is, the greater the distance between the crea
ture and the creator, the more aggravated is the guilt of in
sult or rebellion in the creature. Which is the greater crime,
for a child to insult his playfellow or his parent? Which
would involve the most guilt, for a man to smite his neighbor
and his equal, or his lawful sovereign ?
(3.) The higher the ruler is exalted above the subject in
his nature, character, and rightful authority, the greater is the
guilt of transgression in the subject. Therefore the fact that
man is so infinitely below his Maker but enhances the guilt
of his rebellion and renders him worthy of his endless frown.
3. A third form of the objection is, that sin is not an infi
nite evil, and therefore does not deserve endless punishment.
This objection may mean either that sin would not
produce infinite mischief if unrestrained, or that it does not
involve infinite guilt. It can not mean the first, for it is agreed
on all hands that misery must continue as iong as sin does,
and therefore that sin unrestrained would produce endless
evil. The objection therefore must mean that sin does not
involve infinite guilt. Observe then, the point at issue is,
what is the intrinsic demerit or guilt of sin? What does all
sin in its own nature deserve? They who deny the justice
of endless punishment, manifestly consider the guilt of sin as
a mere trifle. They who maintain the justice of endless pun
ishment, consider sin as an evil of immeasurable magnitude,

380 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and, in its own nature, as deserving of endless punishment.
Proof: 1. The guilt or blameworthiness of an action, consists in its
being the violation of an obligation. Example: Should a child
refuse obedience to his fellow who has no natural or acquired
claims upon his obedience, he would not be blameworthy.
But should he refuse obedience to his parent who has both a
natural and acquired claim to his obedience, this conduct
would be blameworthy. This shows in what blameworthi
ness consists.
2. The guilt or blameworthiness of an action is equal to the
amount of obligation to do or omit that thing. We have just
seen that the blameworthiness lies in its being the violation
of an obligation. Hence the amount of blameworthiness must
be equal to the amount of obligation. If a child refuse to obey
his fellow, he contracts no guilt. If he refuse to obey his pa
rent, he contracts a degree of guilt equal to the amount of his
obligation to obey. Suppose that some one upon whom he is
a thousand times as dependent as upon his parent, and who
therefore has a thousand times higher claim upon his obedi
ence than his parent has, should command him to do or omit a
certain thing. Should he in this case disobey, his guilt would
be a thousand times as great as when he disobeyed his pa
rents. Now suppose that God, upon whom every moral be
ing is not only perfectly but endlessly dependent, requires the
creature to love him with all his heart; who does not see that
his guilt in refusing obedience must be as great as his obliga
tion to obey ? y~
Having shown that moral obligation is founded in the in-=
trinsic value ofthe highest well-being of God and ofthe uni
verse, and that it is always equal to the light afforded to the
mind or to the soul's knowledge of the value of those inter
ests, and having shown also that every moral agent neces
sarily has the idea more or less clearly developed that the
value of those interests is infinite, it follows:
That the law is infinitely unjust, if its penal sections are
not endless. Law must be just in two respects.
The precept must be in accordance with the law of na
ture. The penalty must be equal to the importance of the
precept. That which has not these two peculiarities is not
just, and therefore is not and can not be law. Either, then,
God has no law, or its penal sanctions are endless.
1. That the penal sanctions of the law of God are endless,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 381
is evident from the fact that a less penalty would not exhibit
as high motives as the nature of the case admits, to restrain sin
and promote virtue.
2. Natural justice demands that God should exhibit as high
motives to secure obedience as the value of the law demands,
and the nature of the case admits.
3. The justice, holiness and benevolence of God demand
that the penal sanctions of his law should be endless; and if
they are not, God can not be just, holy or benevolent.
4. Unless the penal sanctions of the law of God are end
less, they are virtually and really no penalty at all. If a man
be threatened with punishment for one thousand, or ten thou
sand, or ten millions, or ten hundred millions of years, after
which he is to come out, as a matter of justice, and go to
heaven, there is beyond an absolute eternity of happiness.
Now there is no sort of proportion between the longest finite
period that can be named, or even conceived, and endless du
ration. If, therefore, limited punishment, ending in an eter
nity of heaven, be the penalty of God's law, the case stands
thus: Be perfect, and you live here forever. Sin, and receive
finite suffering, with an eternity of heaven. This would be,
after all, offering reward to sin.
5. Death is eternal in its nature. The fact, therefore, that
this figure is used»to express the future punishment of the
wicked affords a plain inference that it is endless.
.6. The tendency of sin to perpetuate and aggravate itself,
affords another strong inference that the sinfulness and misery
of the wicked will be eternal.
. 7. The fact that punishment has no tendency to beget
disinterested love in a selfish mind towards him who inflicts
the punishment, also affords a strong presumption that future
punishment will be eternal.
8. The law makes no provision for terminating future pun
ishment. 9. Sin deserves endless punishment just as folly as it de
serves any punishment at all. If, therefore, it is not forgiven,
if it be punished at all with penal suffering, the punishment
must be endless.
10. To deny the justice of eternal punishments, involves
the same principle as a denial of the justice of any degree of
punishment. 11. To deny the justice of endless punishment, is virtually
to deny the fact of moral evil. But to deny this is to deny
moral obligation. To deny moral obligation is to deny moral

382 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
agency. But of both moral obligation and moral agency we
are absolutely conscious. Therefore it follows to a demon
stration, not only that moral evil does exist, but that it de
serves endless punishment.
77. Examine this question in the light of Revelation.
The bible in a great many way's represents the future
punishment of the wicked as eternal. It expresses the dura
tion of the future punishment of the wicked by the same
terms, and in every way as forcibly as it expresses the duration
ofthe future happiness ofthe righteous.]
I will here introduce without comment some passages of
scripture confirmatory of this last remark. " The hope of the
righteous shall be gladness: but the expectation of the wicked
shall perish."  Prov. 10: 28. "When a wicked man dieth,
his expectation shall perish; and the hope of unjust men
perisheth." — Prov. 11: 7. "And many of them that sleep in
the dust ofthe earth shall wake, some to everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt." — Dan. 12: 2.
" Then shall he say also unto" them on the left hand, Depart
from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
devil and his angels: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me
no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. And these
shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous
into life eternal."— Matt. 25: 41, 42, 46. • "And if thy hand
offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life
maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched." — Mark 9: 43, 44. "The
Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that
man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good
for that man if he had not been born." — Matt. 26: 24.
"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his
floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff
he will burn with fire unquenchable." — Luke 3: 17. "And
besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot;
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." —
Luke 16: 26. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlast
ing life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;
but the wrath of God abideth on him."— John 3: 36. "And
to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus
shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in
flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 383
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the pres
ence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." — 2 Thess.
I: 7- — 9. "And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting
chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them, in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going
after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire. Raging waves of the sea, foaming
out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved
the blackness of darkness forever." — Jude, 6, 7, 13. "And
the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If
any, man worship the beast and his image, and receive his
mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of
the wine of -the wrath of God, which is poured out without
mixture into the cup of his indignation ; and he shall be tor
mented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy
angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of
their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have
no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image,
and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." — Rev.»14: 9
— 11. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the
lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false
prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever
and ever." — Rev. 20: 10. "He that is unjust, let him be un
just still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he
that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is
holy let him be holy still." — Rev. 22: 11. But there is
scarcely any end to the multitude of passages that teach
directly or by inference both the fact and the endless
ness of the future punishment of the wicked. But the fuller
consideration of this subject belongs more appropriately to a
future place in this course of instruction, my object here being
only to consider the penal sanctions of moral law didatically,
reserving the polemic discussion of the question of endless
punishment for a future occasion.

LECTURE XXXI.
ATONEMENT.
We come now to the consideration of a very important
feature of the moral government of God; namely the atone
ment. In discussing this subject I will,
I. Call attention to several well established gov
ernmental PRINCIPLES, IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH OUR INVES
TIGATION WILL PROCEED.
II. Define the term Atonement as used in this dis
cussion. III. Inquire into the teachings of natural theology,
or into the a priori affirmations of reason upon this
subject.
IV. Show the fact of Atonement.
V. The design of Atonement.
VI. Extent of Atonement.
VII. Answer objections.
I. I. will call attention to several well established governmen
tal principles.
1. We have already seen that moral law is not founded in
the mere arbitrary will of God or of any other being, but
that it has its foundation in the nature and relations of moral
agents, that it is that rule of action or of wilhng which is im
posed on them by the law of their own intelligence.
2. As the will of no being can create moral law, so the will
of no beihg can repeal or alter moral law. It being just
that rule of action that is agreeable to the nature and relations
of moral agents, it is as immutable as those natures and re-
, lations. 3. There is a distinction between the letter and the spirit
of moral law. The letter is the language in which it is ex
pressed. The spirit is its true and proper meaning. For ex
ample: the spirit of the moral law requires disinterested be
nevolence and is all expressed in one word love. The letter
of the law is found in the commandments of the Decalogue
and in divers other precepts.
4. To the letter of the law there may be many exceptions,
but to the spirit of moral law there can be no exceptions.
That is, the spirit of the moral law may sometimes admit and
require that the letter of the law shall be disregarded or vio
lated; but the spirit of the law ought never to be disregar-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 385
ded or violated. For example: the letter of the law prohibits
all labor on the Sabbath day. But the spirit of the law often
requires labor on the sabbath. The spirit of the law requires
the exercise of 'Universal and perfect love or benevolence to
God and man, and the law of benevolence often requires that
labor shall be done on the sabbath; as administering to
the sick, relieving the poor, feeding animals; and in short
whatever is plainly the work of necessity or mercy, in such a
sense that enlightened benevolence demands it, is required
by the spirit of moral law upon the sabbath as well as all
other days. This is expressly taught by Christ both by pre
cept and example. So again, the letter of the law says the
soul that sinneth, it shall die; but the spirit of the law admits
and requires that upon certain conditions, to be examined in
the proper place, the soul that sinneth shall live. The letter
makes no exceptions: the spirit makes many exceptions.
The letter of the law is inexorable and condemns and sen
tences to death all violators of its precepts without regard to
atonement or repentance. The spirit of moral law allows
and requires that upon condition of satisfaction being made
to public justice and the return of the sinner to obedience,
he shall live and not die.
5. In establishing a government and promulgating law, the
lawgiver is always understood as pledging himself duly to
administer the laws in support of public order and for the
promotion of public morals, to reward the innocent with his
favor and protection and to punish the disobedient with the
loss of his protection and his favor.
6. Laws are public property in which every subject of the
government has an interest. Every obedient subject of gov
ernment is interested to have law supported and obeyed, and
wherever the law is violated, every subject of the govern
ment is injured and his rights are invaded; and each and all
have a right to expect the government to duly execute the
penalties of law when it is violated.
7. There is an important distinction between distributive and
public justice. Distributive justice consists, in its exercise,
in distributing to every subject of government according to
his character. It respects the intrinsic merit or demerit of
each individual, and deals with him accordingly. Public jus
tice, in its exercise, consists in the promotion and protection
of the public interests by such legislation and such an admin
istration of law as is demanded by the highest good of the
public. It implies the execution of the penalties of law where
33

386 systematic theology.
the precept is violated, unless something else is done that will
as effectually secure the public interests. When this is done,
public justice demands that the execution of the penalty
shall be dispensed with by extending pardon to the criminal.
Distributive justice makes no exceptions, but punishes with
out mercy in every instance of crime. Public justice makes
exceptions as often as this is permitted or required by the
public good. Public justice is identical with the spirit of
the moral law in its relations to the public interests, or, in its
exercise, regards only the spirit of the law. Distributive
justice cleaves to the letter, and makes no exceptions to the
rule, " the soul that sinneth it shall die."
8. The design of penalties to laws is prevention, or to se
cure obedience to the precept. The same is also the design
of executing them when the precept is violated. The sanc
tions are to be regarded as an expression of the views of the
lawgiver in respect to the importance of his law; and the exe
cution of penalties is designed and calculated to evince his
sincerity in enacting, and his continued adherence to, and de
termination to abide by the principles of his government as
revealed in the law; his abhorrence of all crime; his regard
to the public interests; and His unalterable determination
to carry out, support and establish the authority of His law.
9. It is a fact well established by the experience of all ages
and nations that the exercise of mercy in setting aside the
execution of penalties is a matter of extreme delicacy and
danger. The influence of law, as might be expected, is found
very much to depend upon the certainty felt by the subjects
that it will be duly executed. It is found to be true that the
exercise of mercy in every government where no atonement
is made, weakens government by begetting and fostering a
hope of impunity in case sin is committed or the precept vio
lated. 10. Since the head of the government is pledged to protect
and promote the public interests by a due administration of
law, if in any instance he would dispense with the execution
of penalties in case of a violation of the precept, public just
ice requires that he shall see that a substitute for the execu
tion of law is provided, or that something is done that shall
as effectually secure the influence of law as the execution of
the penalty would do. He can not make exceptions to the
spirit of the law. Either the soul that sinneth must die, ac
cording to the letter of the law, or a substitute must be provi
ded in accordance with the spirit of the law.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 387
1 1. Whatever will as fully evince the regard of the lawgiver
to his law — his determination to support it — his abhorrence of
all violations of its precepts — and withal guard as effectually
against the inference that violators of the precept might expect
to escape with impunity, as the execution of the penalty would
do, is a foil satisfaction of public justice. When these condi
tions are fulfilled, and the sinner has returned to obedience, pub
lic justice not only admits, but absolutely demands that the
penalty shall be set aside by extending pardon to the offender.
The offender still deserves to be punished, and upon the prin
ciples of distributive justice, might be punished according to
his deserts. But the public good admits and requires that
upon the above conditions he should live, and hence, public
justice, incompliance with the public interests and the spirit of
the law of love, spares and pardons him.
12. If mercy or pardon is to be extended to any who have
violated law, it ought to be done in a manner and upon condi
tions that will settle the question and establish the truth that
the execution of penalties is not to be dispensed with merely
upon condition of the repentance of the offender. In other
, wOrds, if pardon is to be extended, it should be known to be
upon a condition not within the power of the offender. Else
he may know that he can violate the law and yet be sure to
escape with impunity by fulfilling the conditions of forgive
ness, which are, upon the supposition, all within his own
power. 13. So, if mercy is to be exercised, it should be upon a
condition that is not to be repeated. The thing required by
public justice is that nothing shall be done to undermine or
disturb the influence of law. Hence it can not consent to
have the execution of penalties dispensed with upon any con
dition that shall encourage the hope of impunity. Therefore,
public justice can not consent to the pardon of sin but upon
condition of an atonement, and also upon the assumption
that atonement is not to be repeated, nor to extend its bene
fits beyond the limits of the race for whom it was madevand
that only for a limited time. If an atonement were to extend
its benefits to all worlds and to all eternity, it would nullify
its own influence and encourage the universal hope of impu
nity in case the precepts of the law were violated. This
would be indefinitely worse than no atonement; and public
justice might as well consent to have mercy exercised without
any regard to securing the authority and influence of law.
14. The spirit of the moral law can no more be dispensed

388 systematic theology.
with by the law giver than it can be repealed. The spirit of
the law requires, that when the precept is violated the penalty
shall be executed or that something shall be done that will
as effectually and impressively negative the inference or as
sumption that sin can escape with impunity under the govern
ment of God, beyond the limits of the race for whom the
atonement was especially made, as the execution of the law
would do. It is easy to see that the following things must be
true under a perfect government, as has been said above.
(1.) That sin can not be forgiven merely npon condition of
repentance; for this condition is within the power ofthe sub
ject, so that he might be sure of impunity.
(2.) Nor can it be forgiven upon a condition that shall be
repeated, for this would encourage the hope of impunity.
(3.) Nor can it be forgiven upon a condition that will extend
to all worlds and throughout all eternity, for this would be
equivalent to forgiving sin merely upon condition of repen-
lance without any reference to the authority of law or to
public justice.
77. Define the term Atonement.
The English word Atonement is synonymous with the He-
brew word Cofer. This is a noun from the verb caufar, to
cover, The cofer or cover, was the name of the lid or cover
of the ark of the covenant, and constituted what was called
the mercy seat. . The Greek word rendered Atonement is
katallage. This means reconciliation to favor, or more strictly,
the means or conditions of reconciliation to favor; from katal-
lasso, to change, or exchange. The term properly means sub
stitution. An examination of these original words, in the
connection in which they stand, will show that the Atonement
is the governmental, substitution of the sufferings of Christ
for the sufferings of sinners. It is a covering of their sins,
by his sufferings.
77/. I am to inquire into the teachings of natural theology, or
into the a priori affirmations of reason upon this subject.,
1. The doctrine of atonement has been regarded as so
purely a doctrine of revelation as to preclude the supposition
that reason could, a prim, make any affirmations about it It
has been generally regarded as lying absolutely without the
pale of natural theology in so high a sense that aside from re
velation no assumption, could be made, nor even a reasona
ble conjecture indulged. . But there are certain facts in
this world's history that render this assumption exceedingly
doubtful. It is true indeed that natural theology could not

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 389
ascertain and establish the fact that an atonement had been
made, or that it certainly would be made; but if I am not mis
taken, it might have been reasonably inferred, the true cha
racter of God being known and assumed, that an atonement
of some kind would be made to render it consistent with his
relations to the universe to extend mercy to the guilty inhabi
tants of this world. The manifest necessity of a divine reve
lation has been supposed to afford a strong presumptive argu
ment that such a revelation has been or will be made* From
the benevolence of God as manifested in his works and provi
dence it has been, as I suppose, justly inferred that he would
make arrangements to secure the holiness and salvation of
men, and as a condition of this result that he would grant
them a further revelation of bis will than had been given in
creation and providence. The argument stands thus :
(1.) From consciousness and observation we know that this
is not a state of retribution; and from all the facts in the case
that he open to observation, this is evidently a state of trial
or probation.
(2.) The providence of God in this world is manifestly dis
ciplinary and designed to reform mankind.
(3.) These facts taken in connection with the great ignor
ance and darkness of the human mind on moral and religious
subjects afford a strong presumption that the benevolent Cre
ator will make to the inhabitants of this world who are so evi
dently yet in a state of trial, a further revelation of his will.
Now if this argument is good, so far as it goes, I see not why
we may not reasonably go still further.
Since the above are facts, and since it is also a fact that
when the subject is duly considered (and the more thoroughly
the better) there is manifestly a great difficulty in the exercise
of mercy without satisfaction being made to publish justice,
and since the benevolence of God would not allow him on the
one hand to pardon sin at the expense of public justice, or on
the other to punish or execute the penalty of law if it
could be wisely and consistently avoided, these facts being
understood and admitted, it might naturally have been inferred
that the wisdom and benevolence of God would devise and
execute a method of meeting the demands of public justice
that should render the forgiveness of sin possible. That the
philosophy of government would render this possible is to us
very manifest. I know indeed that with the light the gospel
has afforded us, we much more clearly discern this than they
could who had no other light than that of nature. Whatever
33*

390 systematic theology.
might have been known to the ancients and those who have
not the bible, I think that when the facts are announced by
revelation, we can see that such a governmental expedient
was not only possible, but just what might have been expected
ofthe benevolence of God. It would of course have been
impossible for us, a priori, to have devised or reasonably con
jectured the plan that has been adopted. So little was known
or knowable on the subject ofthe trinity of God Without reve
lation that natural theology could perhaps in its best estate
have taught nothing farther than that if it was possible, some
governmental expedient would be resorted to and was in con
templation, for the ultimate restoration of the sinning race
who were evidently spared hitherto from the execution of law
and placed under a system of discipline. ^
But since the gospel has announced the fact of the atone
ment, it appears that natural theology or governmental phi
losophy can satisfactorilyexplain it; that'reason can discern
a divine philosophy in it.
Natural theology can teach,
1. That human nature is in a fallen state, and that the law
of selfishness, and not the law of benevolence, is that to which
unreforined men conform their lives.
2. It can teach that God is benevolent, and hence that mer
cy must be an attribute of God.
3. Consequently that no atonement was needed to satisfy
any implacable spirit in the divine mind; that he was suffi
ciently and infinitely disposed to extend pardon to the peni
tent, if this could be wisely and safely done.
4. It can also aburidantly teach that there is a real and a
great difficulty and danger in the exercise of mercy under a
moral government, and supremely great under a government
so vast and so enduring as the government of God; that under
such a government the danger is very great that the exercise
of mercy will be understood as encouraging the hope of im
punity in the commission of sin,
5. It can also show the indispensable necessity of such an
administration of the Divine government as to secure the
fullest confidence throughout the universe in the sincerity of
God in promulging his laW with its tremendous penalty, and
of his unalterable adherence to its spirit and determination
not to falter in carrying out and securing its authority at all
events. That this is indispensable to the well being of the
universe, is entirely manifest.
6. Hence it is very obvious to natural theology, that sin can

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 391
not be pardoned without something is done to forbid the oth-
erwise natural inference that sin will be forgiven under the
government of God upon condition of repentance alone and
of course upon a condition within the power of the sinner him
self. It must be manifest that to proclaim throughout the
universe that sin would be pardoned universally upon condi
tion of repentance alone, would be a virtual repeal of the Di
vine law. All creatures would instantly perceive that no one
need to fear punishment in any case as his forgiveness was se
cure, however much he might trample on the Divine authori
ty, alone upon a condition which he could at will perform.
7. Natural theology is abundantly competent to show that
God could not be just to his own intelligence, just to his char
acter, and hence just to the universe in dispensing with the
execution of the Divine law except upon the condition of pro
viding a substitute of such a nature as to as fully reveal and
avdeepfy impress the lessons that would be taught by the
execution as the execution itself would do. The great design
of penalties is prevention, and this is of course the design of
executing penalties. The head of any government is pledg
ed to sustain the authority of law by a due administration of
rewards and punishments, and has no right in any instance to
extend pardon except upon conditions that will as effectually
support the authority of law as the execution would do. It
was never found to be safe, or even possible under any gov
ernment to make the universal offer of pardon to violators of
law upon the bare condition of repentance for the very obvi
ous reason already suggested, that it would be a virtual repeal
of all law. Public justice, by which every executive magis
trate in the universe is bound, sternly and peremptorily for
bids that mercy shall be extended to any culprit without some
equivalent being rendered to the government, that is, with
out something being done that will fully answer as a substitute
for the execution of penalties. This principle God fully ad
mits to be binding upon him, and hence He affirms that he
gave his son to justify or to render it just in him to forgive
sin. Rom. 3: 24 — 26;' "Being justified freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at
this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the
justifier of him which believeth in Jpsus."
8. All nations have felt the necessity of expiatory sacrifices.

392 systematic theology.
This is evident from the fact that all nations have offered them.
Hence antipsucha, or ransoms for their souls, have been offered
by nearly every nation under heaven. (See Buck's Theo. Die:
p. 539.)
9. The wisest heathen philosophers, who saw the intrinsic
inefficacy of animal sacrifices, held that God could not forgive
sin. This proves to a demonstration, that they felt the ne
cessity of an atonement or expiatory sacrifice. And having
too just views of God and his government, to suppose that ei
ther animal, or merely human sacrifices could be, efficacious
under the government of God, they were unable to under
stand upon what principles sin could be forgiven.1
10. Public justice required either that an atonement should
be made, or that the law should be executed upon every offend
er. By public justice is intended, that due administration of
law, that shall secure in the highest manner the nature of
the case admits, private and public interests, and establish the
order and well-being of the universe. In establishing the
government of the universe, God had given the pledge, both
impliedly and expressly, that he would regard the public in
terests arid, by a due administration ofthe law, secure and pro
mote, as far as possible, public and individual happiness.
11. Public justice could strictly require only the execution
of law; for God had neither expressly or" impliedly given
a pledge to do any thing more for the promotion of virtue and
happiness, than to administer due rewards to both the righte
ous and the wicked. Yet an Atonement, as we shall see,
would more fully meet the necessities of the government and
act as a more efficient preventive of sin, and a more powerful
persuasive to holiness, than the infliction of the penalty of his
law would do.
12. An Atonement was needed for the removal of obsta
cles to the free exercise of benevolence toward our race.
Without an Atonement, the race of man after the fall, sustain
ed to the government of God the relation of rebels and out
laws. And before God, as the great executive magistrate of
the universe, could manifest his benevolence toward them,
an Atonement must be decided upon and made known, as
the reason upon which his favorable treatment of them was
founded. 13. An Atonement was needed to promote the glory and
influence of God in the universe. But more of this hereafter*
14. An Atonement was needed to present overpowering
motives to repentance.

moral government. 393
15. An Atonement was needed, that the offer of pardon
might not seem like connivance at sin.
16. An Atonement was needed to manifest the sincerity of
God in his legal enactments.
17. An Atonement was needed to make it safe to present
the offer and promise of pardon.
18. Natural theology can inform us that if the Lawgiver
would or could condescend so much to deny himself as to at
test his regard to his law, and his determination to support it
by suffering its curse in such a sense as was possible and con
sistent with his character and relations, and so far forth as
emphatically to inculcate the great lesson that sin was not to
be forgiven upon the bare condition of repentance in any case,
and also to establish the universal conviction that the execu
tion of law was not to be dispensed with, but that itis an unal
terable rule under his Divine government that where there is
sin there must be inflicted suffering — this would be so com
plete a satisfaction of public justice that sin might safely be
forgiven. IV. The fact of Atonement.
This is purely a doctrine of revelation and in the establish
ment of this truthappeal must be made to the scriptures alone.
1. The whole Jewish scriptures, especially the whole cer
emonial dispensation of the Jews attest, most unequivocally,
the necessity of an Atonement.
2. The New Testament is just as unequivocal in its testi
mony to the same point The Apostle expressly asserts, that
"without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.'-'
I shall here take it as established that Christ was properly
"God manifest in the flesh," and proceed to cite a few out of
the great multitude of passages that attest the fact of his
death, and also its vicarious nature, that is, that it was for
us and as a satisfaction to public justice for our sins that his
blood was shed. I will first quote a few passages to show
that the Atonement and redemption through it was a matter
of understanding and covenant between the Father and the
Son. "I have made a covenant with my'chosen, I have sworn
unto David my servant Thy seed will I establish forever,
and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah."-Ps. 89: 3,4.
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to
grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall
see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the
Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see ofthe travail -of his
soul and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous

394 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
servant justify many ; for he shall bear their iniquities. There
fore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall di
vide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out
his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the trans
gressors ; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession
for the transgressors."— Isaiah 53: 10, 11, 12. "All that the
Father giveth me shall come to me: and he that cometh tome
I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven,
not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all
which he hath given me I should lose nothirig, but should raise
it up again at the last day." — John 6: 37, 38, 39. "I have
manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out
of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and
they have kept thy word. I pray for them: I pray not for the
world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are
thine. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in
the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father keep through
thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they
may be one, as we are." — John 17: 6, 9, 11.
I will next quote some passages to show that if sinners
were to be saved at all, it must be through an Atonement.
''Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other
name under heaven given among men whereby we must be
saved." — Acts 4: 12. "Be it known unto you therefore men
and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the
forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified
from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the
law of Moses."— Acts 13: 38,. 39. "Now we know, that
what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the
world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the
deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight:
for by the law is the knowledge of sin." — Romans 3: 19, 20.
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law
shall no flesh be justified. I do not frustrate the grace of God :
for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in
vain." — Galatians 2: 16, 21. "For as many as are of the
works ofthe law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed
is every one that continueth not in all things which are writ
ten in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 395
justified by the law in thO sight of God, it is evident; for, The
just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but the
man that doeth them shall live in them. For if the inheri
tance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave
it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law?
It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should
come to whom the promise was made ; and it was ordained by
angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is riot a
mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the
promises of God? God forbid for if there had been a law giv
en which could have given life, verily righteousness should
have been by the law. Wherefore the law was our school
master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by
faith."— Galatians 3: 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24. "And
almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and with
out shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore ne
cessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be
purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with
better sacrifices than these."
I will now cite some passages; that establish the fact of the
vicarious , death of Christ and redemption through his blood.
"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised
for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon
him, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." — Isaiah
53: 5, 6 — 11. "Even as the Son of man came not to be min
istered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many." — Mat. 20: 28. "For this is my blood of the new
testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." —
Mat. 26: 28. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal
life."  John 3: 14, 15. " I am the living bread which came
down from heaven : if any man eat of this bread, he shall live
for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world." — John 6: 51. "Take
heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Gh'ost hath made you overseers, to feed the
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
—Acts 20: 28. "Being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. To declare, I say, at
this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the
JHstifier of him which believeth in Jesus. For when we were

396 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. la-
yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradvent
ure for a good man some would even dare to die. But Gpd
commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet
sinners Christ died for us. Much more then, being now just
ified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. There
fore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free
gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by
one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous."-Ro. 3: 24 —
26; 5:9—11, 18, 19. "Purge out therefore the old leaven,
that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: For I delivered unto
you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died
for our sins according to the scriptures." — 1 Cor. 5: 7; 15: 3.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I
live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself for me. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Curspd is
every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abra
ham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that
we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." —
Gal. 2: 20; 3: 13, 14. "But now in Christ Jesus ye who
sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given
himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet
smelling savor." — Eph. 2: 13; 5: 2. " Neither by the blood of
goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into
the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of
the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,
purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living
God? And almost all things are by the law purged with
blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was
therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens
should be purified with these, but the heavenly things them
selves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not en
tered into the holy places made with hands, which are the fig-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 397
ures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us : Nor yet that he should offer himself
often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every
year with blood of others ; for then must he often have suf
fered since the foundation of the world : but now once in the
end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sa
crifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to
die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him
shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
Heb. 9: 12—14, 22—28. " By the which will we are sancti
fied through the offering ofthe body of Jesus Christ- once for
all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for
ever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth ex
pecting till his enemies be made his footstool, For by one
offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
— Heb. 10: 10 — 14. " Having therefore, brethren, boldness
to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and
living way which he hath consecrated for us through the vail, that
is to say, his flesh," &c.-Heb. 10: 19, 20. " Forasmuch as ye
know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as sil
ver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradi
tion from your fathers: but with the precious blood of
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." —
1. Pet. 1: 18, 19. "Who his own self bare our sins in
his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins,
should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were
healed."— 1. Pet 2: 24. " For Christ also hath once suffered
for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God,
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." —
1. Peter 3: 18. "But if we walk in the light as he is in the
light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." — 1 John 1 : 7:
"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins;
and in him is no sin." — 1. John 3: 5. "In this was mani
fested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his
only begotten Son into the world that we might live through
him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins." — 1.
John 4: 9, 10.
These, as every reader of the Bible must know, are only
some of the passages that teach the doctrine of atonement
34

398 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and redemption by the death of Christ. It is, truly wpnder-
ful in how many ways this doctrine is taught, assumed, and
implied in the Bible. Indeed it is emphatically the great
theme of the Bible. Itis expressed or implied upon nearly
every page of Divine inspiration.
V. The next inquiry is into the design ofthe atonement.
. The answer to this inquiry has been, already, in part,
unavoidably anticipated. Under this head I will show,
First. That Christ's obedience to the moral law as a cove
nant ofviorks, did not constitute the atonement.
1. Christ owed obedience to the moral law both as God
and man. He was under as much obligation to be perfectly
benevolent as any moral creature is. It was therefore impos
sible for him to perform any works of supererogation; that is,
so far as obedience to law was concerned, he could, neither
as God nor as man, do any thing more than his duty.
2, Had he obeyed for us, he would not have suffered for us.
Were his obedience to be substituted for our obedience, he
need not certainly have both fulfilled the law for us, as our
substitute under a covenant of works, and at the same tune
have suffered, a substitute for the penalty of the law.
3. If he obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should
our own personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua
non of our salvation?
4. The idea that any part of the atonement consisted in
Christ's obeying the law for us, and in our stead and behalf,
represents God as requiring:
(1.) The obedience of our substitute.
(2.) The same suffering as if no obedience had been ren
dered. (3.) 0ur repentance.
(4.) Our personal obedience.
(5.) And then represents him as, after all, ascribing our sal
vation to grace,' Strange grace this, that requires a debt to
be paid several times over before the obligation is discharged!
Second. / must show that the atonement was not a commercial
.transaction. Some have regarded the atonement simply in the light of
the payment of a debt; and have represented Christ as pur
chasing the elect of the Father and paying down the same
amount of suffering in his own person that justice would have
exacted of them. To this I answer:
1. It is naturally impossible, as it would require that satis
faction should be made to retributive justice. Strictly speak-

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

399

ing, retributive or distributive justice can never be satisfied
in the sense that the guilty can be punished as much and as
long as he deserves ; for this would imply that he was pun
ished until he ceased to be guilty, or became innocent. When
law is once violated the sinner can make no satisfaction. He
can never cease to be guilty or to deserve punishment, and
no possible amount of suffering renders him the less guilty or
the less deserving of punishment; therefore to satisfy retribu
tive justice is impossible.
2. But as we have seen in a former lecture, retributive jus
tice must have inflicted on him eternal death. To suppose,
therefore, that Christ suffered in amount all that was due to
the elect, is to suppose that he suffered an eternal punishment
multiplied by the whole number of the elect.
Third. The atonement of Christ was intended as a satisfac
tion ofpublic justice.
1. The ihoral law did not originate in the divine will,
but is founded in his self-existent and immutable nature.
He can not therefore repeal or alter it. To the letter
Of the moral law there may be exceptions, but to the spirit
of the law no being can make exceptions. God can not
repeal the precept, and just for this reason he can not set
aside the spirit of the sanctions. For to dispense with the
sanctions were a virtual repeal of the precept. He can not
therefore set aside the execution ofthe penalty when the pre
cept has been violated without something being done that shall
meet the demands of the true spirit of the law. "Being just
ified freely by his grace through the rederiiption that is in
Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the
remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ;
to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." —
Ro. 3: 24 — 26. This passage assigns the reason or declares
the design ofthe Atonement, to have been to justify God in the
pardon of sin or in dispensing with the execution of law.
Isa. 43: 10 — 12: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him;
he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his
days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for
he shall bear "their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a
portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the

400 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
strong: because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and
he was numbered with the transgressors: and he bare the sin
of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
2. Public justice requires:
1. That penalties shall be annexed to laws that are equal
to the importance of the precept
2. That when these penalties are incurred they shall be
inflicted for the public good, as an expression of the lawgiver's
regard to law, of his determination to support public order,
and by a due administration of justice to secure the highest
well-being of the public. A leading design of the sanctions
of law is prevention; and the execution of penal sanctions is
demanded by public justice. The great design of sanctions,
both remuneratory and vindicatory, is to prevent disobedience-
and secure obedience and universal happiness. This is done
by such a revelation of the heart of the lawgiver, through the
precept, sanctions, and execution of his law, as to beget awe
on the one hand, and the most entire confidence and love on
the other.
3. Whatever can as effectually reveal God, make known
his hatred to sin, his love of order, his determination to sup
port government, and to promote the holiness and happiness
of his creatures, as the execution of his law would do, is a full
satisfaction of public justice.
4. Atonement is, therefore, a part, and a most influential
part of moral government. It is an auxiliary to a strictly le
gal government. It does not take the place of the execution
of law in such a sense as to exclude penal inflictions from the
universe. The execution of law still holds a place and makes
up an indispensable part of the great circle of motives essen
tial to the perfection of moral government Fallen angels,
and the finally impenitent of this world, will receive the full
execution of the penalty of the Divine law. Atonement
is an expedient above the letter, but in accordance with the
spirit of law, which adds new and vastly influential motives
to induce obedience. I have said it is an auxiliary to law,
adding to the precept and sanctions of law an overpower
ing exhibition of love and compassion.
5. The Atonement is an illustrious exhibition of commuta
tive justice, in which the government of God, by an act of
infinite grace, commutes or substitutes the sufferings of Christ
for the eternal damnation of sinners.
6. An atonement was needed, and therefore doubtless de
signed, to contradict the slander of Satan. He had seduced

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 401
our first parents by the insinuation that God was selfish, in
prohibiting their eating the fruit of a certain tree. Now the
execution of the penalty of his law would not so thoroughly
refute this abominable slander as would the great self-denial
of God exhibited in the Atonement.
7. An atonement was needed to inspire confidence in the
offers and promises of pardon, and in all the promises of God
to man. Guilty selfish man finds it difficult, when thoroughly
convicted of sin, to realize and believe that God is actually
sincere in his promises and offers of pardon and salvatioh.
But whenever the soul can apprehend the reality of the
Atonement, it can then believe every offer and promise as the
very thing to be expected from a being who could give his Son
to die for enemies.
An Atonement was needed, therefore, as the great and only
means of sanctifying sinners:
Rom. 8: 3, 4. "For what the law could not do, in that it
was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" The law was
calculated, when once its penalty was incurred, to shut the
sinner up in a dungeon, and only to develop more and more his
depravity. Nothing could subdue his sin and cause him to
love but the manifestation to him of disinterested benevolence.
The atonement is just the thing to meet this necessity and
subdue rebellion.
8. An Atonement was needed, not to render God merciful,
but to reconcile pardon with a due administration of justice.
This has been virtually said before, but needs to be repeated
in this connection.
Rom. 3: 22 — 26. " For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de
clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this
time, his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justi-
fier of him which believeth in Jesus."
I present several farther reasons why an Atonement under
the government of God was preferable in the case of the in
habitants of this world to punishment, or to the execution of
the Divine law. Several reasons have already been assigned,
to which I will add the following, some of which are plainly
34*

402 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
revealed in the Bible; others are plainly inferable from what
the Bible does reveal; and others still are plainly inferable
from the very nature of the case :
1. God's great and disinterested love to sinners themselves
was a prime reaspn for the Atonement.
John 3: 16. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life."
2. His great love to the universe at large must have heen
another reason, inasmuch as it was impossible that the Atone
ment should not exert an amazing influence oyer moralbeings,
in whatever world they might exist, and the fact of atone
ment should be known.
3. Another reason for substituting the sufferings of Christ
in the place of the eternal damnation of sinners is, that an
infinite amount of suffering might be prevented. The rela
tion of Christ to the universe rendered his sufferings so infi
nitely valuable and influential as an expression of God's ab
horrence of sin on the one hand, and great love to his sub
jects on the other, that an infinitely less amount of suffering
in him than must have been inflicted on sinners, would be
equally, and no doubt vastly more influential in supporting the
government of God, than the execution of the law upon them
would have been. Be it borne in mind that Christ was the
lawgiver, and his suffering in behalf of sinners is to be regard
ed as the lawgiver and executive magistrate suffering in the
behalf and stead of a rebellious province of his empire. As
a governmental expedient it is easy to see the great value of
such a substitute; that on the one hand it fully evinced the
determination of the ruler not to yield the authority of his
law, and on the other to evince his great and disinterested
love for his rebellious subjects.
4. By this substitution, an immense good might be gained,
the eternal happiness of all that can be reclaimed from sin,
together with all the augmented happiness of those who have
never sinned that must result from this glorious revelation of
God. 5. Another reason for preferring the Atonement to the
punishment of sinners, must have been, that sin had afforded
an opportunity for the highest manifestation of virtue in God:
the manifestation of forbearance, mercy, self-denial, and suf
fering for enemies that were within his own power, and for
those from whom he could expect no equivalent in return. ,
It is impossible to conceive of a higher order of virtues

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 403
than are exhibited in the Atonement of Christ.
It was vastly desirable that God should take advantage
of such an opportunity to exhibit his true character, and shew
to the universe what was in his heart. The strength and sta
bility of any government of moral law must depend upon the
estimation in which the sovereign is held by his subjects. It
was therefore indispensable that God should improve the op
portunity which sin had afforded, to manifest and make known
his true character and thus secure the highest confidence of
his subjects.
6. Another reason for preferring Atonement was God's de
sire to lay open his heart to the inspection and imitation of
moral beings.
7. Another reason is, because God is love, and prefers mer
cy when it can be safely exercised. The Bible represents
him as dehghting in mercy, and affirms that "judgment is his
strange work."
Because he so much prefers mercy to judgment as to be
willing to suffer as the sinner's substitute, to afford himself the
opportunity to exercise pardon on .principles that are consist
ent with a due administration of justice.
8. In the Atonement God consulted his own happiness
and his own glory. To deny himself for the salvation of sin
ners was a part of his own infinite happiness, always intend
ed by him, and therefore always enjoyed. This was not self
ishness in him as his own well-being is of infinitely greater
value than that of all the universe besides, he ought so to
regard and treat it because of its supreme and intrinsic value.
9. In making the Atonement, God complied with the laws
of his own intelligence and did just that, all things consider
ed, in the highest degree promotive of the'universal good.
10. The Atonement would present to creatures the high
est possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest mor
al influence that can be exerted. If God or any other being
would make others benevolent he must manifest benevolence
himself. If the benevolence manifested in the Atonement does
not subdue the selfishness of sinners their case is hopeless.
11. It would beget among creatures the highest kind and
degree of happiness, by leading them to contemplate and im
itate his love.
12. The circumstances of his government rendered an
Atonement necessary; as the execution of law was not, as a
matter of fact, a sufficient preventive of sin. The annihi-

404 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
lation of the wicked would not answer the purposes of govr
ernment. A full revelation of mercy blended with such an
exhibition of justice, was called for by the circumstances of
the universe.
13. To confirm holy beings. Nothing could be more high
ly calculated to establish and confirm the confidence, love,
and obedience of holy beings than this disinterested manifest
ation of love to sinners and rebels.
14. To confound his enemies. How could any thing be
more directly calculated to silence all cavils and to shut every
mouth, and forever close up all opposing lips, than such an
exhibition of love and willingness to make sacrifices for sin
ners? 15. A just and necessary regard to his own reputation
made him prefer Atonement to the punishment of sinners.
A desire to sustain his own reputation, as the only mor
al power that could support his own moral government, must
have been a leading reason for the Atonement.
The Atonement was preferred as the best and perhaps on
ly way to inspire an affectionate confidence in him.
It must have been the most agreeable to God, and the most
beneficial to the universe.
16. Atonement would afford him an opportunity always to
gratify his love in his kindness to sinners in using means for
their salvation, in forgiving and saving them when they re
pent, without the danger of its being inferred in the universe
that he had not a sufficient abhorrence for their sin.
17. Another reason for the Atonement was to counteract
the influence of the Devil, whose whole influence is exerted
in this world for the promotion of selfishness.
18. To make the final punishment of the wicked more im
pressive in the light of the infinite love manifest in the Atone
ment. 19. The Atonement is the highest testimony that God can
bear against selfishness. It is the testimony of his own ex
ample. 20. The Atonement is a higher expression of his regard
for the public interest than the execution of law. It is there
fore a fuller satisfaction to public justice.
21. The Atonement so reveals all the attributes of God as
to complete the whole circle of motives needed to influence
the minds of moral beings.
22. By dying in human nature, Christ exhibited his heart
to both worlds.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 405
23. The fact that the execution of the law of God on re
bel angels had not and could not arrest the progress of rebel
lion in the universe, proves that something more needed to be
done, in support of the authority of law, than would be done in
the execution of its penalty upon rebels. While the execution
of law may have a strong tendency to prevent the beginning of
rebellion amon g loyal subjects and to restrain rebels themselves ;
yet penal inflictions, do not as a matter of fact, subdue the
heart, under any government, whether human or divine.
As a matter of fact, the law, was only exasperating
rebels, without confirming holy beings. Paul affirmed that
the action of the law upon his own mind, while in impeni
tence, was, to beget in him all manner of concupisence. One
grand reason for giving the law was, to develop the nature
of sin, and to show that the carnal mind is not subject to the
law of God, neither indeed can be. The law was, therefore,
given that the offence might abound, that thereby it might be
demonstrated, that without an Atonement there could be no
salvation for rebels under the government of God.
24. The nature, degree, and execution of the penalty of
the law, made the holiness and justice of God so prominent,
as to absorb too much of public attention to be safe. Those
features of his character were so fully revealed, by the exe
cution of his law upon the rebel angels, that to have pursued
the same course with the inhabitants of this world, without
the offer of mercy, might have had, and doubtless would have
had an injurious influence upon the universe, by creating
more of fear than of love to God and his government.
Hence, a fuller revelation of the love and compassion
of God was necessary, to guard against the influence of sla
vish fear.
Fourth. His taking human nature, and obeying unto death,
under such circumstances, constituted a- good reason for our be
ing treated as righteous.
1. It is a common practice in human governments, and
one that is founded in the nature and laws of mind, to reward
distinguished public service by conferring favors on the chil
dren of those who have rendered^ this service, and treating
them as if they had rendered it themselves. This is both be
nevolent and wise. Its governmental importance, its wisdom
and excellent influence have been most abundantly attested
in the experience of nations.
2. As a governmental transaction, this same principle pre
vails, and for the same reason, under the government of God.

406 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.'
All that are Christ's children and belong to him, are received
for his sake, treated with favor, and the rewards of the righ
teous are bestowed upon them for his sake. And the yublic
service which he has rendered the universe by laying down
his life for the support of the divine government, has render
ed it eminently wise that all who are united to him by faith
should be treated as righteous for his sake.

LECTURE XXXII.
EXTENT OF ATONEMENT.
In discussing this part of the subject I must inquire brief
ly into the governmental value and bearings of the Atone
ment '
1. It is valuable only as it tends to promote the glory of
God, and the virtue and happiness of the universe.
2. In order to understand, in what the value of the Atone
ment consists, we must understand :
(1.) That happiness is an ultimate good.
(2.) That virtue is indispensable to happiness.
(3.) That the knowledge of God is indispensable to virtue.
(4.) That Christ, who made the Atonement, is God.
(5.) That the work of Atonement was the most interesting
and impressive exhibition of God that ever was made in this
world and probably in the universe.
(6.) That, therefore, the Atonement is the highest means
of promoting virtue that exists in this world, and perhaps in
the universe. And that it is valuable only, and just so far as
it reveals God, and tends to promote virtue and happiness.
(7.) That the work of Atonement was a gratification of the
infinite benevolence of God.
(8.) It was a work eternally designed by him, and there
fore eternally enjoyed.
(9.) The design to make an Atonement, together with the
foreseen results which were in an important sense always
present to him, have eternally made no small part of the hap
piness of God.
(10.) The development or carrying out of this design, in
the work of Atonement, highly promotes and will for ever
promote his glory in the universe.
(11.) Its value consists in its adaptedness to promote the
virtue and happiness of holy angels, and all moral agents
who have never sinned. As it is a new and most stupendous
revelation of God, it must of course greatly increase their
knowledge of God, and be greatly promotive of their virtue
and happiness.
(12.) Its value consists in its adaptedness to prevent far
ther rebellion against God in every part of the universe.
The Atonement exhibits God in such a light, as must greatly
strengthen the confidence of holy beings in his character and
government It is therefore calculated in the highest degree,

408 SYSTEMATIC THEOLGY.
to confirm holy beings in their allegiance to God, arid thus
prevent the further progress of rebellion.
Let it be reWmbered, the value ofthe Atonement consists
in its moral power or tendency to promote virtue and happi
ness. Moral power is the power of motive.
The highest moral power is the influence of example.
Advice has moral power. Precept has moral power. Sanc
tion has moral power. But example is the highest moral in
fluence that can be exerted by any being.
Moral beings are so created as to be naturally influenced
by the example of each other. The example of" a child, as
a moral influence, has power upon other children. The ex
ample of an adult, as a moral influence, has power. The
example of great men and of angels has great moral power.
But the example of God is the highest moral influence in the
universe. The word of God has power. His commands, threaten
ings, promises; but his example is a higher moral influence
than his precepts or his threatenings.
Virtue consists in benevolence. God requires benevo
lence, threatens all his subjects with punishment, if they are
not benevolent, and promises them eternal life if they are.
All this has power. But his example, his own benevolence,
his own disinterested love, as expressed in the Atonement, is
a vastly higher moral influence than his word, or any other of
his ways.
Christ is God. In the Atonement God has given us the
influence of his own example, has exhibited his own love;
his own compassion, his own self-denial, his own patience,
his own long-suffering, under abuse from enemies. In the
Atonement he has exhibited all the highest and most perfect
forms of virtue, has united himself with human nature, has
exhibited these forms of virtue to the inspection of our senses,
and labored, wept, suffered, bled, and died for man. This is
not only the highest revelation of God, that could be given
to man ; but is giving the whole weight of his own example in
favor of all the virtues which he requires of man.
This is the highest possible moral influence. It is pro
perly moral omnipotence; that is — the influence ofthe Atone
ment, when apprehended by the mind, will accomplish what
ever is an object ofmoral power. It can not compel a moral
agent, and set aside his freedom, for this is not an object of
moral power; but it will do all that motive can, in the aa-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 409
ture of the case, accomplish. It is the highest and most
weighty motive that the mind of a moral being can conceive.
It is the most moving, impressive, and influential considera
tion in the universe.
Its value may be estimated, by its moral influence in the
promotion of holiness among all holy beings:
1. Their love to God must depend upon their knowledge
of him.
. 2. As he is infinite, and all creatures are finite, finite be
ings know him only as he is pleased to reveal himself.
' 3. The Atonement has disclosed or revealed to the uni
verse of holy beings, a class and an order of virtues, as resi
dent in the divine mind, which, but for the Atonement, would
probably have forever remained unknown.
4. As the Atonement is the most impressive revelation of
Gofl, of which we have any knowledge, or can form any con
ception, we have reason to believe that it has greatly increas
ed the holiness and happiness of all holy creatures, that it
has done more than any other and perhaps every other reve
lation of God, to exalt his character, strengthen his govern
ment, enlighten the universe, and increase its happiness.
5. The value of the Atonement may be estimated by the
amount of good it has done and will do in this world. The
Atonement is an exhibition of God suffering as a substitute
/or his rebelhous subjects. His relation to the law and to
the universe, is that which gives his sufferings such infinite
yalue, I have said, in a former lecture, that the utility of
executing penal sanctions consists in the exhibition it makes
of the true character and designs of the lawgiver. It cre
ates public confidence, makes a public impression, and thus
strengthens the influence of government, and is in this way
promotive of order and happiness. The Atonement is the
highest testimony that God could give of his holy abhorrence
of sin; of his regard to his law; of his determination to sup
port it; and, also, of his great love for his subjects, his great
compassion for sinners ; and his willingness to suffer himself
in their stead; rather, on the one hand, than to punish them,
and on the other, than to set aside the penalty without satis
faction being made to public justice.
6. The Atonement may be viewed in either of two points
of light
(1.) Christ may be considered as the law-giver, and attesting
his sincerity, love of holiness, approbation of the law, and
35

410 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
compassion for his subjects, by laying down his life as their
substitute. (2.) Or Christ maybe considered as the Son ofthe Su
preme Ruler; and then we have the spectacle of a sovereign,
giving his only begotten and wrell beloved Son, his greatest
treasure, to die a shameful and agonizing death, in testimony
of his great compassion for his rebellious subjects, and of his
high regard for public justice.
7. The valup of the Atonement may be estimated,; by con.
sidering the fact that it provides for the pardon of sin, in a
way that forbids the hope of impunity in any other case.
This, the good of the universe imperiously demanded. If
sin is to berforgiven at all, under the government of God, it
should be known to be forgiven upon principles that will by
no means encourage rebellion,, or hold out, the least hope of
impunity, should rebellion break out in any other part of the
universe. 8. The Atonement has settled the question, that' sin can
never be forgiven, under the government of God, simply on
account of the repentance of any being. It has demonstra
ted, that sin can never be forgiven without full satisfaction
being made to public justice, and that public justice can ne
ver be satisfied with any thing less than an Atonement made
by God himself. Now, as it can never be expected, that the
Atonement will be repeated, it is for ever settled, that rebel
lion in any other world than this, can have no hope of impu
nity. This answers the question so often asked by infidels,
"If God was disposed to bp merciful, why could he not for
give without an Atonement?" The answer is plain; he could
not forgive sin, but upon such principles as would for ever
preclude the hope of impunity, should rebellion ever break
out in any other part of the universe.
9. From these considerations, it is manifest that the value
of the Atonement is infinite. We have reason to believe,
that Christ, by his Atonement, is not only the Savior of this
world, but the Savior of the universe in an important sense.
Rebellion once broke out in Heaven, and upon the rebel an
gels God executed his law, and sent them down to hell. It
next broke out in this world; and as the execution of law
was found by experience not to be a sufficient preventive
of rebellion, there was no certainty that rebellion would not
have spread until it had ruined the universe, but for that
revelation of God which Christ has made in the Atonement.
This exhibition of God has proved itself, not merely able to

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 411
prevent rebellion among holy beings, but to reclaim and re
form rebels. Millions of rebels have been reclaimed and
reformed. This world is to be turned back to its allegiance
to God, and the blessed Atonement of Christ has so unbo
somed God before the universe, as, no doubt, not only to
Save other worlds from going into rebellion, but to save myri
ads of our already rebellious race from the depths of an
eternal hell.
For whose, benefit the Atonement was intended.
1. God does all things for himself; that is, he consults his
own glory and happiness, as the supreme and most influential
reason for all his conduct. This is wise and right in him, be
cause his own glory and happiness, are infinitely the greatest
good in the universe. He does what he does, because his intelli
gence demands it. » He made the atonement to satisfy himself;
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life." God himself, then was greatly benefitted,
by the Atonement. In other words, his happiness, in a great
measure consisted in its contemplation, execution and results.
2. He made the Atonement for the benefit of the universe.
All holy beings are and must be benefitted by it, from its very
nature, as it gives them a higher knowledge of God, than
ever they had before, or ever could have gained in any other.
way. The Atonement is the greatest work that he could have
Wrought for them, the most blessed, and excellent, and benev
olent thing he could have done for them. For this reaspn,
angels are described as desiring to look into the Atonement.
The inhabitants of Heaven are represented as being deeply
interested in the work of Atonement and those displays of
the character of God that are made in it. The Atonement
is then, no doubt, one ofthe greatest blessings that ever God
conferred upon the universe of holy beings.
3. The Atonement was made for the benefit particularly of
the inhabitants of this world, from its very nature, as it is cal
culated to benefit all the inhabitants of this world; as it is a
most stupendous revelation of God to man. Its nature is
adapted to benefit all mankind. All mankind can be pardon
ed, if they will be rightly affected and brought to repentance
by it, as well as any part of mankind can.
4. The Bible declares that Christ tasted death for every
man. 5. All do certainly receive many blessings on account of it.
There is reason to believe, that but for the Atonement, none

412 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
of our race, except the first human pair, would ever have had
an existence.
6. But for the Atonement, no man could have been treated
with lenity and forbearance anymore than Satan can.
7. The lives, and all the blessings which all mankind
enjoy, are conferred on them On account of the Atonement
of Christ; that is — God could not consistently wait on sinners,
and bless, and do all that the nature ofthe case admits to save
them, were it not for the fact of atonement
8. That it was made for all mankind, is evident, from the
fact that it is offered to all, indiscriminately.
9. Sinners are universally condemned, for not receiving it.
10. If the Atonement is not intended for all mankind, God
is insincere in makihg them the offer of salvation through the
Atonement «¦
11. If not, sinners in hell will see and know that their sal
vation was never possible; that no Atonement was made for
them; and that God was insincere in offering them salvation..
12. If the Atonement is not for all men, no one can know
for whom, in particular, it was intended^without direct reve
lation. Hence,
13. If the Atonement is for none but the elect, no man can
know Whether he has a right to embrace it, until by a direct
revelation, God has made known to him that he is one of the
elect 14. If the Atonement was made but for the elect, no man
can by any possibility embrace it without such a revelation.
Why can not Satan believe in, embrace, and be saved by the
Atonement? Simply because it was not made for him. If it
was not made for the non-elect, they can no more embrace
and be saved by it than Satan can. If, therefore, the Atone
ment was made but for a part of mankind, it is entirely nuga
tory, unless a further revelation make known for whom in par
ticular it was made,
15. If it was not made for all men, ministers do not know to
Whom they should offer it.
16. If ministers do not believe that it was made for all men,
they can not heartily and honestly press its acceptance upon
any individual, or pohgregatipn in the world; for they can not
assure any individual or congregation, that there is any
Atonement for him ©r them, any more than there is for Satan.
But upon this subject, let the Bible speak for itself: " The
next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

413

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world,
to condemn the world: but that the world through him might
be saved." " And said unto the woman, Now we believe,
not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves,
and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the
world."— Jno. 1 : 29; 3: 16, 17; 4: 42. " Therefore, as by the
offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all
men unto justification of life. "-Rom. 5: 18. "For the love of
Christ constraineth us ; because we thus judge, that if one died
for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they
which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
him which died for them, and rose again." — 2d Cor. 5; 14, 15.
"Who gave himself La ransom for all, to be testified in due
time." "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, be
cause we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men,
especially of those that believe." — 1st. Tim. 2: 6; 4: 10.
"And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world." — 1 Jno. 2: 2.
That the atonement is sufficient for all men, and, in that
sense, general, as opposed to particular, is also evident from
the fact that the invitations and promises of the gospel are ad-'
dressed to all men, and all are freely offered salvation through
Christ. "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the
earth: for I am God, and there is none else." "Ho! every one
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no mo
ney; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend
money for that which is not bread ? and your labor for that
which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye
that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear and your soul shall
live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even
the sure mercies of David." — Isa. 45: 22; 55: 1, 2, 3. "Come
unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for'
I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your
souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." "Again,
he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bid
den, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and riiy iaU
lings are killed, and all things are ready; come unto the mar^
riage."*- Mat. 1 1 : 28, 29, 30; 22: 4. "And sent his servant at
35*

414 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come, for all
things are now ready." — Luke 14: 17. "In the last day, the
great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If" any
man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.." — Jno. 7: 37.
"Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my
voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup
with him, and he with me." "And the spirit arid the bride say
Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him
that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the
water of life freely."— Rev. 22: 17.
Again: I infer that the atonement was made, and is suffi
cient for all men, from the fact that God not only invites all,
but expostulates with them for not accepting his invitations.
•i Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of
the gates; in the city she uttereth her words, saying, how
long ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity ? and the scorners
delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?- Turn
{ou at my reproof: behold I will pour out my spirit unto you,
will make known my words unto you." — Prov. 1: 20 — 23.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though
your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow, though
they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." — Isaiah 1 : 18.
'* Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel,
I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which
leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldst go. Oh that thou
hadst hearkened to my commandments ! then had thy peace
been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the
sea." — Isaiah 48: 17, 18. "Say unto them, as I live saith the
Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but
that the wicked turn fipm his way and live; turn ye, turn ye
from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
— Eze. 33: 11. "Hear ye now what the Lord saith: Arise,
contend thou before the mountains, and let the hills hear thy
voice. Hear ye, O mountains, the Lord's controversy, and ye
strong foundations of the earth; for the Lord hath a contro
versy with his people, and he will plead with Israel. O my
people what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wea
ried thee? testify against me. — Micah 6: 1 — 3. "0 Jerusa
lem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gath
ered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chick
ens under her wings, and ye would not!" — Mat 23: 37.
Again, The same may be inferred from the professed sin-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 415
cerity of God in his invitations. " O that there were such an
heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my com
mandments always, that it might be well with them, and with
their children forever!" — Deut. 5:39. "O that they were
wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their
latter end!"— Deut. 32: 29. "For thou art not a God that
hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with
thee." — Ps. 5: 4. "Oh that my people had hearkened unto
me, and Israel had walked in my ways! I should soon have
subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their ad
versaries. The haters of the Lord should have submitted
themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for
ever." — Ps. 81 : 13 — 15. " O that thou hadst hearkened unto
my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and
thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." — Isaiah 48: 18.
" For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith
the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye."—
Eze. 18: 32. "And when he was come near, he beheld the
city, and wept over it, saying. If thou hadst known, even
thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto
thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes." — Luke
19: 41, 42. "For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent
not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the
world through him might be saved." — John 3: 16,17. "I
exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, inter
cessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: for
kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a
quiet and. peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For
this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth." — 1 Tim. 1 — 4. " The Lord is not
slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance." — 2 Peter 3: 9.
Again the same inference is forced upon us by the fact
that God complains of sinners for rejecting his overtures of
mercy: "Because I have called, and ye refused; I have
stretched out my hand, and no man regarded." — Prov. 1 : 24.
"But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder,
and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they
made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear
the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in

416 +.,,. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
his Spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great
wrath from the Lord of hosts. Therefore it is come to pass;
that as he cried and they would not hear: so they cried, and
I would not hear, saith the Lord of hosts." — Zechariah 7: 11,
12, 13. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king
which made a marriage for his son. And sent forth his ser
vants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they .
would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying,
Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my
dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are
ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it,
and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchan
dise: and the remnant took his servants, and treated them
spitefully, and slew them." — Matthew 22 : 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. "And
sent his servant at supper-time to say to them that were bid
den. Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with
one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him,
I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and
see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I.
have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I
pray thee have me excused. And another said I have mar
ried a wife; and therefore I can not come." — Luke 14: 17, 18,
19, 20. "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have
life." — John 5: 40. "Ye stiff necked and uncircumcised in
heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye." — Acts 7: 51. "And as he reasoned of
righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix
trembled, and answered, Go thy Way for this time; when I
have a convenient season I will call for thee." — Acts 24: 25.
Again, the same is inferable from the fact that sinners are
represented as having no excuse for being lost and for not be
ing saved by Christ. "And he saith unto him, Friend, how
earnest thou in hither, not having a wedding-garment? And
he was speechless." — Matthew 22: 12. "For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eter
nal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." —
Romans 1 : 20. "And ye will not come to me, that ye might
have life."— John 5: 40. "Now we know, that what things
soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law,
that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God."— Romans 3: 19.
VII. I now proceed to answer objections.
I. To the fact of atonement. It 'is said that the doctrine
of atonement represents God as unmerciful.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. l 417
i
Ans. 1. This objection supposes that the atonement was
demanded to satisfy retributive instead of public justice.
2. The atonement was the exhibition of a merciful dispo
sition.* It was because God was disposed to pardon that he
consented to give his own Son to die as the substitute of sinners.
3. The atonement is infinitely the most illustrious exhibi
tion of mercy ever made in the universe. The mere pardon
of sin, as an act of mercy, can not compare with the merciful
disposition displayed in the atonement itself.
II. Itis objected that the atonement is unnecessary.
Ans. 1. The testimony of the world and of the consciences
of all men is against this objection. This is universally at
tested by their expiatory sacrifices. These, as has been
said, have been offered by nearly every nation of whose
religious history we have any reliable account. This shows
that human beings are universally conscious of being sinners
and under the government of a sin-hating God; that their
intelligence demands either the punishment of sinners, or that
a substitute should be offered to public justice; that they
all own and have the idea that substitution is possible, and
hence they offer their sacrifices as expiatory.
A heathen philosopher can answer this objection, and re
buke the folly of him who makes it.
III. It is objected that the doctrine ofthe atonement is in
consistent with the idea of mercy and forgiveness.
Ans. 1. This takes for granted that the atonement was the
literal payment ofa debt, and that Christ suffered all that was
due to all the sinners for whom he died, so that their dis
charge or pardon is an act of justice and not of mercy. But
this was by no means the nature of the atonement The atone
ment, as we have seen, had respect simply to public, and not
at all to retributive justice. Christ suffered what was neces
sary to illustrate the intention Of God in respect to sin and in
respect to his law. But the amount of his sufferings had no
respect to the amount of punishment that might have justly
been inflicted on the wicked.
2. The punishment of sinners is just as much deserved by
them as if Christ had not suffered at all.
3. Their forgiveness, therefore, is just as much an act of
mercy as if there had been no atonement.
IV. It is objected that it is unjust to punish an innocent
being instead of the guilty.
Ans. 1. Yes, it would riot only be unjust, but it is impossible
to punish an innocent individual at all. Punishment implies

418

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

guilt. An innocent being may suffer, but he can not be pun
ished. Christ voluntarily "suffered, the just for the unjust"
He had a right to exercise this self denial; and as it was by
his own voluntary consent, no injustice was done to any one.
2. If he had no right to make an atonement, he had no right
to consult and promote his own happiness; for it is said that
"for the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, de
spising the shame."
V. It is objected that the doctrine of atonement is utterly
incredible, To this I have replied in a former. lecture; but will here
again, state, that it is utterly incredible upon any other suppo
sition than that God is love. But if God is love, as the Bible
expressly affirms that he is, the work of Atonement is just
what might be expected of him under the circumstances; and
the doctrine of Atonement is the most reasonable doctrine in
the universe.
VI. It is objected to the doctrine of Atonement, that it is
of a demoralizing tendency.
Ans. 1. There is a broad distinction between the natural
tendency of a thing and such an abuse of a good thing as to
make it the. instrument of evil. The best things and doc
trines may be, and often are, abused, and their natural tend-.
ency perverted.
2. The natural tendency ofthe Atonement is the direct.
opposite of demoralizing. Is the manifestation of deep dis-.
interested love naturally calculated to beget enmity? Who
does not know that the natural tendency of manifested love is .
to beget love in return?
3. Those who have the most fully believed in the Atone
ment, have exhibited the, purest morality that has ever been
exhibited in this world; while the rejecters of the Atonement,
almost without exception, exhibit a loose morality. . This is
as might be expected from the very nature of Atonement.
VII. To a general Atonement, it is objected that the Bible
represents Christ as laying down his life for his sheep, or for
the elect only, and not for all mankind.
Ans. 1. It does indeed represent Christ as laying down his
life for his sheep, and also for all mankind.
1 John 2:2. " And he is the propitiation for our sins; and
not for ours only, but alsofor the sins of the whole world."
John 3: 17. "For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world; but that the world through him might be
saypd."

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

419

Heb. 2: 9. " But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory
and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death
for every man."
2. Those who object to the general Atonement, take sub
stantially the same course to evade this doctrine that Unitari
ans do to set aside the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Divinity
of Christ. They quote those passages that prove the unity of
God and the humanity of Christ, and then take it for granted
that they have disproved the doctrine of the Trinity and
Christ's Divinity^ The asserters of limited atonement in like
manner quote those passages that prove that Christ died for
the elect and for his saints, and then take it for granted that
he died for none else. To the Unitarian we reply, we admit
the unity of God, and the humanity of Christ, and the full
meaning of those passages of Scripture which you quote in
proof of these doctrines; but we insist that this is not the
whole truth, but there are still other passages which prove
the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Just
so to the asserters of limited Atonement we reply, we believe
that Christ laid down his life for his sheep, as well as you; but
we also believe that he tasted death for every man.
John 3: 16. " For God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life."
VIII. To the doctrine of general Atonement it is objected,
that it would be folly in God to provide what he knew would
be rejected; and that to suffer Christ to die for those who
he foresaw would not repent, would be a useless expenditure
of blood and suffering. p
Ans. 1. This objection assumes that the Atonement was a
literal payment of a debt, which we have seen is not the na
ture of the Atonement.
2. If sinners do not accept it, no particle of the Atonement
can be useless, as the great compassion of God in providing
an atonement and offering them mercy will forever exalt His
character in the estimation of holy beings, greatly strengthen
his government, and therefore benefit the whole universe.
3. If all men rejected the Atonement it would neverthe
less be of infinite value to the universe, as it is the most glo
rious revelation of God that was ever made.
IX. To the general atonement it is objected, that it implies
universal salvation.
Ans. It does indeed imply this, upon the supposition that

420 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the atonement is the literal payment of a debt. It was upon
this view of the atonement that Universalism first took its
stand. Universalists taking it for granted that Christ had
paid the debt of those for whom he died, and finding it fully
revealed in the bible that he died for all mankind, naturally,
and if this were correct, properly inferred the doctrine of uni
versal salvation. But we have seen that this is not the nature
of atonement. Therefore this inference falls to the ground.
X- It is objected that if the atonement was not a payment
of the debt of sinners, but general in its nature, as we have
mentioned, it secures the salvation of no one.
Ans. It is true that the atonement itself does not secure the
salvation of any one; but the promise and oath of God that
Christ shall have a seed to serve him does.
REMARKS ON THE ATONEMENT.
1. The execution of the law of God on rebel angels must
have created great awe in heaven.
2. Its action may have tended too much to fear.
3. The forbearance of God toward men previous to the
atonement of Christ may have been designed to counteract
the superabundant tendency to fear, as it was the beginning
ofa revelation of compassion.
4. Sinners will not give up their enmity against God, nor
believe that his is disinterested love, until they realize that he
actually died as their substitute.
5. In this can be seen the exceeding strength of unbelief
and of prejudice against God.
6. But faith in the atonement of Christ rolls a mountain
weight of crushing considerations upon the heart of the
sinner. 7. Thus the blood of Christ when apprehended and be
lieved in, cleanses from all sin.
8. God's forbearance toward sinners must increase the
wonder, admiration, love and happiness of the universe.
9. The means which he uses to save mankind must produce
the same effect
10. Beyond certain limits, forbearance is no virtue, but
would be manifestly injurious, and therefore wrong. A de
gree of forbearance that might justly create the impression
that God was not infinitely holy and opposed to sin, would
work infinite mischief in the universe.
11. When the forbearance of God has fully demonstrated

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 421
his great love, and done all it can to sustain the moral govern
ment of God, without a fresh display of holiness and justice,
He will no doubt come forth to execution, and make parallel
displays of justice and mercy forever, by setting heaven- and
hell in eternal contrast
12. Then the law and gospel will be seen to be one har
monious system of moral government, developing in the ful
lest manner the glorious1 character Of God.
13. From this you can see the indispensable necessity of
faith in the atonement of Christ, and why it is that the gospel
is the power of God unto salvation only to every one that be
lieveth. If the atonement is not believed in, it is to that mind
no revelation at all, and with such a mind the gospel has no
moral power.
14. But the Atonement tends in the highest manner to be
get in the believer the spirit of entire and universal conse
cration to God.
15. The Atonement shows how solid a foundation the
saints have for unbroken and eternal repose and confidence
in God. If God could make an Atonement for men, surely
it is infinitely unreasonable to suppose that he will withhold
from those that believe any thing which could be to them a
real good.
16. We see that selfishness is the great hindrance to the
exercise of faith. A selfish mind finds it exceedingly diffi
cult to understand the Atonement, inasmuch as it is an exhi
bition of a state of mind which is the direct opposite of all
that the sinner has ever experienced. His experience being
wholly selfish renders it difficult for him to conceive aright
what true rehgion is, and heartily to believe in the infinitely
great and disinterested love of God.
17. Tfeft. Atonement renders pardori consistent with the
perfect administration of justice.
18. The Atonement, as it was made by the lawgiver, mag
nifies the law, and renders it infinitely more honorable and
influential than the execution of the penalty upon sinners
would have done.
19. It is the highest and most glorious expedient of moral
government. It is adding to the influence of law the whole
weight of the most moving manifestation of God that men
or angels ever saw or will see.
20. It completes the circle of governmental motives. It
is a filling up of the revelation of God. It is a revealing of
a department of his character, with which it would seem that
36

422 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
nothing else could have made his creatures acquainted. It
is, therefore, the highest possible support of moral govern
ment 21. It greatly glorifies God, far above all his other works
and ways.
22. It must be to him a source of the purest, most exalted,
and eternal happiness.
23. It opens the channels of divine benevolence to state
criminals. 24. It has united God with human nature.
25. It has opened a way of access to God, never opened
to any creatures before.
26. Ithasabolished natural death, by procuring a universal
resurrection: 1 Cor. 15: 22, 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive.'
27. It restores the life of God to the soul, by restoring to
man the influence of the Holy Spirit.
28. It has introduced a new method of salvation, and made
Christ the head of the New Covenant.
29. It has made Christ our surety:
Heb. 7: 22. 'By so much was Jesus made a surety of a bet
ter testament.'
30. It has arrayed such a public sentiment against rebel-
ion, as to crush it whenever the Atonement is fairly under
stood and applied by the Holy Spirit.
31. It has procured the offer of pardon to all sinners of
our race.
32. It has been the occasion of a new and most aggrava
ted kind of sin.
33. It has, no doubt, added to the happiness of heaven.
34. It has more fully developed the nature and importance
of the government of God.
35. It has more fully developed the nature of sin.
36. It has more fully developed the strength of sin.
37. It has more fully developed the total depravity and
utter madness of sinners.
38. It has given scope to the long-suffering and forbear
ance of God.
39. It has formed a more intimate union between God and
man, than between him and any other order of creatures.
40. It has elevated human nature, and the saints of God,
into the stations of kings and priests to God.
41. It has opened new fields of usefulness, in which the

MORAL GOVERNMENT,

423

benevolence of God, angels, and men may luxuriate in doing
good. 42. It has developed and fully revealed the doctrine of the
Trinity. 43. It has revealed the most influential and only efficacious
method of government.
44. It has more fully developed those laws of our being
upon which the strength of moral government depends.
45. It has given a standing illustration of the true intent
meaning, and excellency of the law of God. In the Atone
ment God has illustrated the meaning of. his law by his own
example. 46. The Atonement has fully illustrated the nature of vir
tue, and demonstrated that it consists in disinterested benev
olence. 47. It has for ever condemned all selfishness, as entirely
inconsistent with virtue.
48. It has established all the great principles and completed
the power of moral government.

LECTURE XXXHI-
HUMAN GOVERNMENT.
Human governments a part of the moral government
of God.
In the discussion of this subject I will,
I. Inquire into the ultimate end of God in the crea
tion of the universe.
II. Show that Providential and moral government
ARE INDISPENSABLE MEANS OF SECURING THIS END.
III. That civil, and family governments are indispensa
ble TO THE SECURING OF THIS END, AND ARE THEREFORE TRU
LY A FART OF THE PrOVIDENTJAL AND MoRAL GOVERNMENT OF
God. IV. Inquire jnto the foundation of the right of human
GOVERNMENTS. V. Point out the limits or boundaries of this right.
VI. Make several remarks respecting the forms of gov
ernment, the right and duty of revolution, &c
VII. Apply the foregoing principles to the rights and
DUTIES OF GOVERNMENTS AND SUBJECTS IN RELATION TO THE EX
ECUTION OF NECCSSARY PENALTIES; THE SUPPRESSION OF MOBS,
INSURRECTIONS, REBELLION; AND IN RELATION TO WAR, SLAVE
RY, Sabbath desecration, &c
/. The ultimate end of God in creation.
We have seen in former lectures that God is a moral agent
and is, therefore, the subject of moral law. That is, His own
infinite intelligence must affirm that a certain course of will
ing is suitable, fit, and right in Him. This idea or affirma
tion is law to Him, and to this His will must be conformed or
He is not good. This is moral law, a law founded in the
eternal and self-existent nature of God. This law does and
must demand benevolence in God. Benevolence is good-
willing. God's intelligence must affirm that He ought to will
good for its own intrinsic value. It must affirm His obligation
to choose the highest possible good as the great end of His
being. If God is good,.the highest good of himself and of
the universe must have been the end which He had in view
in the work of creation. This is of infinite value and ought
to be willed by God. If God is good this must have been His
end. We have also seen,
//. That Providential and Moral Governments are indispensa
ble means of securing the highest good of the universe.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

425

The highest good of moral agents is conditionated upon
their holiness. Holiness consists in conformity to moral law.
Moral law implies moral government Moral government is
a government of moral law and of motives. Motives are pre
sented by Providential government, and Providential govern
ment is therefore a means of* moral government. Providen
tial and moral government must be indispensable to securing
the highest good of the universe.
,///. Civil and family governments are indispensable to the se
curing of this end, and are therefore really a part ofthe Providen
tial and moral government of God.
In the discussion of this question I will show,
First, That Human Governments are a necessity of hu
man nature.
r Second, That this necessity will continue as long as men
exist in the present world.
Third, That Human Governments are plainly recognized
in the Bible as a part of the government of God.
Fourth, That it is the duty of all men to aid in the estab
lishment and support of Human Government.
Fifth, It is absurd to suppose that Human Government
can ever be dispensed with in this world.
Sixth, I shall answer objections.
/. Human Governments are a necessity of human nature.
1. There must be real estate. Human beings have nu
merous physical and moral wants that can not possibly be
supplied without the cultivation and improvement of the soil.
Buildings must be erected, &c
; 2. It must belong to somebody. Somebody must have the
right, the care, the responsibility, and therefore the avails of
real estate.
3. There must, therefore, be all the forms of conveyanc
ing, registry, and in short, all the forms of legal government,
to settle and manage the real estate affairs of men.
4. Moral beings will not agree in opinion on any subject
without similar degrees of knowledge.
5. Hence, no human community exists or ever will exist',
the members of which on all subjects will agree in opinion.
, 6. This creates a necessity for human legislation and adju
dication, to apply the great principles of moral law to all hu
man affairs.
7. There are multitudes of human wants and necessities
that cannot properly be met, except through the instrumen
tality of human governments. 36*

426 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
II. This necessity will continue as long as human beings ex
ist in this world.
I. This is as certain as that the human body will always
need sustenance, clothing, and that the human soul will al
ways need instruction, and that the means of instruction will
not grow spontaneously, without expense or labor.
2. It is as certain as that men of all ages and circum
stances will never possess equal degrees of information on all
subjects. If all men were perfectly holy and disposed to do right,
the necessity of human governments would not be set aside,
because this necessity is founded in the ignorance oi man
kind, though aggravated by their wickedness.
3. The decisions of legislators and judges must be authori
tative, so as to settle questions of disagreement in opinion,
and bind and protect all parties.
4. The Bible represents human governments not only as
existing, but as giving their authority and power to the- sup
port of the Church in its most prosperous state. This proves
that human government will not be dispensed with when the
world is holy:
Isa. 49: 22, 23, 'Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will
lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the
people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy
daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings
shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing
mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their faces toward
the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt
know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that
wait for me.' j
lit. Human Governments are plainly recognized in the Bible
as a part of the moral government of God.
1. Dan. 2: 21. 'He changeth the times and the seasons: he
removeth kings, and setteth up kings : he giveth wisdom unto
the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.'
Dan: 4: 17, 25. 'This matter is by the decree of the
watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to
the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth
in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will,
and setteth up over it the basest of men.' 'They shall drive
thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of
the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and
they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times
shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 427
in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.'
Dan. 5: 21. "He was driven from the sons of men; and his
heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the
wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body
was wet with the dew of heaven ; till he knew that the Most
High God rulethin the kingdom of men, and that he appoint-
eth over it whomsoever he will.'
Rom. 13: 1 — 7. 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be
are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the pow
er, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall
receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a ter
ror to good works but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be a-
fraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but
also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute
also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon
this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute
to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to
whom fear; honor to whom honor.'
Titus 3: 1. 'Put them in mind to be subject to principali
ties and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every
good work.'
1 Peter 2: 13, 14. 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of
man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as su
preme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him
lor the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them
that do well.'
These passages prove conclusively, that God establishes
human governments, as parts of moral government.
2. It is a matter, of fact, that God does exert moral influ
ences through the instrumentality of human governments.
3. It is a matter of fact, that he often executes his law,
punishes vice, and rewards virtue, through the instrumentali
ty of human governments.
; 4. Under the Jewish Theocracy, where God was King, it
was found indispensable to have the forms of the executive
department of government.
IV. It is the duty of all men to aid in the establishment and
support of Human Government.

428 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
1. Because human governments are plainly a necessity of
human beings.
2. As all men are in some way dependent upon them, it is the
duty of every man to aid in their establishment and support
3. As the great law of benevolence, or universal good-wil
ling, demands the existence of human governments, all men
are under a perpetual and unalterable moral obligation to aid
in their establishment and support.
4. In popular or elective governments, every man having a
right to vote, and every human being who has moral influ
ence, is bound to exert that'' influence, in the promotion of
virtue and happiness. And as human governments are plain
ly indispensable to the highest good of man, they are bound
to exert their influence to secure a legislation that is in accor
dance with the law of God.
5. The obligation of human beings to support and obey
human governments, while they legislate upon the principles
of the moral law, is as unalterable as the moral law itself.
V. It is absurd to suppose that human governments can ever be
dispensed with in the present world.
1. Because such a supposition is entirely inconsistent with
the nature of human beings.
2. It is equally inconsistent with their relations and circum
stances. ,;
3. Because it assumes that the necessity of government is
founded alone in human depravity: whereas the foundation of
this necessity is human ignorance, and human depravity is on
ly an additional reason for the existence of human govern
ments. The primary idea of law is to teach; hence law has
a precept. It is authoritative, and therefore has a penalty.
4. Because it assumes that men would always agree in
judgment, if their hearts were right, irrespective of their de
grees of information. But this is as far as possible from the
truth. 5. Because it sets aside one of the plainest and most une
quivocal doctrines of revelation,
VI. lam to answer objections.
Obj. I. The kingdom of God is represented in the Bible as
subverting all other kingdoms.
Ans. This is true, and all that can be meant by this is, that
the time shall come when God shall be regarded as the su
preme and universal sovereign of the universe, when his law
shall be regarded as universally obligatory; when all Kings,
Legislators, and Judges shall act as his servants, declaring,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 429
applying, and administering the great principles of his law to
all the affairs of human beings. Thus God will be the Supreme
Sovereign, and earthly rulers will be Governors, Kings, and
Judges under him, and actirig by bis authority as revealed in
the Bible.
Obj. II. It is objected that God only providentially estab
lishes human governments, and that he does not approve of
their selfish and wicked administration ; that he only uses them
providentially as he does Satan for the promotion of his own
designs. Ans. 1. God no where commands mankind to obey Satan,
but he does command them to obey magistrates and rulers.
Rom. 13:1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers: for there is no power but of God: the powers that be
are ordained of God."
1 Pet. 2: 13, 14, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of
man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme;
or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the pun
ishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well."
2. He no where recognizes Satan as his servant sent and
set by him to administer justice and execute wrath upon the
wicked ; but he does this in respect to human governments,
Rom. 13: 2 — 6. "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall re
ceive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror
to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid
of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise ofthe same. For he is the minister of God to thee for
good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid : for he bear
eth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a re
venger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Where
fore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for
conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for
they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very
thing." 3. Itis true indeed that God approves of nothing that is, un
godly and selfish in human governments. Neither did he ap
prove of what was ungodly and selfish in the Scribes and Phar
isees; and yet Christ said to his disciples, "The Scribes and
Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatsoever things
they command you, that observe and do; but do ye not after
their works, for they say, and do not." Here the plain com
mon sense principle is recognized, that we are to obey when
the requirement is not inconsistent with the moral law, what-

430 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ever may be the character or the motive of the ruler. We
are always to obey heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto
men, and render obedience to magistrates for the honor and
glory of God, and as doing service to him.
Obj. III. It is objected that Christians should leave human
governments to the management of the ungodly, and not be
diverted from the work of saving souls to intermeddle with
human governments.
Ans. 1. This is not being diverted from the work of saving
souls. The promotion of public and private order and hap
piness is one of the indispensable means of saving sOuls.
2. It is nonsense to admit that Christians are under an obli
gation to obey human government, and still have nothing to do
with the choice of those who shall govern.
Obj. IV. It is objected that we are commanded not to avenge
ourselves, that "Vengeance is mine, and I will repay saith the
Lord." It is said, that if I may not avenge or redress my
own wrongs in my own person, I may not do it through the in
strumentality of human government.
Ans. 1. It does not follow that because you may not take
it upon you to redress yoUr own wrongs by a summary and
personal infliction of punishment upon the transgressor, that
human governments may not punish them.
2. Because allprivate wrongs are a public injury; and irre
spective of any particular regard to your personal interest,
magistrates are bound to punish crime for the public good.
3. It does not follow, because that while God haS express
ly forbidden you to redress your own wrongs by administering
personal and private chastisement, he has expressly recogni
zed the right and made it the duty of a public magistrate to
punish crimes.
Obj. V. It is objected that love is so much better than law
that where love reigns in the heart, law can be universally
dispensed with.
Ans. 1. This supposes that if there is only love there need
be no rule of duty.
2. This objection overlooks the fact that law is in all
worlds the rule of duty, and that legal sanctions make up an in
dispensable part of that circle of motives that are suited
to the nature, relations, and government of moral beings.
3. The law requires love; and nothing is law, either human
or divine, that is inconsistent with universal benevolence. And
to suppose that love is better than law, is to suppose that obe
dience to law sets aside the necessity of law.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 431
Obj. VI. It is objected that Christians have something else
to do besides meddle with politics.
Ans. 1. In a popular government politics are an indispensa
ble part of religion. No man can possibly be benevolent or
religious without concerning himself to a greater or less ex
tent with the affairs of human government
2. It is true that Christians have something else to do than
to go with a party to do evil, or to meddle with politics in a
selfish or ungodly manner. But they are bound to meddle
with politics in popular governments, for the same reason that
they are bound to seek the universal good of all men.
Obj. VII. It is said that human governments are no where
expressly authorized in the Bible.
Ans. 1. This is a mistake. Both their existence and law
fulness are as expressly recognized in the above quoted scrip
tures as they can be.
2. If God did not expressly authorize them, it would still be
both the right and the duty of mankind to institute human
governments, because they are plainly demanded by the ne
cessities of human nature. It is a first truth, that whatever
is essential to the highest good of moral beings in any world,
they have a right and are bound to do. So far, therefore, are
men from needing any express authority to establish human
governments, that no possible prohibition could render their
establishment unlawful. It has been shown, in these lectures
on moral government, that moral law is a unit— that it is that
rule of action which is in accordance with the nature, rela
tions, and circumstances of moral beings— that whatever is in
accordance with, and demanded by the nature, relations, and
circumstances of moral beings, is obligatory on them. It is
moral law, and no power in the universe can set it aside.
Therefore, were the scriptures entirely silent on the subject of
human governments, and on the subject of family govern
ment, as they actually are on a great many important sub
jects, this would be no objection to the lawfulness, and expedi
ency, necessity, and duty of establishing human governments.
Obj,. VIII. It is said that human governments are founded
inand sustained by force, and that this is inconsistent with
the spirit of the gospel.
Ans. 1. There cannot be a difference between the spirit oi
the Old and New Testaments, or between the spirit oi the law
and the gospel, unless God has changed, and unless. Christ
has undertaken to make void the law, through faith, which
cannot be.

432 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Rom. 3: 32. 'Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid: yea, we establish the law.'
2. Just human governments, and such governments only
are contended for, will not exercise force unless it is demand
ed to promote the highest pubhc good. If it be necessary to
this end it can never be wrong. Nay, it must be the'duty of
human governments to inflict penalties, when their infliction is
demanded by the public interest
Obj. IX. It is said that there should be no laws with- pen
alties. Ans. This is the same as to say that there should be no law
at all; for that is no law which has no penalty, but only advice.
Obj. X. It is said that Church government is suflicient to
meet the necessities of the world, without secular or state
governments. Ans. What! Church governments regulate commerce,
make internal improvements, and undertake to manage all
the business affairs of the world!
Church government was never established for any such
end ; but simply to regulate the spiritual, in distinction from
the secular concerns of men — to4ry offenders and inflict spir
itual chastisement, and never to perplex and embarrass itself
with managing the business and commercial operations of the
world. Obj. XL It js^aid that were all the world holy, legal penal
ties would tiot be needed.
Ans. We*e all men perfectly holy, the execution of penal
ties would not be needed; but still, if there were law, there
would be penalties? and it would be both the right and the
duty of magistrates to inflict them, should their execution be
called for.
Obj. XII. It is asserted that family government is the only
form of government approved of God.
Ans. This is a ridiculous assertion :
1. Because God as expressly commands obedience to ma
gistrates as to parents.
2. He makes it as absolutely the duty of magistrates to
punish crime, as of parents to punish their own disobedient
children. 3, The right of family government is not founded in the ar
bitrary will of God, but in the highest good of human beings;
so that family government would be both allowable and oblig
atory, had God said nothing about it.
4. So, the right of human government has not its founda-

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 433
tion in the arbitrary will of God, but in the necessities of hu
man beings. The larger the community the more absolute
the necessity of government. If, in the small circle of the
family, laws and penalties are needed, how much more in the
larger communities of states and nations. Now, neither the
ruler of a family, nor of any other form of human government,
has a right to legislate arbitrarily, or enact, or enforce any
other laws, than those that are in accordance With the nature,
relations, and circumstances of human beings. Nothing can
be obligatory on moral beings, but that which is consistent
with the nature, relations, and circumstances of moral beings.
But human beings are bound to establish family governments,
state governments, national governments, and, in short, what
ever government may be requisite for the universal instruction,
government, virtue, and happiness of the world.
5. All the reasons, therefore, for family government hold
equally in favor of the state and national governments.
6. There are vastly higher and weightier reasons for gov
ernments over states and nations, than in the small communi
ties of families.
7. Therefore, neither family nor state governments need
the express sanction of God, to render them obligatory; for
both the right and duty of establishing and maintaining these
governments would remain, had the bible been entirely silent
on the subject. But on this, as on many other subjects, God
has spoken and declared, what is the common and universal
law, plainly recognizing both the right and duty of family and
civil governments.
8. Christians, therefore, have something else to do, than to
confound the right of government with the abuse of this right
by the ungodly. Instead of destroying human governments,
Christians are bound to reform them.
9. To attempt to destroy, rather than reform human govern
ments, is the same in principle as is often plead for by those
who are attempting to destroy, rather than reform the Church.
There are those, who, disgusted with the abuses of Chris
tianity practised in the Church, seem bent on destroying the
Church altogether, as the means of saving the world. But
what mad policy is this!
10. It is admitted that selfish men need and must have the
restraints of law; but contended that Christians should have
no part in restraining them by law. But suppose the wick
ed should agree among themselves to have no law, and therefore
should not attempt to restrain themselves nor each other by
37

434 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
law; would it be neither the right nor the duty of Christ
ians to attempt their restraint, through the influence of whole
some government?
11. Itis strange that selfish men should need the restraints
of law, and yet that Christians have no right to meet this ne
cessity, by supporting governments that will restrain them.
What is this but admitting, that the world really needs the
restraints of governments — that the highest good of the uni
verse demands their existence; and yet, that it is wicked for
Christians to seek the highest good of the world, by meeting
this necessity in the establishment and support of human gov
ernments! It is right and best that there should be law. It
is necessary that there should be law. Therefore, universal
benevolence demands it; but it is wicked in Christians, to have
any thing to do with it! This is singular logic-
IV. Inquire into the foundation ofthe right of human govern
ments. 1. Men are moral agents, and are therefore subjects of
moral government and ofmoral obligation.
2." They are bound to aim at the same end at which God
ought to aim, to wit, the highest good of universal being.
3. Since human governments are the indispensable means
of promoting the highest good of human beings, they have a
right and it is their duty to establish and maintain them.
The right of human government must he founded in the in
trinsic value of the good that is to be secured by them and
conditionated upon the fact that they sustain to the highest
good of human beings, and consequently to the glory of God,
through them, the relation of a necessary means to this end.
V. Point out the limits or boundary of this right.
1. Observe, the end of government is the highest good of
human beings, as a part of universal good. All valid human
legislation must propose this as its end, and no legislation can
have any authority that has not the highest good of the whole-
for its end.
2. Observe, no being can create law. All law for the gov;
ernment ofmoral agents must be moral law. That is, it must
be that rule of action that is suited to their natures and rela
tions. The moral law or the law of nature, in other words, the
common law of the universe of moral agentsj by which God
and every moral being is or ought to be governed, is the only
law that can be obligatory on human beings. All valid human
legislation must be only declaratory of this one only law.
Nothing else than this can by any possibility be law. God

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 435
puts forth no enactments but such as are declaratory of the
common law of the universe, and should he do otherwise they
would not be obligatory. Arbitrary legislation can never be
Obligatory. 3. Human governments may declare and apply the great
principle of moral law to human conduct, and legislate in ac
cordance with and in support of the divine government, so far
as this is necessary, but no farther.
4. The right of human government is founded in the intrin
sic value ofthe good of being and conditionated upon their neces
sity as a means to that end. They may therefore, and ought to
extend their legislation and control jus t so far and no farther than
this necessity goes. This end is the promotion of the highest
-good. So far as legislation and control are indispensable to
this end, so far and no farther does the right to govern extend.
5. Human beings have no right to establish a government
upon any other basis than the moral law. No human consti
tution or law can be obligatory upon human beings any far
ther than it is in accordance with and declaratory of moral
law. All legislation and all constitutions not founded upon
this basis and not recognizing the moral law as the only law
of the universe are null and void, and all attempts to establish
and enforce them are odious tyranny and usurpation. Hri-
man beings may form constitutions, establish governments and
enact statutes for the purpose of promoting the highest virtue
and happiness of the world, and for the declaration and en
forcement Of moral law, and in so far forth as hutoan govern
ments are essential to this end and absolutely no farther.
6. It follows that no government is lawful or innocent that
does not recognize the moral law as the only universal law,
and God as" the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge to whom na
tions in their national capacity as well as all individuals are
amenable. The moral law of God is the only law of indi
viduals and of nations, and nothing can be rightful govern
ment but such as is founded and administered in its support.

LECTURE XXXIV.
HUMAN GOVERNMENT.
VI. I am to make several remarks respecting forms of gov
ernment, the right and duly of Revolution <yc.
In this lecture I shall show:
I. The reasons why God has made no particular form
of Church or civil Governments universally obligatory.
II. The particular forms of Church and civil Gov
ernment MUST AND WILL DEPEND UPON THE INTELLIGENCE AND
VIRTUE OF THE PEOPLE.
III. That form of Government is obligatory, that is
BEST SUITED TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF THE PEOPLE.
IV. Revolutions become necessary and obligatory,
WHEN THE VIRTUE AND INTELLIGENCE, OR THE VICE AND IGNOR
ANCE OF THE PEOPLE DEMAND THEM.
V. In what cases Human Legislation is valid, and in
WHAT CASES IT IS NULL AND VOID.
VI. In WHAT CASES WE ARE BOUND TO DISOBEY HUMAN
Government.
/. The reasons why God has made no form of Church or
civil Government universally obligatory.
1. That God has no where in the Bible given directions in
regard to any particular form of church or secular govern
ment, is a matter of fact.
2. That he did not consider the then existing forms, either
of church or state government, as of perpetual obligation, is
also certairi.
3. He did not give directions in regard to particular forms
of government, either of church or state;
(1.) Because no such directions could be given, without
producing great revolutions and governmental opposition to
Christiahity. The governments of the world are and always
have been exceedingly various in form. To attempt, there
fore, to insist upon any particular form, as being universally
obligatory, would be calling out great national opposition to
religion. (2.) Becauset no particular form, of church or state gov
ernment, either now is, or ever has been suited to all degrees
of intelligence, and all states of society.
(3.) Because the forms of both church and state govern
ments, need to be changed, with any great elevatipns or de
pressions of society in regard to their intelligence and virtue.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 437 »
II. The particular forms of Church and State Government,
must and will depend upon the virtue and intelligence of the
people. 1. Democracy is self government, and can never be safe or
useful, except so far as there are sufficient intelligence and vir
tue in the community to impose, by mutual consent, salutary
self-restraints, and to enforce by the power of public senti
ment, and by the fear and love of God, the practice of those
virtues which are indispensable to the highest good of any
community. 2. Republics are another and less pure form of self-gov
ernment. 3. When there are not sufficient intelligence and virtue
among the people, to legislate in accordance with the highest
good of the state or nation, then both democracies and repub
lics are improper and impracticable, as forms of government
4. When there is too little intelligence and virtue in the
mass of the people, to legislate on correct principles, mon
archies are better calculated to restrain vice and promote virtue,
5. In the worst states of society, despotisms, either civil
or military, are the only proper and efficient forms of govern
ment It is true indeed that a resort to despotic government
is an evil, and all that can be truly said is, that in certain
states of desperate anarchy, despotic government is the less of
two evils.
6. When virtue and intelligence are nearly universal de
mocratic forms of government are well suited to promote the
public good.
7. In such a state of society, democracy is greatly condu
cive to the general diffusion of knowledge on governmental
subjects. 8. Although in some respects less convenient and more ex
pensive, yet in a suitable state of society, a democracy is in
many respects the most desirable form, either of church or
state government:
(1.) It is conducive, as has been already said, to general
intelligence. (2.) Under a democracy, the people are mare generally
acquainted with the laws.
(3.) They are more interested in them.
(4.) This form of government creates a more general feel
ing of individual responsibility.
(5.) Governmental questions are more apt to be thoroughly
discussed and understood before they are adopted.
37*

438 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(6.) As the diffusion of knowledge is favorable to indivi
dual and public virtue, democracy is highly conducive to vir
tue and happiness.
9. God has always providentially given to mankind those
forms 6i government that were suited to the degrees of vir
tue and ihtelligenceamong them.
10. If they have been extremely ignorant and vicious, he
has restrained them by the iron rod of human despotism.
11. If more intelligent and virtuous, he has given them the
milder forms of limited monarchies.
12. If still more intelligent and virtuous, he has given them
still more liberty, and providentially estabhshed republics for
their government.
13. Whenever the general state of intelligence has per
mitted it, he has put them to the test of self-government and
self-restraint, by establishing democracies.
14. If the world ever becomes perfectly virtuous both
church and state governments will be proportionally modified,
and employed in expounding and applying the great princi
ples of moral law to the spiritual and secular concerns of
men. 15. The above principles are equally applicable to church
and civil governments. Episcopacy is well suited to a state
of general ignorance among the people. Presbyterianism,
or Church Republicanism is better suited to a more advanced-
state of intelligence and the prevalence of Christian princi
ple. While Congregationalism, or spiritual Democracy, is
best suited and only suited to a state of general intelligence,
and the prevalence of Christian principle.
16. God's providence has always modified both church and
state governments, so as to suit the intelligence and virtue of
the people. As churches and nations rise and fall in the
scale of virtue and intelligence, these various forms of gov
ernment naturaUy and necessarily give place to each other.
So that ecclesiastical and state despotism or liberty, depend
naturally, providentially, and necessarily upon the virtue and
intelligence of the people.
17. God is infinitely benevolent, and from time to time,
gives the people as much liberty as they can bear.
///. That form of Government is obligatory, that is best suited
to meet the necessities of the people.
1. This follows as a self-evident truth, from the considera
tion, that necessity is the condition ofthe right of human gov
ernment To meet this necessity is the object of government;

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 439
and that government is obligatory and best, which is demand
ed by the circumstances, intelligence and morals of the people.
2. Consequently, in certain states of society, it would be a
Christian's duty to pray for and sustain even a military despot
ism; in a certain other state of society, to pray for and sus
tain a monarchy; and in other states, to pray for and sustain
a republic; and in a still more advanced stage of virtue and
intelligence, to pray for and sustain a democracy; if indeed a
democracy is the most wholesome form of self-government,
which may admit a doubt It is ridiculous to set up the claim
of a Divine Right for any stereotyped form of government.
That form of Government which is demanded by the state of
society and the virtue and intelligence of the people, has, of
necessity, the Divine right and sanction, and none other has or
can have. -
IV. Revolutions become necessary and obligatory, when the
virtue and intelligence or the vice and ignorance ofthe people de
mand them.
1. This is a thing of course. When one form of govern
ment fails to meet any longer the necessities of the people, it
is the duty of the people to revolutionize.
2. In such cases it is in vain to oppose revolution; for in
some way the benevolence of God will bring it about. Upon
this principle alone, can what is generally termed the Ameri
can Revolution be justified. The intelligence and virtue of
our Puritan forefathers rendered a monarchy an unnecessary
burden, and' a republican form of government both appropri
ate and necessary; and God always allows his children as
much liberty m they are prepared to enjoy.
3. The stability of our republican institutions must depend
upon the progress of general intelligence and virtue. If in
these respects the nation falls, if general intelligence, public
and private virtue sink to that point below which self-control
becomes impossible, we must fall back into monarchy, limited
or absolute; or into civil or military despotism; just according
to the national standard of intelligence and virtue. This is
just as certain as that God governs the world, or that causes
produce their effects.
4. Therefore, it is the madest conceivable policy, for Christ
ians toattempt to uproot human governments, while they ought
to be engaged in sustaining them, upon the great principles of
the moral law. It is certainly .stark nonsense, if not abomina
ble wickedness, to overlook either in theory or practice, these
plain, common sense and universal truths.

440 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
V. In what cases human legislation is valid, and in what cases
it is null and void.
1. Human legislation is valid, when called for by the neces
sities, that is, by the nature, relations and circumstances of
the people.
2. Just that kind and degree of human legislation which
are demanded by the necessities of the people are obligatory.
3. Human legislation is utterly null and void in all other ca
ses whatsoever; and I may add, that divine legislation would
be equally null and void; unless demanded by the nature, rela
tions, and necessities of the universe. Consequently human
beings can never legislate in opposition to the moral law.
Whatever is inconsistent with supreme love to God and equal
love to our neighbor, can, by no possibility, be obligatory,
VI. In what cases we are bound to disobey human governments.
, 1. We may yield obedience, when the thing required does
not involve a violation of moral obligation.
2. We are bound to yield obedience, when legislation is in
accordance with the law of nature. i
3. We are bound to obey when the thing requiredhas no
moral character in itself; upon the principle, that obedience,
in this case, is a less evii than revolution and misrule. But,
4. We are bound in all cases to disobey, when human legisla
tion contravenes moral law, or invades the rights of conscience.
VII. Apply the foregoing principles to the rights and duties,of
governments and subjects in relation to the execution of the neces
sary penalties of law .- — the suppression of mobs, insurrections,
rebellion; and also in relation to war, slavery, Sabbath desecra
tion, fyc. A
In discussing this branch of the subject I mult,
1. Notice some principles that have been settled,
2. Apply these settled principles to the subjects first
named. 1. Notice some principles that have been settled.
In the preceding lectures it has been shown,
1. That all government is a means to an end, and that the
end of all righteous government is and must be the highest
good of both the ruler and the ruled.
2. We have seen that all law is either moral or physical.
3. That all law for the government of free moral agents is
and must be moral law.
4. That moral law is that rule of willing and acting that is
suited to the natures, relations and circumstances of moral
agents.

MORAL GOVERNMENT.

441

5. We have seen that the right to govern is founded in the
value of the end to be secured by government, and condi
tionated, (1.) Upon the necessity of government as a means to this
end, and
(2.) Upon the natural and]moral attributes of the ruler, and
also upon his ability and willingness to so administer gov
ernment as to secure the end of government.
6. We have seen that the right to govern implies:
[Let the reader here recur to what is written under th is
head on pages 21 and 22.]
7. We have seen that the right to govern is bounded only
but absolutely by the necessity of government; that just
that kind and degree of government is lawful which is neces
sary asa means of promoting the highest good of both ruler
and ruled; that arbitrary legislation is invalid and tyrannical
legislation, and that in no case can arbitrary enactments be
law. 8. We have seen that no unequal or inequitable enactment
can be law, and nothing can by any possibility be law but the
rule " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
9. We have seen also that human rulers can justly legislate
only in support of divine government but never against it.
That no enactment can by any possibility be law that contra
venes the moral law or law of God.
10. Let us now proceed to apply these immutable and well
established principles.
1. To the rights and duties of government in relation to
mobs, riots, &c. It is plain that the right and duty to
govern for the security and promotion of the public interests
implies the right and duty to use any means necessary to
this result. It is absurd to say that the ruler has the right to
govern, and yet that he has not a right to use the necessary
means. Some have taken the ground ofthe inviolability of
human life, and have insisted that to take life is wrong per se,
'and of course that governments are to be sustained without
taking life. Others have gone so far as to assert that govern
ments have no right to resort to physical force to sustain the
authority of law. But this is a most absurd philosophy, and
amounts to just this:— The ruler has a right to govern while
the subject is pleased to obey; but if the subject refuse obe
dience, why then the right togovern ceases, for it is impossible
that the right to govern should exist when the right to enforce
obedience does not exist. This philosophy is in fact a denial

442

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

of the right to use the necessary means for the promotion of
the great end for which all moral agents are bound to live.
And yet strange to tell, this philosophy professes to deny the
right to use force and to take life in support of government
on the ground of benevolence, that is, that benevolence for
bids it. What is this but maintaining that the law of benevo
lence demands that we should love others too much to use the
indispensable means to secure their good? Or that we should
love the whole too much to execute the law upon those who
would destroy all good? Shame on such a philosophy. It
overlooks the foundation ofmoral obligation and of all morality
and religion. Just as if an enlightened benevolence could
forbid the due, wholesome and necessary execution of law.
This philosophy impertinently urges the commandment, " Thou
shalt not kill," as prohibiting all taking of human life. But it
may be asked, why say human life. The commandment, so
far as the letter is concerned, as fully prohibit the killing of
animals or vegetables, as it does of men. The question is
what kind of killing does this commandment prohibit? Cer
tainly not all killing of human beings, for in the next chapter
we are commanded to kill human beings for certain crimes.
The ten commandments are precepts, and the lawgiver, after
laying down the precepts, goes on to specify the penalties
that are to be inflicted by men for a violation of these pre
cepts. Some of these penalties are death, and the penalty
for the violation of the precept under consideration is death.
It is certain that this precept was not intended to prohibit
the taking of life for murder. A consideration of the law in
its tenor and spirit renders it most evident that the precept in
question prohibits murder, and the penalty of death is
added by the lawgiver to the violation of this precept. Now
how absurd and impertinent it is to quote this precept in pro
hibition of taking life under all circumstances !
Men have an undoubted right to do whatever is plainly
indispensable to the highest good of man, and therefore no
thing can by any possibility be law that should prohibit the
taking of human life when it became indispensable to the
great end of government. This right is every where recog
nized in the Bible, and if it were not, still the right would
exist This philosophy that I am opposing, assumes that the
will of God creates law, and that we have no right to take
life without an express warrant from him. But the facts are,
(1.) That God has given us an express warrant and injunc
tion to take life for certain crimes, and,

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 443
(2.) If he had not, it would be duty to do so whenever the
public good required it. Let it be remembered that the moral
law is the law of nature, and that every thing is lawful and
right that is plainly demanded for the promotion of the high
est good of being.
The philosophy of which I am speaking lays much stress
upon what it calls inalienable rights. It assumes that man
has .a title or right to life in such a sense that he can not for
feit it by crime. But the fact is, there are no rights inaliena
ble in this sense. There can be no such rights. Whenever
any individual, by the commission of crime, comes into such
a relation to the public interest that his death is a necessary
means of securing the highest public good, his life is forfeited,
and to take the forfeiture at his hands is the duty of the gov
ernment 2. It will be seen that the same principles are equally ap
plicable to insurrections, rebellion, &c. While government
is right it is duty, and while it is right and duty because ne
cessary as a means to the great end upon which benevolence
terminates, it must be both the right and the duty of govern
ment and of all the subjects, to use apy indispensable means
for the suppression of insurrections, rebellion, &c, as also
for the due administration of justice in the execution of law.
3. These principles will guide us in ascertaining the rights,
and of course the duty of governments in relation to war.
War is one of the most heinous and horrible forms of sin
unless it be evidently demanded by and prosecuted in obedi
ence to the moral law. Observe, war to be in any case a
virtue or to be less than a crime of infinite magnitude, must
not only be honestly believed by those who engage in it, to
be demanded by the law of benevolence, but it must also be
engaged in by them with an eye single to the glory of God
and the highest good of being. That war has been in some
instances demanded by the spirit of the moral law there can
be no reasonable doubt, since God has sometimes commanded
them, which he could not have done had they not been de
manded by the highest good of the universe. In those cases,
if those who were commanded to engage in them had benev
olent intentions in prosecuting them as God had in command-
. ing them, it is absurd to say that they sinned. Rulers are
represented as God's ministers to execute wrath upon the
guilty. If in the Providence of God He should find it duty
to destroy or to rebuke a nation for his own glory and the
highest good of being, he may, beyond question, command that

444 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
they should be chastised by the hand of man. But in no
case is war any thing else than a most horrible crime unless
it is plainly the will of God that it should exist, and unless it
be actually engaged in in obedince to his will. This is true
of all, both of rulers and of subjects who engage -in war.
Selfish war is wholesale murder. For a nation to declare war
or for persons to enlist or in any way to designedly aid or
abet in the declaration or prosecution of war upon any other
conditions than those just specified involves the guilt of mur
der. There can scarcely be conceived a more abominable
and fiendish maxim than "our country right or wrong." Re
cently this maxim seems to have been adopted and avowed in
relation to the present war of the United States with Mexico.
It seems to be supposed by some that it is the duty of good
subjects to sympathize with and support government in the
prosecution of a war in which they have unjustly engaged,
and to which they have committed themselves, upon the
ground that since it is commenced it must be prosecuted as
the less of two evils. The same class of men seem to have
adopted the same philosophy in respect to slavery. Slavery,
as it exists in this country, they acknowledge to be indefen
sible on the ground of right; that it is a great evil and a
great sin, but it must be let alone as the less of two evils. It
exists, say they, and it can not be abolished without disturb
ing the friendly relations and federal union of the States,
therefore the institution must be sustained. The philosophy
is this: war and slavery as they exist in this nation are un
just, but they exist, and to sustain them is duty, because their
existence, under the circumstances, is the less of two evils.
To this I answer:
1. That of moral evjls or sins we can not know which is
the least, that is, which involves the least or the greatest
guilt. 2. I would ask, do these philosophers intend to admit that
the prosecution of a war unjustly waged is sin, and that the
support of slavery in this country is sin, but that the sin of
supporting them is less than would be the sin of abandoning
them under the circumstances ? If they mean this, to be sure
this were singular logic. To repent of a sin and forsake it
were a greater sin than to persist in it! True and genuine
repentance of a sin is sin, and even a greater sin than that re
pented of ! Who does not know that it can never be sin to
repent of sin? To repent and forsake all sin is always right ,.

MORAL GOVERNMENT. 445
always duty and can in no case be sin. If War hasheen un
justly waged, if slavery or any thing else exists that involves
injustice and oppression or sin in any form, it cannot be sin to
abandon it. To abhor and reject it at once must be duty^
and to persevere in it is only to add insult toinjury.
Nothing can sanctify any crime but that which renders it
no crime, but a virtue. But the philosophers whose views I
am examining, must if consistent take the ground that since
war and slavery exist although their commencement was un
just and sinful, yet since they exist, itis no crime but a virtue
to sustain them as the least of two natural evils. But I
would ask to whom are they the least of two evils? To our
selves or to being in general? The least of two present, or of
two ultimate evils 1 Our duty is not to calculate the evils in
respect merely to ourselves or to this nation and those imme
diately oppressed and injured, but to look abroad upon the
world and the universe, and inquire what are the evils result
ing and likely to result to the world, to the church, and to the
universe from the declaration and prosecution' of such a war,
and from the support of slavery by a nation professing what
we profess; a nation boasting of liberty; who have drawn
the sword and bathed it in blood in defence of the principle
that all men have an inalienable right to liberty ; that they .
are born free and equal. Such a nation proclaiming such a
principle and fighting in the defence of it, standing with its
proud foot on the neck of three millions of crushed and
prostrate slaves ! O horrible! This a less evil to the world than
emancipation or even than the dismemberment of our hypo
critical union! "O shame, where is thy blush!" The prosecu
tion of a war unjustly engaged in a less evil than repentance
and restitution? It is impossible. Honesty is always and ne
cessarily the best policy. Nations are bound by the same
law as individuals. If they have done wrong it is always du
ty and honorable for them to repent, confess, and make resti
tution. To adopt the maxim, "Our country right or wrong,"
and to sympathise with the government in the prosecution
of a war unrighteously waged must involve the guilt of mur
der. To adopt the maxim, "Our union even With perpetual
slavery," is an abomination so execrable as not to be named
by a just mind without indignation.
4. The same principles apply to governmental sabbath des
ecration. The Sabbath is plainly a Divine Institution found
ed in the necessities of human beings. The letter of the law
of the Sabbath forbids all labor of every kind, and under all
38

446 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
circumstances on that day. But, as has bpen said in a former
lecture, the spirit of the law of the Sabbath^heing identical
with the law of benevolence, sometimes requires the violation
of the letter of the law. Both governments and individuals
may, and it is their duty to do, on the Sabbath, whatever is
plainly required by the great law of benevolence. But no
thing more, absolutely. No human legislature can nullify the
moral law. No human legislation can make it right or lawful
to violate any command of God. All human enactments re
quiring or sanctioning the violation of any command of God
are not only null and void, but they are a blasphemous usurp
ation and invasion of the prerogatives of God.
5. The same principles apply to slavery. No human con
stitution or enactment can, by any possibihty, be law that re
cognizes the right of one human being to enslave another in
a sense that implies selfishness on the part of the slaveholder.
Selfishness is wrong j>er se. It is therefore always and unal
terably wrong. No enactment human or Divine, can legalize
selfishness and make it right, under any conceivable circum
stances. Slavery or any other evil, to be a crime, must imply
selfishness. It must imply a violation of the command, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." If it implies a breach of
this, itis wrong invariably and necessarily, and no legislation
or any thing else can make it right God can not authorize it,
The Bible can not sanction it, and if both God and the Bible
were to sanction it, it could not be lawful. God's arbitrary
will is not law. The moral law, as we have seen, is as inde
pendent of his will as his own necessary existence is. He
can not alter or repeal it. He could not sanctify selfishness
and make it right Nor can any book be received as of Divine
authority that sanctions selfishness. God and the Bible quo
ted to sustain and sanctify slaveholding in a sense implying
selfishness! 'Tis blasphemous! That slaveholding, as it ex
ists in this country, implies selfishness at least, in almost all
instances, is too plain to need proof. The sinfulness of slave-
holding and war, in almost all cases, and in every case where
the terms slaveholding and war are used in their popular sig
nification, will appear irresistible, if we consider that sin is
selfishness, and that all selfishness is necessarily sinful. De
prive a human being of liberty who has been guilty of no
crime ! Rob him of himself— his body — his soul — his time and
his earnings to promote the interest of his master, and attempt
to justify this on the principles of moral law ! It is the great
est absurdity, and the most revolting wickedness.

LECTURE XXXV.
MORAL DEPRAVITY.
In discussing the subject of human depravity^ I shall,
I. Define the term Depravity.
II. Point out the Distinction between Physical and
MOral Depravity.
III. Show of what Physical Depravity can be predi
cated. IV. Of what Moral Depravity can be predicated.
V. That Mankind are both Physically and Morally
Depraved. VI. That subsequent to the commencement of Moral
Agency, and previous to Regeneration, the Moral De
pravity of Mankind is Universal.
VII. That during the above period the Moral De
pravity of Mankind is Total.
'VIII. The proper method of accounting for the Uni
versal Total Moral Depravity of the Unregenerate
Moral Agents of our Race.
I. Definition of the term Depravity.
The word is derived from the Latin de and pravus. Pravus
mpans crooked. De is intensive. Depravo literally and
primarily means crooked, not in the sense of original or con
stitutional crookedness, but in the sense of haying become
croPked. The term does not imply original mal-conforma-
tion, but lapsed, fallen, departed from right or straight It
always implies deterioration, or fall from a former state of
moral or physical perfection.
Depravity always implies a departure from a state of ori
ginal integrity, or from conformity to the laws of the being
who is the subject of depravity. Thus we should not call that
being depraved who abode in a state of conformity to the ori
ginal laws of his being, physical and moral. But we justly
call a being depraved, who has departed from conformity to
those laws, whether those laws be physical or moral.
//. Point out the distinction between physical and moral de
pravity. Physical depravity, as the word denotes, is the depravity
of constitution, or substance, as distinguished from depravity
of free moral action. It may be predicated of body or of
mind. Physical depravity, when predicated of the body, is

448 systematic theology.
commonly and rightly termed disease. It consists in a physi
cal departure from the laws of life and health, a lapsed, or
Tallen state of the constitution or physical organization, a
state in which the bodily organization is imperfect and im
paired, and in which healthy organic action is not sustained.
When physical depravity is predicated of mind, it is intended
that the powers ofthe mind, either in substance, or in conse
quence, of their connection with and dependence upon the
body, are in a diseased, lapsed, fallen, degenerate state, so
that the healthy action of those powers is not sustained.
Physical depravity, being depravity of substance as opr
posed to depravity of the actions of free will, can have no
moral character. It may, as we shall see, be caused by moral
depravity ; and a moral agent may be blameworthy for hav
ing rendered himself physically depraved, either in body or
mind. But physical depravity, whether of body or of mind,
can have no moral character in itself, for the plain reason that
it is involuntary, and in its nature, disease, and npt sin.
Moral depravity is the depravity of free will, not of the fa
culty itself, but of its free action. It consists in a violation of
moral law., Depravity of the will, as a faculty, is, or would
be physical, and not mpral depravity. It would be depravity
of substance, and not of free, responsible choice. Moral de
pravity is depravity oi choice. It is a choice at variance with
moral law, moral right It is synonymous with sin or sinful
ness. It is moral depravity, because it consists in a violation
ofmoral law, and because it has moral character,
III. Of zohat physical,,depravity can be, predicated.
1. If can be predicated of any organized substance. That
is, every organized substance is liable to become depraved.
Depravity is a possible state of every organized body or sub
stance iri existence.
2, Physical depravity may be predicated of mind, as has
already been said, especially in its connection with an organ
ized body. As mind in connection with body,, manifests itself
through it, acts by means of it, and is dependent, upon it, it is
plain, that if the body become diseased, or physically de
praved, the mind can not, but be affected by this state of the
body, through and by means of which it acts. The normal
manifestations of mind can not, in such case, be reasonably
expected. Physical depravity may be predicated of all the
powers and involuntary states of mind, ofthe intelligence, Of
the sensibility, and of the faculty of will. That is, the actings
and states of the intelligence, may become disordered, de-

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 449
praved, deranged, or fallen from the state of integrity and
healthiness. This, every one knows, as it is matter of daily
experience and observation. Whether this in all cases is, and
must be caused by the state of the bodily organization, that
is, whether it is always and necessarily to be ascribed to the
depraved state of the brain and nervous system, it is impossi
ble for us to know. It may, for aught we know, in some in
stances at least he a depravity or derangement of the sub
stance of the mind itself.
The sensibility, or feeling department of the mind, may be
sadly and physically depraved. This is a matter of common
experience. The appetites and passions, the desires and
cravings, the antipathies and repellencies of the feelings fall
into great disorder and anarchy. Numerous artificial appe
tites are generated, and the whole sensibility becomes a wil
derness, achaos of conflicting and clamorous desires, emotions,
and passions. That this state of the sensibility is often, and
perhaps always, owing in some measure at least, to the state
of the nervous system with which it is connected, through and
by which it manifests itself, there can be but little room to
doubt. But whether this is always and necessarily so, no one
can tell. We know that the sensibility manifests great physi
cal depravity. Whether this depravity belong exclusively to
the body, or to the mind, or to both in connection, I will not
venture to affirm. In the present state of our knowledge, or
of my knowledge, I dare not hazard an affirmation upon the
subject. The human body is certainly in a state of physical
depravity. The human mind also certainly manifests physic
al depravity.
IV. Of what moral depravity can be predicated.
1. Not of substance; for over involuntary substance the
moral law does not legislate.
2. Moral depravity can not be predicated of any involunta
ry acts or states of mkid. These surely can not be violations
of moral law, for moral law legislates only Over free, intelli
gent choices.
3. Moral depravity can not be predicated of any unintelli
gent act of will, that is, of acts of will lhat are put forth in a
state of idiocy, of intellectual derangement, or of sleep. Mor
al depravity implies moral obligation; moral obligation implies
moral agency; and moral agency implies intelligence, or knowl
edge of moral relations. Moral agency implies moral law, or
the development of the idea of duty, and a knowledge of what
duty is. 38*

450 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
4. Moral depravity can only be predicated of violations of
Inoral law. Moral law, as we have seen, requires love, and
only love to God and man, or to God and the universe. This
love, as we have seen, is good will, choice, the choice of an
end, the choke of the highest well being of God and of the
universe of sentient existences.
Moral depravity is sin. Sin is a violation of moral law.
We have seen that sin must consist in choice, in the choice
of self-indulgence or self-gratification as an end.
5. Moral depravity can not consist in any attribute of na
ture or constitution, nor in any lapsed and fallen state of na
ture; for this is physical and not moral depravity.
6. It can not consist in any thing that is a part of mind or
body. Nor in any involuntary action or state of either mind
or body.
7. It can not consist in any thing back of choice, and that
sustains to choice the relation ofa cause. Whatever is back
of choice, is without the pale of legislation. The law of God
as has been said, requires good willing only, and sure it is, that
nothing but acts of will can constitute a violation of moral law.
Outward actions, and involuntary thoughts and feelings, may
be said, in a certain sense, to possess moral character, because
they are produced by the will. But strictly speaking, moral
character belongs only to choice, or intention.
It was shown in a former lecture, that sin does not, and can
not consist in malevolence, properly speaking, or in the choice
of sin or misery as an end, or for its own sake. It was also
shpwn, that all sin consists, and must consist in selfishness, or
in the choice of self-gratification as an end.
Moral depravity, then, strictly speaking, can only be predi
cated of selfish ultimate intention.
V. Mankind are both physically and morally depraved;
1. There is, in all probability, no perfect health of body
among all the ranks and classes of human beings that inhabit
this world. The physical organization of the whqje race has
become impaired, and beyond all doubt has been becoming
more and more so since intemperance of airy kind was first
introduced into our world. This is illustrated and confirmed
by the comparative shortness of human life. This also is a
physiological fact.
2; As the human mind, in this state of existence, is depend
ent upon the body for all its manifestations, and as the human
body is universally1 in a state of greater or less physical de
pravity or disease, it follows that the manifestations of mind

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 451
thus dependent on a physically depraved organization, will be^
physically depraved manifestations. Especially is this true
of the human sensibility. The appetites, passions, and pro
pensities are in a state of most unhealthy development. This
is too evident and too much a matter of universal notoriety to
need proof or illustration. Every person of reflection has ob
served that the human mind is greatly out of balance in con
sequence of the monstrous development of the sensibility.
The appetites, passions, and propensities have been indulged,
and the intelligence and conscience stultified by selfishness.
Selfishness, be it remembered, consists in a disposition or choice
to gratify the propensities, desires and feelings. This, of
course and of necessity, produces just the unhealthy and mon
strous developments which we daily see: sometimes one ruling
passion or appetite lording it not only over the intelligence
and over the "will, but also over all the other appetites and
passions, crashing and sacrificing them all upon the altar of its
own gratification. See that bloated wretch— an inebriate!
His appetite for strong drink has played the despot. The
whole mind and body, reputation, family, friends, health, time,
eternity, all, all have been laid upon itshlthy altar. There
are the debauchee, and the glutton, and the gambler, and the
miser, and a host of others each in his turn giving striking
and melancholy proof ofthe monstrous development arid phys
ical depravity ofthe human sensibility.
3. That men are morally depraved is one of the most noto
rious facts of human experience, observation, and history.
Indeed I am not aware that it has ever been doubted when
moral depravity has been understood to consist in selfishness.
The moral depravity ofthe race of man is every where as
sumed and declared in the Bible, and so universal and notori
ous is the fact of human selfishness that should any man prac
tically call it in question— should he in his business transac
tions and in his intercouse with men assume the contrary, he
would justly subject himself to the charge of insanity. Indeed
there is not a fact in the world more notorious and undenia
ble than this. Human moral depravity is as palpably evident
as human existence. It is a fact every where assumed in all
governments, in all the arrangements of society, and has im
pressed its image and written its name upon every thing hu
man. -¦•/'"
VI. Subsequent to the commencement of moral agency and
previous to regeneration the moral depravity of mankind is Uni
versal.

452 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
By this it is riot intended to deny that in some instances
the Spirit of God may from the first moment ofmoral agency
have so enlightened the mind as to have secured conformity to
moral law as the first moral act This may or may not be
true. It is not my present purpose to affirm or to deny this
as a possibility or as a fact.
But by this is intended, that every moral agent of our race
is from the dawn of moral agency to the moment of regene
ration by the Holy Spirit, morally depraved, unless we except
those possible cases just alluded to. The Bible exhibits
proof of it in,
1. Those passages that represent all the unregenerate as
possessing one common wicked heart or character. "And
God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually." — Gen. 6: 5. "This is an evil among
all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event
unto all: yea,- also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil,
and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that
they go to the dead."- — Eccl. 9: 3. "The heart is deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked: Who can know it?"
— Jer. 17: 9. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against
God : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed
can be."— Ro. 8: 7.
2. Those passages that declare the universal necessity of
regeneration. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can
not seethe kingdom of God." — John 3: 3.
3. Passages that expressly assert the universal moral de
pravity of all unregenerate moral agents of our race. " What
•then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have
before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all un
der sin ; As it is written, There is none righteous; no, not
one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they
are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth
good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with
their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is
under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitter
ness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and
misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they
not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now
we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stop-

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 453
ped, and all the world may become guilty before God. There
fore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified
in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.— Ro. 3:
9—20. 5
4. Universal history proves it What is this world's histo
ry but the shameless chronicle of human wickedness?
5. Universal observation attests it. Who ever saw one
unregenerate human being that was not selfish,, that did not
obey his feelings rather than the law of his intelligence, that
was not under some form or in some way living to please self?
Such an unregenerate human being I may safely affirm was
never seen since the fall of Adam.
6. 1 may also appeal to the univesal consciousness of the
unregenerate. They know themselves to be selfish, to be
aiming to please themselves.
VII. The moral depravity, of the unregenerate moral agents
of our race, is total.
By this is intended, that the moral depravity of the un
regenerate is without any mixture of moral goodness or vir
tue, that while they remain unregenerate, they never, in any
instance, nor in any degree exercise true love to God and to
man. It is not intended, that they may not perform many
outward actions, and have many inward feehngs, that are such
as the regenerate perform and experience. But it is intended
that virtue does not consist either in involuntary feelings or
in outward actions, and that it consists alone in entire conse
cration of heart and life to God and the good of being, and
that no unregenerate sinner previous to regeneration, is or
can be for one moment in this state.
When virtue is clearly defined and apprehended, and when
it is seen not to consist in any thing but the hearts entire
consecration to God and the good of being, it must be seen,
that the unregenerate are not, and that it is a contradiction
to affirm that they are, or, remaining unregenerate, can be,
for one moment in this state. It is amazing, that some philos--
ophers and theologians have admitted and maintained, that
thennregenerate do sometimes do that which is truly virtu
ous. But in these admissions they necessarily assume a false
philosophy and overlook that in which ajl virtue does and
must consist, namely, supreme ultimate intention. They
speak of virtuous actions and of virtuous feelings, as if virtue
consisted in them, and not in the intention.
Henry P. Tappan, for example, for the most part an able,
truthful and beautiful writer, assumes, or rather affiriri^, that

454 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
volitions may be put forth inconsistent with, and contrary to
the present choice of an end, and that consequently, unregen
erate sinners, whom he admits to be in the exercise of a sel
fish choice of an end, may, and do sometimes put forth right
volitions, and perform right actions, that is, right in the sense
of virtuous actions. But let us examine this subject. We
have seen that all choice and all volition must respect either
an end or means, that is, that every thing willed or chosen, is
willed or chosen for some reason. To deny this is the same
as to deny that any thing is willed or chosen, because the rea
son for a choice and the thing chosen are identical. There
fore, it is plain, as was shown in a former lecture, 1, that the
will cannot embrace at the same time, two opposite ends; and
2, that while but one end is chosen, the will cannot put forth
volitions to secure some other end, which end is not yet cho
sen. . In other words, it certainly is absurd to say, that the
will, while maintaining the choice of one end, can use means^,.
for the accomplishment of another and opposite end.
Again. The choice of an end, or of means, when more
than one end or means is known to the mind, implies prefer
ence. The choice of one end or means, implies the rejection
of its opposite. If one of two opposing ends be chosen, the
other is, and must be rejected. Therefore the choice of the
two ends can never co-exist. And as was shown in a former
lecture, 1. The mind cannot will at all without an end, As all
choice and volition must respect ends, or means, and as means
cannot be willed without the previous choice of an end, it fol
lows, that the choice of an end is necessarily the first choice,
2. When an end is choSen, that choice confines all volition
to securing its accomplishment, and for the time being, and
until another end is chosen, and this one relinquished, it is im
possible for the will to put forth any volition inconsistent with
the present choice. It therefore follows, that while sinners
are selfish, or unregenerate, it is impossible for them to put
forth a holy volition.
They are under the necessity of first changing their hearts,
or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any voli
tions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is
plainly the every where assumed philosophy of the Bible.
That uniformly represents the unregenerate as totally de
praved, and calls upon them to repent, to make to them
selves a new heart, and never admits directly, or by way
of implication, that they can do any thing good or accepta-

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 455
ble to God while in the exercise of a wicked or selfish heart.
When examining the attributes of selfishness, it was.shown
that total depravity was one of its essential attributes; or ra
ther, that it was the moral attribute in these senses, to wit:
(1.) That selfishness did not, could not co-exist with virtue
or benevolence.
(2.) That selfishness could admit of no volitions or actions
inconsistent with it whilgjt continued.
(3.) That selfishness was not only wholly inconsistent with
any degree of love to God, but was enmity against God, the
very opposite of his will, and constituted deep and entire op
position of will to God. t
(4.) That selfishness was mortal enmity against God, as
manifested in the murder of Christ:
(5.) That selfishness was supreme opposition to God.
(6.) That every selfish being is, and must be at every mo
ment, just as wicked and blameworthy, as with his light he
could be, that he at every moment violated all his moral obli
gations and rejected and trampled down all the light he had,
and that whatever course of outward life any sinner pursues,
it is all directed exclusively by selfishness, and whether he
goes into the pulpit to preach the gospel, or becomes a pi
rate upon the high seas, he is actuated in either case solely
by a regard to self-interest, and that, let him do one or the
other, it is for the same reason, to wit, to please himself, so
thatit matters not, so far as his guilt is concerned, which he
does. One course may, or it may not result in more or less
evil than the other. But, as was then shown, the tendency oi
one course or the other, is not the criterion by which his guilt
is to be measured, but his apprehension of the value of the
interests rejected for the sake of securing his own gratification.

LECTURE JXXXVI.
MORAL DEPRAVITY.
¦»
VIII. Proper method of accounting for the universal and total
moral depravity of the unregenerate moral agents of our race.
In the discussion of this subject, I will,
1. Endeavor to show how it is not to be accounted for.
2. How it is to be accounted for.*
1. How the moral depravity of mankind is not to be ac
counted for. _ J||£ ,
In examining this part of the subject, it is necessary to
have distinctly in view, that which constitutes moral depravi
ty. AU the error that has existed upon this subject, has been
founded in false assumptions iri regard to the nature or es
sence of moral depravity. It has been almost universally
true, that ho distinction has been made between moral and
physical depravity; and consequently physical depravity has
been confounded with and treatedof as moral depravity.
This, of course, has led to vast confusion and nonsense upon
this subject. Let the following facts, which have been shown
in "former lectures, be distinctly borne in mind.
/. That moral depravity consists in selfishness, or in the choice
of self-interest, self-gratification, or selfi-indulgence, as an end.
Consequently it can not consist,
L In a sinful constitution, or in a constitutional appetency
or craving for sin. This has been shown in a forriier lecture,
on What is not implied in disobedience to the moral laW. ,
2. Moral depravity is sin itself, and not the cause of sin.
It is hot something back of sin that sustains to it the relation
of a cause, but it is the essence and the whole of sin.
- & It can not be an attribute of human nature, for this would
*be physical, and not moral depravity.
4. Moral depravity is not then to be accounted for by
ascribing it to a nature or institution sinful iri itself. To
talk of a sinful nature, or sinral constitution, in the sense of
physical sinfulness, is to talk Stark nonsense. It is to over
look the essential nature of sift, and to make sin a physical
virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. Both
sound philosophy, and the Bible, make sin to consist in obey
ing the flesh, or in the spirit of self-pleasing, Or self-indul
gence, Or which is the same thing, in selfishness — in a carnal
mind, or in minding the flesh. But Writers on moral depravi
ty have assumed, that moral depravity was distinct from, arid

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 457
the cause of sin, that is, of actual transgression. They call
it original sin, indwelling sin, a sinful nature, an appetite for
sin, an attribute of human nature, and the like. We shall
soon see what has led to this view of the subject.
I will, in the next place, notice a modern, and perhaps the
most popular view of this subject, which has been taken by
any late writer who has fallen into the error of confounding
physical and moral depravity. I refer to the prize essay of
Dr. Woods, of Ahdover, Mass. A reward of $300 was of
fered for the best treatise upon the subject of moral depravi
ty. The prize was awarded to Dr. Leonard Woods. In his
_ essay, he defines moral depravity to be the same as " sinful
ness." _ He also, in one part of his essay, holds and maintains,
that it is always and necessarily, voluntary. Still, his great
effort is to prove that sinfulness or moral depravity, is an at
tribute of human nature. It is no part of my design to ex-
s pose the inconsistency of holding mpral depravity to be a volun-
' tary state of mind, and yet a natural attribute, but only to
examine the philosophy, the logic, and theology of his main
argument. The following quotation will show the sense in
which he holds moral depravity to belong to the nature of
man. On page 54 he says:
"The word depravity, relating as it here does to man's moral character,
means the same as sinfulness, being the opposite of moral purity or holiness.
In this use of the word there is a general agreement. But what is the meaning
of native or natural? Among the variety of meanings specified by Johnson,
Webster, and others, I refer to the following, as relating particularly to the
subject before us.
, " Notice. Produced by nature. Natural, or such as is according to nature;
Belonging by " birth; original. Natural has substantially the same meaning:
" produced by nature; not acquired." — So Crabbe. "Of a person we say, his
worth is native, to designate it as some valuable property born with ttra,'not
foreign to him or ingrafted upon him; but we say of his disposition, that 'it is
natural, as opposed to that which is acquired by habit." And Johnson defines,
nature to be " the native state or properties of any thing, by which it is discrimi
nated from others." He quotes the definition of Boyle; " Nature sometimes
means what belongs to a living creature ai its nativity, or accrues to it by its
birth, as when we say a man is noble by nature, or a child is naturally forward.
" This," he says, " may be expressed by saying, tlieman was lorn so."
After these brief definitions, whiewcome to nearly the same thing, I proceed
to inquire, what are the marks or evidences which show any thing in man to be
natural or native; and how far these marks are found in relation to depravity.
Again, page 66, he says:
" The evil then cadpiot be supposed to originate in any unfavorable exter
nal circumstances, such as corrupting examples, or insinuating and strong
temptations; for if we suppose these entirely removed, all human beings would
still be sinners. With such a moral nature as they now have, they would not
wait for strong temptations to sin. Nay, they would be sinners in opposition
to the strongest motives to the contrary. Indeed we know that human beings
will,turn those very motives which most powerfully urge to holiness, into occa-
39 *#

458 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sions of sin. Now does not the confidence and certainty with which we foretell
the commission of sin, and of sin unmixed with moral purity, presuppose a full
conviction in us, and a conviction resting upon what we regard as satisfactory
evidence, that sin, in all its visible actings, arises from that which is icithin the
mind itself, and which belongs to our very nature as moral beings? Have we
not as much evidence that this is the case with moral evil, as with any of our
natural affections or bodily appetites?"
This quotation, together with the whole argument, shows
that he considers moral depravity to be an attribute of human
nature in the same sense that the appetites and passions are.
Before I proceed directly to the efamination of his argu
ment to establish the position that sinfulness, or moral de
pravity is an " atlributetof human nature" I would premise, that
an argument^ or fact, that may equally well consist with either of
two opposinglflieories can prove neither. The author of the
treatise in question, presents the following facts and consid
erations in- support of his great position, that moral depravity,
or sinfulness, is an attribute of human nature; and three Presi
dents of colleges underwrite for. the soundness and conclusive
ness of the argument. He argues this,
1. From the "universality of moral depravity." To this I
answer, that this argument proves nothing to the purpose, un
less it be true, and assumed as a major premise, that whatever
is universal among mankind, must be a natural attribute of
man as such ; that whatever is common to all men, must be an
attribute of human nature. If this be not assumed as a truth,
and if it be not true in fact, it will not follow, that the univer
sality ofmoral depravity, proves, or is any evidence, that it is
an attribute of human nature. But do not all men breathe,
and eat, and drink, and sleep, and wake, and think, and will,
and perform various actions? These, and many other things,
are universal, and common to all men. But are these —
choices and volitions, for example — attributes of human na
ture? An attribute of a thing, is that which belongs to its
essence, substance, nature. Volition, thought, feeling, &c;
are they natural attributes? Are they inherent in, and do
they belong to the natuce or substance of man? Who does
not know, that they are not attributes of his nature, although
common to all men. This argument, then, amounts to no
thing. Again. Selfishness is common to all unregenerate men. Is
selfishness a natural attribute? We have seen, in a former
lecture, that it consists in choice. Can choice be an attribute
of human nature?
Again. This argument is just as consistent with the oppo-

MORAL DEPRAVITY.

459

site theory, to wit, that moral depravity is selfishness. The
universality of selfishness is just what might be expected, if
selfishness consists in the committal ofthe will to the gratifi
cation of self. This will be a thing of course, unless the Holy
Spirit interpose, to greatly enlighten the intelligence/ and
break up the force of habit, and change the attitude of the
will, already at the first dawn of reason, as has been shown,
committed to the impulses of the sensibility. If moral de
pravity is to be accounted for, as I have endeavored to ac
count for it in a former lecture, and shall hereafter more
fully, by ascribing it to the influence of temptation, or to a
physically depraved constitution, surrounded by the circum
stances in which mankind first form their mora^character, or
put forth their first moral choices, universality might of course
be expected to be one of its characteristics. This argument,
then, agreeing equally well with either theory, proves neither.
» 2. His second argument is, that " Moral depravity develops
ptself in early life." Answer,
(1.) This is just what might be expected upon the opposite
theory. If moral depravity consist in the choice of self-grati
fication, it would of course appear in early life. So this argu
ment agrees quite as well with the opposing theory, and there
fore proves nothing. But,
(2.) This argument is good for no tiling, unless the following
be assumed as a major premise, and unless the fact assumed,
be indeed a truth, namely, " Whatever is developed in early
life, must be an attribute of human nature." But is this true?
Breathing, sleeping, eating, and such like things — are these
attributes of nature? But unless it be true, that whatever is
universally developed in early life, is an attribute of human
nature, it will not of course follow, that moral depravity is.
3. His third argument is, that "Moral depravity is not ow
ing to any change that occurs subsequent to birth." Answer:
Nor is choice or volition, thought or feeling, owing to any,-
change in the constitution, that occurs subsequently to birth.
What then: are they attributes of human nature? This ar
gument proves nothing, unless it be true, that whatever is
universally true of men that is not owing to any change of
constitution that occurs after birth, must be an attribute of
human nature. But who does not know, that this is not true.
"What then, does this arguing prove?" _
Again: this argument is just as consistent with the oppos
ing theory, and therefore proves neither.
4. His fourth argument is, " That moral depravity acts

460 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
freely and spontaneously."' Answer: the moral agent acts
freely, and acts selfishly, that is, wickedly. This argument
assumes, that if a moral agent acts freely and wickedly, moral
depravity, or sin, must be an attribute of his, nature. Or
more fairly, if mankind universally, in the exercise of their
liberty, act sinfully, sinfulness must be an attribute of human
nature." But what is sin? Why sin is a voluntary transgres
sion of law — Dr. Woods being judge. Can a voluntary trans
gression of law be an attribute of human nature?
But again: this argument is equally consistent with the op
posite theory. If moral depravity consist in the choice of
self-gratification as an end, it would of course freely and spon
taneously manifest itself. This argument then, is good for
nothing. 5. His fifth argument is, " That moral depravity is hard to
overcome." Answer,
1. If it were an attribute of human nature, it could not het
overcome at all without a change of the human constitution. '*«
2. It is hard to overcome, just as selfishness naturally would
be in beings of a physically depraved Constitution, and in the
presence of so many temptations to self-indulgence.
3. If if were an attribute of human nature, it could not be
overcome without a chang'e of personal identity. But the
fact that it can be overcome, and the consciousness of per
sonal identity remain, proves that it is not an attribute of hu
man nature.
i 6. His sixth argument is, that " We can predict with cer
tainty, that in due time, it Will act itself out." Answer: Just
as might be expected. If moral depravity consists in selfish
ness, we can predict with certainty, that the spirit of self-
pleasing will, in due time, and at all times, act itself out.
We can also predict, without the gift of prophesying, that
with a constitution physically depraved, and surrounded with
objects to awaken appetite, and with all the circumstances in
which human beings first form their moral character, they
will seek to gratify themselves universally, unless prevented
by the Holy Spirit. This argument is just as consistent with
the opposite theory, and therefore proves neither.
Again: this argument, like all the rest, is based upon the
assumption of a false major premise, to wit, " That whatever
we can predict with certainty, of human beings, must be an
attribute of their nature." But We can predict, that if they
five, they will think and choose. Are these attributes of hu
man nature?

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 461
It is unnecessary to occupy any more time with the treatise
of Dr. Woods. I will now quote the standards of the Pres
byterian church, which will possess you of their views upon
this subject. On pages 30 and 31 of the Presbyterian Con
fession of Faith, we have the following: " By this sin, they,
(Adam and Eve,) fell from their original righteousness and,
communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly
defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They
being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was im
puted, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con
veyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary
generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,
and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans
gressions." Again, pages 152 — 154, Shorter Catechism. Question 22.
J)id all mankind fall in that first transgression? Answer:
The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not
for himself only, but for his posterity; all mankind descending
from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with
him in that first transgression.
Question 23. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
Ans. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and
misery. >
. Question 24. What is sin? Ans. Sin is any want of con
formity unto, or transgression of any law of God, given as a
rule to the reasonable creature.
Question 25. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate
wherein to man fell? Ans. The sinfulness of that estate
whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin,.
the want of that righteousness wherein he was created/and the
corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, dis
abled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and
wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, which is com
monly called original sin, and from which do proceed all ac
tual transgressions.
Question 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first
parents unto their posterity ? Ans. Original sin is conveyed
from our first parents unto their posterity by natural genera
tion, so as all that proceed from them in that way, are con
ceived and born in sin."
These extracts show, that the framers and defenders of this
Confession of Faith, account for the moral depravity of man
kind, by making it to consist in a sinful nature, inherited by
39*

624 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
natural generation from Adam. They regard the constitution
inherited from Adam as in itself sinful, and the cause of all
actual transgression. They make no distinction between
physical and moral depravity. They also distinguish between
original and actual sin. Original sin is the sinfulness of the
constitution, in which Adam's posterity have no other hand
than to inherit it by natural generation, or by birth. This
original sin, or sinful nature, renders mankind utterly disabled
from all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all that
is evil. This is. their account of moral depravity. This, it
will be seen, is substantially the ground of Dr. Woods.
It has been common with those who confound physical
with moral depravity, and who maintain that human nature is
itself sinful, to quote certain passages of Scripture to sustain
their position. An examination of these proof texts must, in
the next place, occupy our attention. But before I enter up
on this examination, I must first call your attention to certain;
well settled rules of biblical interpretation. ¦•<*
1. Different passages must be so interpreted, if they can
be, as not to contradict each other.
>, 2. Language is to be interpreted according to the subject
matter of discourse.
3. Respect is always to be had to the general scope and
design of the speaker or writer.
4. Texts that are consistent with either theory prove neither.
5. Language is to be so interpreted, if it can be, as not to
conflict with sound philosophy, matters of fact, the nature of
things, or immutable justice.
Let us now, remembering and applying these plain rules
of sound interpretation, proceed to the examination of those
passages that are supposed to establish the theory of depravi
ty I am examining.
Gen. 5: 3. "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and
begat a son in his own likeness and after his own image, and
called his name [Seth." It is not very easy to see why this
text should be pressed into the service of those who hold that
human nature is in itself sinful. Why should it be assumed
that the likeness and image here spoken of was a moral like
ness or image? But unless this be assumed the text has
nothing to do with the subject.
Again. It is generally admitted that in all probability Adam
. was a regenerate man at the time and before the birth of
^Seth. Is it intended that Adam begot a saint or a sinner?
If, as is supposed, Adam was a saint of God. if this text is

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 463
any thing to the purpose it affirms that Adam begat a saint.
But this is the opposite of that in proof of which the text is
quoted. «
Another text is, Job 14: 4. st Who can bring a clean thing
out of an unclean ? Not one." This text is quoted in sup
port of the position of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith
that children inherit from their parents by natural generation,
a sinful nature. Upon this text I remark,
1. That all that can be made of it, even if we read it with
out regard to the translation or the context, is that a physi
cally depraved parent will produce a physically depraved off
spring. 2. That this is its real meaning is quite evident when we
look into the context. Job is treating of the frail' and dying
state of man, and manifestly has in the text and context his eye
wholly on the physical state, and not on the moral character
of man. What he intends is: Who can bring other than a
frail, dying offspring from a frail, dying parent? Not one.
This is substantially the view that Professor Stuart takes of
this text. The utmost that can be made of it is, that as he
belonged to a race of sinners, nothing else could be expected
than that he should be a sinner without meaning to affirm any
thing in regard to the quo modo of this result.
Again. Job 15: 14. " What is man that he should be clean,
and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous."
1. These are the words of Eliphaz, and it is improper to
quote them as inspired truth. That Eliphaz uttered this sen
timent, let what will be the meaning, there is no reason to
doubt; and there is just as little reason to receive his doc
trines as truth. For God himself testifies that Job's friends
did not hold the truth. But,
2. Suppose wc understand the text as true, what is its im
port? Why, it simply asserts, or rather implies the unright
eousness or sinfulness of the whole human race. He express
es the universality of depravity in the very common way of
including all that are born of woman. This certainly says
nothing and imphes nothing respecting a sinful constitution.
It is just as plain and just as warrantable to understand this
passage as implying that mankind have become so physically
depraved that this fact together with the circumstances under
which they come into being and begin their moral career, will
certainly, (not necessarily) result in moral depravity. I might
use just such language as that found in this text and natu- <
rally enough express by it my own views of moral depravity;

464 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
to wit, that it results from a physically depraved constitution
and the circumstances of temptation under which children
come into this world and begin and prosecute their moral ca
reer; certainly this is the most that can be made of this
text. Again, Ps. 51 : 5, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity and
in sin did my mother conceive me." Upon this I remark,
1. It would seem, if this text is to be understood literally,
that the Psalmist intended to affirm the sinful state of his mo
ther at the time of his conception and during gestation. But,
2. I make a remark that is applicable to all the texts and
arguments that are adduced in support of the theory in ques.
tion; namely, that to take this view of the subject and to in
terpret these passages as teaching the constitutional sinfulness
of man is to contradict God's own definition of sin and the on
ly definition that human reason or common sense can receive,
to wit, that "sin is a transgression of the law." This is no
doubt the only correct definition of sin. But we have seen
that Ihe law does not legislate over substance requiring men to
have a certain nature, but over voluntary action only. If the
Psalmist really intended to affirm that the substance of his
conceived foetus was sinful, then he not only arrays himself
against God's own definition of sin, but he also affirms sheer
nonsense. The substance of an unborn child sinful! It is
impossible! But what did the Psalmist mean? I answer, this
verse is found in David's penitential psalm. He was deeply
convinced of sin and was, as he had good reason to be, much
excited, and expressed himself, as we all do in similar circum
stances, in strong language. His eye, as was natural and is
common in such cases, had been directed back along the path
way of life up to the days of his earliest recollection. He
remembered sins among the earliest acts of his recollected
life. He broke out in the language of this text to express,
not the anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma of a sinful con
stitution, but to affirm in his strong, poetic language that he
had always been a sinner from the commencement of his mor
al existence, or from the earliest moment of his capability of
being a sinner. This language is the strong language of poe
try. To press this and similar texts further than this, is to vi
olate two1 sound rules of biblical interpretation, to wit:
1. That language is to be interpreted according to the sub
ject matter of discourse. And, ,
2. That one passage is to be so interpreted as not to con-.

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 465
tradict another. But to make this text state that sin belongs,
or may belong to the substance of an unborn infant is to make
it flatly contradict another passage that defines sin to be a
transgression of the law of God.
Some suppose that in the passage in question the Psalmist
referred to and meant to acknowledge and assert his low and
despicable origin and to say, I was always a sinner, and my
mother that conceived me was a sinner, and I am but the de
generate plant of a strange vine, without intending to affirm
any thing in respect to the absolute sinfulness of his nature.
Again, Ps. 58: 3. "The wicked are estranged from the
womb, they-go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Upon this text I remark,
1. That it has been quoted at one time to establish the
doctrine of a sinful nature, and at another to prove that in
fants commit actual sin from the very day and hour of their
birth. But certainly no such use can be legitimately made of
this text. It does not affirm any thing of a sinful nature, but
this has been inferred from what it does affirm, that the wick
ed are estranged from their birth. But does this mean that
they are really and literally estranged from the day and hour
of their birth and that they really "go astray the very day
they are born, speaking lies?" This every one knows to be
contrary to fact. The text cannot then be pressed to the let
ter. What then does it mean? It must mean like the text last
examined, that the wicked are estranged and go astray from
the commencement of their moral agency. If it means more
than this, it is not and cannot be true. And besides, it Would
contradict other plain passages of scripture. It is affirming
iri strong, graphic, and poetic language the fact that the first
moral conduct and character of children is sinful. This is all i
that in truth it can assert, and it doubtless dates the begin-^
ning of their moral depravity at a very early period, which it
expresses in very strong language, as if it were literally from
the hour of birth. But when it adds that they go astray
speaking lies we know that this is not and cannot be to be lit
erally taken, for, as every one knows children do not speak at
all from their birth. Should we understand the Psalmist as
affirming that children go astray as soon as they go at all, and
speak lies as soon as they speak at all, this would not prove
that their nature was in itself sinful, but might well consist
with the theory that their physical depravity together with
their circumstances of temptation led them into selfishness
from the very first of their moral existence.

466 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Again, John 3:6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh,
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"
Upon this I remark. »
1. That it may, if literally taken, mean nothing more than
this, that the body which is born of flesh is flesh, and that
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, that is that this birth
of which he was speaking was of the soul, and not of the
body. But,
2. It may be understood to mean that that which results
from the influence of the flesh is flesh in the sense of sin, for
this is a common sense of the term flesh in the New Testa
ment, and that which results from the Spirit, is spirit or spirit
ual in the sense of holy. This I understand to be the true
sense. The text when thus understood does not at all sup
port the dogma of a sinful nature or constitution, but only this
that the flesh tends to sin, that the appetites and passions are
temptations to sin, so that when the will obeys them it sins.
Whatever is born of the propensities, in the sense that the
will yields to their control, is sinful. And on the other hand
whatever is born of the Spirit, that is, whatever results from
the agency of the Holy Spirit in the sense that the will yields
to Him, is holy. ,
Again, Eph. 2: 3. "By nature children of wrath even as
othprs." Upon this text I remark,
1. That it cannot consistently with natural justice, be un
derstood to mean, that we are exposed to the wrath of God on
account, of our nature. Itis a monstrous and blasphemous
dogma, that a holy God is angry with any creature, for pos
sessing a nature with which he was forced into being without
his knowledge or consent. The Bible represents God as an
gry with men for their wicked deeds, and not for their nature.
2. It is common, and proper to speak of the first state in
which men universally are as a natural state. Thus we speak
of sinners before regeneration, as in a state of nature, as op
posed to a changed state, a regenerate state, and a state of grace.
But by this we do not necessarily mean, that they have a na
ture sinful in itself but merely that before regeneration, they
are universally and totally morally depraved, that this is their
natural, as opposed to their regenerate state. Total moral
depravity is the state that follows, and results from their first
birth, and is in this sense natural, and in this sense alone, can
it truly be said, that they are "by nature children of wrath."
Against the use that is made of this, and all this class of texts,
may be arrayed the whole scope of scripture that represents

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 467
man as to blame, and to be judged and punished only for his
deeds. But I forbear, as it cannot be necessary. The sub
ject matter of discourse in these texts is such as demands
that we should understand them as not implying or asserting
that sin is a part of our nature.

LECTURE XXXVII.
MORAL DEPRAVITY.
I. Further examination of the arguments adduced in
SUPPORT OF THE POSITION THAT HUMAN NATURE IS IN ITSELF SIN
FUL. The defenders of the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness
or moral depravity urge as a farther argument,
2. That sin is a universal effect of human nature, and there-
fore, human nature must be itself sinful.
Answer. This argument proceeds upon the two false assump
tions, 1. That an effect must have the same character as its cause.
This assumption, that an affect must have the same character
with its cause, is a false assumption. God's will caused the
material universe but it does not follow that the effect is holy
as the will of God is holy. God's intention, which was the
cause, is holy. But the effect, the material universe, simply
because it is an effect, has no character at all. Nothing that
is properly an effect can ever, by any possibility, poossess a
moral character. The universe of mind, also, is an effect of
tho Divine intention. These minds are not in their substance,
and so far as they are effects, holy or sinful. That is, they
have in their essence or substance, no moral character whatev
er, simply because they are effects.
Their moral character is of their own forming. Moral char-
acter,universally and necessarily, belongs to intelligent, volunta
ry cause and never to an effect. All responsible causality resides
in free will. Praise or blameworthiness is strictly predicable
only of the agent, never strictly of his actions. The agent
who causes his own actions is holy or sinful, is praise or blame
worthy, for his intentions or actions. It is not the intention
or action that is praise or blameworthy, but the cause or
agent that acts. When we say that moral character belongs
to the intention, we do not mean that it is the intention itself
that deserves praise or blame, but that the agent deserves
praise or blame only for his intentions. If, then, choice or in
tention be regarded as an effect of free will, it's cause, let it
be understood that the effect strictly speaking is neither praise
or blameworthy, but that the agent is alone responsible for
the choice of which he is the cause. The argument we are
examining is this: "Sin is an effect of human nature; there
fore human nature is in its essence and substance sinful."

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 469
This statement is false; but state it thus, and it is true: Sin
is an attribute of selfish intention; selfish intention is an ef
fect of free responsible will; therefore, the free^responsible
cause of this effect is blameworthy for this effect, this sin.
2. The second false assumption upon which the argument
we are examining is based, is this, namely, that sin as a uni
versal effect of human nature proves that the substance of hu
man nature must be in itself sinful. This is a non sequitur.
Sin may be, and must be an abuse of free agency, and this
may be accounted for, as we shall see, by ascribing it to the
universality of temptation and does not at all imply a sinful
constitution. But if sin implies a sinfol nature, how did Ad
am and Eve sin? Had they a sinful nature to account for and
to cause their first sin? How did angels sin? Had they also
a sinful nature? Either sin does not imply a sinful nature,
or a nature in itself sinful, or Adam and angels must have had
sinful natures before their fall.
Again: Suppose we regard sin as an event or effect. An
effect only implies an adequate cause. Free, responsible will
is an adequate cause, in the presence of temptation, without
the supposition of a sinful constitution, as has been demonstra
ted in the case of Adam and of angels. When we have found
an adequate cause, it is unphilosophical to look for and assign
another. Again: It is said that no motive to sin could be a motive
or a temptation, if there were not a sinful taste, relish or ap
petite inherent in the constitution to which the temptation or
motive is addressed. For example, the presence of food, it is
said, would be no temptation to eat, were there not a constitu
tional appetency terminating on food. So the presence of
any object could be no inducement to sin, were there not a
constitutional appetency or craving for sin. So that in fact,
sin in action were impossible unless there were sin in the na
ture. To this I reply:
Suppose this objection be applied to the sin of Adam and of
angels. Can we not account for Eve's eating the forbidden
fruit without supposing that she had a craving for sin? The
Bible informs us that her craving was for the fruit, for knowl
edge, and not for sin. The words are: "And when the woman
saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant
to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she look
ofthe fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her hus
band with her, and he. did eat." Here is nothing of a cra
ving for sin. Eating this fruit was indeed sinful, but the sin
40

470 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
consisted in consenting to gratify, in a prohibited manner, the
appetites, not for sin, but for food and knowledge. But the
advocates for this theory say that there must be an adapted
ness in the constitution, a something within answering to the
outward motive or temptation, and sin were impossible. This
is true. But the question is, what is that something within,
which responds to the outward motive? Is it a craving for
sin ? We have just seen what it was in the case of Adam and
Eve. It was simply the correlation that existed between the
fruit and their constitution, its presence exciting the desires
for food and knowledge. This led to prohibited indulgence.
This is a short history of the origin of all sin in mankind, as we
shall see; That is, all men sin in precisely the same way.
They consent to gratify, not a craving for sin, but a craving
for cither things, and the consent to make self-gratification an
end is the whole of sin.
This argument assumes as true, what we, on a former occa
sion, have seen to be false; namely, that sinners love sin for its
own sake. If it could be true, total depravity would of ne
cessity secure perfect blessedness. It would be the very state
which the mind supremely loves for its own sake. The sinner
could then say, not merely in the language of poetry, but in
Sober prose and fact, "Evil, be thou my good."
The Theologians whose views we are canvassing, main
tain that the appetites, passions, desires, and propensities
which are constitutional and entirely involuntary, are in them
selves sinful. To this I reply, that Adam and Eve possessed
them before they fell. Christ possessed them or he was not
a man, nor in any proper sense a human being. No, these
appetites, passions, and propensities are net sinful, though
they are the occasions of sin. They are a temptation to
the will to seek their unlawful indulgence. When these
lusts or appetites are spoken of as the " passions of sin "
or as " sinful lusts or passions," it is not because they are sin
ful in themselves, but because they are the. occasions of
sin. Again: The death and suffering of infants previous to
actual transgression is adduced as an argument to prove that
infants have a sinful nature. To this I reply,
1. That this argument must assume that there must be sin
wherever there is suffering and death. But this assumption
proves too much, as it would prove that mere animals have
a sinful nature or have committed actual sin. An argument
that proves too much proves nothing.

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 471
2. Physical sufferings prove only physical, and not moral
depravity. Previous to moral agency, infants are no more
subjects of moral government than brutes are; therefore their
sufferings and death are to be accounted for as are those of
brutes, namely, by ascribing them to violations of the laws
of life and health.
Another argument for a sinful constitution, is, that unless
infants have a sinful nature, they do not need sanctification
to fit them for heaven. Answer:
1. This argument assumes that if they are not sinful they
must be holy, whereas they are neither sinful nor holy until
they are moral agents and render themselves so by obedience
or disobedience to the moral law. If they are to go to heav
en, they must be made holy or must be sanctified.
2. This objection assumes that previous sinfulness is a con
dition ofthe necessity of being holy. This is contrary to
fact. Were Adam and angels first sinful before they were
sanctified? But it is assumed that unless moral agents are at
first sinners they do not need the Holy Spirit to induce them
to be holy. That is, unless their nature is sinful, they would
become holy without the Holy Spirit. But where do we
ascertain this? Suppose that they have no moral character,
and that their nature is neither holy nor sinful. Will they
become holy without being enlightened by the Holy Spirit?
Who will assert that they will?
3. That infants have a sinful nature has been inferred from
the institution of circumcision so early as the eighth day after
birth. Circumcision, it is truly urged, wa3 designed to teach
the necessity of regeneration, and by way of implication, the
doctrine of moral depravity. It is claimed that its being en
joined as obligatory upon the eighth day after birth, was re
quiring it at the earliest period at which it could be safely
performed. From this it is inferred that infants are to be re
garded as morally depraved from their birth.
In answer to this I would say, that infant circumcision was
doubtless designed to teach the necessity of their being saved
by the Holy Spirit from the dominion of the flesh, that the
influence of the flesh must be restrained, and the flesh cir
cumcised, or the soul would be lost. This truth needed to be
impressed on the parents from the birth of their children.
This very significant and bloody and painful rite was well
calculated to impress this truth upon parents, and to lead them
from their birth to watch over the development and indulgence
of their propensities, and to pray for their sanctification.

472 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Requiring it at so early a day was no doubt designed to indi
cate that they are from the first under the dominion of their
flesh, without however affording any inference in favor of the
idea that their flesh was in itself sinful; or that the subjection
of their will, at that early age, was sinful. If reason was not
developed, the subjection of the will to appetite could not be
sinful. But whether this subjection of the will to the grati
fication of the appetite was sinful or not, the child must be
delivered from it or it could never be fitted for heaven any
more than a mere brute can be fitted for heaven. The fact
that circumcision was required on the eighth day and not be
fore, seems to indicate, not that they are sinners absolutely
from birth, but that they very early become so, even from
the commencement of moral agency.
Again : The rite must be performed at some time. Unless
a particular day were appointed it would be very apt to be
deferred, and finally not performed at all. It is probable that
God commanded that it should be done at the earliest period
at which it could be safely done, not only for the reasons al
ready assigned, but to prevent its being neglected too long
and perhaps altogether, and perhaps, also, because it would
be less painful and dangerous at that early age when the in
fant slept most of the time and was not able to exercise and
endanger life, and also because it is well known that parents
are more attached to their children as they grow older, and it
would be less painful to the parent to perform the rite when
the child was very young than afterwards when it had en
twined itself around the parental heart. The longer it was
neglected the greater would be the temptation to neglect it
altogether. So painful a rite needed to be enjoined by posi
tive statute at some particular time, and it was desirable on
all accounts that it should be done as early as it safely could
be. This argumeut for native constitutional moral depravity
amounts really to nothing.
Again: It is urged that unless infants have a sinful nature,
should they die in infancy, they could not be saved by the
grace of Christ.
To this I answer, that in this case they would not go, of
course, to hell.
But what grace could there be in saving them from a sinful
constitution that is not exercised in saving them from circum
stances that would certainly result in their becoming sinners,
if not snatched from them? In neither case do they need par
don for sin. Grace is unearned favor, a gratuity. If the

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 473
child has a sinful nature it is his misfortune, and not crime.
To save him from this nature is to save him from those cir
cumstances that will certainly result in actual transgression
unless he is rescued by death and by the Holy Spirit. So if
his nature is not sinful, yet it is certain that his nature and
circumstances are such that he will surely sin unless rescued
by death and by the Holy Spirit before he is capable of sin
ning. It certainly must be an infinite favor to be rescued from
snch circumstances, and especially to have eternal life con
ferred as a mere gratuity. This surely is grace. And as
they belong to a race of sinners who are all, as it were, turned
over into the hands of Christ, they doubtless' will ascribe
their salvation to the infinite grace of Christ.
Again: Is it not grace that saves us from sinning? What
then is it but grace that saves infants from sinning by snatch
ing them away from circumstances of temptation? In what
way does grace save adults from sinning but by keeping them
from temptation, or by giving grace to overcome temptation?
And is there no grace in rescuing infants from circumstances
that are certain, if they are left in them, to lead them into sin.
All that can be justly said in either case is that if infants
are saved at all, (which I suppose they are,) they are rescued
by the benevolence of God from circumstances that would re
sult in certain and eternal death, and made heirs of eternal
life. But after all it is useless to speculate about the charac
ter and destiny of those who are confessedly not moral agents.
The benevolence of God will take care of them. It is non
sensical to insist upon their moral depravity before they are
moral agents, and it is \equally frivolous to assert that they
must be morally depraved as a condition of their being saved
.by grace.
We deny that the human constitution is morally depraved,
1. Because there is no proof of it.
2. Because it is impossible that sin should be an attribute of
the substance of soul or body. It is and must be an attribute
of choice or intention and not of substance.
3. To make sin an attribute or quality of substance is con
trary to God's definition of sin. u Sin," says the apostle, " is
anomia" a "transgression of, or a want of conformity to the
moral law." That is, it consists in a refusal to love God and
our neighbor, or, which is the same thing, in loving ourselves
supremely. 4. To represent the constitution as sinful is to represent
God, who is the author of the constitution, as tne author of
• 40*

474 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sin. To say that God is not the direct former ofthe constitu
tion, but that sin is conveyed by natural generation from
Adam who made himself sinful, is only to remove the ob
jection one step farther back, but not to obviate it; for God
established the physical laws that of necessity bring about
this result.
5. But how came Adam by a sinful nature? Did his first
sin change his nature? or did God change it as a penalty for
sin? What ground is there for the assertion that Adam's na
ture became in itself sinful by the fall? This is a groundless,
not to say ridiculous assumption and a flat absurdity. Sin an
attribute of nature ! A Sinful substance! Sin a substance!
Is it a solid, a fluid, a material or a spiritual substance?
I have received the following note from a brother on this
subject: " The orthodox creeds are in some cases careful to say that
original sin consists in the substance of neither soul nor body.
Thus Bretschneider, who is reckoned among the rationalists
in Germany, says : " The Symbolical Books very rightly main
tained that original sin is not in any sense the substance of
man, his body or soul, as Flacius taught, — but that it has been
infused into human nature by Satan, and mixed with it, as
poison and wine are mixed."
They rather expressly guard against the idea that they
mean by the phrase "man's nature," his substance, but some
what which is fixed in the substance. They explain original
sin, therefore, not as an essential attribute of man, that is, a
necessary and essential part of his being, but as an accident,
that is, somewhat which does not subsist in itself, but, as some
thing accidental, has come into human nature. He quotes
the Formula Concordantiae as saying: " Nature does not de
note the substance itself Of man, but something which inheres
fixed in the nature or substance." Accident is defined "what
does not subsist by itself, but is in some substance and can
be distinguished from it."
Here, it seems, is sin by itself, and yet not a substance or
subsistence— not a part or attribute of soul or body. What
can it be? Does it consist in wrong action? No, not in ac
tion, but is an accident which ' inheres fixed in the nature of
substance. But what can it be? Not substance, nor yet
action. But if it be any thing it must be either substance or
action. If it be a state of substance, what is this but sub
stance in a particular state? What a wonder it must be! >
Who ever saw it? But it is invisible, for it is something nei-

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 475
thex matter nor spirit — a virus, a poison mixed with, yet dis
tinct from the constitution. Do these writers think by this
subtility to relieve the subject of constitutional moral deprav
ity of its intrinsic absurdity? If so, they are greatly mistaken,
for really they only render it more absurd and ridiculous. 1
fear that christian men, even doctors of divinity will never be
ashamed to vindicate this ridiculous absurdity, until some
master hand shall so expose it as to make a man blush at the
folly of asserting it.
6. I object to the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness that
it makes all sin, original and actual, a mere calamity, and not
a crime. To call it a crime is to talk nonsense. What! a
sinful nature the crime of him upon whom it is entailed with
out his knowledge or consent? If the nature is sinful in such
a sense that action must be, which is the doctrine ofthe Con
fession of Faith, then sin in action must be a calamity, and
can be no crime? It is the necessary effect of a sinful nature.
This can not be a crime.
7. This doctrine represents sin as a disease, and obedience
to law impossible until the nature is changed by a sovereign
and physical agency of the Holy Spirit, in which the subject
is passive. 8. Of course it must render repentance, either with or
without the grace of God impossible unless grace set aside
our reason. If repentance implies self-condemnation we can
never repent in the exercise of our reason. Constituted as
we are, it is impossible that we should condemn ourselves for
a sinful nature or for sinful actions that are unavoidable, The
doctrine of original sin, or of a sinful constitution and of ne
cessary sinful actions, represents the whole moral government
of God, the plan of salvation by Christ, and indeed every
doctrine of the gospel as a mere farce, and as the veriest
' humbug that ever insulted and mocked the intelligence of
man. Upon this supposition the law is tyranny, and the gos
pel an insult to the unfortunate.
9. This doctrine represents sin as being of two kinds: ori
ginal or constitutional and actual — sin of substance and sin
of action; whereas neither the bible nor common sense ac
knowledges but one kind of sin, and that consists in disobe
dience to the law.
10. This doctrine represents a sinful nature as the physical
cause of actual sin.
11. It acknowledges a kind of sin of which no notice will
be taken at the judgment. The bible every where represents

476 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
the deeds done in the body, and not the constitution itself, as
the only things to be brought into judgment*
12. It necessarily begets a self-justifying and God-Condemn
ing spirit. Man must cease to be a reasonable being, and
give himself up to the most ridiculous imaginations before he
can blame himself for Adam's sin, as some have professed to
do, or before he can blame himself for possessing a sinful na
ture, or for sins that unavoidably resulted from a sinful nature.
13. This doctrine necessarily leads its advocates rather to
pity and excuse sinners than unqualifiedly to blame them.
14. It is difficult and indeed impossible for those who really
believe this doctrine to urge immediate repentance and sub
mission on the sinner, feeling that he is infinitely to blame
unless he instantly comply. It is a contradiction to affirm
that a man can heartily believe in the doctrine in question and
yet truly and heartily blame sinners for not doing what is na
turally impossible to them. The secret conviction must be in
the mind of such an one that the sinner is not really to blame
for being a sinner. For in fact if this doctrine is true he is
not to blame for being a sinner any more than he is to blame
for being a human being. This the advocate of this doctrine
must know. It is vain for him to set up the pretence that
he truly blames sinners for their nature, or for their conduct,
that was unavoidable. He can not do it any more than
he can honestly deny the necessary affirmations of his own
reason. Therefore the advocates of this theory must merely
hold it as a theory without believing it, or they must in their
secret conviction excuse the sinner.
15. This doctrine naturally and necessarily leads its advo
cates, secretly at least, to ascribe the atonement of Christ
rather to justice than to grace — to regard* it rather as an ex
pedient to relieve the unfortunate than to render the forgive
ness ofthe excuseless sinner possible. The advocates ofthe
theory in question can not but regard the case ofthe sinner as
rather a hard one, and God as under an obligation to provide
a way for him to escape from a sinful nature entailed upon
him in spite of himself, and from actual transgressions which
resulted from his nature by a law of necessity. If all this is
true, the sinner's case is infinitely hard, and God would be
the most unreasonable and cruel of beings if he did not provide
for their escape. These convictions will and must lodge in
the mind of him who really believes the dogma of a sinful
nature. This in substance is sometimes affirmed by the de
fenders of the doctrine of original sin.

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 477
16. This doctrine is a stumbling block both to the church
and the world — infinitely dishonorable to God, and an abomi
nation alike to God and the human intelligence, and should
be banished from every pulpit and from every formula of doc
trine, and from the world. It is a relict of heathen philoso
phy, and was foisted in among the doctrines of Christianity by
Augustine, as every one may know who will take the trouble
to examine for himself. Who does not know that this view
of moral depravity that I am opposing, has long been the
strong hob! of Universalism? From it the Universalists in
veighed with resistless force against the idea that sinners
would be sent to an eternal hell. Assuming the long-de
fended doctrine of original or constitutional sinfulness, they
proceed to show that it were infinitely unreasonable and un
just in God to send them to hell. What! create them with a
sinful nature from which proceed by a law of necessity actual
transgressions, and then send them to an eternal hell for
having this nature, and for transgressions that are unavoidable?
Impossible! they say; and the human intelligence responds
Amen. From the dogma ofa sinful nature or constitution also has
naturally and irresistibly flowed the doctrine of inability to
repent, and the necessity of a physical regeneration. These
too have been a sad stumbling-block to Universalists as every
one knows who is at all acquainted with the history of Uni
versalism. They infer the salvation of all men from the fact
of God's benevolence and physical omnipotence ! God is Al
mighty, and he is love. Men are constitutionally depraved,
and are unable to repent. God will not, can not send them
to hell. They do not deserve it. Sin is a calamity, and God
can save them, and he ought to do so. This is the substance
of their argument. And, assuming the truth of their premises,
mere is no evading their conclusion. But the whole argu
ment is built on "such stuff as dreams are made of." Strike
out the ridiculous dogma of a sinful nature, and their whole
edifice comes to the ground in a moment.

LECTURE XXXVIII.
MORAL DEPRAVITY.
//. The proper method of accounting for moral depravity.
The term "¦ moral " is from the Latin mos — manners. The
term "depravity," as has been shown, is from de and pravus
-—crooked. The terms united, signify crooked manners, or
bad morals. In this discussion I must,
1. Remind you of some positions that have been settled respect
ing moral depravity,
2. Consult the oracles of God respecting the nature of moral
depravity, or sin.
3. Consult the oracles of God in respect to the proper -method of
accounting for the existence of sin.
4. Show the manner in which it is to be accounted fii> os an
ultimate fact.
1. Some positions that have been settled.
(1.) It has been shown that moral depravity resolves itself
into selfishness.
(2.) That selfishness consists in the supreme choice of self-
indulgence. ,
(3.) That self-indulgence consists in the committal of the
will to the gratification ofthe sensibility, as opposed to obey
ing the law of the reason.
(4.) That sin or moral depravity is a unit, and always con
sists in this committed state of the will to self-gratification, ir
respective of the particular form or means of self-gratification .
(5.) It has also been shown that moral depravity does not
consist in a sinful nature. ¦
(6.)And also that actual transgression can not justly be
ascribed to a sinful constitution. 4
(7.) We have also seen that all sin is actual, and thajt no
other than actual transgression can justly be called sin.
2. I am to consult the oracles qi Gp4 respecting tite na
ture of moral depravity or gin.
Reference has often been made to the teachings of inspira
tion upon this subject'. But it is important to review our
ground in this place, that we may ascertain what are the
teachings, and what are the assumptions ofthe bible in regard
to the nature of sin? Does it assume that as truth, which
natural theology teaches upon the subject? What is taught
in the bible, either expressly, or by Way of inference and im
plication upon this subject?

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 479
(1.) The bible gives a formal definition of sin. Uno.3: 4,
Sin is a transgression of the law, and 6: 17, All unrighteous
ness is sin. As was remarked on a former occasion, this defi
nition is not only an accurate one, but it is the only one that
can possibly be true.
(2.) The bible every where makes the law the only standard
of right and wrong, and obedience to it to be the whole of vir
tue, and disobedience to it to be the whole of sin. This truth
lies every where upon the face of the Bible. It is taught, as
sumed, implied or expressed on every page ofthe Bible.
(3.) It holds men responsible for their voluntary actions
alone, or more strictly for their choices alone, and ex
pressly affirms that "if there be a willing mind, it is accepted
accbrding to what a man hath, and not according to what he
hath not." That is, willing as God directs is accepted as
obedience, whether we are able to execute our choices or not.
(4.) The Bible always represents sin as something done or
committed or wilfully omitted, and never as a part or attribute
of soul or body. We have seen that the texts that have been
relied on as teaching the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness,
when rightly understood, mean no such thing.
(5.) The Bible assures us that all sin shall pass in review
at the solemn judgment, and always represents all sin then to
be recognized, as consisting in " the deeds done in the body."
Texts that support these assertions are too numerous to need
to be quoted, as every reader of the Bible knows.
3. I am to consult the Bible in respect to the proper meth
od Of accounting for moral depravity, or sin.
(I.) We have more than once seen that the Bible has given
us the history of the introduction of sin into our world, andthat
from the narrative, it is plain that the first sin consisted in
selfishness, or in consenting to indulge the excited constitu
tional propensities in a prohibited manner. In other words-, it
Consisted in yielding the will to the impulses ofthe sensibilrty,
instead of abiding by the law of God as revealed in the intel
ligence. Thus the bible ascribes the first sin of our race to
the influence of temptation.
(2.) The bible once, and only once, incidentally intimates
that Adam's first sin has in some way been the occasion (riot
the'cause)of all the sins of men. Rom. 5: 12—19.
(3.) It neither says nor intimates any thing in relation to
the manner in which Adam's sin has occasioned this result.
It only incidentally recognizes the fact, and then leaves it
just as if the quo modo was too obvious to need explanation.

480 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(4.) Iii other parts of the bible we are informed how we
are to account for the existence of sin among men. For ex
ample, James 1: 15. When lust (desire, epithumia) has con
ceived, it bringeth forth sin. Here sin is represented, not as
desire, but as consisting in the consent of the will to gratify
desire* James says again that a man is tempted when he is drawn
aside of his own lusts, (epithumiai desires) and enticed. That
is, his lusts or the impulses of his sensibility are his tempters.
When he is overcome of these, he sins,
(5.) Paul and other inspired writers represent sin as consis
ting in a carnal or fleshly mind, in the mind of the flesh, or
in minding the flesh. It is plain that by the term flesh they
mean what we understand by the sensibility as opposed to
the intelligence, and that they represent sin as consisting in
obeying, minding the impulses of the sensibility. They re
present the world and the flesh and Satan as the three great
sources of temptation. It is plain that the world and Satan
tempt by appeals to the flesh orj to the sensibility. Hence
the apostles have much to say of the necessity of the destruc
tion of the flesh, of the members, of putting off the old man
with his deeds &c. Now, it is worthy of remark that all this
painstaking on the part of inspiration to intimate the source
from whence our sin proceeds, and to apprise us of the pro
per method of accounting for it, and also of avoiding it, has
led certain philosophers and theologians to take a view of it
which is directly opposed to the truth. Because so much is
said of the influence of the flesh, they have inferred that the
nature and physical constitution of man is itself sinful. But
the representations of Scripture are that the body is the occa
sion of sin. The law in his members, that warred against
the law of his mind, of which Paul speaks, is manifestiy the
impulses of the sensibility opposed to the law of the reason.
This law, that is, the impulses of his sensibility, bring him
into captivity, that is, influence his will, in spite of all his
resolutions to the contrary.
In short, the Bible rightly interpreted, every where assumes
and implies that sin consists in selfishness. It is remarkable,
if the Bible be read with an eye to its teachings and assump
tions on this point, to what an extent this truth will appear.
4. How moral depravity is to be accounted for,
(1.) It consists, remember, in the committal of the will to
the gratification or indulgence of self— in the will's following
or submitting itself to be governed by the impulses and de-

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 481
sires of the sensibility instead of submitting itself to the law
of the intelligence.
(2.) This definition of the thing shows how it is to be ac
counted for, namely: The sensibility acts as a powerful im
pulse to the will from the moment of birth, and secures', the
consent and activity of the will to procure its gratification,
before the reason is at all developed. The will is thus com
mitted to the gratification of feeling and appetite, when first
the idea of moral obligation is developed. This committed
state of the will is not moral depravity, and has no moral
Character until the idea of moral obligation is developed.
The moment this idea is developed, this committal of the
will to self-indulgence must be abandoned or it becomes sel
fishness, or moral depravity. But as the will is already in a
state of committal, and has to some extent already formed the
habit of seeking to gratify feeling, and as the idea of moral
obligation is at first but feebly developed, unless the Holy
Spirit interferes to shed light on the soul, the will, as might
be expected, retains its hold on self-gratification. Here mor
al character does and must commence. Let it be remember
ed that selfishness consists in the supreme and ultimate choice,
or in the preference of self-gratification as an end, or for its
own sake, over all other interests. Now, as the choice of an
end imphes and includes the choice of the means, Selfishness
of course, causes all that outward life and activity that makes
up the entire history of sinners.
This selfish choice is the wicked heart — the sinful nature —
the propensity to sin — the sinful appetite — the craving for sin,
and all that causes what is generally termed actual transgres
sion. This sinful choice, is properly enough called indwell
ing sin. It is the latent, standing, controlling preference of
the mind, and the cause of all the outward and active life.
It is not the choice of sin, but the choice of self-gratification,
which choice is sin.
Again. It should be remembered that the physical deprav
ity of our race has much to do with our moral depravity. A
diseased physical system renders the appetites, passions, tem
per, and propensities more clamorous and despotic in their
demands, and of course confirms and strengthens selfishness.
It should be distinctly understood that physical depravity has
no moral character in itself. But yet it is a source of fierce
temptation to selfishness. The human sensibility is, manifest
ly, deeply physically depraved, and as sin or moral depravity
consists in committing the will to the gratification of the sen-
41

482 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sibility, its physical depravity will mightily strengthen moral
depravity. Moral depravity is then universally owing to
temptation. That is, the soul is tempted to self-indulgence,
anoyyields to the temptation, and this yielding, and not the
temptation, is sin or moral depravity. This is manifestly the
way in which Adam and Eve became morally depraved.
They were tempted, even by undepraved appetite, to prohibi
ted indulgence, and were overcome. The sin did not lie in
the constitutional desire of food, or of knowledge, nor in the
excited state of these appetites or desires, but in the consent
of the will to prohibited indulgence.
Just in the same way all sinners become such, that is,.the^
become morally depraved by yielding to temptation to self
gratification under some form. Indeed it is impossible that
they should become morally depraved in any other way. To
deny this were to overlook the very nature of moral depravi
ty. It is remarkable that President Edwards, after writing
five hundred pages, in which he confounds physical and moral
depravity, in answer to an objection of Dr. Taylor of Eng
land, that his view made God, the author of the constitution,
the author also of sin, turns immediately around, and without
seeming to see his own inconsistency, ascribes all sin to temp
tation, and makes it consist altogether in obeying the propen
sities, just as I have done. His words are.
" One argument against a supposed native, sinful depravity, which Dr. Tay
lor greatly insists upon, is, " that this does in effect charge Him who is the au
thor of our nature, who formed us in the womb, with being the author ofa sinful
corruption of nature; and that it is highly injurious to the God of our nature,
whose hands hare formed and fashioned us, to believe our nature to be original-
ty corrupted and that in the worst sense of corruption."
With respect to this, 1 would observe, in the first place, that this writer, in
handling this grand objection, supposes something to belong to the doctrine ob
jected against, as maintained by the divines whom he is opposing, which does
not belong to it, nor follow from it. As particularly, he supposes tbe%doctrine
of original sin to imply, that nature must be corrupted by some positive influ
ence; " something, by some means or other, infused into the human nature ;
some quality or other, not from the choice of our minds, but like a taint, tincture,
or infection, altering the natural constitution, faculties, and dispositions of our
souls! That sin and evil dispositions are implanted in the fetus in the womb."
Whereas truly our doctrine neither implies nor infers any such thing. In order
to account for a sinful corruption of nature, yea, a total native depravity of the
heart of man, there is not the least need of supposing any evil quality infused,
implanted, or wrought into the nature of man, by any positive cause or influence
whatsoever, either from God, or the creature; or of supposing that man is con
ceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart such as' is any thing prop
erly positive." I think a little attention to the nature of things will be suflicient
to satisfy any impartial, considerate inquirer that the absence of positive good
principles, and so the withholding of a special divine influence to impart and
maintain those good principles — leaving' the common natural principles of sclf-
ldve, natural appetite, &c. to themselves, without the government of superior

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 483
divine principles will certainly be followed with the corruption ; yea, the total
corruption of the heart, without occasion for any positive influence at all. And
that it was thus in fact that corruption of nature came on Adam, immediately on
his fall, and comes on all his posterity as sinning in him and falling with him.
The case with man was plainly this: When God made man at first he im
planted in him two kinds of principles. There was an inferior kind whidhjniay
be natural, being the principles of mere human nature; such as self-love, with
those natural appetites and passions, which belong to the nature of man, in
which his love to his own liberty, honor and pleasure were exercised: These,
when alone, and left to themselves, are what the scriptures sometimes call flesh.
Besides .these, there were superior principles, mat were spiritual, holy, an^ di
vine, summarily comprehended in divine love; wherein consisted the spiritual
image of God, and man's righteousness and true holiness ; which are called in
scripture the divine nature. These principles may, in some sense, be called su
pernatural, being (however concreated or connate, yet) such as are above those
principles that are essentially implied in, or necessarily resulting from, and in
separably connected with, mere human nature: and being such as immediately
depend on man's union and communion with God,, or divine communications
and influences of God's spirit, which though withdrawn, and man's nature for
saken of these principles, human nature would be human nature still; man's na
ture, as such, being entire without these divine principles, which the scripture
sometimes calls spirit, in contradistinction to flesh. These superior principles
were given to possess the throne, and maintain absolute dominion in the heart;
the other to be wholly subordinate and subservient. And while things continu
ed thus, all was in excellent order, peace, and beautiful harmony, and in a pro
per and perfect state. These divine principles thus reigning, were the dignity,
life, happiness, and glory of man's nature. When man sinned and broke God's
covenant, and fell under his curse, these superior principles left his heart ! For
indeed God then left him, that communion with God on which these principles
depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit that divine inhabitant, forsook the
house; because it would have been utterly improper in itself, and inconsistent
with the constitution God had established, that he should still maintain commu
nion with man, and continue by his friendly, gracious, vital influences, to dwell
with him and in him, after he was become a rebel and had incurred God's wrath
and curse. Therefore immediately the superior divine principles wholly ceas
ed; so light ceases in a room when the candle is withdrawn; and thus man was
left in a state of darkness, woeful corruption and ruin; nothing but flesh without
spirit. The inferior principles of self-love and natural appetite which were giv
en only to serve, being alone, and left to themselves, of course became reigning
principles: having no superior principles to regulate or control them, they be
came the absolute masters of the heart The immediate consequence of
which was a fatal catastrophe, a turning of all things upside down, and the suc
cession of a state ofthe most odious and dreadful confusion. Man immediately
set up himself, and the objects of his private affections and appetites, as supreme
and so they took the place of God. These inferior principles were like fire, in a
house; which we say is a good servant, but a bad master; very useful while kept
in its place, but if left to take possession of the whole house, soon brings all to
destruction. Man's love to his own honor, separate interests, and private pleas
ure, which before was wholly subordinate unto lave to God and regard to his
authority and glory, now disposes and impels him to pursue those objects,
without regard to God's honor, or law; because there is no true regard to these
divine things left in him. Inconsequence of which, he seeks those objects as
much when against God's honor and law, as when agreeable to them. God still
continuing strictly to require supreme regard to himself, and forbidding all Un
due gratification of these inferior passions— -but only in perfect subordination to
the ends, and agreeable to the rules and limits, which his holiness, honor,
and law prescribe— hence immediately arises enmity in the heart, now wholly
under the power of self-love; and nothing but war ensues, in a course against
God. As when a subject has once renounced his lawful sovereign, and set up a

484 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
pretender in his stead, a state of enmity and war against his rightful king neces
sarily ensues. It were easy to show, how every lust, and depraved disposition
of man's heart, would naturally arise from this privative original, if here were
room for it. Thus it is easy to give an account, how total. corruption of heart
should follow on man's eating the forbidden fruit, though that was but one act
of sin, without God putting any evil into his heart, or implanting any tad prin
ciple, or infusing any corrupt taint, and so becoming the author of depravity .—
Only. God's withdrawing, as it was highly proper and necessary that he should,
from rebel man, and. his natural principles being left to themselves, is sufficient
to account for his becoming entirely corrupt, and bent on sinning against God.
And as Adam's nature became corrupt, without God's implanting or infusing
of any evil thing into it; so does the nature of his posterity. God dealing with
Adam as the head of his posterity, [as has been shown;] and treating them as
one, he deals with his posterity as having all sinned in him. And therefore, as
God withdrew spiritual communion, and his vital, gracious influence from ajl
the members, as they come into existence; whereby they come into the world
mere flesh, and entirely under the government of natural'and inferior principles;
and so become wholly corrupt, as Adam did."— Edwards' Works,pp 532 — 538.
To sum up the truth upon.this subject in few words, I would
1. Moral depralply in our first parents was induced by
temptation addressed to the unperverted susceptibilities of
their nature. When these susceptibilities became strongly
excited, they overcame the will ; that is, the human pair were
overpersuaded and fell under the temptation. This has been
repeatedly said, but needs repetition in a summing up.
2. All moral depravity commences in substantially the
same way. Proof,
(1.) The impulses of the sensibility are developed at
birth. (2.) The first acts of will are in obedience to these.
(3.)Self-gratification is the rule of action previous to the de
velopment of reason. #;•
(4.) No resistance is offered to the will's indulging appetite
until a habit of self-indulgence is formed.
(5.) When reason affirms moral obligation, it finds the will
in a state of habitual and constant committal to the impulses
ofthe sensibility.
(6.) The demands of the sensibility have become more and
more despotic every hour of indulgence.
(7.) In this statp of things, unless the Holy Spirit interpose,
the idea of moral obligation will be but dimly developed.
(8.) The Will of course rejects the bidding of reason and
cleaves to self-indulgence.
(9-) This is the settling of a fundamental question. It is
deciding in favor of appetite against the claims of conscience
and of God.

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 485
(10.) Light once rejected can be thereafter more easily re
sisted. (11.) Selfishness confirms and strengthens, and perpetuates
itself by a natural process. It grows With the sinner's growth
and strengthens with his strength, and will do so forever
unless overcome by the Holy Spirit through the truth.
REMARKS.
1. Adam, being the natural head of the race, would natu
rally, by the wisest constitution of things, greatly affect for
good or evil his whole posterity.
2. His sin in many ways exposed his posterity to aggra
vated temptation. Not only the physical constitution of all
men, but all the influences under which they first form their
moral character are widely different fronj what they would
have been, if sin had never been introduced.
3. When selfishness is understood to be "the whole ofmoral
depravity, its quo modo is manifest. Clear conceptions ofthe
thing will instantly reveal the occasion and manner.
4. The only difficulty in accounting for it has been the false
assumption that there must be and is something back ofthe
free actions ofthe will and sustaining to those actions the re
lation of a cause that is itself sinful.
5. If holy Adam and holy angels could fall under tempta
tions addressed to their undepraved sensibility, how absurd it
is to conclude that sin in infants who are born with a physi
cally depraved constitution, can not be accounted for, without
ascribing it to original sin, or to a nature that is in itself sinful.
6. Without divine illumination the moral character will of
course be formed under the influence of the flesh. That is,
the lower propensities will of course influence the will, unless
the intelligence be developed by the Holy Spirit, as was said
by President Edwards in the extract just quoted.
7. The dogma of constitutional moral depravity is a part
and parcel of the doctrine of a necessitated will. It is a
branch of a grossly false and heathenish philosophy. How
infinitely absurd, dangerous, and unjust, then, to embody it in
a standard of christian doctrine, to give it the place of an in
dispensable article of faith, and denounce all Who will not
swallow its absurdities, as heretics. O, Shame !
8." We are unable to say precisely at what age infants be
come moral agents, and, of course, how early they become sin
ners. Doubtless there is much difference among children in
41*

486 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
this respect. Reason is developed in one earlier than in an
other, according to the constitution.
A thorough consideration of the subject will doubtless lead
to the conviction that children become moral agents much
earlier than is generally supposed. The conditions of moral
agency are, as has been repeatedly said in former lectures,
the possession of the powers of moral agency, together with
the development of the ideas of the good or valuable, of mor
al obligation or oughtness — of right and wrong — of praise
and blameworthiness. I have endeavored to show in former
lectures, that mental satisfaction, blessedness or happiness, is
the ultimate good. Satisfaction arising from the gratification
of the appetites is one of the earliest experiences of human
beings. This no doubt suggests or develops at a very early
period the idea ofthe good or the valuable. The idea is
doubtless developed Hong before the word that expresses it is
understood. The child knows that happiness is good, and
seeks it in the form of self-gratification long before the terms
that designate this state of mind are at all understood. It
knows that its own enjoyment is worth seeking, and doubtless
very early has the idea that the enjoyment of others is worth
seeking, and affirms to itself, not in words but in idea, that it
ought to please its parents and those around it. It knows in
faet, though language is as yet unknown, that it loves to be
gratified and to be happy, that it loves and seeks enjoyment
for itself, and doubtless has the idea that it ought not to dis
please and distress those around it, but that it ought to en
deavor to please and gratify them. This is probably among
the first ideas, if not the very first idea of the pure reason thatis
developed^ that is, the idea of the good, the valuable, the
desirable; and the next must be that of oughtness, or ofmoral
obligation, the next of right and wrong, &c. ¦ I say again,
these ideas are and must be developed before tbe signs or
words that express them are at all understood, and the words
would never be understood except the idea were first devel
oped. We always find at the earliest period at which chil
dren can understand words that they have the idea of obli
gation, of right and wrong. As soon as these words are under
stood by them, they recognize them as expressing ideas al
ready in their own minds, and which ideas they have had, fur
ther back than they can remember. Some and indeed most
persons seem to have the idea that children affirm themselves
to be under moral obligation before they have the idea of the
good; that they affirm their obligation to obey their parents

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 487
before they know or have the idea of the good or of the val
uable. But this is and must be a mistake. They may and
do affirm obligation to obey their parents before they can ex
press in language and before they would understand a philo
sophical statement of the grounds of their obligation. The
idea however they do and must have or they could not affirm
obligation. It is agreed and cannot be denied that moral ob
ligation respects acts of will and not strictly outward action.
It is agreed and can not be denied that obligation respects in
telligent actions of will. It is also agreed and can not be
denied that all intelligent acts of will and such as those to
which moral obligation belongs must respect ends or means.
If therefore one has any true idea of moraj obligation it must
respect acts of will or intentions. It must respect the choice
of an end or of means. If it respect the choice of a means
the idea of the end must exist. It can not*'justly affirm obli
gation of any thing but choice or intention for as a matter of
fact obligation belongs to nothing else. The fact is the child
knows that it ought to please its parent and seek to make its
parent happy. This it knows that it ought to intend long be
fore it knows what the word intention means. Upon this as
sumption it bases all its affirmations in respect to its obliga
tion to obey its parents and others that are around it. It re
gards its own satisfaction or enjoyment as a good and seeks it
before it knows what the words mean that express this state
of mind. It also knows that the enjoyment of others is a
good, and affirms not in word but in idea that it ought to seek
the enjoyment of all. This idea is the basis upon which all
affirmations of obligation rest, and if it be truly an idea of
real obligation it is impossible that the idea of the good or of
the value of enjoyment should not be its base. To assert the
contrary is to overlook the admitted fact that moral obligation
must respect choice and the choice of an end; that it must res
pect intention. It is absurd to suppose that a being can truly
affirm moral obligation in respect to outward action before it
has the idea of the obligation to will or intend an end. The
idea of an end may not be developed in words, that is, the
word expressive of the idea may not be understood, but the
idea must be in the mind in a state of developement or there
can be no affirmation of obligation. The fact is there is a
logical connection between the idea of the good and the idea
of moral obligation, of right and wrong, of praise and blame
worthiness. These latter ideas can not exist without the first,
and the existence of that necessitates the developement of

488 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
these. These are first truths of reason. In other words
these ideas are universally and necessarily developed in the
minds of moral agents and indeed their development is the
condition of moral agency. Most of the first truths are de
veloped in idea long before the language in which they are
expressed is or can be understood. Thus the ideas of space,
of time, of causality, of liberty of will, or ability, of the
good, of oughtness or obligation to will it, of right and wrong,
of praise or blameworthiness and many others are developed
before the meaning of those words is at all understood. Hit
man beings come gradually to understand the words or signs
that represent their ideas, and afterwards so often express
their ideas in words that they finally get the impression that
they got the idea from the word, whereas in every instance in
respect to the first truths of reason they had the idea long
before they understood or perhaps ever heard the word that
represents it and was coined to express it.
9. They who maintain the sinfulness of the constitutional
appetites, must of course deny that men can ever be entirely
sanctified in this life, and must maintain, as they do, that death
must complete the work of sanctification.
10. False notions of moral depravity lie at the foundation
of all the objections I have seen to the doctrine of entire sanc
tification in this life.
11. A diseased nervous system is a fierce temptation. Some
forms of disease expose the soul to much trial. Dyspeptic
and nervous persons need superabounding grace.
12. Why sin is so natural to mankind. Not because their
nature is itself sinful, but because the appetites and passions
tend so strongly to self-indulgence. Besides, selfishness being
the ruling passion of the soul, its manifestations are spon
taneous. 13. The doctrine of original sin as held by its advocates
must essentially modify the whole system of practical theology.
This will be seen as we proceed in our investigations.
14. The constitution of a moral being as a whole when all
the powers are developed, does not tend to sin, but strongly
in an opposite direction, as is manifest from the fact that
when reason is thoroughly developed by the Holy Spirit, it is
more than a match for the sensibility and turns the heart to
God. 15. The difficulty is that the sensibility gets the start of
reason and engages the attention in devising means of self-
gratification, and thus retards, and in & great measure pre-

MORAL DEPRAVITY. 489
vents the development of the ideas of the reason which were
designed to control the will.
16. It is this morbid development that the Holy Spirit is
given to rectify, by so forcing truth upon the attention, as to
secure the development of the intelligence. By doing this
He brings the will under the influence of truth. Our senses
reveal to us the objects correlated to our animal nature and
propensities. The Holy Spirit reveals God and the spiritual
world, and all that class of objects that are so correlated to
our higher nature as to give Reason the control of the will.
This is regeneration and sanctification as we shall see in its
proper place.

LECTURE XXXIX.
REGENERATION.
In the examination of this subject -Twill,
I. Point out the common distinction between Regenera
tion and Conversion.
¦II. State the assigned reasons for this distinction.
III. State objections to this distinction.
IV. Show what Regeneration is not.
, V. What it is.
VI. Its UNIVERSAL NECESSITY.
VII. Agencies employed in it.
VIII. Instrumentalities employed in it.
IX. That in Regeneration the subject is both active
and passive.
X. What is implied in Regeneration.
XI. Philosophical Theories of Regeneration.
XII. Evidences of Regeneration.
/. / am to point out the common distinction between Regenera
tion and Conversion.
1. Regeneration is the term used by many theologians to
express the Divine agency in changing the heart.
2. With them regeneration does not include and imply the
activity of the subject, but rather excludes it. These theolo
gians, as will be seen in its place, hold that a change of heart
is first effected by the Holy Spirit, while the subject is pas
sive, which change lays a foundation for the exercise, by the
subject, of repentance, faith, and love.
3. Conversion with them expresses the activity and turning
of the subject, after regeneration is effected by the Holy
Spirit. Conversion with them does not include or imply the
agency of the Holy Spirit, but expresses only the activity of
the subject. With them the Holy Spirit first regenerates or
changes the heart, after which the sinner turns or converts
himself. So that God and the subject work each in turn.
God first changes the heart, and as a consequence, the subject
afterwards converts himself or turns to God. Thus the sub
ject is passive in regeneration, but active in conversion.
When we come to the examination ofthe philosophical theo
ries of regeneration, we shall see that the views of these
theologians respecting regeneration result naturally and ne
cessarily from their holding the dogma of constitutional moral
depravity, which we have recently examined. Until their

REGENERATION. 491
views on that subject are corrected, no change can be expect
ed in their views of this subject. I said in a concluding re
mark, when upon the subject of moral depravity, that errone
ous views upon that subject must necessarily materially affect
and modify one's views upon most of the questions in practi
cal theology. Let us bear this remark in mind as we proceed,
not only in the discussions immediately before us, but also in
all our future investigations, that we may duly appreciate the
importance of clear and correct views on the subject of prac
tical theology.
//. / am to state the assigned reasons for this distinction.
1. The original term plainly expresses and implies other
than the agency of the subject.
2. We need and must adopt a term that will express the
Divine agency.
3. Regeneration is expressly ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
4. Conversion, as it implies and expresses the activity and
turning of the subject, does not include and imply any Divine
agency, and therefore does not imply or express what is in
tended by regeneration.
5. As two agencies are actually employed in the regenera
tion and conversion of a sinner, it is necessary to adopt
terms that will clearly teach this fact and clearly distinguish
between the agency of God and of the creature.
6. The terms regeneration and conversion aptly express
this distinction, and therefore should be theologically em
ployed. ///. lam to state the objections to this distinction.
1. The original term gennao with its derivatives may be
rendered, (1.) To beget. (2.) To bear or bring forth. (3.)
To be begotten. (4.) To be born or brought forth.
2. Regeneration is in the Bible the same as the new birth.
3. To be born again is the same thing, as the Bible uses
the terms, as to have a new heart, to be a new creature, to
pass from death unto life. In other words, to be born again
is to have a new moral character, to become holy. To re
generate is to make holy. To be born of God, no doubt, ex
presses and includes the Divine agency, but it also includes
and expresses that which the Divine agency is employed in
effecting, namely, making the sinner holy. Certainly a sinner
is not regenerated whose moral character is unchanged. If
he were, how could it be truly said that whosoever is born of
God overcometh the world, doth not commit sin, can not sin,
&c? If regeneration does not imply and include a change

492 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
of moral character in the subject, how can regeneration be
made the condition of salvation? The fact is, the term re
generation, or the being born of God, is designed to express
primarily and principally the thing done, that is, the making
of a sinner holy, and expresses also the fact that God's agency
induces the change. Throw out the idea of what is done,
that is, the change of^ moral character in the subject, and he
would not be born again, he would not be regenerated, and
it could not be truly said in such a case that God had regene
rated him.
It has been objected that the term really means and expres
ses only the Divine agency, and only by way of implication
embraces the idea of a change of moral character, and of
course of activity in the subject. To this I reply,
(1.) That if it really expresses only the Divine agency, it
leaves out of view the thing effected by Divine agency.
(2.) That it really and fully expresses not only the Divine
agency, but also that which this agency accomplishes.
(3.) This thing which the agency of God brings about is a
new or spiritual birth, a .resurrection from spiritual death, the
inducing of a new and holy life. The thing done is the promi
nent idea expressed or intended by the term.
, (4) The thing done implies the turning1 or activity of the
subject. It is nonsense to affirm that his moral character is
changed without any activity or agency of. his own. Passive
holiness is impossible. Holiness is obedience to the law of
God, the law of love, and of course consists in the activity of
the creature.
(5.) We have said that regeneration is synonymous in the
bible with a new heart. But sinners are required to make
to themselves a new heart, which they could not do if they
were not active in this change. If the work is a work of
God in such a sense that He must first regenerate the heart
or soul before the agency of the sinner begins, it were absurd
and unjust to require him to make to himself a new heart un
til he is first regenerated. <
Regeneration is ascribed to man in the gospel, which it
could not be if the term were designed to express only the
agency of the Holy Spirit. " For though ye have ten thou
sand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for
in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." — ¦
1 Cor. 4:15.
6. Conversion is spoken of in the Bible as the work of
another than the subject of it, and can not therefore have

REGENERATION.

493

been designed to express only the activity of the subject of -it.
(1.) It is ascribed to the word of God. — " The law of the Lord
is perfect, coverting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is
sure, making wise the simple." — Ps. 19: 7. (2.) To man.
" Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one con
vert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner
from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and
shall hide a multitude of sins." — James 5: 19, 20.
7. Both conversion and regeneration are sometimes in the
Bible ascribed to God, sometimes to man, and sometimes to the
subject; which shows clearly that the distinction under exam
ination is arbitrary and theological rather than biblical.
8. The fact is that both terms imply the simultaneous exer
cise of both human and divine agency. The fact that a new
heart is the thing done, demonstrates the activity of the sub
ject, and the word regeneration, or the expression "born of
the Holy Spirit" asserts the divine agency. The same is true
of conversion, or the turning of the sinner to God. God is
said to turn him and he is said to turn himself. God draws
him, and he follows. In both alike God and man are both
active, and their activity is simultaneous. God works or
draws, and the sinner yields or turns, or which is the same
thing, changes his heart, or, in other words, is born again.
The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins. God calls on him,
"Awake thou that steepest, arise from the dead that Christ
may give thee light." God calls; the sinner hears and an
swers, Here am I. God says, Arise from the dead. The sin
ner puts forth his activity, and God draws him into life; or
rather God draws, and the sinner comes forth to life.
9. The distinction is not only not recognized in the Bible,
but is plainly of most injurious tendency for two reasons:
(1.) It assumes and inculcates a false philosophy of de
pravity and regeneration.
(2.) It leads the sinner to wait to be regenerated before he
repents or turns to God. It is of most fatal tendency to rep
resent the sinner as under a necessity of waiting to 'be pas
sively regenerated before he gives himself to God,
As the distinction is not only arbitrary but anti-scriptural
and injurious, and inasmuch as it is founded in, and is de
signed to teach a philosophy false and pernicious on the sub
ject of depravity and regeneration, I shall drop and discard
the distinction, and in our investigations henceforth, let it be
42 '

494 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
understood that I use regeneration and conversion as synony
mous terms.
IV. I am to show what regeneration is not.
It is not a change in the substance of soul or body. If
it were, sinners could not be required to effect it. Such a
change would not constitute a change of moral character.
No such change is needed, as the sinner has all the faculties
and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience
to God. AH he needs is to be induced to use these pow
ers and attributes as he ought. The words conversion and
regeneration do not imply any change of substance but only
a change of moral state or of moral character. The terms
are not used to express a physical, but a moral change. Re
generation does not express or imply the creationof any new
faculties or attributes of nature, nor any change whatever in
the constitution of body or mind. I shall remark further up
on this point when we come to the examination of the philo
sophical theories of regeneration before alluded to.
V. What regeneration is.
It has been said that regeneration and a change of heart
are identical. It is important to inquire into the scriptural
use of the term heart. The term like most others is used in
the bible in various senses. The heart is often spoken of in
the bible, not only as possessing moral character, but as being
the source of moral action or as the fountain from which goojl
and evil actions flow, and of course as constituting the foun
tain of holiness or of sin, or in other words still, as compre
hending strictly speaking the whole of moral character. "But
those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from
the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart pro
ceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
false witness, blasphemies." — Mat. 15: 18, 19. "0 genera
tion of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for
out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A
good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things."— Mat. 12: 34, 35. When the heart is thus
represented as possessing moral character and as the fountain
of good and evil, it can not mean,
(1.) The bodily organ that propels the blood.
(2.) It can not mean the substance of the soul or mind it
self: substance can not in itself possess moral character.
(3.) It is not any faculty or natural attribute.

REGENERATION. 495
(4.) It can not consist in any constitutional taste, relish or
appetite, for these can not in themselves have moral character.
(5.) It is not the sensibility or feeling faculty of the mind,
for we have seen that moral character can not be predicated
of it. It is true, and let it be understood, that the term heart
is used in the bible in these senses, but not when the heart is
spoken of as the fountain of moral action. When the heart
is represented as possessing moral character, the Word can not
be meant to designate any involuntary state of mind. For
neither the substance of soul or body, nor any involuntary
state of mind can by any possibility possess moral character
in itself. And if the bible assumed or asserted that they could
it could not be received as true by the human intelligence.
The very idea of moral character implies and is an idea of a
free action or intention. To deny this, were to deny a first
truth. (6.) The term heart when applied to mind is figurative, and
means something in the mind that has some point of resem
blance to the bodily organ of that name, and a consideration
ofthe function of the bodily organ will suggest the true idea
of the heart of the mind. The heart of the body propels the
vital current and sustains organic life. It is the fountain
from Which the vital fluid flows, from which either life or death
may flow according to the State of the blood. The mind as
well as the body has a heart which, as we have seen, is re
presented as a fountain or as an efficient propelling influence
out of which flow good or evil according as the heart is good
or evil. This heart is represented not only as the source or
fountain of good and evil, but as being either good or evil in
itself, as constituting the character of man and not merely as
being capable of moral character.
It is also represented as something over which we have
control, for which we are responsible, and which, in case it is
Wicked, we are bound to change on pain of death. Again:
the heart in the sense in which we are considering it, is that,
the radical change of which constitutes a radical change of
moral character. This is plain from Matthew 12: 34, 35, and
15: 18, 19, already considered.
(7.) Our own consciousness then must inform us that the
heart of the mind that possesses these characteristics can be
nothing else than the supreme ultimate intention of the soul.
Regeneration is represented in the bible as constituting a ra
dical change of character, as the resurrection from a death in
sin, as the beginning of a new and spiritual life, as constitu-

496 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
ting a new creature, as a new creation, not a physical, but a
moral or spiritual creation, as conversion or turning to God,
as giving God the heart, as loving God with all our heart and
our neighbor as ourselves. Now we have seen abundantly
that moral character belongs to or is an attribute of the ulti
mate choice or intention of the soul.
Regeneration then is a radical change of the ultimate in
tention, end or object of life. We have seen that the choice
of an end is efficient in producing executive volitions or the
use of means to obtain its end. A selfish ultimate choice is
therefore a wicked heart out of which flows every evil, and a
benevolent ultimate choice is a good heart out of which flows
every good and commendable, deed.
Regeneration, to have the characteristics ascribed to it in
the bible, must consist in a change in the attitude of the will,
or a change in its ultimate choice, intention, or preference;
a change from selfishness to benevolence; from choosing self-
gratification as the supreme and ultimate end of life to the su
preme and ultimate choice of the highest well-being of God
and of the universe; from a state of entire consecration to
self-interest, self-indulgence self-gratification for its own sake
or as an end, and as the supreme end of life to a state of en
tire 'consecration to God and to the interests of his kingdom
as the supreme and ultimate end of life.
VI. The universal necessity of regeneration.
1. The necessity of regeneration as a condition of salvation
must be coextensive with moral depravity. This has been
shown to be universal among the unregenerate mgral agents
of our race. It surely is impossible that a world or a uni
verse of unholy or selfish beings should be happy. It is im
possible that heaven should be made up of selfish beings. It is
intuitively certain that without benevolence or holiness no
moral being can be ultimately happy. Without regeneration
a selfish soul can by no possibility be fitted either for the em
ployments or for the enjoyments of heaven.
2. The scriptures expressly teach the universal necessity of
regeneration. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he can
not see the kingdom of God." — Jno. 3: 3. "For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum
cision, but a new creature." — Gal. 6:15.
VII. Agencies employedin regeneration.
1. The scriptures often ascribe regeneration to the Spirit of
God. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Ex-

REGENERATION. 497
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot en
ter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born ofthe Spirit is spirit." —
John 3: 5, 6. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." — Jno.
1:15. 2. We have seen that the subject is active in regeneration,
that regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate
choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness
to love or benevolence; or in other words in turning from the
Supreme choice of self-gratification to the supreme love of God
and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of
regeneration must be an agent in the work.
3. There are generally other agents, one or more human
beings concerned in persuading the sinner to turn. The bi
ble recognizes both the subject and the preacher as agents in
the work. Thus Paul says: "I have begotten you through
the gospel." Here the same word is used which is used in
another case where regeneration is ascribed to God.
Again: An Apostle says, "Ye have purified your souls by
obeyiug the truth." Here the work is ascribed to the subject.
There are then always two and generally more than two
agents employed in effecting the work. Several theologians
have held that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit
alone. In proof of this they cite those passages that as
cribe it to God. But I might just as lawfully insist that it is
the work of man alone and quote those passages that ascribe
it to man, to substantiate my position. Or I might assert that
it is alone.. the work of the subject and in proof of this posi
tion quote those passages that ascribe it to the subject. Or
again, I might assert that it is effected by the truth alone and
quote such passages as the following to substantiate my posi
tion: "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,
that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures."—
James 1: 18. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible, by the word of God, whkh liveth and
abideth for ever."— 1. Peter 1 : 23. The fact is, when Dr.
Woods and others insist that Regeneration is the work or a
work of God, they tell the truth but not the whole truth. For
it is also the work of man and of the subject. Their course
is precisely like that of the Unitarian, who when he would
prove that Christ is not God, merely proves that he was a
man. Now we admit that he was a man, but we hold that he
is more, that he is also God. Just so we hold that God is ac-
42*

498 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
tive in promoting regeneration, and we hold also that the
subject always and necessarily is active in the work and that
generally some other human agency is employed in the work
in presenting and urging the claims of God.
It has been common to regard the third person as a mere
instrument in the work. But the fact is he is a willing, de
signing, responsible agent, as really so as God or the sub
ject is.
If it be inquired how the bible can consistently ascribe re
generation at one time to God, at another to the subject, at
another to the truth, at another to a third person; the answer
is to be sought in the nature of the work. The work accom
plished is a change of choice in respect to an end or the end
of life. The sinner whose choice is changed must of course
act. The end to be chosen must be clearly and forcibly pre
sented: this is the work of the third person, and of the Holy
Spirit. The Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows them
to the soul. The truth is employed, or it is truth which must
necessarily be employed, as an instrument to induce a change
of choice. See this illustrated in sermons on Important Sub
jects, Sermon I. on Regeneration.
VIII. Instrumentalities employed in the work.
1. Truth. This must from the nature of regeneration be
employed in effecting it, for regeneration is nothing else than
the will being duly influenced by truth
2. There may be and often are many providences concern
ed in enlightening the mind and in inducing regeneration.
These are instrumentalities. They are means or instruments
of presenting the truth. Mercies, judgments, mem, measures
and in short all those things that conduce to enlightening the
mind, are instrumentalities employed in affecting it.
Those who hold to physical or constitutional moral deprav
ity must hold of course to constitutional regeneration, and of
course consistency compels them to maintain that there is but
one, agent employed in regeneration, and that is the Holy
Spirit, and that no instrument whatever is employed, because
the work is according to them an act of creative power ;i4hat
the very nature is changed and of course no instrument canhe
employed, any more than in the creation of4he world. These
t theologians have affirmed over and over again that regenera
tion is a miracle; that there is no tendency whatever in the
gospel however presented, and whether presented by God or
man, to regenerate the heart. Dr. Griffin in his Park Street
Lectures maintains that the gospel in its natural and necessa-

REGENERATION. 499
ry tendency creates and perpetuates only opposition to and
hatred of God until the heart is changed by the Holy Spirit.
He understands the carnal mind to be not a voluntary state,
not a minding of the flesh, but the very nature and constitu
tion of the mind, and that enmity against God is a part, attri
bute, or appetite of the nature itself. Consequently he must
deny the adaptability of the gospel to regenerate the soul.
It has been proclaimed by this class of theologians times with
out number that there is no philosophical connexion between
the preaching of the gospel and the regeneration of sinners,
no adaptedness in the gospel to produce that result; but on
the contrary that it is adapted to produce an opposite result.
The favorite illustrations of their views have been Ezekiel's
prophesying over the dry bones and Christ's restoring sight
to the blind man by putting clay on his eyes. Ezekiel's
prophesying over the dry bones had no tendency to quicken
them, they say. And the clay used by the Savior was calcu
lated rather to destroy than to restore sight. This shows how
easy it is for men to adopt a pernicious and absurd philosophy
and then find or think they find it supported by the bible,
What must be the effect of inculcating the dogma that the
gospel has nothing to do with regenerating the sinner? In
stead of telling him that regeneration is nothing else than his
embracing the gospel, to tell him that he must wait and first
have his constitution recreated before he can possibly do any
thing but oppose God? This is to tell him the greatest and
most abominable and ruinous of falsehoods. It is to mock his
intelligence. What! call on him on pain of eternal death to
believe; tq^embrace the gospel; to love God with all his heart
and at the*same time, represent him as entirely helpless and
constitutionally the enemy of God and of the gospel and as
being under the necessity of waiting for God to regenerate his
nature before it is possible for him to do otherwise than to hate
God with all his heart? O Orthodoxy, falsely so called, how
absurd and false thou art! What an enemy of God; what a
stumbling block to man ; what a leaven of unrighteousness and
of hell is such a dogma as this ! But a few years have elapsed
since almost the entire church were settled down in the delu
sion of a passive regeneration.
IX. In regeneration the subject is both passive and active. ,
1. That he is active is plain from what has been said and
from the nature of the change.
2. That he is at the same time passive is plain from the fact
that he acts only when and as he is acted upon. That is,

500 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
he is passive in the perception of the truth presented by the
Holy Spirit. I know that this preception is no part of regen
eration. But it is simultaneous with regeneration. It indu
ces regeneration. It is the condition and the occasion of re
generation. Therefore the subject of regeneration must be a
passive recipient or percipient of the truth presented by the
Holy Spirit at the moment and during the act of regeneration.
The Spirit acts upon him through or by the truth. Thus far
he is passive. He closes with the truth. Thus far he is active.
What a mistake those theologians have fallen into who repre*
sent the subject as altogether passive in regeneration ! This
rids the sinner at once of the conviction of any duty or re
sponsibility about it. It is wonderful that such an absurdity
should have been so long maintained in the church. But
while it is maintained, it is no wonder that sinners are not
converted to God. Why, while the sinner believes this, itis
impossible if he has it in mind that he should be f egenerated.
He stands and waits for God to do what God requires him to
do, and which no one can do for him. Neither God nor any
other being can regenerate bim if he will not turn. If he will
not change his choice, it is impossible that it should be
changed. Sinners who have been taught thus and have be
lieved what they have been taught, would never have been re
generated had not the Holy Spirit drawn off their attention
from this error, and ere they were aware, induced them to
close in with the offer of life.
X. What is implied in regeneration.
1. The nature of the change shows that it must be instanta
neous. It is a change of choice or of intention. ^This must
be instantaneous. The preparatory work of conviction and
enlightening the mind may have been gradual and progress
ive. But when regeneration occurs, it must be instanta
neous. 2. It implies an entire present change of moral character,
that is, a change from entire sinfulness to entireJioUness. > We
have seen that it consists in a change from selfishness to be
nevolence. We have also seen that selfishness and benevo
lence cannot co-exist in the same mind; that selfishness isa
state of supreme and entire consecration fo self; that benev
olence is a state of entire and supreme consecration to God
and the good of the universe. Regeneration then surely im
plies an entire change of moral character.
Again: The bible represents regeneration as a dying to sin
and becoming alive to God. Death in sin is total depravity.

REGENERATION. 501
This is generally admitted. Death to sin and becoming alive
to God, must imply entire present holiness.
3. The scriptures represent regeneration as the condition
of salvation in such a sense that if the subject should die im
mediately after regeneration and without any further change,
he would go immediately to heaven.
Again: The scripture requires only perseverance in the first
love as the condition of salvation, in case the regenerate soul
should Jive long in the world subseqent to regeneration.
4. When the scriptures require us to grow in grace and in
the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, this does not imply
that there is yet sin remaining in the regenerate heart which
we are required to put away only by degrees. But the spir
it of the requirement must be that we should'acquire as much
knowledge as we can of our moral relations, and continue to
conform to all truth as fast we know it. This and nothing
else is implied in abiding in our first love, or abiding in Christ.
living and walking in the Spirit &c.

LECTURE XL.
REGENERATION.
XI. Philosophical Theories of Regeneration.
Different classes of Theologians have held very different
theories in regard to the philosophy of regeneration, in ac
cordance with their views of moral depravity, of intellectual
philosophy, moral government, and of the freedom^of the
human will. In discussing this subject I will,
/. State the different theories of regeneration that have been
held by different classes of theologians, as I understand them,
and, II. Examine them in their order.
The principal theories that have been advocated, so far as
my knowledge extends, are the following:
1. The Taste Scheme. 2. The Divine Efficiency Scheme.
3. The Susceptibility Scheme. 4. The Divine Moral Sua
sion Scheme.
//. / will examine them in their order.
I. The Taste Scheme.
1. This theory is based upon that view of mental phi
losophy which regards the mental heart as identical with the
sensibility. Moral depravity, according to this school, con
sists in a constitutional relish, taste, or craving for sin. They
hold the doctrine of original sin — of a sinful nature or con
stitution, as was shown in my lectures on moral depravity.
The heart of the mind, in the estimation of this school, is
not identical with choice or intention. They hold that it does
not consist in any voluntary state of mind, but that it lives back
of and controls voluntary action or the actions of the will. The
wicked heart, according to them, consists in an appetency or
constitutional taste for sin, and with them the appetites, pas
sions, and propensities of human nature in its fallen state, are
in themselves sinful. They often illustrate their ideas of the
sinful taste, craving, or appetite for sin, by reference to the
craving of carnivorous animals for flesh. Of course, '
2. A change of heart, in the view of this philosophy, must
consist in a change of constitution. It must be a physical
change, and wrought by a physical, as distinguished from a
moral agency. It is a change wrought by the direct and
physical power of the Holy Spirit in the constitution of the
soul, changing its susceptibilities, implanting, or creating a
new taste, relish, appetite, craving for or love of holiness. It

regeneration. 503
is, as they express it, the implantation of a new principle of
holiness. It is described as a creation of a new taste or prin
ciple, as an infusion of a holy principle, &c. This scheme,
of course, holds, and teaches that in regeneration the
subject is entirely passive. With this school regeneration is
exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit, the subject having
no agency in it. It is an operation performed upon him, may
be, while he is asleep or in a fit of derangement, while he is
entirely passive, or perhaps when at the moment he is en
gaged in flagrant rebellion against God. The agency by
which this work is wrought, according to them, is sovereign,
irresistible, and creative. They hold that there are no means
of regeneration of course as it is a direct act of creation.
They hold the distinction already referred to and examined
between regeneration and conversion; that when the Holy
Spirit has performed the sovereign operation, and implanted
the new principle, then the subject is active in conversion or
in turning to God.
They hold that the soul in its very nature is enmity against
God; that therefore the gospel has no tendency to regenerate
or convert the soul to God; but on the contrary that previous
to regeneration by the sovereign and physical agency of the
Holy Spirit, every exhibition of God made in the Gospel,
v tends only to inflame and provoke this constitutional enmity.
They hold that when the sinful taste, relish, or craving for
sin is weakened, (for they deny that it is ever wholly destroyed
in this life, or while the soul continues connected with the
body,) and a holy taste, relish, or craving is implanted or in
fused by the Holy Spirit into the constitution of the soul,
then, and not till then, the gospel has a tendency to turn or
convert the sinner from the error of his ways.
As I have said, their philosophy of moral depravity is the
basis of their philosophy of regeneration. It assumes the
dogma of original sin as taught in the Presbyterian Confes
sion of Faith, and attempts to harmonize the philosophy of
regeneration with that philosophy of sin or moral depravity.
Upon this scheme or theory of regeneration I remark,
1. That it has been sufficiently refuted in the lectures on
moral depravity. If, as was then shown, moral depravity is
altogether voluntary, and consists in selfishness, or in a vol
untary state of mind, this philosophy of regeneration is of
course without foundation.
2. It was shown in the lectures on moral depravity that sin is
not chosen for its own sake — that there is no constitutional

504 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
relish, taste, or craving for sin — that in sinful choice, sin is not
the end or object chosen, but that self-gratification is chosen,
and that this choice is sinful. If this is so, (and who may not
know that it is?) then the whole philosophy of ¦ the ¦ taste
scheme turns out to be "such stuff as dreams are made of.V
3. The taste, relish, or craving, of which this philosophy
speaks, is not a taste, relish, or craving for sin, but for certain
things and objects, the enjoyment of which is, to a certain
extent, and upon certain conditions, lawful. But wljen the
will prefers the gratification of taste or appetite to higher in
terests, this choice or act of will is sin. The sin never lies in
the appetite, but in the will's consent to unlawful indulgence.
4. This philosophy confounds appetite or temptation to un
lawful indulgence, with sin. Nay, it represents sin as con
sisting mostly, if not altogether, in temptation.
5. It is, as we have seen, inconsistent with both the Bible
definition of sin and of regeneration.
6. It is also inconsistent with the justice of the command
so solemnly given to sinners, " Make you a new heart and a
new spirit, for why will ye die."
7. It also contradicts the Bible representation that men re
generate each other. " For though ye have ten thousand in
structors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers ; for in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." — 1 Cor. 4: 15.
8. It throws the blame of unregeneracy upon God. If
the sinner is passive and has no agency in it; if it consists in
what this philosophy teaches, and is accomplished in the man
ner which this theory represents, it is self-evident that God
alone is responsible for the fact that any sinner is unregene
rate. 9. It represents regeneration as a miracle.
10. It renders hohness after regeneration physically neces
sary, just as sin was before, and perseverance also as physi
cally necessary, and faUing from grace as a natural impossi
bility. In this case holy exercises and living are only the grati
fication of a constitutional appetite.
11. It renders perseverance in holiness no virtue, as it is
only selfcgratification, or the gratification of appetite.
12. It is the assumption of a philosophy at war with the
Bible. 13. Upon this theory regeneration would destroy personal
identity. 2. The Divine Efficiency Scheme or Theory.
This scheme is based upon, or rather is only a carrying out

REGENERATION. 505
of an ancient heathen philosophy, bearing the same name.
This ancient philosophy denies second causes, and teaches
that what we call laws of nature are nothing else than the
mode of Divine operation. It denies that the universe would
even exist for a moment if the Divine upholding were with
drawn. It maintains that the universe exists only by an act
of present and perpetual creation. It denies that matter or
mind has in itself any inherent properties that can originate
laws or motions ; that all action, whether of matter or mind,
is the necessary result of direct Divine irresistible efficiency
or power; that this is not only true of the natural universe,
but also of all the exercises and actions of moral agents in
all worlds.
The abettors of the Divine efficiency scheme of regenera
tion apply this philosophy especially to moral agents. They
hold that all the exercises and actions of moral agents in all
worlds, and whether those exercises be holy or sinful, are
produced by a Divine efficiency, or by a direct act of Omnipo
tence; that holy and sinful acts are afike effects of an irresisti
ble cause, and that this cause is the power and agency or effi
ciency of God.
This philosophy denies constitutional moral depravity or
original sin, and maintains that moral character belongs alone
to the exercises or choices of tue will; that regeneration does
not consist in the creation of any new taste, relish, or craving,
nor in the implantation or infusion of any new principles in
the soul: but that it consists in a choice conformed to the law
of God, or in a change from selfishness to disinterested be
nevolence; that this change is effected by a direct act of Di
vine power or efficiency as irresistible as any creative act
whatever. This philosophy teaches that the moral character
of every moral agent whether holy or sinful, is formed by an
agency as direct, as sovereign, and as irresistible as that which
first gave existence to the universe; that true submission to
God implies the hearty consent of the will to have the char
acter thus formed, and then to be treated accordingly, for the
glory of God. The principal arguments by which this theo
ry is supported so far as I am acquainted with them, are as
follows :
(1.) The bible, its advocates say, teaches it in those texts
that teach the doctrine of a .universal and particular Provi
dence, and that God is present in all events; such for example
as the following : "The lot is cast into the lap ; but the whole
disposing thereof is of the Lord." — Prov. 16: 33. "Lord,

506 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
thou wilt ordain peace for us; for thou also hast wrought a)}
our works in us." — Isaiah 26: 12. "I form the light, and cre
ate darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do
all these <Aj"«g-s."^-Isaiah 45: 7. "And all the inhabitants of
the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to
his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of
the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What
doest thou?" — Daniel 4: 35. "Shall a trumpet be blown in
the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a
city, and the Lord hath not done it?" — Amos 3: 6. "For of
him, and through him, and to him, are all things; to whom be
glory for ever. Amen." — Romans 11: 36. "In whom also
we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated accor
ding to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will." — Ephesians 1: 11. "For it is God
which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good plea
sure." — PhiUppians 2: 13. "Now the God of peace, that
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shep
herd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting cove
nant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will,
working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through
Jesus Christ; to whom fie glory for ever and ever. Amen."
— Hebrews 13: 20, 21. "Blessed be the Lord God of our
fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king'sheart,
to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem," —
Ezra 7: 27. "The preparation of the heart in man, and the
answer of the tongue, is from the Lord. A man's heart de^
viseth his way: hut the Lord directeth his steps." — Proverbs
16: 1,9. "The king's heart is in the hands of the Lord, as
the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." —
Proverbs 21: 1. "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father: we
are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of
thy hand." — Isaiah 64: 8. "And a certain woman named
Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, 'which wor
shipped God, heard us: whose heart theXord opened, that
she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."—
Acts 16: 14. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power
over theclay of the same lump to make one vessel unto hon
or, and another unto dishonor?" — Romans 9: 20, 21. "And
I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and
my wonders in the land of Egypt." — Exodus 7: 3. "And the
Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not

REGENERATION. 507
unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses."— Ex. 9: 12.
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: fori
have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I
might shew these my signs before him." — Ex. 10: 1. "And
the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and
he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of
Israel went out with an high hand. And I, behold I will har
den the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them:
and I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host,
upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen." — Ex. 14: 8, 17.
"But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him:
for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart
obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appear-
elh this day." — Deuteronomy 2: 30. "There was not a city
that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites,
the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For
it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should
come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them ut
terly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might
destroy them as the Lord commanded Moses." — Joshua 11:
19, 20. "And the three hundred blew the trumpets, and the
Lord set every man's sword against his fellow, even through
out all the host: and the host fled to Beth-shittah in Zererath,
and to the border of Abel-meholah, unto Tabbath." —
Judges 7: 22. "And again the anger of the Lord was kin-
died against Israel, and he moved David against them to
say, Go, number Israel and Judah." — 2 Samuel 24: 1.
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit
in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath
spoken evil concerning thee." — 1 Kings 22: 23. "For thou
hast hid their hearts from understanding: therefore shalt
thou not exalt them." — Job 17:4. "He turned their hearts
to hate his people, to deal subtilely with his servants." —
Psalms 105: 25. "For the Lord hath poured out upon you
the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the pro
phets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered." — Isaiah
29: 10. "They have not known nor understood, for he hath
shut their eyes, that they can not see; and their hearts that
they can not understand." — Isaiah 44: 18. "I form the
light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I
the Lord do all these things." — Isaiah 45: 7. "And if the
prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord
have deceived that prophet, and I will destroy him from the
midst of my people Israel." — Ezek. 14: 9. ''The people aa-

508 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
swered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth
for ever; and how sayest thoU, The Son of man must be lifted
up ? who is this son of man ? Then Jusus said unto them, Yet
a little while is the light with you: walk while ye have the light,
lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness
knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe
in the light that ye may be the children of light. These things
spake Jesus and departed, and did hide himself from them.
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet
they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the pro
phet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath be
lieved our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been
revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that
Esaias said again: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened
their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor un
derstand with their heart, and be converted, and I should
heal them. "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glo
ry, and spake of him."— John 12: 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41. "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy^
and whom he will he hardeneth." — Romans 9: 18. "And
with all deceiVableness of unrighteousness in them that per
ish; .because they received not the love of the truth, that they
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them
strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; Thatthey all
might be damned who believed not the truth, but had plea
sure in unrighteousness." — 2 Thessalonians 2: 10, 11, 12.
"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his Will, and to agree,
arid give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of
God shall be fulfilled."— Revelation 17: 17.
I have quoted the passages upon which the defenders of
this scheme lay the principal stress and would remark respec
ting them arid all such like passages,
[1.] Thatthey prove nothing to the point. The question
in debate is not whether God is or is not in some sense pre
sent in every event, or whether there be not some sense in
which every thing may be ascribed to the Providence and
agericy of God, for this their opponents admit arid maintain;
But the true question at issue respects only the quo modo of
the Divine agency of which these passages say nothing. It
is rieither affirmed or implied1 in these passages, nor in any
other that God is the direct, efficient, irresistible agent in all
those cases.
[2i] Other passages abundantly imply and affirm that he is
not the direct, efficient, and irresistible agent in the production

REGENERATION.

509

of moral evil. Example: "Will ye steal, murder, and com
mit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal,
and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and
stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and
say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?" — Jer.
7: 14. " For God is not the author of confusion, but of
peace, as in all churches of the saints." — 1 Cor. 14: 33. " Let
no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for
God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn, away of
his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it
bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth
death. Do not err my beloved brethren. Every good gift
and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from
the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither
shadow of turning." — James 1: 13 — 17. "But if ye have
bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not
against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above,
but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and
strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the
wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle
and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, with
out partiality, and without hypocrisy." — James 3: 14 — 17.
11 These things have I written unto you concerning them that
seduce you." — 1 John 2: 26. " And they said one to another,
We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw
the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would
not hear, therefore is this distress come upon us."— Gen. 42:
21. "And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also,
neither would he let the people go."— Ex. 8: 32. " And Pha
raoh sent and called for Moses and„ Aaron, and said unto them,
I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my
people are wicked." — Ex. 9: 27. " Then Pharaoh called for
Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against
the Lord your God, and against you. Now therefore, forgive,
I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the Lord your
God that he may take away from me this death only." — Ex.
10: 16, 17. "I call heaven and earth to record this day
against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing: therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed
may live." — Deut. 30: 19. " And again the anger of the
Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against
them to say, Go number Israel and Judah. And David's
heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And
43*

510 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have
done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniqui
ty of thy servant, for I have done very foolishly." — 2 Sam.
24: 9, 10. "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their
ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest
at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and 'should understand with their heart, and should
be converted, and I should heal them." — Mat. 13: 15.
These passages plainly teach and imply that God's agency,
to say the least, in the production of sin, isnot direct, efficient,
irresistible. Their Scripture argument then proves nothing
to the purpose of this philosophy.
(2.) Another argument by which the Divine efficiency
scheme has been sustained is that Divine foreknowledge im
plies it.
This is an assumption without the shadow of proof.
(3.) Third argument: The Divine purposes imply it.
This also is a sheer assumption.
(4.) Fourth argument: Prophecy or the foretelling of fu
ture events implies it.
This again is assumption without proof. These arguments
assume that God could not know what future events would be,
especially what the free actions of men would be unless he
produces and controls them by a direct and irresistible effi
ciency. (5.) Fifth argument: The bible ascribes both the holy and
sinful actions of man to God, and in equally unqualified
terms. This settles nothing of the quo modo in either case. '
(6.) It is admitted, say some, that holy actions are produced
by a direct divine efficiency; and as the bible ascribes the
sinful actions of men to God in as unqualified terms as holy
ones we have no right to infer a difference in the quo modo oi
his doing it.
We are not only allowed, but are bound to infer that his
agency is different in the one case from what it is in the other.
The bible has, as we shall see, settled the philosophy, or the
manner in which he produces holy exercises in moral agents..
It also every where assumes or affirms that he is concerned
only providentially in the production of sin; that sin is an
abuse of his providence and ofthe liberty; ofmoral agents.
(7.) It has been assumed that it is naturally impossible for
God to create a being that should have the power of originat
ing his own actions;

REGENERATION. 511
This is purely an assumption, and' of no weight Whatever. It
certainly is not an affirmation of reason; and I can not see
any ground for such an affirmation.
(8.) It has been asserted that if such a creature existed, he
would be independent of God in such a sense that God could
neitheF certainly control him, nor know what he would do.
This is a mere begging of the question. How can this be
known? This argument assumes that even Omniscience can
not know how a free moral agent would act upon condition of
his originating his own choices, intentions and actions. But
why this assumption? OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY.
I. It is mere philosophy, and that falsely so called.
2. It is supported, so far as I can see, only by the most un
warrantable assumptions.
3. Its tendency condemns it. It tends,
(I.) To beget and perpetuate a sense of divine injustice.
To create a character by an agency as direct and irresistible
as that of the creation of the world itself, and then treat moral
beings according to that character so formed, is wholly incon
sistent with all our ideas of justice.
(2.) It destroys a sense of accountability, or tends to de
stroy it.
(3.) It contradicts human consciousness. I know it is said
that consciousness only gives our mental actions and states,
but not the cause of them. This I deny, and affirm that con
sciousness not only gives us our mental actions and states, but
it also gives us the cause of them, especially it gives the fact
that we ourselves are the sovereign and efficient causes ofthe
choices and actions of our will. In our passive states we can
almost always recognize the cause of these phenomena. .At
least we can very often do so. I am as conscious of originat
ing in a sovereign manner my choices as I am of the choices
themselves. 4. This theory virtually denies, or rather stultifies the eter
nal distinction between liberty and necessity.
5. If this theory were true, with our present consciousness
we can not believe it. We can not but affirm to ourselves
that we are the efficient causes of our choices and volitions.
6. The philosophy in question really represents God as the
only agent, in any proper sense of that term, in the universe..
If God produces the exercises ofmoral beings in the manner

512 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
represented by this philosophy, they are in fact no more agents
than the planets are agents. If their exercises are all di
rectly created by the power of God, it is ridiculous to call
them agents.
'7. If this theory is true, what we generally call moral
beings and moral agents, are no more so than the winds and
the waves or any other substance or thing in the universe.
8. Again: if this theory be true, no being but God has or
can have moral character. No other being is the author of
his own actions. He is the subject, but not the author of his
actions. He is the passive subject, but not the active efficient
cause of his own exercises. To affirm moral character of such
a passive subject is truly ridiculous.
9. This theory obliges its advocates, together with all
other necessitarians, to give a false and nonsensical definition
of free agency. Free agency, according to them, consists in
doing as we will, while their theory denies the power to will
except as our willings are necessitated by God. But as we
have seen in former lectures, this is no true account of free
dom, or liberty. Liberty to execute my choices is no liberty
at all. Choice is connected with its sequents by a law of ne
cessity; and if an effect follow my volitions, that effect follows
by necessity and not freely. All freedom of will must, as
was formerly shown, consist in the sovereign power to origi
nate our own choices. If I am unable to will I am unable
to do any thing, and it is absurd and ridiculous to affirm that
a being is a moral or a free agent who has not power to
originate his own choices.
10. If this theory is true, God is more than the accomplice
of the devil ; for
(1.) Satan can not tempt us acccording to this theory, unless
God by a direct divine efficiency moves him and compels him
to do so.
(2.) We can not possibly yield to his temptation except as
God compels us to yield or creates the yielding within us.
This is a blasphemous theory surely that represents God as
doing such things. That a philosophy like this could ever
have been taught will appear incredible to many, I doubt not.
But such is the fact, and such the true statement of the views
of this class of theologians, if I can understand them.
11. But this theory is inconsistent with the bible, as we
have seen. -
12. It is also inconsistent with itself, for it both affirms and
denies natural ability. Its advocates admit that we can not

REGENERATION. 513
act except as we will, and affirm that we can not will except
as our willing* are created by a direct divine efficiency.
How absurd then it is to maintain that we have natural
ability to do any thing. All that can truly be said of us upon
the principles of this theory is that we have a susceptibility
to be acted upon, and to be rendered the subjects of certain
states immediately and irresistibly created by the power of
God. But it is absurd to call this a natural ability to do our
duty. J
13. If this theory is true, the whole moral government of
God is the merest farce and humbug that ever existed. The
gospel is an insult to men in two respects at least:
(1.) Upon this theory men do not, can not deserve punish
ment. (2.) If they do, the gospel is presented and urged upon
their acceptance, when in fact they have no more power to
accept it than they have to create a world.
14. Again: this theory overlooks and virtually denies the
fundamentally important distinction between moral and physi
cal power and moral and physical government. All power
and all government upon this theory are physical.
15. Again: this theory renders repentance and self-con
demnation impossible as a rational exercise.
16. This theory involves the delusion of ajl moral beings.
God not only creates our volitions, but also creates the per
suasion and affirmation that we are responsible for them., 0,
shame on such a theory as this!
III. The Susceptibility Scheme is next to be considered.
¦ 1. I shall state what this scheme is.
2. In what this theory agrees with the theory of Divine
Moral Suasion.
3. In what those theories differ.
4. State the arguments by which this theory is defended.
5. State the difficulties with which it is encumbered
1. What this theory is.
This theory represents that the Holy Spirit's influences are
both physical and moral; that He by a direct and physical in
fluence excites the susceptibilities of the soul and prepares
them to be affected by the truth; that He thereupon exerts
a moral or persuasive influence by presenting the truth, which
moral influence induces regeneration.
2. Wherein this and the Divine Moral Suasion theory
agree. (1.) In rejecting the Taste and Divine Efficiency Schemes

514 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
(2.) In rejecting the dogma of constitutional moral de
pravity. (3.) In rejecting the dogma of physical regeneration; for be
it remembered that this theory teaches that the physical in
fluence exerted in exciting the susceptibilities is no part of re
generation. (4.) They agree in maintainnig the natural ability or lib
erty of all moral agents.
(5.) That the constitutional appetites and passions have no
moral character in themselves.
(6.) That when strongly excited they are the occasions of
sin. (7.) That sin and moral depravity are identical, and that they
consist in a violation of the moral law.
(8.) That the moral heart is the ruling preference or ulti
mate intention of the mind.
(9.) That the carnal mind or heart is selfishness.
(10.) That the new or regenerate heart is benevolence.
(11.) That regeneration consists in a change from selfish
ness to benevolence, or from the supreme love of self to the
supreme love of God and the equal love of our neighbor.
(12.) That this change is effected by the truth presented by
the Holy Spirit or by a Divine moral persuasion.
3. Wherein they differ.
This philosophy maintains the necessity and the fact of a
physical influence superadded to the moral or persuasive in
fluence of the Holy Spirit as a sine qua non oi regeneration.
The Divine moral suasion theory regards regeneration as be
ing induced alone by a moral influence. This theory also ad
mits and maintains that regeneration is effected solely by a
moral influence, but also that a work preparatory to the effi
ciency of the moral influence and indispeftsable to its efficiency
in producing regeneration is performed by a direct and physi
cal agency of the Holy Spirit upon the constitutional suscep
tibilities of the soul to quicken and wake it up and predispose
it to be deeply and duly affected by the truth. The arguments
by which that part Of this theory which relates to a physical
influence of the Holy Spirit is supported are, so far as I am
acquainted with them, as follows:
(1.) It is maintained by the defenders of this scheme that
the representations of the bible upon the subject of the Holy
Spirit's agency in regeneration are such as to forbid the sup
position that His influence is altogether moral or persuasive,
and such as plainly to indicate that He also exerts a physical

REGENERATION. 515
agency in preparing the mind to be duly effected by the
truth. In reply to this argument I observe,
[1.] That I fear greatly to disparage the work and agency
of the Holy Spirit in the work of man's redemption from sin,
and would by no means resist or deny, or so much as call in
question any thing that is plainly taught or implied in the bible
upon this subject.
[2.] I admit and maintain that regeneration is always indu
ced and effected by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit.
The question now before us relates wholly to the mode and not
at all to the fact of the Divine agency in regeneration. Let this
be distinctly understood for it has been common for theologi
ans of the old school, as soon as the dogma of a physical re
generation and of a physical influence in regeneration has
been called in question, to cry out and insist that this is Pela
gianism, and that it is a denial of divine influence altogether,
and thatit is teaching a self- regeneration independent of any
divine influence. I have been ashamed of such representations
as these on the part of christian divines and have been dis
tressed by their want of candor. It should, however, be dis
tinctly stated that, so far as I know, the defenders of the the
ory now under consideration have never manifested this want
of candor towards those who have called in question that part
of their theory that relates to a physical influence.
[3.] Since the advocates of this theory admit that the Bible
teaches that regeneration is induced by a Divine moral sua
sion, the point of debate is simply whether the Bible teach
es that there is also a physical influence exerted by the
Holy Spirit in exciting the constitutional susceptibilities. We
will now attend to their proof texts. " Then opened he their
understanding that they might understand the Scriptures."—
Luke 24: 45. It is affirmed that this text seems to teach or
imply a physical influence in opening their understandings.
But "what do we mean by such language as this in common
life? Language is to be understood according to the subject
matter of discourse. Here the subject of discourse is the
understanding. But what can be intended by opening it?
Can this be a physical prying, pulling, or forcing open any
department of the constitution? Such language in common
life would be understood only to mean that such instruction
was imparted as to secure a right understanding of the Scrip
tures. Every one knows this, and why should we suppose
and assume that any thing more is intended here? The con
text plainly indicates that this was the thing and the only

516 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
thing done in this case. " Then he said unto them, O fools,
and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter
into his glory ? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets
he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things con
cerning himself. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and
thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and t6 rise from the dead
the third day." — Luke 24: 25 — 27, 46. From these verses it
appears that he expounded the Scriptures to them, when in
the light of what had passed, and in the light of that measure
of Divine illumination which was then imparted to them, they
understood the things which He explained to them. It does
not seem to me that this passage warrants the inference that
there was a physical influence exerted. It certainly affirms
no such thing. 'r " And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller
of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God,
heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended
unto the things which were spoken of Paul." — Acts 16: 14.
Here is an expression similar to that just examined. Here it
is said that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia so that she
attended, &c; that is, the Lord inclined her to attend. But
how? Why, say the advocates of this scheme, by a physical
influence. But how does this appear? What is her heart that
it should be pried, or pulled, or forced open? and what can
be intended by the assertion that the Lord opened her heart?
All that can be meant is that the Lord secured her attention
and disposed her to attend, and so enlightened her when she
did attend that she believed. Surely here is no assertion of
a physical influence, nor, so far as I can see, any just ground
for the inference that such an influence was exerted. A moral
influence can sufficiently explain all the phenomena; and any
text that can equally well consist with eitherof two opposing
theories can prove neither.
Again, there are many passages that represent God as open
ing the spiritual eyes, and passages in which petitions are
offered to God to do this. It is by this theory assumed that
such passages strongly imply a physical influence. But this
assumption appears to me unwarrantable. We are in the
habit of using just such language and speak of opening each
other's eyes when no such thing is intended or implied as a
physical influence, and when nothing more than a moral or
persuasive influence is so much as thought of. Why then
resort to such an assumption here? Does the nature of the
case demand it? This I know is contended by those who

REGENERATION. 517
maintain a constitutional moral depravity. But this dogma
has been shown to be false, and it is admitted to be so by
those who maintain the theory now under consideration.
Admitting, then, that the constitution is not morally de
praved, should it be inferred that any constitutional change
or physical influence is needed to produce regeneration? I
can see no sufficient reason for believing or affirming that a
fhysical influence is either demanded or exerted. This much
freely admit, that we can not affirm the impossibility of such
an influence, nor the impossibility of the necessity of such an
influence. The only question with me is, does the bible
plainly teach or imply such an influence? Hitherto I have
been unable to see that it does. The passages already quoted
are ofa piece with all that are relied upon in supportof this
theory, and as the same answer is a sufficient reply to them
all I will not spend time in citing and remarking upon them.
(2.) Again : A physical influence has been inferred from
the fact that sinners are represented as dead in trespasses and
sins, as asleep, &c. &c. But all such representations are
only declaratory of a moral state, a state of voluntary aliena
tion from God. If the death is moral and the sleep moral,
why suppose that a physical influence is needed to correct a
moral evil? Can not truth when urged and pressed by the
Holy Spirit effect the requisite change?
(3.) But a physical influence is also inferred from the fact
that truth makes so different an impression at one time from
what it does at another. Answer: This can well enough be
accounted for by the fact that sometimes the Holy Spirit so
presents the truth that the mind apprehends it and feels its
power, whereas at another time he does not.
(4.) But it is said that there sometimes appears to have been
a preparatory work performed by a physical influence predis
posing the mind to attend to and be affected by the truth.
Answer: There often is no doubt a preparatory work predis
posing the mind to attend to and be affected by truth. But
why assume that this is a physical influence? Providential
occurrences may have had much to do with it. The Holy
Spirit may have been directing the thoughts and communica
ting instructions in various ways and preparing the mind to
attend and obey. Who then is warranted in the affirmation
that this preparatory influence is physical? I admit that it may
be, but I can not see either that it must be, or that there is
any good ground for the assumption that itis.
44

518 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
IV. The last theory to be examined is that ofa Divine Moral
Suasion. This theory teaches,
1. That regeneration consists in a change in the ultimate
intention or preference of the mind, or in a change from sel
fishness to disinterested benevolence, and,
2. That this change is induced and effected by a Divine
moral influence; that is, that the Holy Spirit effects it with,
through, or by the truth. The advocates of this theory as
sign the following as the principal reasons in support of it.
(1.) The bible expressly affirms it. "Jesus answered, Ve
rily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit." — John 3: 5, 6. "Being born
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word
of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."— 1 Peter 1 : 23.
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that
we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures." — James
1: 18. "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ
yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begot
ten you through the gospel. "^Corinthians 4: 15.
(2.) Men are represented as being sanctified by and through
the truth. "Sanctify them through the truth: thy word is
truth." — John 17: 17. "Now ye are clean through the word
which I have spoken unto you." — John 15: 3.
(3.) The nature of regeneration decides the philosophy of
it so far as this, that it must be effected by truth addressed to
the heart through the intelligence.
(4.) Unless it is so effected it has no moral character.
(5.) The regenerate are conscious of having been influ
enced by the truth in turning to God.
(6.) They are conscious of no other influence than light
poured upon the intelligence or truth presented to the mind.
(7.) When God affirms that he regenerates the soul with or
by the truth we have no right to infer that he does it in some
other way. This he does affirm; therefore the bible has set
tled the philosophy of regeneration. That he exerts any
other than a moral influence or the influence of Divine teach
ing and illumination is sheer assumption.
OBJECTIONS.
1. To represent sinners as regenerated by the influence of
truth although presented and urged by the Holy Spirit is
virtually to deny total depravity. To this it is answered,

REGENERATION.

519

(1.) It does indeed deny constitutional moral depravity
and constitutional or physical regeneration.
(2.) Adam and the sinning angels were changed or regen
erated from perfect holiness to perfect sinfulness by motives
presented to them, at least Adam was. Now if they
could be regenerated from entire holiness to entire sinfulness
by a moral influence or by means of a lie, is it impossible that
God should convert sinners by means of truth? Has God
so much less moral power than Satan has?
(3.) To this it may be replied that it is much easier to con
vert or regenerate men from holiness to sin, than from sin to
holiness. [1.] This, I answer, seems to reflect upon the wisdom and
goodness of God in forming the human constitution.
[2.] Should the fact be granted, still it may truly be urged
that tiie motives to holiness are infinitely greater than those
to sin, so that the Holy Spirit has altogether the advantage
in this respect.
2. If sinners are regenerated by the light of the truth, they
may be regenerated in hell as they will there know the truth.
(1.) The bible I answer, represents the wicked in hell as
being in darkness and not in the light of the truth.
(2.) The truth will not be presented and urged home there
by the persuasive Spirit of God.
(3.) The gospel motives will be wanting there. The offer
of pardon and acceptance, which is indispensable to induce
repentance and obedience, will not be made then. There
fore sinners will not be converted in hell.

REMARKS.

1. This scheme honors the Holy Spirit without disparaging
the truth of God.
2. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit through the truth illus
trates the wisdom of God. There is a deep and Divine phil
osophy in regeneration.
3. This theory is of great practical importance. For if
sinners are to be regenerated by the influence of truth, argu
ment, and persuasion, then ministers can see what they have
to do, and how it is that they are to be " workers together
with God."
4. So also sinners may see that they are not to wait for a
physical regeneration or influence, but must submit to, and em
brace the truth if they ever expect to be saved.

520 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
5. If this scheme is true, we can see that when truth is
made clear to the mind and is resisted, the Holy Spirit is re
sisted, for this is his work to make the mind clearly to appre
hend the truth. ,.
6. If this theory is true, sinners are most likely tp be re
generated while sitting under the sound of the gospel, while
listening to the clear exhibition of truth.
%A,% Ministers should lay themselves out and press every con
sideration upon the attention of sinners just as heartily and
as freely as if they expected to convert them themselves.
They should aim at and expect the regeneration of sinners
upon the spot and before they leave the house of God.
8. Sinners must not wait for and expect physical omnipo
tence to regenerate them.
9. The physical omnipotence of God affords no presump
tion that all men will be converted; for regeneration is not
. effected by physical power.
10. To neglect and resist the truth is fatal to salvation.
11. Sinners are riot regenerated because they neglect and
resist the truth.
12. God can not do the sinner's duty and regenerate him
without the right exercise of the sinner's own agency.
13. This view of regeneration shows that the sinner's de
pendence upon the Holy Spirit arises entirely out of his own
voluntary stubbornness, and that his guilt is all the greater
by how much the more perfect this kind of dependence is.
14. This view of regeneration shows the adaptedness of
the Law and Gospel of God to regenerate, sanctify and save
the souls of men.
15. It also demonstrates the wisdom of appointing such
means and instrumentalities to accomplish their salvation.
16. Physical regeneration under every modification of itis
a stumbling block.
17. Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regener
ation, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas are alike
subversive of the gospel and repulsive to the human intelli
gence, and should be laid aside as relicts of a most nonsen
sical philosophy.

LECTURE XLL
REGENERATION.
XII. Evidences of Regeneration.
In the discussion of this subject I will,
I. Make several introductory remarks.
II. Show wherein the experience and outward life
SAINTS AND SINNERS MAY AGREE.
III. Wherein they must differ. «
/. Introductory Remarks.
1. In ascertaining what are and what are not evidences of
regeneration, we must constantly keep in mind what is not and
what is regeneration, what is not and what is implied in it.
2. We must constantly recognize the fact that saints and
sinners have precisely similar constitutions and constitutional
susceptibilities and that therefore many things are common to
both. 3. What is common to both can not of course be an evi
dence of regeneration.
4. That no state of the sensibility has any moral character
in itself. That regeneration does not consist in or imply any
physical change whatever either of the intellect, sensibility,
or the faculty of will.
5. That the sensibility of the sinner is susceptible of every
kind and degree oi feeling that is possible to saints.
6. The same is true of the consciences of both saints and
sinners, and of the intelligence generally.
7. That moral character belongs to the ultimate intention.
8. That regeneration consists in a change of the ultimate
intention. 9. That the moral character is as the ultimate intention is.
10. The enquiry is, what are evidences of a change in the
ultimate intention ? What is evidence that benevolence is the
ruling choice, preference, intention of the soul?
This, it would seem, must be a plain question and must
admit of a very easy and satisfactory answer.
It is a plain question, and demands and may have a plain an
swer. But so much error has prevailed as to the nature of re
generation and consequently as to what are evidences of re
generation that we need patience, discrimination, and perse
verance and withal candor to get at the truth upon this sub
ject. 44*

522 systematic theology.
//. Wherein the experience and outward life of saints and sin
ners may agree.
It is plain that they may be alike in whatever does not
consist in or necessarily proceed from the attitude of their
will, that is, in whateveris constitutional or involuntary. For
example, /
1. They may both desire their own happiness. This de
sire is constitutional, and of course common to both saints and
sinners. 2. They may both desire > the happiness of others. This
also is constitutional and of course common to both saints and
sinners. There is no moral , character in these desires any
more than there is in the desire for food and drink. „ That men
have a natural desire for the happiness of others is evident
from the fact that they manifest pleasure when others are
happy unless they have some selfish reason for envy, or un
less the happiness of others is in some way inconsistent with
their own. They also manifest uneasiness and pain when
they see others in misery, unless they have some selfish rea
son for desiring their misery.
3. Saints and sinners may alike dread their own misery
and the misery of others. This is strictly constitutional, and
has therefore no moral character. I have, known that very
wicked men arid men who had been infidels when they were
convinced of the truths of Christianity, manifested great con
cern about their families and about their neighbors, and in one
instance I heard of an aged man of this description who when
convinced of the truth, went and warned his neighbors to flee
from the wrath to come, avowing at the same time his
conviction that there was no mercy for him, though he felt
deeply concerned- for others. Such like cases have repeated
ly been witnessed. The case of the rich man in hell seems
to have been one of this description or to have illustrated the
same truth. Although he knew his own case to be hopeless,
yet he desired that Lazarus should fee sent to warn his five
brethren lest they also should come to that place of torment.
In this case and in the case of the aged man just named it ap
pears that they not only desired that others should avoid mis
ery, but they actually tried to prevent it and used the means
that were within their reach to save them. Now it is plain
that this desire took control of their will and of course the
state of the will was selfish. It sought to gratify desire. It
was the pain and dread of seeing their misery and of having
them miserable that led them to use means to prevent it. This

regeneration. 523
was not benevolence, but selfishness. It no doubt increases
the misery of sinners in hell to have their number multiplied,
that is, they being moral agents can not but be unutterably
pained to behold the wretchedness around them. This may
and doubtless will make up a great part of the misery of de
vils and of wicked men, the beholding to all eternity the misery
which they have occasioned. They will not only be filled
with remorse; but undoubtedly their souls will be unutterably
agonized with the misery they will behold around them.
Let it be understood then that as both saints and sinners
constitutionally desire, not only their own happiness, but also
the happiness of others, they may alike rejoice in the happi
ness and safety of others and in converts to Christianity, and
may alike grieve at the danger and misery of those who are
unconverted. I well recollect when far from home and while
an impenitent sinner I received a letter from my youngest
brother informing me that he was converted to God. He, if
he was converted, was, as I supposed, the first and the only
member of the family who then had a hope of salvation. I
was at the time and both before and after one of the most carej
less sinners, and yet on receiving this intelligence, I actually
wept for joy and gratitude that one of so prayerless a family
was likely to be saved.
Indeed I have repeatedly known sinners to manifest much
interest in the conversion of their friends and express grati
tude for their conversion although they had no religion them
selves. These desires have no moral character in themselves.
In as far as they control the will, the will yielding to impulse
instead of the law of the intelligence then is selfishness.
4. Saints and sinners may agree in desiring their own sancti
fication and the sanctification of others. They may both de
sire their own sanctification as the condition of their salvation.
They may also desire the sanctification of others as the con
dition of their salvation.
5. Saints and sinners may both desire to be useful as a con
dition of their own salvation.
6. They may also desire that others should be useful as a
condition of their salvation.
7. They may both desire to glorify God as a means or con
dition of their own salvation.
8. They may also desire to have others glorify God as a
means of their salvation. These desires are natural and con
stitutional when the salvation either of ourselves or others is

524 systematic theology.
desired and when these things are seen to be conditions of
salvation. 9. They may both desire and strongly desire a revival of
religion and the prosperity of Zion as a means of promoting
their own salvation or the salvation of their friends. Sinners
have often been known to desire revivals of religion.
10. They may agree in desiring the triumph of truth and
righteousness and the suppression of vice and error for the
sake of the bearings of these things on self and friends.
These desires are constitutional and natural to both under
certain circumstances. When they do not influence the will
they have in themselves no moral character. But when they
influence the will, their selfishness takes on this type. It
then manifests zeal in promoting religion. But if desire and
not the intelligence, controls the will, it is selfishness notwith
standing. 11. Moral agents constitutionally approve of what is right
and disapprove of what is wrong. Of course both saints and
sinners may both approve of and delight in goodness. I can
recollect weeping at an instance of what at the time I sup
posed to be goodness, while at the same time I was not reli
gious myself. I have no doubt that wicked men not only often
are conscious of strongly approving the goodness of God, but
that they also often take delight in contemplating it. This is
constitutional both as it respects the intellectual approbation
and also as it respects the feeling of delight. It is a great mis
take to suppose that sinners never are conscious of feelings of
complacence and delight in the goodness of God. The Bible
represents sinners as taking delight in drawing near to him.
"Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a
nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance
of their God: they ask of me the ordinances^ justice; they
take delight in approaching to God. — Isa. 58: 2. "And lo,
thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a
pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they
hear thy words, but they do them not." — Ezek. 33: 32. "For
I delight in the law of God after the inward man." — Romans
7:22. 12. Saints and sinners may alike not only intellectually ap
prove, but have feelings of deep complacency in the charac
ters of good men, sometimes good men of their own time and
of, their acquaintance, but more frequently good men either
of a former age, or if of their own age, ofa distant country.
The reason is this: Good men of their own day and neighbor-

REGENERATION. 525
hood are very apt to render them uneasy in their sins, to an
noy them by their faithful reproofs and rebukes. This offends
them and overcomes their natural respect for goodness. But
who has not observed the fact that good and bad men unite in
praising, admiring, and loving so far as feeling is concerned,
good men of by-gone days, or good men at a distance whose
hfe and rebukes have annoyed the wicked in their own neigh
borhood? The fact is, that moral agents from the laws of their
being, necessarily intellectually approve of goodness wherev
er they witness it. And when not annoyed by it, when left to
contemplate it in the abstract or at a distance, they cannot
but feel a complacency in it. Multitudes of sinners are con
scious of this and suppose that this is a virtuous feeling in
them. It is of no use to deny that they sometimes have feel
ings of love and gratitude to God, and of respect for and com
placency in good men. They often have these feelings and
to represent them as always having feelings of hatred and of
opposition to God and to good men, is sure either to offend
them or to lead them to deny the truths of religion; if they
are told that the Bible teaches this. Or again it may lead
them to think themselves Christians because they are con
scious of such feelings as they are taught to believe are pecu
liar to Christians. Or again, they may think that although
they are not Christians, yet they are far from being totally de
praved, inasmuch as they have so many good desires andfeel-
ings. It should never be forgotten that saints and sinners may
agree in their opinions and intellectual views and judgments.
Many professors of rehgion, it is to be feared, have supposed
religion to consist in desires and feelings and have entirely
mistaken their own character. Indeed nothing is more com
mon than to hear religion spoken of as consisting altogether
in mere feelings, desires and emotions. Professors relate
their feelings and suppose themselves to be giving an account
of their religion. It is infinitely important that both profes
sors of religion and non-professors should understand more
than most of them do of their mental constitution and of the
true nature of rehgion. Multitudes of professors of religion
have, it is to he feared, a hope founded altogether upon desires
and feelings that are purely constitutional, and therefore com
mon to both saints and sinners.
13. Saints and sinners agree in this that they both disap
prove of and are often disgusted with and deeply abhor sin.
They can not but disapprove of sin. Necessity is laid upon
every moral agent, whatever his character may be, by the law

526 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
of his being, to condemn and disapprove of sin. And often
the sensibility of sinners as well as saints is filled with deep
disgust and loathing in view of sini I know that representa
tions the direct opposite of these are often made. Sinners
are represented as universally having complacency in sin, as
having a constitutional craving for sin as they do for food and
drink. But such representations are false and most injurious.
They contradict the sinner's consciousness, and lead him either
to deny his total depravity, or to deny the Bible, or to think
himself regenerate. As was shown when upon the subject of
moral depravity, sinners do not love sin for its own sake; but
they crave other things, and this leads to prohibited indulgence,
which indulgence is sin. But it is not the sinfulness of the
indulgence that was desired. That might have produced
disgust and loathing in the sensibility if it had been consid
ered even at the moment of the indulgence. For example:
Suppose a licentious man, a drunkard, a gambler, or any other
wicked man, engaged in his favorite indulgence, and suppose
that the sinfulness of this indulgence should be strongly set
before his mind by the Holy Spirit. He might be deeply
ashamed and disgusted with himself, and so much so as to feel
a great contempt for himself, and feel almost ready, were it
possible, to spit in his own face. And yet unless this feeling
becomes more powerful than the desire and feeling which the
will is seeking to indulge, the indulgence will be persevered
in notwithstanding this disgust. If the feeling of disgust
should, for the time, overmatch the opposing desire, the in
dulgence will be, for the time being, abandoned for the sake
of gratifying or appeasing the feeling of disgust. But this is
not virtue. It is only a change in the form of selfishness.
Feeling still governs, and not the law of the intelligence.
The indulgence is only abandoned for the time being to grati
fy a stronger impulse of the sensibility. The will, will of
course return to the indulgence again,, when the feelings of
fear, disgust, or loathing subside. This no doubt accounts
for the multitudes of spurious conversions sometimes wit
nessed. Sinners are convicted, and their fears, and disgust,
and loathing excited. These feelings, for the time, become
stronger than their desires for their former indulgences, and
consequently they abandon them for a time, in obedience,
not to the law of God or of their intelligence, but in obedi
ence to their fears, disgust and shame. But when conviction
subsides, and the consequent feelings are no more, these spu
rious converts " return like a dog to his Vomit, and like a sow

REGENERATION. 527
that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." It should be
distinctly understood that all these feelings of which I have
spoken, and indeed any class or degree of mere feelings may
exist in the sensibility; and further that these or any other
feelings may in their turns control the will, and produce of
course a corresponding outward life, and yet the heart be and
remain all the while in a selfish state, or in a state of total de
pravity. Indeed it is perfectly common to see the impenitent
sinner manifest much disgust and opposition to sin in himself
and in others, yet this is not principle in him; it is only the
effect of present feehng. The next day, or perhaps hour, he
will repeat his sin, or do that which when beheld in others
enkindled his indignation.
14. Both saints and sinners approve of and often delight in
justice. It is common to see in courts of justice and on vari
ous occasions impenitent sinners manifest great complacency
in the administration of justice and the greatest indignation
at and aborrence of injustice. So strong is this feeling
sometimes that it can not be restrained, but will burst forth
like a smothered volcano and carry desolation before it. It
is this natural love of justice and abhorrence of injustice com
mon alike to saints and sinners, to which popular tumults and
bloodshed are often to be ascribed. This, to be sure, is not
virtue, but selfishness. It is the will giving itself up to the
gratification of a constitutional impulse. But such feelings
and such conduct are often supposed to be virtuous. It
should always be borne in mind that the love of justice and the
sense of delight in it, and the feeling of opposition to injus
tice is not only not peculiar to good men, but that such feel
ings are no evidence whatever of a regenerate heart. Thou
sands of instances might be adduced as proofs and illustrations
of this position. But such manifestations are too common to
need to be cited to remind any one of their existence.
15. The same remarks may be made in regard to truth.
Both saints and sinners have a constitutional respect for, ap
probation of, and delight in truth. Whoever knew a sinner
to approve of the character of a liar? What sinner will
not resent it to be accused or even suspected of lying?
All men spontaneously manifest their respect for, compla
cency in, and approbation of truth. This is constitutional;
so that even the greatest liars do not and can not love lying
for its own sake. They lie to gratify, not a love for false
hood on its own account, but to obtain some object which
they desire more strongly than they hate falsehood. Sinners,

528 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
in spite of themselves venerate, respect and fear a man of
truth. They just as necessarily despise a liar. If they are
liars they despise themselves for it just as drunkards and de
bauchees despise themselves for indulging their filthy lusts,
and yet continue in them.
16. Both saints and sinners not only approve of and de
light in good men, when, as I have said, wicked men are not
annoyed by them, but they agree in reprobating, disapproving
and abhorring wicked men and devils. Whoever heard of
any other sentiment and feeling expressed either by good or
bad men, than of abhorrence and indignation toward the
devil ? Nobody ever approved or can approve of his character;
sinners can no more approve of it than holy angels can. If he
could approve of and delight in his own character hell would
cease to be hell and evil would become his go'od. But no
moral agent can by any possibility know wickedness and ap
prove it. No man, saint or sinner, can entertain any other
sentiment and feeling toward the. devil or wicked men than
those of disapprobation, distrust, disrespect,; arid often' of
loathing and abhorrence. The intellectual sentiment will
be uniform. Disapprobation, distrust, condemnation will al
ways necessarily possess the minds of all who know wicked
men and devils. And often, as occasions arise wherein their
characters are clearly revealed, and under circumstances fa
vorable to such a result, the deepest feelings oi disgust, of
loathing, of indignation and abhorrence of their wickedness,
will manifest themselves alike among saints and sinners.
17. Saints and sinners may be equally honorable and fair
in business transactions so far as the outward act is concerned.
To be sure they have different reasons for their conduct, but
outwardly it may be the same. This leads to the remark,
18. That selfishness in the sinner and benevolence in the
saint may and often do produce, in many respects, the same
results or manifestations. For example: benevolence in the
saint and selfishness in the sinner may beget the same class
of desires, to wit, as we have seen, desire for their own
sanctification, and for that of others, to be useful and have
others so, desires for the conversion of sinners, and many such
like desires.
19. This leads to the remark that when the desires of an
impenitent person for these objects become strong enough to
influence the will, he may take the same outward course sub
stantially that the saint takes in obedience to his intelligence.
That is, the sinner is constrained by his feelings to do what

REGENERATION. 329
the saint does from principle or from obedience to the law of
his intelligence. In this however, although the outward
manifestations be the same for the time being, yet the sinner
is entirely selfish and the saint benevolent. The saint is con
trolled by principle and the sinner by impulse. In this case
time is needed to distinguish between them. The sinner not
having the root of the matter in him, will return to his former
course of life in proportion as his convictions of the truth and
importance of religion subside, and his former /ee/Mjg*,return;
while the saint will evince his heavenly birth by manifesting
his sympathy with God and the strength of principle that has
taken possession of his heart. That is, he will manifest that
his intelligence, and not his feelings, controls his will.
20. Saints and sinners may both love and hate the same
things, but for different and opposite reasons. For example
They may both love the Bible; the saint benevolently and
the sinner selfishly; that is, the saint loves the Bible for
benevolent, and the sinner for selfish reasons. They may
love Christians for opposite reasons, the saint for their likeness*
to Christ, the sinner because he considers them the favorites
of heaven, as his particular friends, or because he in some
way hopes to be benefitted by them, or from a mere constitu
tional complacency in goodness. Now observe: the Christ
ian may have the same constitutional feelings as the sinner,
and besides these, he may have reasons for his love and con
duct peculiar to the saint. The saint and sinner may, for
different and opposite reasons, be interested in, and deeply
affected with the character of God, with the truth, the sant:
tuary, and in all the duties of religion, and all the means oi
grace. They may alike, but for different reasons, hate irifir
delity, error, sin, sinners, selfishness. A selfish sinner, may
deeply abhor selfishness in others, and even in himself, and
.still persevere in it.
21. Again: Selfishness in the 3inner and benevolerice in
the saint may lead them to form similar resolutions and pur
poses; for example: to serve God— to avoid all sin — :to do
all duty — to do right — to be useful — to persevere in well-do
ing — to live for eternity — to set a good example — to pay the
strictest regard to the Sabbath and to all the institutions of
religion — to do all that in them lies to support religious insti
tutions. 22. Saints and sinners may agree in their views of doctrine
and of measures, may be equally zealous in the cause of God
and religion; may be equally enlightened; may experience
45

530 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
delight in prayer, and in religious meetings, and in religious
exercises generally. ,
23. Both may be greatly changed in feeling and in life.
24. They may both give all their goods to feed the poor,
or to support the gospel and send it to the heathen.
25. They may both go as missionaries to the heathen, but
for entirely different reasons.
26. They may have equal convictions of sin, and their sen
sibilities may be similarly affected by these convictions.
27. They may both have great sorrow for sin, and great
loathing of self on account of it.
28. They may have equal feelings of gratitude to God.
29. They may both appear to manifest all the graces of
true saints.
30. They may both be very confident of their good estate.
31. They may both have new hopes and new fears, new
joys and new sorrows, new friends and new enemies, new
habits of life.
32. They may both be comforted by the promises and awed
by the threatenings.
33. They may both appear to haye answers to prayer.
34. They may both appear and really suppose themselves
to renounce the world. They may really both renounce this
world, the saint for the glory of God, the sinner that he may
win heaven.
35. They may both practice many forms of self-denial.
The christian really denies himself and the sinner may appear
to by denying certain forms of selfseeking for the securing
of a selfish interest in another direction.
36. They may both have the faith of miracles: "And
though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mys
teries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that
I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am no
thing."— 1 Cor. 13:2.
37. They may both suffer martyrdom for entirely opposite
reasons. " And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,
and though I give my body to be burned, and have not char
ity, it profiteth me nothing." — 1 Cor. 13: 3.
38. They may be confident of their good estate, and may
both die in triumph and carry their hope to the bar of God.
" Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in
thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he '
shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are: de-

REGENERATION. 531
part from me all ye workers of iniquity ."—Luke 13: 26, 27.
REMARKS.
1. For want of these and such like discriminations many
have stumbled. Hypocrites have held on to a false hope and
lived upon mere constitutional desires, and spasmodic turns of
giving up the will, during seasons of special excitement, to
the control of these desires and feelings. These spasms they
call their waking up. But no sooner does their excitement
subside than selfishness again assumes it wonted forms. It
is truly wonderful and appalling to see to what an extent
this is true. Because in seasons of special excitement they
feel deeply and are conscious of feeling, as they say, and ac
ting and of being entirely sincere in following their impulses,
they have the fullest confidence in their good estate. They
say they can not doubt their conversion. They felt so and
so and gave themselves up to their feelings, and gave much
time and money to promote the cause of Christ. Now this
is a deep delusion and one of the most common in Christen
dom or at least one of the most common that, is to be found
among what are called revival christians. This class of de
luded souls do not see that they are in such cases, governed
by their feelings, and that if their feelings were changed, their
conduct Would be of course; that as soon as the excitement
subsides they will go back to their former ways as a thing of
course. When the present state of feeling that now controls
them has given place to their former feelings, they will of
course appear as they used to do. This is in few words the
history of thousands of professors of religion.
2. This has greatly stumbled the openly impenitent. Not
knowing how to account for what they often witness of this
kind among professors of religion, they are led to doubt wheth
er there is any such thing as true religion.
Again: Many sinners have been deceived just in the way I
have pointed out, and have afterwards discovered that they
had been deluded, but could not understand how. They
have come to the conclusion that every body is deluded, and
that all professors are as much deceived as they are. This
leads them to reject and despise all religion^
3. A want of discrimination between what is constitutional
and what belongs to a regenerate state of mind has stumbled
many. Impenitent sinners finding themselves to have what
¦r^they call certain good desires and feelings, have either come to
the conclusion that they were born again or that the unre-

532 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
generate nave at least a spark of holiness in them that only
needs to be cherished and cultivated to fit them for heaven.
4. Some exercises of impenitent sinners, and of which they
are conscious, have been denied for fear of denying total de
pravity. They have been represented as necessarily hating
God arid all good men ; and this hatred has been represented
as afeelingoi malice and enmity towards God. Many impen
itent sinners are conscious of having no such feelings; but on
the contrary they are conscious of having^it times feelings of
respect, veneration, awe, gratitude and aflPction towards God
and for good men. They are also conscious that they are
often influenced by these feelings; that in obedience to them
they sometimes pray and sing praises to God; that they some
times manifest a deep veneration and respect for good men
and show them favor and do many things for them which they
would not do did they not feel so deep a respect, veneration
arid affection for them. Of these and many like things many
impenitent sinners are often conscious. They are also often
conscious of feeling no opposition to revivals, but on the con
trary that they rejoice in them and feel desirous that they
should prosper and hope that they shall be themselves con-
Verted. They are conscious of feeling deep veneration and
respect and even affection for those ministers who are the
agents in, the hand of God of carrying them forward. To
this class of sinners it is a snare and a stumbling block to tell
them and insist that they only hate God and christians and
ministers and revivals, and to represent their moral depravity
to be such that they crave sin as they crave food, and. that
they necessarily have none but feelings of mortal enrhity
against God. None of these things are true, and this class
of sinners know that they are not true. Such representations
either drive them into irifidelity on the one hand or to think
themselves christians on the other. But those theologians who
hold the views of constitutional depravity of which we have
spoken, can not consistently with their theory admit to these
sinners the real truth, and then show them conclusively that
in all their feelings which they call good, and in all their
yielding to be influenced by them there is no virtue; that their
desires and feelings have in themselves no moral character.
and that when they yield the will to their control, it is only
selfishness. The thing needed is a philosophy and a theology that wiW.
admit and explain all the phenomena of experience and not?
deny human cbrisciousness. A thedlogy that denies human

REGENERATION. 533
consciousness is only a curse'and a stumbling block. But
such is the doctrine of universal constitutional moral de
pravity. It is frequently true that the feelings of sinners become ex
ceedingly rebellious and exasperated, and they feel the most
intense opposition of feeling toward God and Christ and min
isters and revivals and toward every thing of good report. If
this class of sinners are converted they are very apt to sup
pose and to represent all sinners as having just such feelings
as they had. But this is a mistake, for many sinners never had
those feelings. Nevertheless they are no less selfish and
guilty than the class who have the rebellious and blasphe
mous feelings which I have mentioned. This is what they
need to know. They need to understand definitely what sin
is and what itis not; that sin is selfishness; that selfishness is
the yielding of the will to the control of feeling, and that it
matters not at all what the particular class of feelings is, if
feelings and not intelligence controls the will. Admit their
good feelings as they call them and take pains to show them
that these feelings are merely constitutional and have in them
selves no moral character. If they plead, as they often will,
that they not only feel but that they act out their feelings and
give themselves up to be controled by them, then show them
that this is only selfishness changing its form, and the will
consenting for the time to seek the gratification oi this class"
of feelings because they are for the time being, the most im
portunate and influential with the will; that as soon a3 ano
ther class of feelings come in play they will go over to their
indulgence and leave God and religion uncared for.
The ideas of depravity and of regeneration to which I
have often alluded are fraught with great mischief in another
respect. Great numbers, it is to be feared, both of private
professors of religion and of ministers have mistaken the
class of feelings of which I have spoken as common among
certain impenitent sinners, for religion. They have heard the
usual representations of the natural depravity of sinners and
also have heard certain desires and feelings represented as
religion. They are conscious of these desires and feelings,
and also, sometimes when they are very strong, of being
influenced in their conduct by them. They assume, therefore,
that they are regenerate, and elected, and heirs of salvation.
To be sure they are conscious that they often have feelings
fit great attachment to the world and various classes of feel
ing very inconsistent with their religious feelings as they call
45*

534 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
them; arid that when these feelings are in exercise they also
yield to them and give themselves up to their control. But
this they are taught to think is common to all christians; that
all christians have much indwelling sin, are much of their time
'entirely out of the way and never altogether right even for a
moment, that they never feel so much as they are capable of
feeling and often feel the opposite of what they ought to feel.
These views lull them asleep. The philosophy and theology
that misrepresents moral depravity and regeneration must, if
consistent, also misrepresent true religion; and O, the many
thousands that have mistaken the mere constitutional desires
and feelings and the selfish yielding of the will to their con
trol, for true religion, and have gone to the bar of God with a
lie in their right hand.
It is a mournful and even a heart rending fact that very
much that passes current for christian experience is not and
can not be an experience peculiar at all to christians. It is
common to both saints and sinners. It is merely the natural
and necessary result of the human constitution under certain
circumstances. Let no man deceive himself and think more
highly of himself than he ought to think.
5. Another great evil has arisen out of the false views I
have been exposing, namely:
t Many true christians have been much stumbled and kept in
bondage, and their comfort and their usefulness much abridged
,by finding themselves from time to time very languid and un
feeling. Supposing religion to consist in feeling, if at any
time the excitability of the sensibility becomes exhausted and
their feelings subside, they are immediately thrown into unbe
lief and bondage. Satan reproaches them for their want of
feeling and they have nothing to say only to admit the truth
of his accusations. Having a false philosophy of religion
they judge of the state of their hearts by the state of their
feelings. They confound their hearts with their feelings and
are in almost constant perplexity to keep their hearts right;
hy which they mean, their feelings in a state of great excite
ment. Again. They are not only sometimes languid and have no
sensible sensations and desires, but at others they are con
scious of classes of emotions which they call sin. These
they resist, but still blame themselves for having them in their
hearts, as they say. Thus they are brought into bondage
again, although they are certain that these feelings are hated ¦
and not at all indulged by them.

REGENERATION. 535
Oh, how much all classes of persons need to have clearly
defined ideas of what really constitutes sin and holiness." A
false philosophy of the mind, and especially of the will and
of moral depravity, has covered the world with gross dark
ness on the subject of sin and holiness, of regeneration, and
of the evidences of regeneration, until the true saints on the
one hand are kept in a continual bondage to their false no
tions, and on the other the church swarms with unconverted
professors, and is cursed with many deceived ministers.

LECTURE XLII.
REGENERATION.
III. Wherein saints and sinners or deceived professors
MUST DIFFER.
In discussing this branch' of the subject, I will,
/. Make several prefatory remarks.
II. Point out the prominent characteristics of both.
1. Prefatory remarks.
(1.) The Bible represents all mankind as belonging to two
and but two great classes, saints and sinners. All regenerate
souls, whatever their attainments are, it includes in the first
class. All unregenerate persons, whatever be their profession,
possessions, gifts or 'station, it includes among sinners.
(2.) The Bible represents the difference between these two
classes as radical, fundamental and complete. The Bible does
not recognize the impenitent as having any goodness in them,
but uniformly as being dead in trespasses and in sins.
It represents the saints as being dead to sin, and alive to God,
as sanctified persons, and often speaks in so strong language
as almost compels us to understand it as denying that the
saints sin at all, or to conclude that sinning at all proves that
one is not a saint. It docs take the unqualified ground that
no one is a saint who lives in or indulges any sin.
(3.) The Bible represents the difference between saints and
sinners as very manifest and as appearing abundantly in
their lives. It requires us to judge all men by their fruits. It
gives us both the fruits of regeneration and of an unregene
rate state, and is exceedingly specific and plain upon this
subject. (4.) In treating this question I shall endeavor not to forget
that I am inquiring after the evidences of regeneration, and
that I am to speak not of high and rare attainments in piety,
but of its beginnings, and of those things that must exist and
appear -where there is even the commencement of true holi
ness. 2. I will point out the prominent characteristics of both
saints and sinners.
(1.) Let it be distinctly remembered that unregenerate per
sons all without exception have one heart, that is, they are
selfish. This is their whole character. They are universally
and only devoted to self-interest or self-gratification. Their
unregenerate heart consists in this selfish disposition, or in

REGENERATION. 537
this selfish choice. This choice is the foundation of, and ^he
reason for all their activity. They do all that they do and
omit all that they omit, for one and the same reason, and that
is to gratify either directly or indirectly, either presently or
remotely, themselves.
The regenerate heart is disinterested benevolence. In oth
er words it is love to God and our neighbor. All regenerate
hearts are precisely similar. All true saints, whenever they
have truly the heart of saints of God, are actuated by one and
the same motive. They have only one ultimate reason for
all they do, and are, and suffer, or omit. They have one ulti
mate intention, one end. They live for one and the same ob
ject, and that is the same end for which God lives.
Now the thing after which we are inquiring is what must
be the necessary developments and manifestations of these
opposite states of mind. These opposite states are supreme
and opposite and ultimate choices. They are states of sur
preme devotion to ultimate and opposite ends. In whatever
they do, the saint, if he acts as a saint, arid the sinner, have
directly opposite ends in view. They do, or omit what they
do, for entirely different and opposite ultimate reasons. Ak
though, as we have seen, in many things their opposite ends
may lead them to attempt to secure them by similar means,
and may therefore often lead to the same outward life in many
re'spects, yet it is always true that even when they act out
wardly alike, they have inwardly entirely different ultimate
reasons for their conduct. As it often happens that the saint
in pursuing the highest good of being in general as an end,
finds it necessary to do many things which the sinner may do
to secure his selfish end; and as it often happens that the
sinner in his endeavors to compass his selfish end, finds it neces
sary to use the same outward means that the saint does in his
efforts to secure his end, it requires not unfrequently a good
degree of candor and of discrimination to distinguish between
them. And as saints and sinners possess the same or similar
constitutions and constitutional propensities, their desires and
feelings are often so much alike as to embarrass the superficial
inquirer after their true spiritual state. As has been said,
the sinner often in seasons of strong religious excitement, not
only has desires and feelings resulting from the laws of his
constitution similar to those that are experiencd by the saints,
but he also for the time being gives up his will to follow these
impulses. In this case it requires the nicest discrimination
to distinguish between the saint and the sinner; for at such

538 • SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
times they not only feel alike but they also act alike. The
difficulty in such cases is to distinguish between the action of
a will that obeys the intelligence and one that obeys a class
of feelings that are so nearly in harmony with the dictates of
the intelligence. To distinguish in such cases between that
which proceeds from feeling and that which proceeds from
the intelligence requires no slight degree of attention and dis
crimination. One needs to be a close observer and no tyro
in mental philosophy to make just discriminations- in cases of
this kind.
Let it be understood that the fundamenlal difference be
tween saints and sinners does not consist in the fact that one
has a sinful nature and the other has not, for neither of them
has a sinful nature.
(2.) Nor does it consist in the fact that the saint has had
a physical regeneration and therefore possesses some element
of constitution which the sinner has not.
(3.) Nor does it consist in this, that sairits are aiming or
intending to do right while sinners are aiming and intending
to do wrong. The saint loves God and his neighbor, that is,
chooses or intends their highest good for its own sake. This
choice or intention is right, though right is not the thing inr
tended. The good, that is, the valuable to being, and not the
right, is that upon which the intention terminates. The sinner
chooses his own gratification as an end. This choice or in
tention is wrong, but wrong is not the end chosen or the thing
upon which the intention terminates. They are both choos
ing what they regard as valuable. The saint chooses the
good of being impartially. That is, he chooses the highest
good of being in general for its own sake and lays no greater
stress upon his own than is dictated by the law of his own in
telligence. His duty is to will the greatest amount of good to
being in general, and promote the greatest amount of good
within his power. From the relation of things every one's
own highest well-being is committed to his particular keep
ing and promotion in a higher sense than that of his neighbor
is, Next to his own well-being that of his own family and
kindred is committed to his particular keeping and promotion
in a higher sense than that of his neighbor's family and kin
dred. Next the interest and well-being of his immediate
neighborhood and of those more immediately within the
sphere of his influence, is committed to his keeping and pro
motion. Thus while all interests are to be esteemed accord?
ing to their intrinsic and relative value, the law of God re-

REGENERATION. 539
quires that we should lay ourselves out more particularly for
the promotion of those interests that lie so much within our
reach that we can accomplish and secure a greater amount
of good by giving our principal attention and efforts to them
than could be secured by our practically treating the interests
of every individual, of every family and of every neighbor
hood as of equal value with our own. The practical judg
ment of all men always was, and necessarily must be that the
law of God demands that every one should see to his own
soul and should provide for his own household, and that the
highest good of the whole universe can best be promoted
only by each individual, each family, each neighborhood, and
each nation taking care to secure those interests more imme
diately committed to them, because more immediately within
their reach. This is not selfishness if the intention is to se
cure the highest good of being in general, and of these par
ticular interests as a part ofthe general good, and because it
foils particularly to us to promote these particular interests
inasmuch as their promotion is particularly within our reach.
The law of God, while it demands that I should will the
highest good of being in general for its own sake, and esteem
every interest known to me according to its intrinsic and rela
tive value, demands also, that as a pastor of a church, I should
give my time and influence and energies more particularly to
the promotion of the good of the people of my own charge.
More good will upon the whole result to the world from pas
tors taking this course than any other. The same is true of
the family relation and of all the relations of life. Our rela
tions give us peculiar facilities for securing good, and im
pose on us peculiar responsibilities. Our relation to our
own highest well-being imposes peculiar responsibilities on
us in regard to our own souls. So of our families, neighbor
hoods, &c. It should be well considered then, that the pre
cept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," does not re
quire every one to pay just the attention to his neighbor's
soul that he does- to his own, nor the same attention to his
neighbor's children and family that he does to his own. He
is bound to esteem his neighbor's interest according to its rela
tive value, and to pursue his own interest and the interest of
his family and neighborhood and nation in a manner not in
consistent with the interests of others, but in a manner as
highly conducive to the promotion of their interests as in his
judgment will upon the whole secure the greatest amount of
good. If I have a life to live, and a certain amount of time

540 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and talent and money and influence to lay out for God and
souls, I am bound to use all in that manner that in my honest
judgment will upon the whole secure the greatest amount of
good to being. I am not, certainly, to divide the pittance of my
possessions among all men of present and coming genera
tions. Nor am I to scatter my time and talents over the face
of the whole globe. But on the contrary, benevolence die
tates that I should lay out my time and talents and influence
and possessions where and when and in a way, in my honest
estimation calculated to secure to being the greatest amount
of good.
I have said thus much, as might seem, by way of episode;
but in fact it is necessary for us to have these thoughts in
mind when we enter upon the discussion of the question be
fore us; to wit: What are evidences of a truly benevolent
state of mind? For example; suppose wc should enter up
on the inquiry in question, taking along with us the assump
tion that true benevolence, that is, the disinterested love of
God and our neighbor, implies that we should not only esteem
but also treat all other interests of equal intrinsic value with
our own, according to their intrinsic and relative, value. . I
say, should we in searching after evidence of disinterested be
nevolence, take along with us this false assumption, where
should we find any evidence of benevolence on earth? No man
docs or can act upon such a principle. God has never acted
upon it. Christ never acted upon it. Why did God select
the particular nation of the Jews and confine His revelations
to them? Why did Christ preach the gospel to the Jews on
ly, and say that he was not sent, save to the lost sheep of, the
house of Israel? Why has God always acted upon this prin
ciple of accomplishing the greatest practicable good? He es
teems the good of all and of each of his creatures according
to its intrinsic and relative value, but does good when and, as
He best can. If the greatest amount of ultimate good can
be secured by choosing Abraham from all other men, and ma-r
king him and his posterity the objects of peculiar effort and
spiritual cultivation, and the depositories of the holy oracles
which He intended should ultimately bless all nations, why,
He does it. He exercises His own discretion in His efforts to
accomplish the greatest amount of good. Good is bis end
and He does all the good He can. In securing this He does
many things that might appear partial to those who take but
a hmited view of things. Just so with all truly benevolent
creatures. Good is their end. In promoting it, their intelli-

REGENERATION. 541
gence and the law of God dictate that they should bestow
their particular efforts, attention, influence, and possessions
upon those particular interests and persons that will, in
their judgment, result in the highest good of being in general
as a whole. The whole Bible every where assumes this as
the correct rule of duty. Hence it recognizes all the relaj
tions of life, and the peculiar responsibilities and duties that
grow out of them, and enjoins the observance of th&se duties.
The relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, of ruj
ler and subject, and indeed all the relations incident to our
highest well-being in this life, are expressly recognized and
their corresponding obligations assumed by the inspired writers ;
which shows clearly that they understood the law of supreme
love to God and equal love to our neighbor to imply an obli
gation to give particular attention to those interests which God
had placed more particularly within the reach of our influence ;
always remembering that those interests are to be pursued
impartially; that is, in consistency with the promotion of all
other interests, by those to whom their promotion is particu
larly committed. For example : I am not to pursue my own
good and that of my family or my neighborhood or my nation,
in a manner inconsistent with the interests of my neighbor or
his family or neighborhood or nation. But I am to seek the
promotion of all the interests particularly committed to me,
in harmony with, and only as making a part of the general
interests of being.
Now let it be remembered that the saint is benevolent, and
all his life as a saint is only the development of this one prin
ciple; or his outward and inward activity is only an effort to
secure the end upon which benevolence fastens, to wit, the
highest good of God and of being in general.
The sinner is selfish, all his activity is to be ascribed to an
intention to secure his own gratification. Self-interest is his
end. It is easy to see from what has been said that to an out
ward observer a benevolent saint may and often must appear
to be selfish, and the selfish sinner may and will appear to be
disinterested. The saint pursues his own good and the
happiness and well-being of his family as a part of universal
good and does it disinterestedly. The sinner persues his
own gratification, and that of his family, not as parts of uni
versal good and disinterestedly, but as his own and as the in
terest of those who are regarded as parts of himself and
whose interest he regards as identified with his own.
They are both busy in promoting the interests of self and
46

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
; and; neighborhood; &c. And; the difference between
lie.^ in tfiejr ultimate intentions, orr the reasons for what.
they do. -mm
There \s, as! hayeiO;timated1 special difficulty in ascertains
ing, ifor. certainty ^ which is the saint and whieh the; sinner^
when the sinners selfishness is directed to the securing of a,
heavenly and eternal interest instead of a worldly and temper
ra) one. He may and often does aim at securing a heayepiyr
and an eternal interest both for himself^ and family, an4'
friends, W^en he does, this, his outward manifestations, are
s# very like those of the true saint as to render it difficult if
not.impossible for an observer for the time, being to distinguish
accurately betwjeen them. *
I have compared the saint and the sinner in my lasjfc fee?
turc.for the purpose of showing in what respect they may be
afike. I will now in a few particulars proceed to contrast^ them
that it may appear in what they differ.
1. And fundamentally they are radically opposite to each
other in their ultimate choice or intention. They are- su
premely devoted to different and opposite ends; They live
to promote those opposite ends.
2. The saint is governed by reason, the law of God or the
moral law; in other words still, the law of disinterested and
iiniversal benevolence is his law. This law is not only reveal
ed and developed in his intelligence, but it is written in his
heart. So that the law. of his intellect is the law of his heart.
He not only sees and acknowledges what he ought to do and
pe, but he is conscious to himself and gives evidence toothers,
whether they receive it and are convinced by it or not, that
his heart, his will or intention, is conformed to his convic
tions of duty.. He sees the path of duty and follows it. He
know^ what he ought to will, intend and do, and does it. Of
tiiis he is conscious. And of this others may be satisfied if
they are observing, charitable, and candid.
3, The sinner is right over against this in the most impor
tant and fundamental respects. He is not governed by rea
son and principle, but by feeling, desire, and impulse. Some
times his feelings coincide with the intelligence, and some
times they do not. But when they do so. coincide, the will
does not pursue the course it does out of respect or in. obedi
ence to the, law of the intelligence, but in obedience to the:
impulse of the sensibility which for the time being impels in
the same direction as does the law of the reason. But for the

REGENERATION. &&
most part the impulses of the sensibility incline him to world
ly gratifications arid in an opposite direction to that Which &e
ftelligence poiuts orit. This leads him to a course of life
at is too manifestly the opposite of reason to leaire ahy
room for doubt as to What his true character is.
But he also has the law revealed in his intelligence. His
head is right, but his heart is wrong. He knows What he
ought to do and will and be, but he is conscious that his heart
does not obey his reason. He is conscious that the law is iri
his intelligence but is not written in his heart He knows that
he is not in heart what he necessarily affirms that he ought to
be. He kfiows that he is habitually selfish and not disiriteres-1
tedly benevolent. Sometimes, as has been said, during sea
sons of special religious excitement when his sensibility arid
mtelligence impel in the same direction, he thinks Ms heart
and his head agree; that he is what he knows he ought to be;
that the law is Written in his heart. But as soon as this ex
citement subsides he sees or may see that it Was not his intel
ligence but his sensibility that governed his Will; that in the
absence of religious excitement his intelligence has no con
trol of his Will; that he is governed by impulse and not by
principle. This will also be manifest to others. If during
rehgious excitement they have' hoped too well of him, as soon
as and in proportion as excitement ceases, they will clearly
see that it was the impulse of feeling and not the law of the
intelligence that governed him. They will soon clearly see
that he has not and had not the root of the matter in him;
that his religion was founded in the effervescence of the evef ¦
Varying sensibility and not in the stable demands of his rea-
Sott and conscience. As excitement Waxes and wanes he Will
be ever fluctuating. Sometimes quite zealous and active and
talkative, full of feeling, he will have the appearance oi pos*
sessing most of the phases of christian character in a state c-f
freshness and beauty. And anon his religious excitement
ceases. His tongue is silent on religious subjects. His zeal
abates apace. His attendance at the prayer and conference
meeting is interrupted and finally ceases. A Worldly excite
ment takes possession of his sensibility; His will is carried
Of coufse. Politics, business, amusement, no matter What, is
for the time being his exciting topic, he is carried aWay witii
it, arid remains in this state carried hither arid thither by
Worldly engrossments until another religious eiciteriierit re
news and confirms his delusion arid that of hid friends, Whto
look upon him as a real christiari but prone to backsliding.

544 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
4. The true saint is distinguished by his firm adherence to
all the principles and rules of the Divine government. He is
a reformer from principle, and needs not the gale of popular
excitement or of popular applause to put and keep him in mo>
tion. His intellect and conscience have taken the control of
his will, or the will has renounced the impulses of the sensi
bility as its law, and voluntarily committed itself to the 'de
mands of the reason. This fact must appear both on the field
of his own consciousness, and also in most instarices be very
manifest to others. His zeal does not wax and wane with ev
ery breeze of excitement. He is not carried away by every
change in the effervescing sen'sibility. The law of reason
being written in his heart, he does n°t at one time appear
reasonable and to be influenced by conscience and a regard to
the law of love, and at another to be'infiriitely unreasonable
and to have little or no regard to God or his laws. He fears
and shuns popular excitements as he does all other tempta
tions. He loaths and resists them. The excitements of po
litics arid business and amusements, are regarded by him with
a jealous eye. He dreads their influence on his sensibility,
and when he feels them, it causes a deep struggle and groan
ing of spirit, because the will, adhering to the law of con
science, steadfastly resists them. Such like excitements in
stead of being his element and the aliment of his life, are a
grief and a vexation to him. Instead of living, and moving,
and having his being as it were in the midst of them and by
them, he is only annoyed by them. They are not the moving
spring of his activity, but only embarrass his spiritual life.
His spiritual life is founded in, the law of the intelligence,
and supported by the light of the Holy Spirit poured upon
his intellect through the truth. He steadily resists the flood
tides of mere feeling on every subject and abides by truth arid
principle and ihoral law whatever may be the circumstances
of worldly or religious excitement around him. Be it ever
remembered, it is moral law, moral principle, the law of love,
and not mere feeling, that governs him*
5. The sinner or deceived professor, for they are one, is
right over against this. Excitement is his element and his,
life. He has truly no moral principle except in theory. He
is never truly influenced by truth, law, reason, but always by
excitement of some kind. His activity is based on this;
hence he is not disturbed and embarassed in his movements,
by excitements of any kind, any longer than it takes to put
down one form of excitement and take on another. If when

REGENERATION. 545
he is much interested and excited and carried away in one
direction, a counter influence or excitement comes in his way,
he is taken aback for the time being. He is disconcerted and
embarrassed, perhaps displeased. But you will soon see him
go about and fill away to the new excitement. Excitement
is his life, and although like a ship at sea, he is thrown into
temporary confusion by a sudden change of the winds and
waves, so, like her whose life and activity are the breezes and
the gale and the ocean wave, he readily accommodates his
sails and his course to the ever changing breeze and currents
of excitement in the midst of which he' loves to live, and on
the foaming surface of which,he is borne along. If you wish
to move him, you must strongly appeal to his feelings. Rea
son does not, can not govern him. 'Tis not enough to say to
him, Thus saith the Lord. He will admit the right, but
surely will not do it. He will notg-o that way, unless you can
first make his feelings move in that direction. He holds the
truth only in theory and in ^unrighteousness. It is not the
law of his life, his heart, his warmest affections and sympa
thies. Present considerations to his intelligence: unless they
excite his sensibility, and arouse his hopes, or fears, or feel
ings in some direction, you might as well attempt to change
the course of the winds by your words. His imagination
must be aroused and set on fire. His sensibility must be
reached, enkindled. The gales of excitement must be awaked,
and the mainspring of his action must be touched and direc
ted to impel his will, hefore you can quicken him into life.
His feelings are his law.
6. The saint is justified, and he has the evidence of it in
the peace of his own mind. He is conscious of obeying the
law of reason and of love. Consequently he naturally has
that kind and degree of peace that flows from the harmony
of his will with the law of his intelligence. He sometimes has
conflicts with the impulses of feeling and desire. But unless
he is overcome, these conflicts, though they may cause him in
wardly and perhaps audibly to groan, do not interrupt his
peace. There are still the elements of peace withinhim. His
heart and conscience are at one, and while this is so, he has
thus far the evidence of justification in himself. That is, he
knows that God can not condemn his present state. Con
scious as he is of conformity of heart to the moral law he caa
not but affirm to himself that the lawgiver is pleased with
his present attitude. But further, he has also within the Spir
it of God witnessing with his spirit that. he is a child of God,
46*

546 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
forgiven, accepted, adopted. He feels the final spirit drawing
his heart to exclaim, Father, Father. He is conscious that he
pleases God and has God's smile of approbation.
He is at peace with himself because he affirms his heart to
be in unison with the law of love. His conscience does not
upbraid, but smile. The harmony of his own being is a wit
ness to himself that this is the state in which he was made to
exist. He is at peace with God, because he and God are pur
suing precisely the same end and by the same means. There
can be no collision, no controversy between them. He is at
peace with the universe in the sense that he has no ill-will
and no malicious feelings or wish to gratify in the injury of
anyone of all the creatures of God. He has no fear but to
sin against God. He is not influenced on tbe one hand by
the fear of hell, nor on the other by the hope ©f reward.
He is not anxious about his own salvation, but prayerfully
and calmly leaves that question in the hands of God and con
cerns himself only to promote the highest glory of God and
the good of being. ''Being justified by faith he has peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "• There is now no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
7. The sinner's experience is the opposite of this. He is
under condemnation, and seldom can so far deceive himself,
even in his most religious moods, as to imagine that he has a
consciousness of acceptance either with his own conscience
or with God. There is almost never a time in which he has
not a greater or less degree of restlessness and misgiving with
in. Even when he is most engaged in religion as he supposes,
he finds himself dissatisfied with himself. Something is
wrong. There is a struggle and a pang. He may not exactly
see where and; what the difficulty is. He does not after all
obey reason and conscience, and is not governed by the law
and will of God. Not having the consciousness of this obedi
ence, his conscience does not smile. He sometimes feels
deeply, and acts as he feels, and is conscious of being sincere
in the sense of feehng what he says and acting in obedience
to deep feeling. But this does not satisfy conscience. He is*
more or less wretched after all. He has not true peace.
Sometimes he has a self-righteous quiet andenjoyment. But this
is neither peace of conscience rior peace with God. He after'
all feels uneasy and condemned, notwithstanding all his feel
ing and zeal and activity. They are not of the right kind-
Hence they do not satisfy the conscience. They do not meet

REGENERATION. 547
the demands of his intelligence. Conscience does not ap
prove. He has not after all true peace. He is not justified;
he can not be fully and permanently satisfied that he is. He
is not for any length of time satisfied with his best perfor
mance. He is conscious after all of sinning in all his holiest
duties, and he is the more sure of this in proportion as he is
more enlightened. He thinks to be sure that this is the uni
versal experience of all true saints; that although neither
conscience nor God is satisfied with his obedience, not even
in his best frames and states, yet he thinks to be' sure he has
some degree of holiness and conformity to the will of God, al
though not enough to bring out the approbation of conscience
and the smile of God upon his soul. He imagines thathehas1
some true religion; some half-way obedience. He is a true
though an imperfect saint, whose best obedience can and
does satisfy neither his own sense of duty nor his God. With
him, justification is a mere theory, a doctrine, an opinion, an
article of faith and not a living felt reality; not an experience,
but an idea, a notion, and at best a pleasing and dreamy de
lusion. 8. The saint has made the will of God his law, and asks
for no other reason to influence his decisions and actions than
that such is the will of God. He has received the will of God!
as the unfailing index pointing always to the path of duty.
His intelligence affirms that God's will is and ought to be
law or perfect evidence of what law is ; and therefore he has5
received it as such. He therefore expects to obey it always
and in all things. He makes no calculations to sin in any
thing; nor in one thing more than another. He does not cast
about and pick and choose among the commandments of God;
professing obedience to those that are the least offensive to
him, and trampling on those that call to a sterner morality
and to hardier self-denial. With him there are no little sins;
in which he expects to indulge. He no more expects to eat
too much than he expects to be a drunkard; and gluttony is
as much a sin as drunkenness. He no more expects to take
an advantage of his neighbor than he expects to rob him on the
highway. He no more designs and expects to indulge in se
cret than in open uncleanness. He no more expects to in
dulge a wanton eye than to commit adultery with his broth
er's wife. He no more expects to exaggerate and give a false
coloring to truth than he expects and intends to commit per-
- jury. All sin is an abomination to him. He has renounced
itea animo. His heart has rejected sin as sin* His heart has-

548 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
embraced the will of God as his law. It has embraced tbp
whole will of God. He waits only for a knowledge of what
the will of God is. He needs not, he seeks not excitement to
determine or to strengthen his will. The law of his being
has come to be the will of God. A thus saith the Lord, im
mediately awakens from the depths of his soul the whole-heart
ed amen. He does not go about to plead for sin, to trim his,
ways so as to serve two masters. To serve God and Mam
mon is no part of his policy and no part of his wish. No: he
is God's man, God's subject, God's child. All his sympathies
are with God; and surely " his fellowship is with the Father
and with his Son Jesus Christ." What Christ wills, he wills;
what Christ rejects, he rejects.
9. But right over against this you will find the sinner or de
ceived professor. God's will is not his law; but his own sen
sibility is his law. With him it is not enough to know the
will of God; he must also have his sensibility excited in that
direction before he goes. He does not mean nor expect to
avoid every form and degree of iniquity. His heart has not re
nounced sin as sin. It has not embraced the will of God from
principle, and of course has not embraced the whole will of
God. With him it is a small thing to commit what he calls
little sins. This shows conclusively where he is. If the will
of God were his law^ — as this is as really opposed to what he
calls little as to what he calls great sins, he would not expect
and intend to disobey God in one thing more than in another.
He could know no little sins, since they conflict with the will
of God. He goes about to pick and choose among the com
mandments of God, somstimes yielding an outward obedience
to those that conflict least with his inclinations, and which
therefore will cost him the least self-denial, but evading and
disregarding those that lay the ax to the root of the tree and
prohibit all selfishness. The sinner or deceived professor
does not in fact seriously mean or expect wholly to obey God.
He thinks that this is common to all christians. He as much
expects to sin every day against God as he expects to live,
and does not think this at allinconsistent with his being a real
though imperfect christian. He is conscious of indulging
in some sins, and that he has never repented of them and put
them away, but he thinks that this also is common to all chris
tians, and therefore it does not slay his false hope. He would
mueh sooner indulge in gluttony than in drunkenness because
the latter would more seriously affect his reputation. He
would not hesitate to indulge wanton thoughts and imagina-

REGENERATION.

549

tions when he would not allow himself in outward licentious
ness because of its bearing upon his character, and as he says,
upon the cause of God. He will riot hesitate to take little
advantages of his neighbor, to amass a fortune in this way
while he would recoil from robbing on the highway or on the
high seas ; for this would injure his reputation with man, and
as he thinks, more surely destroy his soul. Sinners sometimes
become exceedingly self-righteous and aim at what they call
perfection. But unless they are very ignorant they soon be
come discouraged and cry out, O wretched man that I am,
who shall deliver me from the body of this death? They,
however, almost always satisfy themselves with a mere out
ward morality and that, as I have said, not descending to what
they call little sins.

LECTURE XLIII.
REGENERATION.
In what Saints and Sinners differ.
10. Saints are interested in and sympathize with etiery effort
to reform mankind and promote the interests of truth and right
eousness in the earth.
The good of being is the end for which the saint really and
truly lives. This is not merely held by him as a theory, as
an opinion, as a philosophical speculation. It is in his heart,
and precisely for this reason he is a saint. He is a saint just
because the theory which is lodged in the head of both saint
and sinner has also a lodgment and a reigning power in his
heart, and consequently in his life. The fact is that saints
as such have no longer a wicked heart. They are "born
again,'? " born of God," and " they can not sin, for his seed
remaineth in them, so that they can not sin because they are
born of God." " They have a new heart," " are new crea
tures," "¦ old things are passed away, and behold all things are
become new." They are holy or sanctified persons. The
bible representations of the new birth forbid us to suppose
that the truly regenerate have still a wicked heart. The
nature of regeneration also renders it certain that the regen
erate heart can not be a wicked heart. His heart or choice
is fixed upon the highest good of God and the universe as an
end. Moral agents are so constituted that they necessarily
regard truth and righteousness as conditions of the highest
good of moral agents. These being necessarily regarded by
them as indispensable to the end, will and must be considered
as important as the emd to which they sustain the relation of
indispensable conditions. As they supremely value the high
est good of being, they will and must take a deep interest in
whatever is promotive of that end. Hence their spirit is ne
cessarily that of the reformer. For the universal reformation
ofthe world they stand committed. To this end they are de
voted. For this end they live and move and have their
being. Every proposed reform interests them and naturally
leads them to examine its claims. The fact is they are
studying and devising ways and means to convert, sanctify,
reform mankind. Being in this state of mind they are predis
posed to lay hold on whatever gives promise of good to man.
A close examination will show a remarkable difference be
tween saints and sinners in this respect True saints love

REGENERATION. 551
reform. ' It is their business, their profession, their life to pro
mote it; consequently they are ready to examine the claims
Of any proposed reform; candid and self-denying and ready
to be convinced however much self-denial it may call them to.
They have actually rejected self-indulgence as the end for
which they live and are ready to sacrifice any form of self-in
dulgence forthe sake of promoting the good of men and the
glory of God. It is not and can not be natural to them to be
prejudiced against reform, to be apt to array themselves
against or speak lightly of any proposed reform until they
have thoroughly examined its claims and found it wanting in
the essential attributes of true reform. The natural bearing
or bias of the saint's mind is in favor of whatever proposes to
do good, and instead of ridiculing reform in general or speak
ing lightly or censoriously of reform the exact opposite is na
tural to him. It is natural to him to revere reformers and to
honor those who have introduced even what proved in the end
not to be wholesome reforms if so be there is evidence that they
were, sincere and self-denying in their efforts to benefit man
kinds The saint is truly and greatly desirous, and in earnest .
to reform all sin out of the world, and just for this reason is
ready to hail with joy and to try whatever reform seems, from
the best light he can get, to bid fair to put down sin and the
evils that are in the world. Even mistaken men who are
honestly endeavoring to reform mankind, and denying their
appetites, as many have done in dietetic reform, are deserving
of the respect of their fellow men. Suppose their philoso
phy to be incorrect, yet they have intended well. They have
manifested a disposition to deny themselves for the purpose
of promoting the good of others. They have been honest and
zealous in this. Now no true saint can feel or express con
tempt for such reformers however much mistaken they may be.
No; his natural sentiments and feelings will be and must be
the reverse of contempt or censoriousness in respect to them.
If their mistake has been injurious, he may mourn over
the evil, but will not, can not severely judge the honest re
former. War, slavery, licentiousness, and all such like evils and
abominations are necessarily regarded by the saint as greatand
sore evils, and he longs for their complete and final overthrew.
Itis impossible that a truly benevolent mind should not thus
regard these abominations of desolation. The cause of peace,
the cause of anti-slavery, and that of the overthrow of licen
tiousness, must lie near the heart of every truly benevolent
mind. I know that often sinners have a certain kind of in-

552 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
terest in these and other reforms. This will be noticed arid
explained in the proper place. But whatever is true of sin
ners under certain circumstances, it must be always true of
Christians that they hail the cause of peace, of the abolition
of slavery, and of the abolition of every form of sin, and of
every evil, moral and physical, with joy, and can not but give
them a hearty God-speed. If they see that they are advo
cated on wrong principles, or with a bad spirit, or by bad
men, and that injurious measures are used to promote them^ the
saints will mourn, will be faithful in trying to find out and to
proclaim a more excellent way. Do but keep in mind the
fact that saints are truly benevolent, and are really and hearti
ly consecrated to the highest good of being, and then it will
surely be seen that these things must be true of real saints.
The saints in ah ages have been reformers. I know it is
said that neither Prophets, Christ, nor Apostles, nor primi
tive saints and martyrs declaimed against war and slavery,
&c. But they did. The entire instructions of Christ, and of
Apostles, and Prophets were directly opposed to these and all
other evils. If they did not* come out agaiust certain legalized
forms of sin, and denounce them by name, and endeavor to
array public sentiment against them, it is plainly because they
were, for the most part, employed in a preliminary work.
To introduce the gospel as a Divine revelation; to set up and
organize the visible kingdom of God on earth; to lay a founda
tion for universal reform, was rather their business than the
pushing of particular, branches of reform. The overthrow
of state idolatry, the great and universal sin of the world in
that age; the labor of getting the world and the governments
of earth to tolerate and receive the gospel as a revelation
from the one Only Living and True God; the controversy
with the Jews to overthrow their objections to Christianity;
in short the great and indispensable and preliminary work of
gaining for Christ and his gospel a hearing, and an acknowl
edgment of its divinity, was rather their work than the push
ing of particular precepts and doctrines of the gospel to their
legitimate results and logical consequences. This work once
done has left it for later saints to bring the particular truths,
precepts, and doctrines of the blessed gospel to bear down
every form of sin. Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles have
left on the pages of inspiration no dubious testimony against
every form of sin. The spirit of the whole Bible breathes
from every page blasting and annihilation upon every unholy
abomination, while it smiles upon every thing of good report

REGENERATION. 553
that promises blessings to man and glory to God. The saint
is not merely sometimes a reformer; he is always so. He
is necessarily so if he abide a saint. It is a contradiction to
say that a true saint is not devoted to reform; for, as I have
said, he is a true saint just because he is devoted, heart and
soul and life and all, to the promotion of the good of universal
being. 11. The sinner is never a reformer in any proper sense of
the word.
He is selfish and never opposed to sin, or to any evil what
ever from any such motive as renders him worthy the name of
reformer. He sometimes selfishly advocates and pushes cer
tain outward reforms; but as certain as it is that he is an un
regenerate sinner, so certain is it that he is not endeavoring
to reform sin out of the world from any disinterested love to
God or to man. Many considerations of a selfish nature may
engage him at times in certain branches of reform. Regard
to his reputation may excite his zeal in such an enterprize.
Self-righteous considerations may also lead him to enlist in the
army of reformers. His relation to particular forms of vice
may influence him to set his face against them. Constitu
tional temperament and tendencies may lead to his engaging
in certain reforms. For example, his constitutional benevo
lence, as phrenologists call it, may be such that from natural
compassion he may engage in reforms. But this is only giv
ing way to an impulse of the sensibility, and it is not princi
ple that governs him. His natural conscientiousness may
modify his outward character and lead him to take hold of
some branches of reform. But whatever other motives he
may have, sure it is that he is not a reformer; for he is a1 sin
ner, and it is absurd to say that a sinner is truly engaged in
opposing sin as sin. No, it is not sin that he is opposing, but
he is seeking to gratify an ambitious, a self-righteous, or some
other spirit, the gratification of which is selfishness.
But as a general thing it is easy to distinguish sinners, or
deceived professors from saints by looking steadfastly at their
temper and deportment in their relations to reform. They
are self-indulgent, and sinners just for the reason thatthey are
devoted to self-indulgence. Some times their self-indulgent
spirit takes on one type and sometimes another. Of course
they need not be expected to ridicule or oppose every branch
'of reform, just because it is not every reformer that will rebuke
their favorite indulgences and call them to reform their lives.
But as every sinner has one or more particular form of indul-
47

554 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
gence to which he is wedded, and as saints are devising and
pushing reforms in all directions, it is natural that some sinners
should manifest particular hostility to one reform and some to
another. Whenever a reform is proposed that would reform
them out of their favorite indulgences, they will either ridi
cule it and those that propose it, or storm and rail, or in some
way oppose or wholly neglect it. Not so, and so it can not be
with a true saint. He has no indulgence that he values when
put in qompetition with the good of being. Nay, he holds
his all and his life at the disposal of the highest good. Has
he in ignorance of the evils growing out of his course, used
ardent spirits, wine, tobacco, tea, coffee? Has he held slaves;
been engaged in any traffic that is found to be injurious; has
he favored war through ignorance; or in short has he commit
ted any mistake whatever? let but a reformer come forth and
propose to discuss the tendency of such things; let the re
former bring forth his strong reasons; and from the very na
ture of 'true religion, the saint will listen with attention, weigh
with candor, and suffer himself to be carried by truth, heart
and hand and influence with the proposed reform, if it be
worthy of support, how much soever it conflict with his for
mer habits. This must be true if he has a single eye to the
good of being, which is the very characteristic of a saint.
But the sinner or deceived professor is naturally a conser
vative as opposed to a reformer. He says, Let me alone in my
indulgences and I will let you alone in yours provided they in
no way interfere with my own. Consequently he is in gen
eral disposed to distrust, to discountenance, and to ridicule re
forms and those that advocate them. He is uncandid and
hard to convince; will demand an express, thus saith the Lord,
or what is equivalent to a demonstration of the wisdom and
utility and practicability of a proposed reform. He will evince
in many ways that his heart is not predisposed to reforms.
He will be eagle-eyed in respect to any faults in the charac
ter or measures of the reformers; he will be eager to detect
and seize upon any error in their logic and is easily displeased
and repelled with their measures.
In short sinners will be almost sure to manifest a latent dis
like to reforms. They will dwell much and almost exclusive
ly upon the evils of revivals of religion for example; the danger
of spurious excitements; of promoting fanaticism, and mis? ,
arule; of encouraging false hopes; and they will in various/
ways manifest a disrelish for revivals cf religion, but always?'
under the pretence of a concern for the purity of the church

REGENERATION. 555
and the honor of God. They will be too much taken up with
the evils and dangers to ever give themselves heartily to the
promotion of pure revivals. They act on the defensive.
They have enough to do to resist and oppose what they call
evils without even trying to show a more excellent way. They
in general take substantially the same course in respect to al
most every branch of reformation, and especially to every re
form that can touch their idols. They are so much afraid of
mistakes and evils that they withhold their influence when in
fact the difficulty is they have no heart to the work. The
fact is, benevolence has been for thousands of years endeavor
ing to reform the world, and selfishness is opposing it. And
often very often, under the sanctimonious garb of a concern
for the honor of religion, selfishness utters its sighs and lamen
tations over the supposed ignorance, mistakes, fanaticism and
injurious measures of those whose hearts and hands and en
tire being are devoted to the work.
12. Christians overcome the world. I will here introduce
an extract from a discourse of my own upon this text reported
in the Oberlin Evangelist:
"¦ For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:
and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith."— John 5:, 4.
/. What is it to overcome the world?
1. It is to get above the spirit of covetousness which pos
sesses th'e men of the world. The spirit of the world is emi
nently the spirit of covetousness. It is a greediness after the
things of the world. Some worldly men covet one thing and
some another; but all classes of worldly men are living in
the spirit of covetousness in some of its forms. This spirit
has supreme possession of their minds.
Now the first thing in overcoming the world is, that the
spirit of covetousness in respect to worldly things and objects,
be overcome. The man who does not overcome this spirit
of bustling and scrambling after the good which this world
proffers has by no means overcome it.
2. Overcoming the world implies rising above its engross
ments. When a man has overcome the world, his thoughts
are no longer engrossed and swallowed up with worldly things.
A man certainly does not overcome the world unless he gets
above being engrossed and absorbed with its concerns.
t^Now we all know how exceedingly engrossed worldly men
are with some form of worldly good. One is swallowed up
with study; another with politics; a third with money-getting;

556 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
and a fourth perhaps with fashion and pleasure; but each in
his chosen way makes earthly good the all engrossing object.
The man who gains the victory over the world must over
come not one form only of its pursuits, but every form — must
overcome the world itself and all that it has to present as an
allurement to the human heart.
3. Overcoming the world implies overcoming the fear of
the world.
It is a mournful fact that most men, and indeed all men of
worldly iicharacter have so much regard to public opinion that
they dare not act according to the dictates of their consciences
when acting thus would incur the popular frown. One is
afraid lest his business should suffer if his course runs coun
ter to public opinion; another fears lest if he stand up for the
truth it will injure his reputation, and curiously imagines and
tries to believe that advocating an unpopular truth will dimin
ish and perhaps destroy his good influence — as if a man could
exert a good influence in any possible way besides maintain
ing the truth.
Great multitudes, it must |>e admitted, are under this influ
ence of fearing the world";' yet some of them and perhaps
many of them are not aware of this fact. If you or if they
could thoroughly sound the reasons of their backwardness in
duty, fear of the world would be among the chief. Their fear
of the world's displeasure is so much stronger than their fear
of God's displeasure that they are completely enslaved by it.
Who does not know that some ministers dare not preach what
they know is true, and even what they know is important truth,
lest they should offend some whose good opinion they seek to
retain? The society is weak perhaps, and the favor of some
rich man in it seems indispensable to its very existence.
Hence the terror of this rich man is continually before their
eyes, when they write a sermon, or preach, or are called to
stand up in favor of any truth or cause which may be unpopu
lar with men of more wealth than piety or conscience. Alas'.
this bondage to man! Too many gospel ministers are so
troubled by it that their time-serving poiicy is virtually re
nouncing Christ and serving the world.
Overcoming the world is thoroughly subduing this servility
to men.
4. Overcoming the world implies overcoming a state of
worldly anxiety. You know there is a state of great careful
ness and anxiety which is common and almost universal among
worldly men. It is perfectly natural if the heart is set upon

REGENERATION. 557
securing worldly good, and has not learned to receive all good
from the hand of a great Father and trust him to give or with
hold with his own unerring wisdom. But he who loves the
world is the enemy of God and hence can never have this fil
ial trust in a parental Benefactor, nor the peace of soul which
it imparts.- Hence worldly men are almost incessantly in a
fever of anxiety lest their worldby schemes should fail. They
sometimes get a momentary relief when all things seem to go
well: but some mishap is sure to befall them at some point
soon, so that scarce a day passes that brings not with it some
corroding anxiety. Their bosoms are like the troubled sea
which can not rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.
But the man who gets above the world gets above this state
of ceaseless and corroding anxiety.
5. The victory under consideration implies that we cease
to be enslaved and in bondage by the world in any of its forms.
There is a worldly spirit, and there is also a heavenly spirit;
and one or the other exists in the heart of every man and
controls his whole being. Those who are under the control
of the world, of course have not overcome the world. No
man overcomes the world till his heart is imbued with the
spirit of heaven.
One form which the spirit of the world assumes is, being
enslaved to the customs and fashions of the day.
It is marvelous to see what a goddess Fashion becomes.
No heathen goddess was ever worshipped with costlier offer
ings, or more devout homage, or more implicit subjection.
And surely no heathen deity since the world began has ever
had more universal patronage. Where will you go to find
the man of the world or the woman of the world who does
not hasten to worship at her shrine?
But overcoming the world implies that the spirit of this
goddess-worship is breken.
They who have overcome the world are no longer careful
either to secure its favor or avert its frown, and the good or
the ill opinion of the world is to them a small matter. " To
me," said Paul, "it is a small thing to be judged of man's
judgment." So of every real Christian; his care is to secure
the approbation of God; this is his chief concern, to commend
himself to God and to his own conscience. No man has over-
tcome the world unless he has attained this state of mind.
¦¦' Almost no feature of Christian character is more striking or
more decisive than this,— indifference to the opinions of the
world. 47*

558 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Since I have been in the ministry I have been blessed with
the acquaintance of some men who were peculiarly distinguish
ed by this quality of character. Some of you may have
known Rev. James Patterson, late of Philadelphia. If so,
you know him to have been eminently distinguished in this
respect. He seemed to have the least possible disposition to
secure the applause of men or to avoid their censure. It
seemed to be of no consequence to him to commend himself
to men. For him it was enough if he might please God.
Hence you were sure to find him in everlasting war against
sin, all sin, however popular, however entrenched by cus
tom or sustained by wealth, or public opinion. Yet he al
ways opposed sin with a most remarkable spirit— a spirit of
inflexible decision and yet of great mellowness and tender
ness. While he was saying the most severe things in the
most severe language you might see the big tears rolling
down his cheeks.
It is wonderful that most men never complained of his har
ving a bad spirit. "Much as they dreaded his rebuke and
writhed under his strong and :daring exposures of wickedness,
they could never say that Father Patterson had any other
than a good spirit. This was a most beautiful and striking
exemplification of having overcome the world.
Men who are not thus dead to the world have not escaped
its bondage. The victorious Christian is in a state where he
is no longer in bondage to man. He is bound only to serve
God. II. We must enquire Who are those that overcome the world?
Our text gives the ready answer. "Whatsoever is born of
God overcometh the world." You cannot fail to observe that
this is a universal proposition, — all who are born of God over
come the world — all these, and it is obviously implied — none
others. You may know who are born^of God by this char
acteristic— they overcome the world. Of course the second
question is answered.
III. Our next question is, Why do believers overcome the
world? On what principle is this result effected1!
I answer, this victory over the world results as naturally
from the spiritual or heavenly birth as coming into bondage to
the world results from the natural birth.
It may be well to revert a moment to the law of connection,'
in the latter case, namely: between coming into the world by *
natural birth. and bondage to the world. This law obviously
%¦> admits of a philosophical explanation, at once simple and pair

REGENERATION. 559
pable to every one's observation. Natural birth reveals to the
mind objects of sense and these only. It brings the mind in
to contact with worldly things. Of course it is natural that
the mind should become deeply interested in these objects
thus presented through its external senses, especially as most
of them sustain so intimate a relation to our sentient nature
and become the first and chief sources of our happiness.
Hence our affections are gradually entwined around these
objects and we become thoroughly lovers of this world ere
our eyes have been opened upon it many months.
Now alongside of this universal fact let another be placed
of equal importance and not less universal, namely, that those
intuitive powers of the mind which were created to take cog
nizance of our moral relations, and hence to counteract the
too great influence of worldly objects, come into action very
slowly, and are not developed so as to act vigorously until
years are numbered as months are in the case of the external
organs of sense. The very early and vigorous development
of the latter brings the soul so. entirely under the control of
worldly objects that when the reason and the conscience
come to speak, their voice is little heeded. As a matter of
fact we find it universally true that unless divine power inter
pose, the bondage to the world thus induced upon the soul is
never broken.
But the point which I particularly desired to elucidate was
simply this, that natural birth with its attendant laws of phy
sical and mental development becomes the occasion of bon
dage to this world.
Right over against this, lies the birth into the kingdom of
God by the Spirit. By this the soul is brought into new rela
tions,, we might rather say, into intimate contact with spirit
ual things. The Spirit of God seems to usher the soul into
the spiritual world, in a manner strictly analogous to the re
sult of the natural birth upon our physical being. The great
truths of the spiritual world are opened to our view through
the illumination of the Spirit of God; we seem to see with
new eyes, and to have a new world of spiritual objects around
As in regard to natural objects, men not only speculate
about them, but realize them; so in the case of spiritual chil
dren do spiritual things become not merely matters of specu
lation, but of full and practical realization also. When God
reveals himself to the mind, spiritual things are seen m their
real light, and make the impression of realities.

560 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
Consequently, when spiritual objects are thus revealed to
the mind, and thus apprehended, they will supremely inter
est that mind. Such is our mental constitution that the truth
of God when thoroughly apprehended cannot fail to interest
us. If these truths were clearly revealed to the wickedest
man on earth, so that he should apprehend them as realities,
it could not fail to rouse up his soul to most intense action.
He might hate the light, and might stubbornly resist the claims
of God upon his heart, but he could not fail to feel a thrilling
interest in truths that so take hold of the great and vital things
of human well being.
Let me ask, Is there a sinner in this house, or can there be
a sinner on this wide earth, who does not see that if God's
presence were made as manifest and as real to his mind as the
presence of his fellow men, it would supremely engross his
soul even though it might not subdue his heart?
This revelation of God's presence and character might not
convert him, but it would, at least for the time being, kill his
attention to the world.
You often see this in the case of persons deeply convicted;
you have doubtless, seen persons so fearfully convicted of sin,
that they cared nothing at all for their food nor their dress.
O, they cried out iii the agony of their souls, what matter
all these things to us, if we even get them all, and then must
lie down in hell !
But these thrilling and all-absorbing convictions do not ne
cessarily convert the soul, and I have alluded to them here
only to show the controlling power of realizing views of divine
truth. When regeneration has taken place, and the soul is born of
God, then realizing views of truth not only awaken interest,
as they might do in an unrenewed mind, but they also tend
to excite a deep and ardent love for these truths. They draw
out the heart. Spiritual truth now takes possession of his
mind, and draws him into its warm and life-giving embrace.
Before, error, falsehood, death, had drawn him under their
power; now the Spirit of God draws him into the very embrace
of God. Now he is begotten of God, and breathes the spirit
of sonship. Now, according to the Bible, "the seed of God
remaineth in him," that very truth, and those movings of the
spirit which gave him birth into the kingdom of God, contin
ue still in power upon his mind, and hence he continues a
Christian, and as the Bible states it, "he cannot sin, because
he is born of God." The seed of God is in him, and the fruit

REGENERATION. 561
of it brings his soul deeply into sympathy with his own Father
in heaven.
Again, the first birth makes us acquainted with earthly
things, the second with God; the first with the finite, and the
second with the infinite; the first with things correlated with
our animal nature, the second with those great things which
stand connected with our spiritual nature, things so lovely, and
so glorious as to overcome all tho ensnarements of the world.
Again, the first begets a worldly, and the second a heav
enly temper; under the first, the mind is brought into a snare
—under the second, it is delivered from that snare. Under
the first, the conversation is earthly — under the second "our
conversation is in heaven." * * * *
He who does not habitually overcome the world, is not born
of God. In saying this I do not intend to affirm that a true
Christian may not sometimes be overcome by sin; but I do
affirm that overcoming the world is the general rule, and fall
ing into sin is only the exception. This is the least that can
be meant by the language of our text, and by similar declara
tions which often occur in the bible. Just as in the passage
— "He that is born of God doth not commit sin, and he can
not sin because he is born of God;" — nothing less can be
meant than this, — that he can not sin uniformly — can not make
sinning his business, and can sin, if at all, only occasionally
and aside from the general current of his life. In the same
manner we should say of a man who is in general truthful
that he is not a liar.
I will not contend for more than this respecting either of
these passages; but for so much as this I must contend, that
the new-born souls here spoken of do in general overcome the
world. The general fact respecting them is that they do not
sin and are not in bondage to Satan. The affirmations of
Scripture respecting them, must at least embrace their general
character. What is a religion good for that does not overcome the
world? What is the benefit of being born into such a reli
gion, if it leave the world still swaying its dominion over our
hearts? What avails a new birth which after all fails to bring
us into a likeness to God, into the sympathies of his family
and of his kingdom, which leaves us still in bondage to the
world and to Satan? What can there be of such a religion
more than the name? With what reason can any man sup
pose that such a religion fits his soul for heaven, supposing
it leaves him earthly-minded, sensual and selfish?

562 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
We see why it is that infidels have proclaimed the gospel of
Christ to be a failure. You may not be aware that of late
infidels have taken the ground that the gospel of Christ is a
failure. They maintain that it professes to bring men out
from the world, but fails to do so; and hence is manifestly a
failure. Now you must observe that the bible does indeed
affirm, as infidels say, that those who are truly born of God
do overcome the world. This we can not deny and we should
not wish to deny it. Now if the infidel can show that the
new birth fails to produce this result, he has carried his point*
and we must yield ours. This is perfectly plain, and there
can be no escape for us.
But the infidel is in fault in his premises. He assumes the
current Christianity of the age as a specimen of real religion,
and builds his estimate upon this. He proves, as he thinks,
and perhaps truly proves that the current Christianity does
not overcome the world.
We must demur to his assuming this current Christianity as
real religion. For this religion of the mass of nominal pro
fessors does not answer the descriptions given of true piety in
the word of God. And moreover, if this current type of reli
gion were all that the gospel and the Divine Spirit can do for
lost man, then we might as well give up the point in controver
sy with the infidel ; for such a religion could riot give us much
evidence of having come from God, and would be of very
little value to man; — so little as scarcely to be worth contend
ing for. Truly if we must take the professedly christian
world as bible christians, who would not be ashamed and con
founded in attempting to confront the infidel? We know but
too well that the great mass of professed christians do not
overcome the world, and we should be confounded quickly if
we were to maintain that they do. Those professed chris
tians themselves know that they do not overcome the world.
Of course they could not testify concerning themselves that in
their own case the power ofthe gospel is exemplified.
In view of facts like these, I have often been astonished to
see ministers setting themselves to persuade their people that
they are truly converted, trying to lull their fears and sustain
their tottering hopes. Vain effort! Those same ministers, it
would seem, must know that they themselves do not overcome
the world, and equally well must they know that their people
do not. How fatal then to the soul must be such efforts to
"heal the hurt of God's professed people slightly; crying
peace, peace, when there is no peace ! "

REGENERATION. 563
Let us sift this matter to the bottom, pushing the inquiry —
Do the great mass of professed christians really overcome the
world? It is a fact beyond question that with them the things
of the world are realities, and the things of God are mere the
ories. Who does not know that this is the real state of great
multitudes in the nominal church?
Let the searching inquiry run through this congregation —
What are those things that set your soul on fire — that stir' up
your warmest emotions and deeply agitate your nervous sys
tem? Are these the things of earth, or the things of heaven?
the things of time, or the things of eternity? the things of self,
or the things of God ?
How is it when you go into your closets ? — do you go there
to seek and to find God? Do you in fact find there a present
God, and do you hold communion there as friend with friend?
How is this?
Now you certainly should know that if your state is such
that spiritual things are mere theories and speculations, you
are altogether worldly and nothing more. It would be egre
gious folly and falsehood to call you spiritual-minded, and for
you to think yourselves spiritual would be the most fatal and
foolish self-deception. You give none of the appropriate
proofs of being born of God. Your state is not that of one
who is personally acquainted with God, and who loves him
personally with supreme affection.
Until we can put away from the minds of men the com
mon error that the current Christianity of the church is true
Christianity, we can make but little progress in converting the
world. For in the first place we can not save the church it
self from bondage to the world in this life, nor from the direst
doom of the hypocrite in the next. We can not unite and arm
the church in vigorous onset upon Satan's kingdom so that
the world may be converted to God. We cannot even con
vince intelligent men of the world that our religion is from
God, and brings to fallen men a remedy for. their depravity.
For if the common Christianity of the age is the best that can
be, and this does not give men the victory over the world,
what is it good for? And if it is really of little worth or none,
how can we hope to make thinking men prize it as of great
value? There are but very few infidels who are as much in the
dark as they profess to be on these points. There are very
few of that class of men who are not acquainted with some
humble Christians, whose lives commend Christianity and

564 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
condemn their own ungodliness. Of course they know the
truth, that there is a reality in the religion of the Bible, and
they blind their own eyes selfishly and most foolishly when
they try to believe that the religion of the Bible is a failure
and that the Bible is therefore a fabrication. Deep in their
heart lies the conviction that here and there are men who are
re#4 Christians, who overcome the world and live by a faith
unknown to themselves. In how many cases does God set
some burning examples ofChristian life before those wicked,
skeptical men, to rebuke them for their sin and their scepti
cism — perhaps their own wife or their children — their neigh
bors or their servants. By such means the truth is lodged in
their mind, and God has a witness for himself in their con
sciences." 13. But the sinner does not overcome the world. The world
in some form overcomes him. Its cares engrossments, pleas
ures, business, politics influence, in some form are his master.
Nor does he escape from its dominion over his heart if he re
sorts to a nunnery or a monastery, or betakes himself to the
life of an ascitic or of a recluse and shuts himself out from
human society. The world is still his master and holds him
in a state of banishment from its domain. Many think they
have overcome the world merely because the world has so
completely overcome them. It is so completely their master
as to force them to back out of it, to hide themselves from it.
They have not got the world under their feet, but it has got
them into banishment from that field of labor and of usefulness
where God and reason called them to labor. The world has
prevailed to rout them from their strong hold in Christ and
drive them to take refuge in monasteries, nunneries, and in
caves and dens ofthe earth. What an infinite mistake to sup
pose that this is overcoming the world! To forsake our field
of labor, to give over our work, to let the world of sinners go
down to hell and go ourselves into exile from the world, or at
the bidding ofthe world, be driven completely from the battle
field and hide in caves and dens and proclaim ourselves the
victors when in fact we have fled before and unbelievingly
succumbed to the enemy instead of subduing and overcoming
him by faith.
But in general. Sinners do not betake themselves to flight
in this way, but abide in the world and tamely submit to wear
its chains. Let it be distinctly understood that the true differ
ence between saints and sinners is that while they both live
in the world, both mingle in its scenes and engage in its af-

REGENERATION. 565
fairs, both have families or not, as the case may be, both pro
vide for the body, cultivate the soil, or follow some occupation
the saint has not a worldly selfish end in view. He is not en
slaved by the world, but his heart is steadfast serving the Lord.
Whatever he does he does it, not for some selfish end, but for
God. Does he provide for himself and his family ; he dqgs
it as a service rendered to God. He regards himself as the
the Lord's and not his own. He regards himself as the Lord's
steward and in whatever employment he is engaged, he ac
counts it the Lord's business and himself as the Lord's ser
vant in transacting it. He is not his own. He has no busi
ness of his own. Theworldisnothis. Nor is he the world's.
He does not bow down to it nor serve it. He has been chos
en out of the world, and therefore while employed by his mas
ter in if, he does all, not for self, but for God.
Not so with the sinner. He counts his business his own.
Hence he is full of cares and anxieties. The losses in busi
ness are his losses, and the profits are his profits. Living and
transacting business for the Lord is only a theory with him.
The practical fact with him is that he is in bondage to the
world. He serves the world or rather he serves himself of the
world. The world he serves as a means of self-gratification.
The saint serves God of or with the world; the sinner, him
self. The saint uses the world as not abusing it. The sin
ner abuses it and uses it to gratify his own lusts. The saint
overcomes the world because he uses it for God. The sinner
is overcome by the world because he uses it for himself.
12. The true saint overcomes the flesh. This term is some
times used in the gospel to signify the sensibility as distinguish
ed from the intelligence, and at other times in a more literal
sense and signifies the bodily appetites and passions. The
true saint is represented in the Bible as one who overcomes
both his bodily appetites and passions, and also as overcoming
the flesh in the still wider sense of the sensibility* " This-1
say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of
the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the
other: so that ye can not do the things that ye would. But
if ve be led by the Spirit ye are not under the law. Now the
works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions heresies,
envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
the which I tell you before as I have also told^ow in time past
48

566 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom
of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-
suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:
against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." — Gal. 5: 16
— 24. w What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin
that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that
are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Knowt ye not, that
so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were bap
tized into his death? Therefore we are buried with himhy
baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by the glory ofthe Father, even so we should walk
in newness of lifek" — Ro. 6: 1^4. " There is therefore now
no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law
of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it
was weak throrigh the flesh, God sending his own Son in the i
likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that
are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they
that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be
carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is Hie
and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh can not please God. But ye
are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit
of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the: body
is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of right
eousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from
the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead
shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwell
eth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the
flesh to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye
shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of
the body ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit
of God, they are the sons of God."— Ro. 8: 1—14. With the
saint it is not merely acknowledged to be a duty to overcome
the flesh, but he actually does overcome, and he is a saintjust
because he is delivered from the bondage of the flesh and intro
duced into the glorious liberty ofthe children of God. Saints
no longer mind or obey the flesh. Their God is not their

REGENERATION. 567
belly nor do they mind earthly things. This is the uniform
representation of scripture respecting them. They are not
the slaves of appetite, or passion, or lust, under any form, but
they are the Lord's freemen. This is not only the represen
tation of scripture but must of course be true from the nature
of regeneration. Regeneration consists, let it be remembered,
in the will's ceasing to be governed by the propensities ofthe
flesh and committing itself to the good of being. If the
Bible did not represent the regenerate as overcoming the
world and the flesh, it would not only be inconsistent with it
self, but also with matter of fact. It would not in such case
recognize the nature of regeneration. We are now consider^
ing, not what is true of the mass oi professing Christians, but
what is and must be true of real saints. Of them it must be
true that they do overcome the world and the flesh. While
they live in the flesh they walk not after the flesh, for if they
did they would not be saints. What is a religion worth that
does not as a matter of fact overcome the flesh? The domin
ion ofthe flesh is sin, and does not the new birth imply a
turning away from sin? Let it be forever understood that re
generation implies, not merely the conviction and the theory
that the flesh ought to be overcome, but that it actually is
overcome. The regenerate "do not sow to the flesh;" "do
not live after the flesh;" "do not mind the fleBh;" "do not
war after the flesh ;" " have crucified the flesh with its affec
tions and lusts ;" " through the Spirit do mortify, (kill) the
deeds ofthe body;" "keep under their bodies and bring them
into subjection." This not only ought to be, but it must be the
character of a true saint.
13. The sinner is overcome by the flesh. Self-indulgence
is his law. Some one, or more, of the phrenological or con
stitutional impulses always controls his will. He not only
"hves in the flesh, but walks after the flesh." He, "fulfils the
desires of the flesh and of the mind." He is "carried away'
with his own lusts and enticed." "His god is his belly" and
"he minds earthly things." He 'tis in bondage to the flesh."
This is his unfailing characteristic, that he is governed, not by
the law of God, but by his own desires. He is the creature
of impulse, and a sinner just because he is so. With him to
conquer the flesh is matter of duty, of opinion, of theory, and
not of actual performance and experience. He holds that he
ought to overcome, but knows that he does not. He acknowl
edges the obligation in theory, but denies it in practice. He
knows what he ought to do, but does it not. He knows what

^568 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
a christian ought to he, but is aware that he is not what a
christian ought to be. There seems to be an infatuation
among sinners, those especially that profess to be christians.
They can profess to be christians and yet know and acknowl
edge that they are not what christians ought to be, strange
ly assuming that a, man can be and is a christian who is not
what a christian ought to be: in other words that he can be a
christian without possessing just that which constitutes a
christian, to wit: a heart conformed to the intellect's appre
hension of duty. This is just what makes a christian; not
his seeing and acknowledging what he ought to be, but his
actually doing his duty, his actually embracing and conform
ing to the truth. The deceived professor knows that he is
not free, that he is in bondage to his flesh and his desires, but
hopes on because he thinks that this is common to all chris
tians. He sees and approves the truth and often resolves to
overcome his flesh, but as in the seventh of Romans he "finds
a law in his members warring against the law of his mind
and bringing him into captivity to the law of sin in his mem
bers." He can resolve but does not carry out his resolves.
When he resolves to do good evil is present with him and
conquers him. Of all this he is conscious, but he has taken up
the fatal delusion that this was Paul's experience at the time
he, wrote this chapter and consequently that it must be the
experience of all christians. He does not run his eye along
into the eighth chaptefand see the contrast between the ex
perience there portrayed and affirmed to be the experience of
all christians. He does not observe that the apostle is de
signing in these two chapters to contrast a christian with a
legal and self-righteous experience, but holds on to his delu
sion and observes not that the apostle begins the eighth, chap
ter by the affirmation that all who are in Christ Jesus are de
livered from the bondage of which he was speaking in the
seventh chapter and no longer walk after the flesh but after
the Spirit; that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
actually made them free from the law of sin and death which
is in their members. How infinitely strange that these chap
ters are so misunderstood and perverted. And how, mon
strous and how melancholy the fact that the great mass of
professing christians to this day recognize the seventh and
not the eighth chapter of Romans as their own experience!
According to this the new birth or regeneration , does not
break the power of the propensities over the will. The truth
is and must riot be disguised that they have not any just idea

REGENERATION. 569
of regeneration. They mistake conviction for regenera
tion. They are so enlightened as to perceive and affirm their
obligation to deny the flesh, and often resolve to do it, but
in fact do it not. They only struggle with the flesh, but are
continually worsted and brought into bondage; and this they
call a regenerate state. O sad. What then is regeneration
good for? What does it avail? The bible represents regen
eration as a "being born from above," "being born of God,"
and expressly affirms that "whatsoever is born of God over
cometh the world," and affirms that "whosoever is born of
God does not commit sin and can not sin because his seed
(God's seed) remaineth in him so that he can not sin because
he is born of God;" "that he is a new creature, that old
things are passed away and that all things are become new;"
"that he is alive from the dead;" that he has " crucified the
flesh with its affections and lust;" that "he is dead to sin and
alive unto God," and many such like representations: and
yet infinitely strange to tell, the seventh chapter of Romans
is recognized as a christian experience in the face of the
whole bible and in opposition to the very nature of regenera
tion and the experience of every true saint. The sinner is
a sinner just and only because he knows his duty and does it
not. He apprehends the law of the intelligence, but minds
the impulses of his sensibility. This is the very character
which the apostle is so graphically portraying in the seventh
chapter of Romans. He could not possibly have given a more
graphic picture of a sinner when he is enlightened and yet
enslaved by his propensities. It is a full length portrait of a
sinner enhghtened and struggling- for liberty, and yet contin
uaUy falling and floundering under the galling bondage of his
own lusts. And that this should be considered the experience
of a regenerate heart! O horrible! How many thousands of
souls have been blinded by this delusion and gone down to
hell! And what is worse still, commentators and many min
isters, because this is their own experience, are still holding
fast to and inculcating this delusion.
Now let it be remembered that just the difference between
saints and sinners, and especially deceived professors, is
expressed and clearly illustrated in the seventh and eighth
chapters of Romans; and to do this was the very design of
the writer of this epistle. The difference consists in just this:
They both see what they ought to do; the one does it in fact,
while the other only resolves to do it but does it not. They
both have bodies and both have all the constitutional propen-
48*

570 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
sities. But the saint overcomes them all. He has the victo
ry through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him he is deliv
ered from the body of sin and of death and made free from
the law of sin in his members9 He is a conqueror and more
than a conqueror. The sinner only cries out, O wretched
man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this
death? But he cannot add, "I thank God through Jesus
Christ my Lord," I am delivered, which is the evident mean
ing of the apostle, as appears from what immediately follows
in the beginning of the eighth chapter. The sinner sees his
captivity and groans under it, but does not escape. They are
both tempted. The saint overcomes through Christ. The
sinner is overcome. The sinner is conquered instead of be
ing like the saint a conqueror. He can not exultingly say
with the saint. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
hath made me free from the law of sin and death," but still
complains with the captive, "I see a law in my members war
ring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captiv
ity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man
that I am!"

LECTURE XLIV.
REGENERATION.
Wherein Saints and Sinners differ.
15. The saints overcome Satan.
This is expressly taught in the scriptures. " I write unto
you fathers, because ye have known him that is from the be-:
ginning. I write unto you young men, because ye have
overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children,
because ye have known the Father." — 1 John 2: 13. The
wicked are characterized as the "children ofthe devil;" "as
led by him captive at his will," " as being the subjects of Sa
tan, the god of this world," and as having Satan ruling in
their hearts.
But the saints are represented as being set at liberty from
his power, as being delivered, not from his temptations, but ac
tually saved from his dominion. The difference between the
saint and the sinner in this respect is represented in the scrip
tures as consisting, not in the fact that sinners are tempted
while saints are not, but in this, that while Satan tempts both
the saint and the sinner, he actually overcomes the sinner and
the deceived professor and leads him captive at his will. The
true saint through faith and strength in Christ overcomes and
is more than a conqueror. The saint through Christ triumphs
while the sinner yields to his infernal influence and is bound
fast in his infernal chain.
16. The true saint denies himself. Self-denial must be his
characteristic just for the reason that regeneration implies
this. Regeneration, as we have seen, consists in turning
away the heart or will from the supreme choice of self-grati
fication to a choice of the highest well-being of God and of
the universe. This is denying self. This is abandoning self-
indulgence and pursuing or committing the will and the whole
being to an opposite end. This is the dethroning of self and
the enthroning of God in the heart. Self-denial does not con
sist, as some seem to imagine, in acts of outward austerity,
in an ascetic and penance-doing course of starvation and
mere legal and outward retrenchment, in wearing plain
clothes and using plain language, or in wearing a coat with
one button, and in similar acts of "will worship and volun
tary humility and neglecting the body;" but self-denial con-
gists in the actual and total renunciation of selfishness in the
heart. It consists in ceasing wholly to live for self, and can

572 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
be exercised just as truly upon a throne surrounded with the
paraphernalia of royalty as in a cottage of logs, or as in rags,
and in caves and dens ofthe earth. ' The king upon his throne
may live and reign to please himself. He may surround him
self with all that can minister to his pleasure, his ambition, his
pride, his lusts, and his power. He may live to and for him
self. Self-pleasing, self-gratification, self-aggrandizement may
be the end for which he lives. This is selfishness. But he
may also live and reign for God and for his people. He may
be just as really self-denying on his throne and surrounded
by the trappings of state and of royalty as in any other sta
tion of life. That is, he may be as really devoted to God,
and render this as a service to God as well as any thing else.
To be sure his temptation is great; but nevertheless he may
in fact be perfectly self-denying in all this. He may not do
what he does for his own sake, nor be what he is, nor possess
what he possesses for his own sake, but accommodating his
state and equipage to his relations, he may be as truly self-de
nying as others in the humble walks of life. This is not an
impossible, though in all probability a rare case. A man may
as truly be rich for God as poor for him if his relations and
circumstances make it essential to his highest usefulness that he
should possess a large capital. He, to be sure, is in the way
of great temptation, but if this is plainly his duty and submitted
to for God and the world, he may have grace to be entirely
self-denying in these circumstances, and alltthe more com
mendable for standing fast under these circumstances. So a
poor mari may be poor from principle~or from necessity. He
may be submissive and happy in his poverty. He may deny
himself even the comforts of life and do all this to promote
the good of being, or he may do it to promote his own interest
temporal or eternal, to secure a reputation for piety, to ap
pease a morbid conscience, to appease his fears or to secure
the favor of God. In all things he may be selfish. He may
be happy in this because it may be real self-denial; or he may
be murmuring at his poverty, may complain and be envious
at others who are not poor. He may be censorious and think
every body proud and selfish who dresses better or possesses
a better house or equipage than he does. He may set up his
views as a standard and denounce as proud and selfish all
who do not square their lives by his rule. This is selfishness
and these manifestations demonstrate the fact. A man may
forego the use of a coat, or a cloak, or a horse^ or a carriage,
or any and every comfort and convenience of life. And all

REGENERATION. 573
this may proceed from either a benevolent or a selfish state of
mind. If it be benevolence and true self-denial, it will be
cheerfully and happily submitted to without murmuring and
repining, without censoriousness and without envy towards
others, without insisting that others shall do and be just what
and as he is. He will allow the judge his ermine, the king his
robes of state, and the merchant his capital, and the husband
man his fields and his flocks, and will see the reasonableness
and propriety of all this.
But if it be selfishness and the spirit of self-gratification in
stead of self-denial, he will be ascetic, caustic, sour, ill-natured,
unhappy, severe, censorious, envious and disposed to complain
of and pick at the extravagance and self-indulgence of others.
The true saint, in whatever relation of life", is truly self-de
nying. Whether on a throne or on the dunghill, he neither
lives, nor moves, nor breathes, nor eats, nor drinks, nor has
his being for himself. Self is dethroned. God is enthroned in
his heart. He lives to please God and not to please himself.
And whether he wears the crown and the purple, the ermine
of the judge or the gown of the counsellor, whether he culti
vates the field or occupies the pulpit, whether he is engaged
in merchandize, or whether he opens the ditch or plies a han
dicraft, whether in affluence or poverty, it matters not how
circumstanced or how employed, as certainly as he is a
true saint, just so certainly he does not live to or for him
self. Of this he is as conscious as he is of living at all.
He may be mistaken by others, and selfish ones may suppose
him to be actuated by selfishness as they are; but in this they
are deceived. The true saint will be sure to be found self-
denying when observed and judged by the law of love. Love
would readily perceive that those things which a censorious
and selfish spirit ascribe to selfishness are to be accounted for
in another way; that they are really consistent with and indeed
instances of self-denial. The spirit of self-pleasing and of
accommodating ourselves to our circumstances and relations
for benevolent reasons, may by a candid mind be generally
readily distinguished from each other. The selfish will natu
rally confound them and stumble at them simply because they
have only the experience of selfishness and judge others by
themselves. A truly self-denying mind will naturally also judge
others by itself in "such a sense as to take it for granted that
others are self-denying unless the manifest indications strong
ly urge to an opposite opinion.
A man of truth is not wont to suspect others of lying with-

574 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
out strong evidence of the fact, and then although he may be
sure that he tells a falsehood, the man of truth is ready rath
er to ascribe the falsehood to mistake than to call it a lie.
So the truly benevolent man is not wont to suspect others of
selfishneSs without strong evidence. Nor will the truly self-
denying man readily suspect his brother of selfishness even in
things that prima facie have that appearance. He will rather
naturally infer that his health or circumstances or something
consistent with self-denial accounts for what he does.
Especially does the true saint deny his appetites and pas
sions. His artificial appetites he denies absolutely whenever
his attention is called to the fact and the nature of the indul
gence. The christian is such just because he has become the
master of his appetites and passions, has denied them and con
secrated himself to God. The sinner is a sinner just because
his appetites and passions and the impulses of his desires are
his masters and he bows down to them and serves them. They
are his masters instead of his servants as they are made to be.
He is consecrated to them and not to God. But the saint
has ceased to live to gratify his lusts. Has he been a drunk
ard, a rake, a tobacco user; has , he been in self-indulgent
habits of any kind: he is reformed; old things are past away
and behold all things are become new. Has he still any
habit the character of which he has either mistaken or not
considered; such as smoking, chewing or snuffing tobacco,
using injurious stimulants of any kind, high and unwholesome
living, extravagant dressing, or equipage, retiring late at
night and rising late in the morning, eating too much, or be
tween meals, or in short, has there been any form of self-in
dulgence about him whatever: — only let his attention be call
ed to it, he will listen with candor, be convinced by reasona
ble evidence and renounce his evil habits without conferring
with flesh and blood. All this is implied in regeneration and
must follow from its very nature. This also the bible every
where affirms to be true of the saints. " They have crucified
the flesh with its affections and lusts." It should be forever
remembered that a self-indulgent christian is a contradiction.
Self-indulgence and Christianity are terms of opposition. The
states of mind designated by these two words are opposite
states of mind. This is precisely the difference between a
saint and a sinner, that the saint is self-denying and the sinner
self-indulgent. The saint is the lord and master of all his
appetites and passions. He rules them and not they him.
Whether he eats or drinks or whatever he does, he does all

REGENERATION. 575
for God and not to gratify himself. The sinner is the slave
of his appetites and passions. It is not in his heart to de
ny them. Some appetite or propensity always rules over him.
He complains that he can not abandon certain indulgences.
He is in bondage to his own lusts and led captive by them.
Seest thou then a self-indulgent professor of religion? If he
be really so, imagine not that you have found a christian but
know assuredly that you behold a hypocrite ; for this is as
certain as that he is alive. The true saint does not complain
that he can not give up any self-indulgent habit whatever.
He can and must and does if he be truly regenerate, give up
and forsake every species of mere self-indulgence. Grace
has obtained for him a victory and instead of his complaining
that he can not conquer his propensities, he knows that he is
more than a conqueror through our Lord Jesus Christ
16. The sinner does not deny himself He may not gratify
all his desires because the desires are often contradictory, and
he must deny one for the sake of indulging another. Avarice
may be so strong as to forbid his indulging in extravagance in
eating, drinking, dressing or equipage. His love of reputa
tion may be so strong as to prevent bis engaging in any thing
disgraceful and so on. But self-indulgence is his law notwith
standing. The fear of hell or his desire to be saved may for
bid his outward indulgence in any known sin. But still he
hves and moves and has his being only for the sake of indul
ging himself. He may be a miser, and starve and freeze him
self and deny himself the necessaries of life, yet self-indul
gence is his law. One propensity may lord it over and starve
the rest; but it is only self-indulgence after all. The nun
may take the vail; the monk may retire to the cloister; the
miser take his rags; the harlot 'seek the brothel; the debau
chee his indulgences; the king his throne; the priest his desk,
all for the same ultimate reason, to wit, to gratify self, to in
dulge each one his reigning lust. But in every possible case
every sinner, whatever may be his station, his habits orpur-
i suits, is self-indulgent arid only self-indulgent and that contin
ually. Some lusts he may and must control as they may be
inconsistent with others. But others he khOws and it will be
seen that he does not control. He is a slave. He bows down
to his lusts and serves them. He is enslaved by his propensi
ties so that he can not overcome them. This demonstrates that
he is a sinner and unregenerate whatever his station and pro
fessions may be. One who can not conquer himself and his
lusts; this is the definition of an unregenerate sinner. He is

576 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
one over whom some form of desire or lust or appetite
or passion has dominion. He can not, or rather will not over
come it., This one is just as certainly in sin as that sin is sin.
Do you hear that professor of religion? He says he knows
that he ought to give up such a lust or habit, but he can not
give it up. Why, in thus saying, he gives higher evidence of
being an unregenerate sinner or a loathsome backslider than
if he should take his oath of it. O that it were known and
constantly borne in mind what regeneration is. How many
thousands of deceived professors would it undeceive ! A self-
indulgent regenerate soul is a perfect contradiction, as much
so as to speak ofa disinterestedly benevolent selfishness, or
of a self-indulgent self-denial, or an unregenerate regeneration,
a sinful holiness or a holy sinfulness. These things are eter
nal and necessary opposites. They never do or can by any
possibility be reconciled or dwell together in the same heart.
With the sinner or selfish professor, self-denial is a theory, an
opinion, an article of faith. But he knows if he will but ad
mit the conviction, that he does not live for God; that he does
not eat and drink and dress and sleep and wake and do what
ever he does for God. He knows he ought to do so arid hopes
he does in some medsure, but he knows all the while that the
preponderance of his life is self-indulgent. When this is so,
nothing but infatuation can cause him to cling to his delusion.
17. The truly regenerate soul overcomes sin. j..
Let the Bible be heard upon this subject. "And hereby
we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him." — 1 John 2: 3, 4. "And
every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as
he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also
the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye
know that he was manifested to take away our sins: and in
him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: who
soever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little
children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness
is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth
sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might
destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God
doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he
can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children
of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever
doth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth

REGENERATION. 577
not his brother."— 1 John 3—10. " Whosoever believeth
that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and every one that
loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him.
By this we know that we love the children of God, when We
love God, and keep his commandments. For this is-the love
of God, that we keep his commandments ; and his command
ments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God
overcometh the world : and this is the victory that overcometh
the world, even our faith." — 1 John 5 : 1 — 4 . These passages,
understood and pressed to the letter, would not only teach
that all regenerate souls overcome and live without sin, but
also that sin is impossible to them. This last circumstance,
as well as other parts of Scripture, forbid us to press this
strong language to the letter. But this much must be under
stood and admitted, that to overcome sin is the rule with every
one who is born of God, and that sin is only the exception;
that the regenerate habitually live without sin, and fall ifito
sin only at intervals so few and far between that in strong
language it may be said in truth they do not sin. This is
surely the least which can be meant by the spirit of these
texts, not to press them to the letter. And this is precisely
consistent with many other passages of Scripture, several of
which I have quoted; such as this: " Therefore, if any man
be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new."— 2 Cor. 5: 17, " For in
Jesus Christ neither circuipcision availeth any thing nor un
circumcision; but faith which worketh by love." — Gal. 5: 6.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." — Galatians. 6: 15.
" There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are
in Christ Jesus, who walk not aftet the flesh but after the
Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath
made me free from the law of" sin and death. For what the
law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending khis own Son in the hkeness of sinful flesh, and for
sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness
of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit." — Romans 8: 1 — 4. " What shall
we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin,
live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us
as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his
death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the
49

578 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness
of life. For if we have been planted togetherin the likeness
of his death, We shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec
tion: knowing this that our old man is crucified with him,
that the' body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we
should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also
live with him; knowing that Christ being raised from the
dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liv
eth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves
to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal
body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neitheryield
ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:
but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the
dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto
God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are
not under the law but under grace." — Ro. 6: 1 — 14.
There is not a greater heresy and a more dangerous dogma
than that true Christians actually live a great majority of their
days in sin. Such an opinion is in palpable contradiction of
the Bible, and absurd in principle. Many persons seem to
have the idea, and this idea is often dropped directly, or indi
rectly implied from the pulpit, that truly regenerate souls may
and do often live mostly in sin ; that they live by far the great
er part of their time in a backslidden state, so far at least as
their heart is concerned; that they seldom or never truly
and fully obey God and live up to their duty. Now such rep
resentations are not only flatly contrary to the Bible, but they
are a greater snare and stumbling block than Universalism
or almost any form of heresy that can be named. The fact
is, if God is true, and the Bible is true, the truly regenerate
soul has overcome the world, the flesh, and Satan, and sin,
and is a conqueror and more than a conqueror. He triumphs
over temptation as a general thing, and the triumphs of temp
tation over him are so fa^jetween that it is said of him in the
living oracles that he does not, cannot sin. He is not a sin
ner but a saint. He is sanctified; a holy person; a child and
son of God. If at any time he is overcome, it is only to rise
again, and soon return like the weeping prodigal. " The
steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord: and he delight-
eth in his way. Though he fall he shall not be utterly cast
down: for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand." — Psalms
37:23,24.

REGENERATION. 579
I know that it is natural and common to appeal to experi
ence and .observation in support ofthe dogma I am opposing.
But how infinitely dangerous and wicked this is ! What! ap
peal to supposed facts in history and christian experience to
confront and withstand the express assertions of inspiration?
When God expressly tells us who are christians and what is
true of them, does it become us to turn round and say, Nayr,
Lord, for we and our neighbors are christians, and this is not
true of us. Who does not see the guilt and danger of this?
And yet it seems to be common for professors of religion to
tacitly assume, if not openly to avow, that true christians may
and do live for the greater part of their lives in sin.
This persuasion seems to be strengthened by the supposed
fact that David and Solomon lived a greater part of their time
m sin. But this is an unwarrantable assumption. The
psalms of David, taking their subject and spirit and dates into
view as well as many other considerations, render it evident
that he was a highly spiritual man and that his backslidirigs
were few and far between and of but short duration.
The Proverbs, the Song and the Ecclesiastes of Solomon
are sufficient proof that most of his days were not spent in
sin. Some have supposed that inasmuch as the high places
were not removed and that idolatry was openly practised
under a great part of his reign, that therefore he must all this
time have been away from God. But this may be accounted
for if we consider that the high places and idolatry continued
through the reigns of some ofthe pious kings who succeeded
him, doubtless for the reason that neither he nor they had
political power and influence enough to suppress it. The
book of Ecclesiastes gives on the face of it the highest evi
dence of having been written after his return from a season
of backsliding and skepticism, for very much of it is only a
statement of his skeptical views at that time. But really there
is no sufficient proof that Solomon, who was manifestly
a type of Christ, lived a majority or any thing like a majority
of his days in sin.
But whatever may have been true of Solomon and of the
saints of those comparatively dark days, the New Testament
has settled the question that now under the dispensation ofthe
Holy Spirit whoever is born of God doth not commit sin. The
passages that I have quoted must settle this point. The sixth
and eighth of Romans is the experience of the regenerate soul.
In considering the attributes of benevolence I have shown
that stability is one of its attributes, to which I would here

580 • SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
refer the reader (pages 262 and 263.) In respect to the phi
losophy of christians overcoming sin I would observe that the
- bible assures us that " whosoever is born of God does not, can
pot sin because his seed remaineth in him," that is, God's
seed remaineth in him. "Whosoever is born of God doth
not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him: and he can
not sin, because he is born of God." In 1 Peter 1 : 23 we are
informed that this seed is the word of God. — " Being born
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the
word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." God has
begotten him (for so the word should be rendered in 1 John 3:
9) by his word and this seed remaineth in him. The truth that
overcame his will and subdued or regenerated him remains
in him in such a sense that it is said he can not sin. It is so
lodged in his memory and so pressed upon him by the indwell
ing Spirit of Christ as to secure his habitual obedience, and
he is only sometimes overcome by force of strong temptation,
when for the time his attention is drawn away from the truth/ or
seed of God, which after all is lodged within him. It has a
permanent lodgment in his memory although it may not he
attended to in some moments of strong temptation. Now
whatever the philosophy of this fact may be, it is a declared
fact of inspiration that "Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him and he can not sin
because he is born of God." The connection in which these
words are found as well as other parts of scripture, shows
that this must respect the general character of regenerate
souls; that having been subdued by the word and Spirit of
God and the seed remaining in them, they can not consent to
live in sin ; that they love God and hate sin so much by vir
tue, of their new and heavenly birth that they will not sin,
unless it may possibly be that by force of great temptation
they may fall into occasional sins and those so seldom that it
can be said in general language that they do not, can not sin.
18. The sinner and the deceived professor is the slave of sin.
The seventh of Romans is his experience in his best estate.!,
When he has the most hope of himself and others have the
most hope of his good estate he goes no farther than to make
and break resolutions. His life is but a death in sin. He has
not the victory. He sees the right but does it not. Sin is
his master to whom he yields himself a servant to obey. He
only tries as he says to forsake sin, but does not in fact for
sake it jn his heart. And yet because he is convicted and
has desires and forms resolutions of amendment he hopes he

REGENERATION. 581
is regenerated. O, what a horrible delusion! Stop short
with conviction with the hope that he is already a christian!
Alas! how many are already in hell who have stumbled at
this stumbling stone! i>
19. The Christian is charitable in his judgments,
¦ This is natural to him by reason of his regeneration. He
now loves every body and seeks their good. " Love hopeth
all things and believeth all things." It is natural to us to
judge charitably of those whom we love and whose virtue and
happiness we greatly desire. It is also natural for us to in
terpret the conduct of others by reference to our own con
sciousness. If we are conscious of uprightness of intention,
it is natural to ascribe the conduct of others to upright inten
tions unless it be manifest that it is not so. Not only the Bi
ble forbids rash and censorious judging ofthe motives or char
acter of others, but it every where assumes and implies and
teaches that truly regenerate persons are charitable in their
judgments. This is an attribute of true religion, and there
is scarcely any thing in which the difference between saints
and sinners is more manifest than in regard to this feature of
their characters. A truly benevolent mind can not be censo
rious. Itis a contradiction to say that one who is benevolent
can judge and think and speak censoriously of any one.
Charity is kind, is courteous, is forbearing. A ruling dispo
sition to promote the good of any one can not lead or allow
us to rashly impeach his motives, to judge him in a manner
more severe than the circumstances of the case compel us to do.
Agaip. As a regenerate state consists in benevolence or
good-will to all beings, it implies as sacred a regard to the
feelings and reputation of our neighbor as we have, to our
own. Therefore a regenerate soul can not be a slanderer, a
tale-bearer or a busy-body in other men's matters. A regen- (
erate soul will not, and remaining regenerate, can not take up
an evil report of a neighbor and believe it but upon the strong
est evidence.. And when compelled to believe an evil report,
he will not give any greater publicity to it than to him the
interests of religion seem imperiously to demand. This must
be universally true of a truly benevolent mind. A disposi
tion to believe evil and to report it of any one is totally in
compatible with good will to universal being, so that if we see
this disposition in a professor of religion toward any one we
may know that his profession of religion is vain. "If any
man seemeth to be religious and bridleth not his tongue but
deceiveth his own heart, that man's religion is vain.'?
49*

582;, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
The saint loves his enemies. The things commanded in
the gospel are really true of the saints. They are not only
required of all men, but they are facts in the life and experi
ence ofthe saints. The saints really love their enemies, bless
them that curse them, do good to those that hate them and
pray for them that despitefolly use and persecute them.
$0. TJhe impenitent, whether professors of religion or not,
are pehsorious in their judgments and slanderous in their con
versation. They are selfish and of course have ambitious
projects and envious feelings, and these petty interests arid
projects j are continually interfered with by the interests and
projects, of others arou nd them. They judge others by them
selves*, , They know themselves to be hypocritical in their pro
fessions, selfish in their aims, false in their pretences, ambi
tious in their schemes, envious in their spirit ;^and in short they
are, conscious of so much that is wrong that they naturally
interpret the motives and character of others by their own.
They, dp not realize that their censorious speeches and rash
and, uncharitable judgments are but a result and a revelation
of their hypocrisy. But their own oath that they are hypo
crites, could not add to the weight of evidence afforded by
their manifest want of charity as revealed in their taking up
a suspicion, a rumor, and giving it publicity to the dishonor
and injury of their neighbor. I have learned neverto confide
in a, censorious man or woman. " O my soul come not thou
into their secret! unto their assembly, mine honor be not thou
united.?' They are false and will betray Christ to justify
self. t Dm
2L; 'Christians- or truly regenerate souls, experience great
andJ;-Dre,sent blessedness in their religion. They do not seek
their own happiness as the supreme good, but find it in their
, disinterested efforts to promote the well-being of others. Their
stafe/of mjnd is itself the harmony of the soul. Happiness is
botfi a natural result of virtue and also its governmental re
ward, .Christians enjoy religion just for the reason thatthey
are disinterested: in it, that is, precisely for the reason that
their, own enjoyment is not the end which they seek. And
selfish professors do not enjoy their religion just for the reason
that. their own enjoyment is the end at which they aim. If I
seek the good of being as an end, I am happy for three rea
son^/. .,..-,
(L), Itresults from the approbation of my own conscience.
(z*J From' the smile of God upon my soul and the conscious
communion and fellowship I have with himj and,

REGENERATION. 583
(3.) I gain my end upon which my heart is set, and this i9
a sweet gratification. Thus I am triply blessed. But if I
seek my own happiness as an end I fail to obtain it for three
reasons: ,j
(1.) My conscience instead of approving, upbraids me.
(2.) God instead of smiling either withholds his face alto
gether from or frowns upon me. He withdraws communion
and fellowship from me.
(3.) I do not secure my end, and therefore I am not grati
fied but disappointed. Suppose I seek the conversion of a
sinner, not from disinterested love to his soul, but from a de
sire to promote my own happiness. Now if he is converted, I
am not made happy thereby, for three reasons,
(1.) My conscience is not satisfied with my motives.
(2.) God is not; therefore he does not smile upon me.
(3.) His conversion was not the end I sought, and there
fore in his conversion I am not gratified, that is, I have not at
tained my end, which was not the salvation of that soul,
but my own happiness. But if I seek his salvation disinteres
tedly I am doubly blessed if he is not converted, and triply bles
sed if he is: —
(I.) Whether he is saved or not, my conscience approves
my intentions and efforts, and smiles upon my soul.
(2.) God accepts the will for the deed and blesses me as if
I had succeeded. Thus I am doubly blessed.
(3.) But if he is saved, I have gained my end, and thus am
gratified. So I am triply blessed. A saint is and must be
happy in his religion. He has his temptations but the Lord
delivers him and makes him blessed.
22. The selfish professor,
(1.) Has not true peace of conscience.
(2.) He has not the smile, communion and fellowship of
God. (3.) He is not disinterested and cannot rejoice in the glory
of God and the advancement of his kingdom for its own sake,
and therefore his soul is not filled with peace and joy in be
lieving. His religion is rather his' task than his life and his
joy. He is rather religious because he must be than because
he may be. He prays because he must rather than because
he may. With him, religion is rather what it will not do to
neglectthan what he delights in for its own sake. His enjoy
ment such as it is, is only a self-righteous enjoyment. Itis
not the soul's harmony with itself, with God, arid with all the
holy, and with the eternal laws of order, He knows that his

584 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
religion is not soul-satisfying, but sees so many professors
around him manifesting the same state of mind in which he
knows himself to be, that he thinks that all Christians find
^religion in this world rather a task and a burden than a de
light, and therefore he is not disposed to relinquish his hope..
He anticipates happiness in future, but at present he knows
he is not happy.
23. True saints rejoice to see souls converted and God glo
rified by any instrumentality. But hypocrites do not rejoice
in this for its own sake, and are apt to be envious and jealous
unless they or their friends or denomination are the instru
ments. 24. Christians would do all they could for God's glory and
the world's conversion, whether it was ever known or rewar
ded or not. But sinners would do little or nothing except
out of respect to applause and reward.
25. Christians have the Spirit of Christ.
(1.) Their bodies are the temple ofthe Holy Spirit, "What?
know ye not that your body is the temple of" the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your
own?" — lCor. 6: 19. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if
any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And
if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the
Spirit is life because of righteousness. Butif the Spirit of him
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised
up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies
by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." — Ro. 8: 9 — 11.
(2.) Their bodies are the temple of Christ. " But ye are
not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of
God dwell in you. Now if any man have, not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in yon, the body
is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righte
ousness. — Ro. 8: 9 — 10. "Examine yourselves, whether ye
be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your
own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be rep
robates." — 2 Cor. 13: 5. "To whom God would make
known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among
the gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." —
Col. I: 27. "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man
love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love
him, and wc will come unto him, and make our abode with
him."— John 14: 23. "I am crucified with Christ: neverthe*
less I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and tbe life

REGENERATION. 585
which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of
God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."— Gal: 2: 20.
^ ThatChrist may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, be
ing rooted and grounded in love." — Eph. 3: 17.
26. Christians have the Spirit of adoption. " For ye have
not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear;, but ye have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
Father." — Ro. 8: 15. 'k And because ye are sons, God hath
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father."— GaU: 6.
27. They have the fruits of the Spirit. "But the fruit of
the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, good
ness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no
law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with
the affections and lusts." — Gal. 5: 22 — 24.
28. Christians are led by the Spirit. " For as many as are
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. — Ro. 8: 14.
"But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
If we hve in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." — GaL5:
18, 25.
29. They have the Spirit of prayer. " Likewise the Spir
it also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should
pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession
for us with groanings which can not be uttered. And he that
searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit^
because he maketh intercession for the saints; according to
the will of God."— Ro. 8: 26, 27.
30. They have the law Written in their hearts. " Behold,
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in
the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the
land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake although I was
a husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the cov
enant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they ,
shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man
his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."— Jer.
31 : 31-^34* This passage the Apostle quotes in Heb. 8: 8
— 12, and applies to Christians under the new dispensation.

586 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
The law that was written upon the tables of stone is written
by tlie Holy Spirit in the hearts of Christians. That is, the
spirit or love demand.ed'by the law is begotten in their hearts.
In other words, they are truly regenerated, and love God with
all their hearts and their neighbor as themselves.
I might notice many other particulars in which saints and
sinners differ but perhaps I have said enough for this course
of study. If you return to the attributes of selfishness and
benevolence you will there find a fuller, development of this
subject. Of course the manifestation of the attributes of be
nevolence is conclusive proof of a regenerate state, for all
those attributes are only; so many modifications of true reli
gion and their manifestation is proof of its' existence.
So on the other hand the attributes of selfishness are only
so many modifications of sin, and their manifestation is proof
positive of an unholy and unregenerate state of mind.
There are many other things that might be said, indeed vol
umes might be written upon this subject in addition to what
has appeared. But one thing is worthy of special remark.
Mistaken notions in regard to the nature of regeneration have
led to false methods of estimating the evidences of regenera
tion. Most persons and most writers seem to appeal almost
exclusively, or at least in a great measure, to the feelings or
states of ihe sensibility for evidence of regeneration. Noth
ing can be more dangerous and deceptive than this. They,
regarding regeneration as a change in or of the sensibility,
look thither of course for the evidences of the change. The
bible appeals to the life instead of the feelings for evi
dence of regeneration. It assumes the true philosophy of re
generation, that it belongs to the will and that it must of
course and of necessity appear directly and uniformly in the
Ufe. So many circumstances influence the feelings that they
can not be depended on. They will effervesce or be calm as
circumstances change. But the outward life must by a law
of necessity always obey the will. Therefore the appeal can
more safely be made to it than to any thing else that lies open"
to the inspection of human eyes.
The subject of regeneration may know, and if honest, he
must know for, what end he lives. There is perhaps nothing
of which he may be more certain than of his regenerate or
unregenerate state; and if he will keep in mind what regen
eration is, it would seem that he can hardly mistake his own
character so far as to imagine himself to be regenerate, when
he is not. The great difficulty that has been in the way of

REGENERATION. 587
the regenerate soul's knowing his regeneration and has led to
so much doubt and embarrassment upon this subject, is that
regeneration has been regarded as belonging to'lhe sensibility,
and hence the attention has been directed to the ever fluctua
ting feelings for evidence of the change,,, No wonder that
this has led conscientious souls into doubt and embarrassment.
But let the subject of regeneration be disinthralled from a
false philosophy, and let it be known that the new heart con
sists in supreme disinterested benevolence or in entire conse
cration to God, and then who can not know for what end he
lives or what is the supreme preference or intention of his
soul? If men can settle any question whatever beyond all
doubt by an appeal to oonciousness, it would seem that this
must be the question. Hence the bible enjoins it as an impera
tive duty to know ourselves whether we are christians. We
are to know each other by our fruits. This is expressly giv
en in the bible as the rule of judgment in the case. The
question is not so much what are the man's opinions;«as what
does he live for ? Does he endeavor to promote true religion, love
to God and man? Does he manifest a charitable state of
mind? Does he manifest the attributes of benevolence in the ;
various circumstances in which he is placed ? O when shall
the folly of judging men more by their opinions and feel
ings than by the tenor of theirhves cease? It seems difficult
to rid men of the prejudice that religion consists in feelings
and in experiences, in which they are altogether passive.
Hence they are continually prone to delusion upon the most
momentous of all questions. Nothing can break this spell
but the steady and thorough inculcation of the truth in re
gard to the nature of regeneration.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08867 6458

;.*«&&

"