Chapter 9.
TRUE AND FALSE REPENTANCE.

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented
of; but the sorrow of the world worketh death.   2 Corinthians 7:10.

In this chapter the apostle refers to another epistle which he had
formerly written to the church at Corinth, on a certain subject, in which
they were greatly to blame. He speaks here of the effect that it; had,
in bringing them to true repentance. They sorrowed after a godly sort.
This was the evidence that their repentance was genuine.

"For behold this self-same thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort,
what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves,
yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea,
what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved
yourselves to be clear in this matter."

In the verse which I have taken for my text, he speaks of two kinds of
sorrow for sin, one working repentance unto salvation, the other
working death. He alludes to what is generally understood by two
kinds of repentance. And this is the subject of discourse tonight.

TRUE AND FALSE REPENTANCE.

In discoursing on the subject, I design to show,

I. What true repentance is. II. How it may be known. III. What is false
and spurious repentance. IV. How it may be known.

It is high time professors of religion were taught to discriminate much
more than they do in regard to the nature and character of various
exercises on the subject of religion. Were it so the church would not
be so overrun with false and unprofitable professors. I have, of late,
been frequently led to examine, over and over again, the reason why
there is so much spurious religion, and I have sought to know what is
the foundation of the difficulty. That multitudes suppose themselves to
be religious, who are not so, unless the Bible is false, is notorious.
Why is it that so many are deceived? Why do so many, who are yet
impenitent sinners, get the idea that they have repented? The cause
is doubtless a want of discriminating instruction respecting the
foundation of religion, and especially a want of discrimination
respecting true and false repentance.

I. I am to show what is true repentance.

It involves a change of opinion respecting the nature of sin, and this
change of opinion followed by a corresponding change of feeling
towards sin. Feeling is the result of thought. And when this change of
opinion is such as to produce a corresponding change of feeling, if the
opinion is right and the feeling corresponds, this is true repentance. It
must be right opinion. The opinion now adopted might be such an
opinion as God holds respecting sin. Godly sorrow, such as God
requires, must spring from such views of sin as God holds.

First. There must be a change of opinion in regard to sin.

1. A change of opinion in regard to the nature of sin.

To one who truly repents sin looks like a very different thing from what
it does to him who has not repented. 

Instead of looking like a thing that is desirable or fascinating, it looks
the very opposite, most odious and detestable, and he is astonished
at himself, that he ever could have desired such a thing. Impenitent
sinners may look at sin and see that it will ruin them, because God will
punish them for it; but, after all, it appears in itself desirable; they love
it; they roll it under their tongue. If it could end in happiness, they
never would think of abandoning it. But to the other it is different; he
looks at his own conduct as perfectly hateful. He looks back upon it,
and exclaims, "How hateful, how detestable, how worthy of hell, such
and such a thing was in me."

2. A change of opinion of the character of sin as respects its relation
to God.

Sinners do not see why God threatens sin with such terrible
punishment. They love it so well themselves, that they cannot see why
God should look at it in such a light as to think it worthy of everlasting
punishment. When they are strongly convicted, they see it differently,
and so far as opinion is concerned, they see it in the same light that a
Christian does, and then they only want a corresponding change of
feeling to become Christians. Many a sinner sees its relation to God
to be such that it deserves eternal death, but his heart does not go
with his opinions. This is the case with the devils and wicked spirits in
hell. Mark, then! a change of opinion is indispensable to true
repentance, and always precedes it. The heart never goes out to God
in true repentance without a previous change of opinion. There may
be a change of opinion without repentance, but no genuine
repentance without a change of opinion.

3. A change of opinion in regard to the tendencies of sin.

Before the sinner thinks it utterly incredible that sin should have such
tendencies as to deserve everlasting death. He may be fully changed,
however, as to his opinions on this point without repentance, but it is
impossible a man should truly repent without a change of opinion. He
sees sin, in its tendency, as ruinous to himself and everybody else,
soul and body, for time and eternity, and at variance with all that is
lovely and happy in the universe. He sees that sin is calculated in its
tendencies to injure himself and everybody else, and that there is no
remedy but universal abstinence. The devil knows it to be so. And
possibly there are some sinners now in this congregation who know
it.

4. A change of opinion in regard to the desert of sin.

The word rendered repentance implies all this. It implies a change in
the state of the mind including all this. The careless sinner is almost
devoid of right ideas, even so far as this life is concerned, respecting
the desert of sin. Suppose he admits in theory that sin deserves
eternal death, he does not believe it. If he believed it, it would be
impossible for him to remain a careless sinner. He is deceived, if he
supposes that he honestly holds such an opinion as that sin deserves
the wrath of God for ever. But the truly awakened and convicted sinner
has no more doubt of this than he has of the existence of God. He
sees clearly that sin must deserve everlasting punishment from God.
He knows that this is a simple matter of fact.

Secondly. In true repentance there must be a corresponding change
of feeling.

The change of feeling respects sin in all these particulars, its nature,
its relations, its tendencies, and its deserts. The individual who truly
repents, not only sees sin to be detestable and vile, and worthy of
abhorrence, but he really abhors it, and hates it in his heart. 

A person may see sin to be hurtful and abominable, while yet his heart
loves it, and desires it, and clings to it. But when he truly repents, he
most heartily abhors and renounces it.

In relation to God, he feels towards sin as it really is. And here is the
source of those gushings of sorrow in which Christians sometimes
break out, when contemplating sin. The Christian views it as to its
nature, and simply feels abhorrence. But when he views it in relation
to God, then he weeps; the fountains of his sorrow gush forth, and he
wants to get right down on his face and pour out a flood of tears over
his sins.

Then as to the tendencies of sin, the individual who truly repents feels
it as it is. When he views sin in its tendencies, it awakens a vehement
desire to stop it, and to save people from their sins, and roll back the
tide of death. It sets his heart on fire, and he goes to praying, and
laboring, and pulling sinners out of the fire with all his might, to save
them from the awful tendencies of sin. When the Christian sets his
mind on this, he will bestir himself to make people give up their sins.
Just as if he saw all the people taking poison which he knew would
destroy them, and he lifts up his voice to warn them to beware.

He feels right, as to the desert of sin. He has not only an intellectual
conviction that sin deserves everlasting punishment, but he feels that
it would be so right and so reasonable, and so just, for God to
condemn him to eternal death, that so far from finding fault with the
sentence of the law that condemns him, he thinks it the wonder of
heaven, a wonder of wonders, if God can forgive him. Instead of
thinking it hard, or severe, or unkind in God, that incorrigible sinners
are sent to hell, he is full of adoring wonder that he is not sent to hell
himself, and that this whole guilty world has not long since been hurled
down to endless burnings. It is the last thing in the world he would
think to complain of, that all sinners are not saved; but O, it is a
wonder of mercy that all the world is not damned. And when he thinks
of such a sinner's being saved, he feels a sense of gratitude that he
never knew anything of till he was a Christian.

II. I am to show what are the works or effects of genuine repentance.

I wish to show you what are the works of true repentance, and to make
it so plain to your minds, that you can know infallibly whether you have
repented or not.

1. If your repentance is genuine, there is in your mind a conscious
change of views and feeling in regard to sin.

Of this you will be just as conscious as you ever were of a change of
views and feelings on any other subject. Now, can you say this? Do
you know, that on this point there has been a change in you, and that
old things are done away and all things have become new.

2. Where repentance is genuine, the disposition to repeat sin is gone.

If you have truly repented, you do not now love sin; you do not now
abstain from it through fear, and to avoid punishment, but because
you hate it. How is this with you? Do you know that your disposition to
commit sin is gone? Look at the sins you used to practice when you
were impenitent how do they appear to you? Do they look pleasant
and would you really love to practice them again if you dared? If
you do, if you have the disposition to sin left, you are only convicted.
Your opinions of sin may be changed, but if the love of that sin
remains, as your soul lives, you are still an impenitent sinner.

3. Genuine repentance worketh a reformation of conduct.

I take this idea to be chiefly intended in the text, where it says "Godly
sorrow worketh repentance." Godly sorrow produces a reformation of
conduct. 

Otherwise it is a repetition of the same idea; or saying, that repentance
produces repentance. Whereas, I suppose the apostle was speaking
of such a change of mind as produces a change of conduct, ending in
salvation. Now, let me ask you, are you really reformed? Have you
forsaken your sins? Or, are you practicing them still? If so, you are still
a sinner. However you may have changed your mind, if it has not
wrought a change of conduct, an actual reformation, it is not godly
repentance, or such as God approve.

4. Repentance, when true and genuine, leads to confession and
restitution.

The thief has not repented while he keeps the money he stole. He may
have conviction, but no repentance. If he had repentance, he would go
and give back the money. If you have cheated any one, and do not
restore what you have taken unjustly; or if you have injured any one,
and do not set about rectifying the wrong you have done, as far as in
you lies, you have not truly repented.

5. True repentance is a permanent change of character and conduct.

The text says it is repentance unto salvation, "not to be repented of."
What else does the apostle mean by that expression but this, that true
repentance is a change so deep and fundamental that the man never
changes back again? People often quote it as if it read, repentance
that does not need to be repented of. But that is not what he says. It
is not to be repented of; or, in other words, repentance that will not be
repented of so thorough, that there is no going back. The love of sin
is truly abandoned. The individual who has truly repented, has so
changed his views and feelings, that he will not change back again, or
go back to the love of sin. Bear this in mind now, all of you, that the
truly penitent sinner exercises feelings of which he never will repent.
The text says it is "unto salvation." It goes right on, to the very rest of
heaven. The very reason why it ends in salvation is, because it is such
as will not be repented of.

And here I cannot but remark, that you see why the doctrine of the
Saints' Perseverance is true, and what it means. True repentance is
such a thorough change of feelings and the individual who exercises
it comes so to abhor sin, that he will persevere of course, and not go
and take back all his repentance and return to sin again.

III. I am to speak of false repentance.

False or spurious repentance is said to be worldly, the sorrow of the
world; that is, it is sorrow for sin, arising from worldly considerations
and motives connected with the present life, or at most, has respect
to his "own happiness" in a future world, and has no regard to the true
nature of sin.

1. It is not founded on such a change of opinion as I have specified to
belong to true repentance.

The change is not on fundamental points. A person may see the evil
consequences of sin in a worldly point of view, and it may fill him with
consternation. He may see that it will greatly affect his character, or
endanger his life; that if some of his concealed conduct should be
found out, he would be disgraced, and this may fill him with fear and
distress. 

It is very common for persons to have this kind of worldly sorrow,
when some worldly consideration is at the bottom of it all.

2. False repentance is founded on selfishness.

It may be simply a strong feeling of regret, in the mind of the individual,
that he has done as he has, because he sees the evil consequences
of it to himself, because it makes him miserable, or exposes him to the
wrath of God, or injures his family or his friends, or because it
produces some injury to himself in time or in eternity. All this is pure
selfishness. He may feel remorse of conscience biting, consuming
remorse and no true repentance. It may extend to fear deep and
dreadful fear of the wrath of God and the pains of hell, and yet be
purely selfish, and all the while there may be no such thing as a hearty
abhorrence of sin, and no feelings of the heart going out after the
convictions of the understanding, in regard to the infinite evil of sin.

IV. I am to show how this false or spurious repentance may be known.

1. It leaves the feelings unchanged.

It leaves unbroken and unsubdued the disposition to sin in the heart.
The feelings as to the nature of sin are not so changed, but that the
individual still feels a desire for sin. He abstains from it, not from
abhorrence of it, but from dread of the consequences of it.

2. It works death.

It leads to hypocritical concealment. The individual who has exercised
true repentance is willing to have it known that he has repented, and
willing to have it known that he was a sinner. He who has only false
repentance, resorts to excuses and lying to cover his sins, and is
ashamed of his repentance. When he is called to the envious seat, he
will cover up his sins by a thousand apologies and excuses, trying to
smooth them over, and extenuate their enormity. If he speaks of his
past conduct, he always does it in the softest and most favorable
terms. You see a constant disposition to cover up his sin. This
repentance leads to death. It makes him commit one sin to cover up
another. Instead of that ingenuous, openhearted breaking forth of
sensibility and frankness, you see a palavering, smooth-tongued,
half-hearted mincing out of something that is intended to answer the
purpose of a confession, and yet to confess nothing.

How is it with you? Are you ashamed to have any person talk with you
about your sins? Then your sorrow is only a worldly sorrow, and
worketh death. How often you see sinners getting out of the way to
avoid conversation about their sins, and yet calling themselves
anxious inquirers, and expecting to become Christians in that way.
The same kind of sorrow is found in hell. No doubt all those wretched
inhabitants of the pit wish to get away from the eye of God. No such
sorrow is found among the saints in heaven. Their sorrow is open,
ingenuous, full and hearty. Such sorrow is not inconsistent with true
happiness. The saints are full of happiness, and yet full of deep and
undisguised, and gushing sorrow for sin. But this worldly sorrow is
ashamed of itself, is mean and miserable, and worketh death.

3. False repentance produces only a partial reformation of conduct.

The reformation that is produced by worldly sorrow extends only to
those things of which the individual has been strongly convicted. The
heart is not changed. You will see him avoid only those cardinal sins,
about which he has been much exercised.

Observe that young convert. If he is deceived, you will find that there
is only a partial change in his conduct. He is reformed in certain things,
but there are many things which are wrong that he continues to
practice. 

If you become intimately acquainted with Him, instead of finding him
tremblingly alive to sin every where, and quick to detect it in every
thing that is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, you will find him,
perhaps, strict and quick-sighted in regard to certain things, but loose
in his conduct and lax in his views on other points, and very far from
manifesting a Christian spirit in regard to all sin.

4. Ordinarily, the reformation produced by false sorrow is temporary
even in those things which are reformed.

The individual is continually relapsing into his old sins. The reason is,
the disposition to sin is not gone, it is only checked and restrained by
fear, and as soon as he has a hope and is in the church and gets
bolstered up so that his fears are allayed, you see him gradually
wearing back, and presently returning to his old sins. This was the
difficulty with the house of Israel, that made them so constantly return
to their idolatry and other sins. They had only worldly sorrow. You see
it now everywhere in the church. Individuals are reformed for a time,
and taken into the church, and then relapse into their old sins. They
love to call it; getting cold in religion, and backsliding, and the like, But
the truth is, they always loved sin, and when the occasion offered, they
returned to it, as the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the
mire, because she was always a sow.

I would you should understand this point thoroughly. Here is the
foundation of all those fits and starts in religion, that you see so much
of. People are awakened, and convicted, and by-and-by they get to
hope and settle down in false security and then away they go.
Perhaps, they may keep so far on their guard as not to be turned out
of the church, but the foundations of sins are not broken up, and they
return to their old ways. The woman that loved dress loves it still; and
gradually returns to her ribands and gewgaws. The man who loved
money loves it yet, and soon slides back into his old ways, and dives
into business, and pursues the world as eagerly and devotedly as he
did before he joined the church.

Go through all the departments of society, and if you find thorough
conversions, you will find that their most besetting sins before
conversion are farthest from them now. The real convert is least likely
to fall into his old besetting sin, because he abhors it most. But if he is
deceived and worldly minded, he is always tending back into the same
sins. The woman that loves dress comes out again in all her glory, and
dashes as she used to do. The fountain of sin was not broken up.
They have not purged out iniquity from their heart but they regarded
iniquity in their heart all the time.

5. It is a forced reformation.

The reformation produced by a false repentance, is not only a partial
reformation, and a temporary reformation, but it is also forced and
constrained. The reformation of one who has true repentance is from
the heart; he has no longer a disposition to sin. In him the Bible
promise is fulfilled. He actually finds that "Wisdom's ways are ways of
pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." He experiences that the
Savior's yoke is easy and his burden is light. He has felt that God's
commandments are not grievous but joyous. More to be desired are
they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and
the honeycomb. 

But this spurious kind of repentance is very different: it is a legal
repentance, the result of fear and not of love; a selfish repentance,
anything but a free, voluntary, hearty change from sin to obedience.
You will find, if there are any individuals here that have this kind of
repentance, you are conscious that you do not abstain from sin by
choice, because you hate it, but from other considerations. 

It is more through the forbiddings of conscience, or the fear you shall
lose your soul, or lose your hope, or lose your character, than from
abhorrence of sin or love to duty.

Such persons always need to be crowded up to do duty, with an
express passage of scripture, or else they will apologize for sin, and
evade duty, and think there is no great harm in doing as they do. The
reason is, they love their sins, and if there is not some express
command of God which they dare not fly in the face of, they will
practice them. Not so with true repentance. If a thing seems contrary
to the great law of love, the person who has true repentance will abhor
it, and avoid it of course, whether he has an express command of God
for it or not. Show me such a man, and I tell you he don't need an
express command to make him give up the drinking or making or
vending of strong drink. He sees it is contrary to the great law of
benevolence, and he truly abhors it, and would no more do it than he
would blaspheme God, or steal, or commit any other abomination.

So the man that has true repentance does not need a "Thus saith the
Lord," to keep him from oppressing his fellow men, because he would
not do anything wrong. How certainly men would abhor any thing of
the kind, if they had truly repented of sin.

6. This spurious repentance leads to self-righteousness.

The individual who has this repentance may know that Jesus Christ is
the only Savior of sinners, and may profess to believe on him and to
rely on him alone for salvation, but after all, he is actually placing ten
times more reliance on his reformation than on Jesus Christ for his
salvation. And if he would watch his own heart, he would know it is so.
He may say he expects salvation by Christ, but in, fact he is dwelling
more on his reformation, and his hope is founded more on that, than
on the atonement of Christ, and he is really patching up a
righteousness of his own.

7. It leads to false security.

The individual supposes the worldly sorrow he has had to be true
repentance, and he trusts to it. It is a curious fact, that so far as I have
been able to get at the state of mind of this class of persons, they
seem to take it for granted that Christ will save them because they
have had sorrow on account of their sins, although they are not
conscious that they have ever felt any resting in Christ. They felt
sorrow, and then they got relief and felt better, and now they expect
to be saved by Christ, when their very consciousness will teach them
that they have never felt a hearty reliance on Christ.

8. It hardens the heart.

The individual who has this kind of sorrow becomes harder in heart,
in proportion to the number of times that he exercises such sorrow. If
he has strong emotions of conviction, and his heart does not break up
and flow out, the fountains of feeling are more and more dried up, and
his heart more and more difficult to be reached. 


Take a real Christian, one who has truly repented, and every time you
bring the truth to bear upon him so as to break him down before God,
he becomes more and more mellow, and more easily affected, and
excited, and melted, and broken down under God's blessed word, so
long as he lives   and to all eternity. His heart gets into the habit of
going along with the convictions of his understanding, and he
becomes as teachable and tractable as a little child.

Here is the grand distinction. Let churches, or individual members,
who have only this worldly repentance, pass through a revival, and get
waked up, and bustle about, and then grow cold again. Let this be
repeated and you find them more and more difficult to be roused, till
by-and-by they become as hard as the nether mill-stone, and nothing
can ever rally them to a revival again. Directly over against this are
those churches and individuals who have true repentance. Let them
go through successive revivals, and you find them growing more and
more mellow and tender until they get to such a state, that if they hear
the trumpet blow for a revival, they kindle and glow instantly, and are
ready for the work.

This distinction is as broad as between light and darkness. It is every
where observable among the churches and church members. You see
the principle illustrated in sinners, who, after passing through repeated
revivals, by-and-by will scoff and rail at all religion, and although the
heavens hang with clouds of mercy over their heads, they heed it not,
but reject it. It is so in churches and members; if they have not true
repentance, every fresh excitement hardens the heart and renders
them more difficult to be reached by the truth.

9. It sears the conscience.

Such persons are liable at first to be thrown into distress, whenever
the truth is flashed upon their mind. They may not have so much conviction
as the real Christian. But the real Christian is filled with peace at the
very time that his tears are flowing from conviction of sin. And each
repeated season of conviction makes him more and more watchful, and tender,
and careful, till his conscience becomes, like the apple of his eye, so
tender that the very appearance of evil will offend it. But the other kind
of sorrow, which does not lead to hearty renunciation of sin, leaves the
heart harder than before, and by-and-by sears the conscience as with
a hot iron. This sorrow worketh death.

10. It rejects Jesus Christ as the ground of hope.

Depending on reformation and sorrow, or any thing else, it leads to no
such reliance on Jesus Christ, that the love of Christ will constrain him
to labor all his days for Christ.

11. It is transient and temporary.

This kind of repentance is sure to be repented of. By-and-by you will
find such persons becoming ashamed of the deep feelings that they
had. They do not want to speak of them, and if they talk of them it is
always lightly and coldly. They perhaps hustled about in time of
revival, and appeared as much engaged as any body, and very likely
were among the extremes in every thing that was done. But now the
revival is over, and you find them opposed to new measures, and
changing back, and ashamed of their zeal. They in fact repent of their
repentance.

Such persons, after they have joined the church, will be ashamed of
having come to the anxious seat. When the height of the revival has
gone by, they will begin to talk against being too enthusiastic, and the
necessity of getting into a more sober and consistent way in religion.
Here is the secret they had a repentance of which they afterwards
repented.

You sometimes find persons who profess to be converted in a revival,
turning against the very measures, and means, and doctrines, by
which they profess to have been converted. Not so with the true
Christian. He is never ashamed of his repentance. The last thing he
would ever think of being ashamed of, is the excitement of feeling he
felt in a revival.

REMARKS.

1. We learn from what has been said, one reason why there is so
much spasmodic religion in the church.

They have mistaken conviction for conversion, the sorrow of the world
for that godly sorrow that worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be
repented of. I am convinced, after years of observation, that here is
the true reason for the present deplorable state of the church all over
the land.

2. We see why sinners under conviction feel as if it was a great cross
to become Christians.

They think it a great trial to give up their ungodly companions, and to
give up their sins. Whereas, if they had true repentance, they would
not think it any cross to give up their sins. I recollect how I used to feel,
when I first saw young persons becoming Christians and joining the
church. I thought it was a good thing on the whole to have religion,
because they would save their souls and get to heaven. But for the
time, it seemed to be a very sorrowful thing. I never dreamed then that
these young people could be really happy now. I believe it is very
common for persons, who know that religion is good on the whole, and
good in the end, to think they cannot be happy in religion. This is all
owing to a mistake respecting the true nature of repentance. They do
not understand that true repentance leads to an abhorrence of those
things that were formerly loved. Sinners do not see that when their
young friends become true Christians, they feel an abhorrence for
their balls and parties, and sinful amusements and follies, that the love
for these things is crucified.

I once knew a young lady who was converted to God. Her father was
a very proud worldly man. She used to be very fond of dress, and the
dancing school, and balls. After she was converted, her father would
force her to go to the dancing school. He used to go along with her,
and force her to stand up and dance. She would go there and weep,
and sometimes when she was standing up on the floor to dance, her
feelings of abhorrence and sorrow would so come over her, that she
would turn away and burst into tears. Here you see the cause of all
that. She truly repented of these things, with a repentance not to be
repented of. O, how many associations would such a scene recall to
a Christian, what compassion for her former gay companions, what
abhorrence of their giddy mirth, how she longed to be in the prayer-meeting,
how could she be happy there? Such is the mistake which
the impenitent, or those who have only worldly sorrow, fall into, in
regard to the happiness of the real Christian.

3. Here you see what is the matter with those professing Christians
who think it a cross to be very strict in religion.

Such persons are always apologizing for their sins, and pleading for
certain practices, that are not consistent with strict religion. It shows
that they love sin still, and will go as far as they dare in it. If they were
true Christians, they would abhor it, and turn from it, and would feel it
to be a cross to be dragged to it.

4. You see the reason why some know not what it is to enjoy religion.

They are not cheerful and happy in religion. They are grieved because
they have to break off from so many things they love, or because they
have to give so much money. They are in the fire all the time. Instead
of rejoicing in every opportunity of self-denial, and rejoicing in the
plainest and most cutting exhibitions of truth, it is a great trial to them
to be told their duty, when it crosses their inclinations and habits. 

The plain truth distresses them. Why? Because their hearts do not
love to do duty. If they loved to do their duty, every ray of light that
broke in upon their minds from heaven, pointing out their duty, would
be welcomed, and make them more and more happy.

Whenever you see such persons, if they feel cramped and distressed
because the truth presses them, if their hearts do not yield and go
along with the truth, hypocrite is the name of all such professors of
religion. If you find that they are distressed like anxious sinners, and
that the more you point out their sins the more they are distressed, be
you sure, that they have never truly repented of their sins, nor given
themselves up to be God's.

5. You see why many professed converts, who have had very deep
exercises at the time of their conversion, afterwards apostatize.

They had deep convictions and great distress of mind, and afterwards
they got relief and their joy was very great, and they were amazingly
happy for a season. But by-and-by they decline, and then they
apostatize. Some, who do not discriminate properly between true and
false repentance, and who think there cannot be such "deep"
exercises without divine power, call these cases of falling from grace.
But the truth is, They went out from us because they were not of us.
They never had that repentance that his and annihilates the
disposition to sin.

6. See why backsliders are so miserable.

Perhaps you will infer that I suppose all true Christians are perfect,
from what I said about the disposition to sin being broken up and
changed. But this does not follow. There is a radical difference
between a backslidden Christian and a hypocrite who has gone back
from his profession. The hypocrite loves the world, and enjoys sin
when he returns to it. He may have some fears and some remorse,
and some apprehension about the loss of character; but after all he
enjoys sin. Not so with the backslidden Christian. He loses his first
love, then he falls a prey to temptation, and so he goes into sin. But he
does not love it; it is always bitter to him; he feels unhappy and away
from, home. He has indeed, at the time, no Spirit of God, no love of
God in exercise to keep him from sin, but he does not love sin; he is
unhappy in sin; he feels that he is a wretch. He is as different from the
hypocrite as can be. Such an one, when he leaves the love of God,
may be delivered over to Satan for a time, for the destruction of the
flesh, that the Spirit may be saved; but he can never again enjoy sin
as he used to, or delight himself as he once could in the pleasures of
the world. Never again can he drink in iniquity like water. So long as
he continues to wander, he is a wretch. If there is one such here
tonight, you know it.

7. You see why convicted sinners are afraid to pledge themselves to
give up their sins.

They tell you they dare not promise to do it, because they are afraid
they shall not keep the promise. There you have the reason. "They
love sin." The drunkard knows that he loves rum, and though he may
be constrained to keep his promise and abstain from it, yet his appetite
still craves it. And so with the convicted sinner. He feels that he loves
sin, that his hold on sin has never been broken off, and he dares not
promise.

8. See why some professors of religion are so much opposed to
pledges.

It is on the same principle. They love their sins so well, they know their
hearts will plead for indulgence, and they are afraid to promise to give
them up. Hence many who profess to think they are Christians, refuse
to join the church. The secret reason is, they feel that their heart is still
going after sin, and they dare not come under the obligations of the
church-covenant. They do not want to be subject to the discipline of
the church, in case they should sin. That man knows he is a hypocrite.

9. Those sinners who have worldly sorrow, can now see where the
difficulty lies, and what is the reason they are not converted.

Their intellectual views of sin may be such, that if their hearts
corresponded, they would be Christians. And perhaps they are
thinking that this is true repentance. But if they were truly willing to
give up sin, and all sin, they would not hesitate to pledge themselves
to it, and to have all the world know that they had done it. If there are
any such here, I ask you now to come forward, and take these seats.
If you are willing to give up sin, you are willing to promise to do it, and
willing to have it known that you have done it. But if you resist
conviction, and when your understanding is enlightened to see what
you ought to do, your heart still goeth forth after your sins, tremble,
sinner, at the prospect before you. All your convictions will avail you
nothing. They will only sink you deeper in hell for having resisted them.

If you are willing to give up your sins, you can signify it as I have
named. But if you still love your sins, and want to retain them, you can
keep your seats. And now, shall we go and tell God in prayer, that
these sinners are unwilling to give up their sins, that though they are
convinced they are wrong, they love their idols, and after them they
will go? The Lord have mercy on them, for they are in a fearful case.

Chapter 10.

DISHONESTY IN SMALL MATTERS INCONSISTENT WITH
HONESTY IN ANYTHING.

He that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.   Luke 16:10.

These words are a part of the parable of the unjust steward, or rather,
a principle which our Lord lays down in connection with the parable.
The words do not require that I should go into an explanation of the
parable itself, as they make no part of the story which the Lord Jesus
was relating. The principle involved or laid down is what I have to do
with tonight. In preaching from these words I design to illustrate the
principle laid down, which is this:

One who is dishonest in small matters, is not really honest in anything.

The order which I shall pursue is the following:

I. I shall show what I do not mean by this principle. II. Show what I do
mean by it. III. Prove the principle, that one who is dishonest in small
matters is not really honest at all. IV. Show by what principle those
individuals are governed who, while they are dishonest in small things,
appear to be honest, and even religious, in larger affairs. V. Mention
several instances where persons often manifest a want of principle in
small matters.

I. I am to show what I do not mean by the principle, that one who is
dishonest in small matters is not really honest in anything.

Answer. I do not mean that if a person is dishonest in small matters,
and will take little advantages in dealing, it is therefore certain that in
greater matters he will not deal openly and honorably according to the
rules of business.

Or that it is certain, if a man will commit petty thefts and depredations,
that he will commit highway robbery. There may be various reasons
why a man who will commit such depredations will not go into more
daring and outrageous crimes.

Or that if a man indulges unclean thoughts, it is certain he will commit
adultery.

Or that if he indulges covetous desires, it is certain he will steal.

Or that if he indulges in ill-will towards any one, he will commit murder.

Or that if he would enslave a fellow man, and deprive him of
instruction and of all the rights of man, he will certainly commit other
crimes of equal enormity.

Or that if he will defraud the government in little things, such as
postage, or duties on little articles, he will rob the treasury.

II. I am to explain what I do mean by the principle laid down, that if a
man is dishonest in little things, he is not really honest in anything.

What I mean is, that if a man is dishonest in small matters, it shows
that he is not governed by principle in anything. It is therefore certain
that it is not real honesty of heart which leads him to act right in
greater matters. He must have other motives than honesty of heart, if
he appears to act honestly in larger things, while he acts dishonestly
in small matters.

III. I am to prove the principle.

I am not going to take it for granted, although the Lord Jesus Christ
expressly declares it. I design to mention several considerations in
addition to the force of the text. I believe it is a general impression that
a person may be honest in greater matters, and deserve the character
of honesty, notwithstanding he is guilty of dishonesty in small matters.

1. If he was actuated by a supreme regard to the authority of God and
if this was the habitual state of his mind, such a state of mind would be
quite as apt to manifest itself in smaller matters as in large. Nay,
where the temptation is small, he would be more certain to act
conscientiously than in greater matters, because there is less to
induce him to act otherwise. What is honesty? If a man has no other
motives for acting honestly than mere selfishness, the devil is as
honest as he is; for I dare say he is honest with his fellow devils, as far
as it is for his interest or policy to be so. Is that honesty? Certainly not
and, therefore, if a man does not act honestly from higher motives
than this, he is not honest at all, and if he appears to be honest in
certain important matters, he has other motives than a regard to the
honor of God.

2. It is certain that, if an individual is dishonest in small matters, he is
not actuated by love to God. If he was actuated by love to God, he
would feel that dishonesty in small matters is just as inconsistent as in
great. It is as real a violation of the law of God, and one who truly
loves God would no more act dishonestly in one than in the other.

3. It is certain that he is not actuated by real love to his neighbor, such
as the law of God requires. If he loved his neighbor as himself, he
would not defraud him in small things any more than in great. Nay, he
might do it in great things, where the temptation to swerve from his
integrity was powerful. But where the temptation is small, it cannot be
that one who truly loves his neighbor would act dishonestly. See the
case of Job. Job truly loved God, and you see how far he went, and
what distress he endured, before he would say a word that even
seemed disparaging or complaining of God. And when the temptation
was overwhelming, and he could see no reason why he should be so
afflicted, and his distress became intolerable, and his soul was all in
darkness, and his wife set in and told him to curse God and die, he
would not do it then, but said, "Thou speakest as one of the foolish
women speaketh. What! shall we receive good at the hand of God,
and shall we not receive evil?" Do you suppose Job would have
swerved from his integrity in little things, or for small temptations?
Never. He loved God. And if you find a man who truly loves his
neighbor, you will not see him deceiving or defrauding his neighbor for
trifling temptations.

IV. I am to examine some of the motives by which a person may be
actuated, who is dishonest in little things, while he may appear to be
honest in greater matters.

Our own business here is to ascertain how this apparent discrepancy
can consist with the declaration in the test. The Lord Jesus Christ has
laid down the principle, that if a man is dishonest in small matters, he
is not strictly honest at all. Now, here are facts, which to many appear
to contradict this. We see many men that in small matters exhibit a
great want of principle, and appear to be quite void of principle, while
in larger things they appear to be honorable and even pious. This
must be consistent, or else Jesus Christ has affirmed a falsehood.
That it is consistent with truth will be admitted, if we can show that
their conduct in regard to larger matters can be accounted for on other
principles than honesty of heart. If we can account for it on principles
of mere selfishness, it will be admitted, that where a man is dishonest
in small things, he is not really honest at all, however honestly he may
act in regard to larger matters.

1. They may act honestly in larger matters for fear of disgrace.

They may know that certain small things are not likely to be mentioned
in public, or to have a noise made about them, and so they may do
such things, while the fear of disgrace deters them from doing the
same things in regard to larger matters, because it will make a noise.
What is this but one form of selfishness overbalancing another form?
It is selfishness still, not honesty.

2. He may suppose it will injure his business, if he is guilty of
dishonesty with men of business, and so he deals honesty in important
matters, while in little things he is ready to take any advantage he can,
that will not injure his business. Thus a man will take advantage of a
seamstress, and pay her a little less than he knows it is really worth for
making a garment, while the same individual, in buying a bale of
goods, would not think of showing a disposition to cheat, because it
would injure his business. In dealing with an abused and humble
individual, he can gripe and screw out a few cents without fear of
public disgrace, while he would not for any consideration do an act
which would be publicly spoken of as disreputable and base.

3. Fear of human law may influence a man to act honestly in such
things as are likely to be taken up, while in such small matters as the
law is not likely to notice, he will defraud or take advantage.

4. The love of praise influences many to act honestly and honorably,
and even piously, in matters that are likely to be noticed. Many a man
will defraud a poor person out of a few cents in the price of labor, and
then, in some great matter on a public occasion, appear to act with
great liberality. What is the reason, that individuals who habitually
screw down their servants, and seamstresses, and other poor people
that they employ, to the lowest penny, and take all the advantage they
can of such people, will then, if a severe winter comes, send out cart
loads of fuel to the poor, or give large sums of money to the
committees? You see that it is for the love of praise, and not for the
love of God nor the love of man.

5. The fear of God. He may be afraid of the divine wrath, if he commits
dishonest acts of importance, while he supposes God will overlook
little things, and not notice it if he is dishonest in such small matters.

6. He may restrain his dishonest propensities from mere self-righteousness,
and act honestly in great things, for the sake of bolstering up his own
good opinion of himself, while in little things he will cheat and play the
knave.

I said in the beginning, that I did not mean, that if a man would take
small advantages, he would certainly never act with apparent
uprightness. It often comes to pass, that individuals who act with great
meanness and dishonesty in small affairs, will act uprightly and
honorably, on the ground that their character and interest are at stake.
Many a man, who among merchants is looked upon as an honorable
dealer, is well known, by those who are more intimately acquainted
with him, to be mean and knavish and overreaching in smaller matters,
or in his dealings with more humble and more dependent individuals.
It is plain that it is not real honesty of heart which makes him act with
apparent honesty in his more public transactions.

So I said, that if an individual will commit petty thefts, it is not certain
he would commit highway robbery. He might have various reasons for
abstaining, without having a particle too much honesty to rob on the
highway, or to cut a purse out of your pocket in a crowd. 
The individual may not have courage enough to break out in highway
robbery, or not skill enough, or nerve enough, or he may be afraid of
the law, or afraid of disgrace, or other reasons.

An individual may indulge unclean thoughts, habitually, and yet never
actually commit adultery. He may be restrained by fear, or want of
opportunity, and not by principle. If he indulges unclean thoughts, he
would certainly act uncleanly, if it were not for other reasons than
purity of principle.

An individual may manifest a covetous spirit, and yet not steal. But he
has the spirit that would lead him to steal, if not restrained by other
reasons than honesty or principle.

A man may be angry, and yet his anger never break out in murder. But
his hatred would lead him to do it, so far as principle is concerned. And
if it is not done, it is for other reasons than true principle.

An individual may oppress his fellow man, enslave him deprive him of
instruction, and compel him to labor without compensation, for his own
benefit, and yet not commit murder, or go to Africa to engage in the
slave trade, because it would endanger his reputation or his life. But
if he will do that which divests life of all that is desirable to gratify his
own pride or promote his own interest, it cannot be principle, either of
love to God or love to man, that keeps him from going any length, if his
interest requires it. If a man, from regard to his own selfish interest, will
take a course towards any human being which will deprive him of all
that renders life desirable, it is easy to see that, so far as principle is
concerned, there is nothing in the way of his doing it by violence on
the coast of Africa or taking life itself when his interest requires it.

So an individual who will defraud the United States treasury of
eighteen cents in postage has none too much principle to rob the
treasury if he had the same prospect of impunity. The same principle
that allowed him to do the one would allow him to do the other. And
the same motive that led him to do the one, would lead him to do the
other if he had an opportunity, and if it were not counteracted by some
other motive equally selfish.

A man may, in like manner, be guilty of little misrepresentations, who
would not dare to tell a downright lie. Yet if he is guilty of coloring the
truth, and misrepresenting facts, with a design to deceive, or to make
facts appear otherwise than they really are, he is really lying, and the
individual who will do this would manufacture ever so many lies, if it
was for his interest, or were he not restrained by other reasons than
a sacred regard to truth.

V. I will mention some instances, where persons are dishonest in small
matters, while they appear to act honestly and even piously in regard
to matters of greater importance.

1. We often find individuals manifesting a great want of principle in
regard to the payment of small debts, while they are extremely careful
and punctual in the payment of notes in the bank, and in all their
commercial transactions.

For instance, there is a man takes a newspaper, the price is only a
small sum, and the publisher cannot send a collector to every
individual, so this man lets his subscription lie along perhaps for years,
and perhaps never pays it. The same individual, if it had been a note
at the bank, would have been punctual enough; and no pains would
have been spared, rather than let the note run beyond the day. 

Why? Because, if he does not pay his note in the bank, it will be
protested, and his credit will be injured, but the little debt of twenty
shillings or five dollars will not be protested, and he knows it, and so
he lets it go by, and the publisher has to be at the trouble and expense
of sending for it, or go without his money. How manifest it is that this
man does not pay his notes at the bank from honesty of principle, but
purely from a regard to his own credit and interest.

2. I have before referred to the case of seamstresses. Suppose an
individual employs women to sew for him, and for the sake of
underselling others in the same trade, he beats down these women
below the just price of such work. It is manifest that the individual is
not honest in anything. If, for sake of making more profits, or of
underselling, he will beat down these women   suppose he is
honorable and prompt in his public transactions   no thanks to him,
it is not because he is honest in his heart, but because it is his interest
to seem so.

3. Some manifest this want of principle by committing little petty thefts.
If they live at a boarding house, where there are boarders, they will
commit little petty thefts   perhaps for fuel in the cellar. An individual
will not be at the expense of getting a little charcoal for himself, to
kindle his fire in the morning, but gets along by pilfering from the
stores laid in by others, a handful at a time. Now the individual that will
do that, shows himself to be radically rotten at heart.

A case came to my knowledge, of this kind. An individual was sitting
in a room, where a gentleman had on the table for some purpose a
tumbler of wine and a pitcher of water. The gentleman had occasion
to go out of the room a moment, but accidentally left the door ajar, and
while he was out, looking back he saw this individual drink a part of the
wine in the tumbler, and then, to conceal it, fill up the tumbler with
water, and take his seat. Now the individual who did that showed that
he loved wine, and that he was none too good to steal; he showed,
that so far as principle was concerned, he would get drunk if he had
the means, and steal if he had a chance; in fact, at heart, he was both
a drunkard and a thief.

4. Individuals often manifest great dishonesty when they find articles
that have been lost, especially articles of small value. One will find a
penknife, perhaps, or a pencil case, and never make the least inquiry,
even among those he has reason to believe were the losers. Now, the
man that would find a penknife, and keep it without making inquiry,
where there was any prospect of finding the owner, so far as principle
is concerned, would keep a pocket-book full of bank notes, if he
should find it, and have an equal chance of concealment. And yet this
same individual, if he should find a pocket-book with five thousand
dollars in it, would advertise it in the newspapers, and make a great
noise, and profess to be wonderfully honest. But what is his motive?
He knows that the five thousand dollars will be inquired into, and if he
is discovered to have concealed it, he shall be ruined. Fine honesty,
this.

5. Many individuals conceal little mistakes that are made in their favor,
in reckoning, or giving change. If an individual would keep still, say
nothing, and let it pass, when such a mistake is made in his favor, it is
manifest that nothing but a want of opportunity and impunity would
prevent him from taking any advantage whatever, or overreaching to
any extent.

6. Frauds on the post-office are of the same class.

Who does not know that there is a great deal of dishonesty practiced
here? Some seem to think there is no dishonesty in cheating the
government out of a little postage. Postmasters will frank letters they
have no right to. Many will frank letters not only for their families but
for their neighbors, all directly contrary to law, and a fraud upon the
post-office. The man that will do that is not honest. 

What would not such a man do, if he had the same prospect of
impunity in other frauds, that he has in this?

7. Smuggling is a common form of petty dishonesty. How many a man
will contrive to smuggle little articles in his trunk, when he comes home
from England, that he knows ought to pay duty to the custom-house,
and he thinks but little of it, because the sum is so small where as, the
smaller the sum the more clearly is principle developed. Because the
temptation is so small, it shows how weak is the man's principle of
honesty, that can be overcome by such a trifle. The man that would do
this, if he had the same opportunity, would smuggle a cargo. If, for so
little, he would lose sight of his integrity, and do a dishonest act, he is
not too good to rob the treasury.

REMARKS.

1. The real state of a man's heart is often more manifested in smaller
matters than in business of greater moment.

Men are often deceived here, and think their being honest in greater
things will go to prove their honesty of heart, notwithstanding their
knavishness in smaller things, and so they are sure to be on their
guard in great things, while they are careless of little matters, and so
act out their true character. They overlook the fact, that all their
honesty in larger matters springs from a wrong principle, from a desire
"to appear" honest, and not from a determination to be honest. They
overlook their own petty frauds because they guard their more public
manifestations of character, and then take it for granted that they are
honest, which they are nothing but rottenness at heart. The man who
will take advantage in little things, where he is not watched, is not
actuated by principle. If you want to know your real character, watch
your hearts, and see how your principles develop themselves in little
things.

For instance, suppose you are an eye-servant. You are employed in
the service of another, and you do not mind being idle at times for a
short time, in the absence of your employer. Or you slight your work
when not under the eye of your employer, as you would not if he was
present. The man who will do this is totally dishonest, and not to be
trusted in any thing, and very likely would take money from his
employer's pocket-book, if it were not for the fear of detection or some
other equally selfish motive. Such a person is not to be trusted at all,
except in circumstances where it is his interest to be honest.

Mechanics that slight their work when it will not be seen or known by
their employer, are rotten at heart, and not to be trusted at all, any
farther than you can make it for their interest to be honest.

Persons who will knowingly misstate facts in conversation, would bear
false witness in court under oath, if favored with opportunity and
impunity. They never tell the truth at all because it is truth, or from the
love of truth. Let no such men be trusted.

Those who are unchaste in conversation would be unchaste in
conduct, if they had opportunity and impunity. Spurn the man or
woman who will be impure in speech, even among their own sex, they
have no principle at all, and are not to be trusted on the ground of their
principles. If persons are chaste from principle, they will no more
indulge in unclean conversation than unclean actions. They will abhor
even the garment spotted with the flesh.

2. The individual who will indulge in any one sin, does not abstain from
any sin because it is sin.
If he hated sin, and was opposed to sin because it is sin, he would no
more indulge in one sin than another. If a person goes to pick and
choose among sins, avoiding some, and practicing others, it is certain
that it is not because he regards the authority of God, or hates sin, that
he abstains from any sin whatever.

3. Those individuals who will not abandon all intoxicating drinks for the
purpose of promoting temperance, never gave up ardent spirits for the
sake of promoting temperance.

It is manifest that they gave up ardent spirits from some other
consideration than a regard to the temperance cause. If that had been
their object, they would give up alcohol in all its forms, and when they
find that there is alcohol in wine, and beer, and cider they would give
them up of course. Why not?

4. The man who for the sake of gain, will sell rum, or intoxicating
drinks, to his neighbor, and put a cup to his neighbor's mouth, and
would thus consent to ruin him, soul and body, would consent to sell
his neighbor into slavery to promote his own selfish interests, if he
could do it with impunity. And if he did not rob and murder him for the
sake of his money, it certainly would not be because the love of God
or of man restrained him. If the love of self is so strong, that he will
consent to do his neighbor the direct injury of selling him ardent spirits
nothing but selfishness under some other form prevailing over the love
of money, could prevent his selling men into slavery, robbing, or
murdering them, to get their money.

He might love his own reputation; he might fear the penalty of human
law; he might fear the destruction of his own soul, so much as to
restrain him from these acts of outrage and violence. But certainly it
could not be the principle of love to God or man that would restrain
him.

5. The individual who will enslave his fellow men for his own selfish
objects, would enslave others, any or all, if his interest demanded, and
if he had the same opportunity.

If a man will appropriate the rights of one, he would without any
reluctance appropriate the rights of all men, if he could do it with
impunity. The individual who will deprive a black man of his liberty, and
enslave him, would make no scruple to enslave a white man if
circumstances were equally favorable. The man who contends that the
black laborer of the south ought to be held in slavery, if he dared,
would contend to have the white laborers of the north enslaved, and
would urge the same kind of arguments that the peace and order of
society requires it, and laborers are so much better off when they have
a master to take care of them. The famous Bible argument too, is as
good in favor of white slaves as black, if you only had the power to
carry it out. The man who holds his fellow man as property, would take
his fellow man as property, if he could with impunity. The principle is
the same in all. It is not principle that keeps men who hold slaves from
kidnaping on the coast of Africa, or from making war to enslave the
free laborers of the north.

6. The man that will not practice self-denial in little things to promote
religion, would not endure persecution for the sake of promoting
religion.

Those who will not deny their appetite would not endure the scourge
and the stake. Perhaps, if persecution were to arise, some might
endure it for the sake of the applause it would bring, or to show their
spirit, and to face opposition. There is a natural spirit of obstinacy,
which is often roused by opposition, that would go to the stake rather
than yield a point. But it is easily seen, that it is not true love to the
cause which prompts a man to endure opposition, if he will not endure
self-denial in little things for the sake of the cause.

7. Little circumstances often discover the state of the heart.

The individual that we find delinquent in small matters, we of course
infer would be much more so in larger affairs, if circumstances were
equally favorable.

Where you find persons wearing little ornaments from vanity, set them
down as rotten at heart. If they could they would go all lengths in
display, if they were not restrained by some other considerations than
a regard to the authority of God and the honor of religion. You may
see this every day in the streets. Men walking with their cloaks very
carefully thrown over their shoulders, so as to show the velvet; and
women with their feathers tossing in the air: it is astonishing how many
ways there are in which these little things show their pride and
rottenness of heart.

You say these are little things. I know they are little things, and
because they are little things, I mention them. It is because they are
little things, that they show the character so clearly. If their pride were
not deeply rooted, they would not show it in little things. If a man had
it put into his power to live in a palace, with everything corresponding,
it would be no wonder if he should give way to the temptation. But
when his vanity shows itself in little things he gives full evidence that
it has possession of his soul.

How important it is for you to see this, and to keep a watch over these
little things, so as to see what you are, and to know your characters
they appear in the sight of God.

How important to cultivate the strictest integrity, such as will carry itself
out in small things as well as in large. There is something so beautiful,
when you see an individual acting in little things with the same careful
and conscientious uprightness as in matters of the greatest moment.
Until professors of religion will cultivate this universal honesty, they will
always be a reproach to religion.

Oh, how much would be gained if professors of religion would evince
that entire purity and honesty on all occasions and to all persons, and
do what is just right, so as to commend religion to the ungodly. How
often do sinners fix their eye on some petty delinquencies of
professors of religion, and look with amazement at such things in
persons who profess the fear of God. What an everlasting reproach to
religion, that so many of its professors are guilty of these little, mean,
paltry knaveries. The wicked have cause enough to see that such
professors cannot have any principle of honesty, and that such religion
as they exhibit is good for nothing, and is not worth having.

Of what use is it for that woman to talk to her impenitent servant about
religion, when her servant knows that she will not hesitate to
overreach, and screw down, and cheat, in petty things? Or for that
merchant to talk to his clerks, who know that, however honorable he
may be in his greater and more public transactions, he is mean end
knavish in little things? It is worse than useless.

Chapter 11.

BOUND TO KNOW YOUR TRUE CHARACTER.

Examine yourself whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.
2 Corinthians 13:5.

In speaking from this text I design to pursue the following order:

I. Show what is intended by the requirement in the text. II. The
necessity of this requirement. III. The practicability of the duty
enjoined. IV. Give some directions as to the manner of performing the
duty.

I. I am to show what is intended by the requirement in the text,
"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own
selves."

It requires that we should understand our own hearts, that we should
take the proper steps to make proof of our real characters, as they
appear in the sight of God. It refers not to a trial of proof of our
strength, or knowledge, but our moral character, that we should
thoroughly test it, so as to understand it as it is. It implies that we
should know how God regards us, and what he thinks of us whetherhe considers us saints or sinners. It is nothing less than a positive
command that we should ascertain our own true character, and settle
the question definitely for ourselves, whether we are saints or sinners,
heirs of heaven or heirs of hell.

II. I am to show the necessity of this requirement.

1. It is indispensable to our own peace of mind, that we should prove
and ascertain our true character, as it is in the sight of God.

The individual who is uncertain as to his real character, can have no
such thing as settled peace of mind. He may have apathy more or less
complete and perfect, but apathy is very different from peace. And
very few professors of religion, or persons who continue to hear the
gospel, can have such apathy for any length of time, as to suppress
all uneasy feelings, at being uncertain respecting their true character
and destiny. I am not speaking of hypocrites, who have seared their
consciences, or of scoffers who may be given up of God. But in regard
to others, it is strictly true that they must have this question settled in
order to enjoy peace of mind.

2. It is essential to Christian honesty.

A man who is not truly settled in his mind as to his own character is
hardly honest in religion. If he makes a profession of religion when he
does not honestly believe himself a saint, who does not know that is
not exactly honest? He is half a hypocrite at heart. So when he prays,
he is always in doubt whether his prayers are acceptable, as coming
from a child of God.

3. A just knowledge of one's own character is indispensable to
usefulness.

If a person has always to agitate this question in his mind, "Am I a
Christian?" If he has to be always anxiously looking at his own
estate all the while, and doubtful how he stands, it must be a great
hindrance to his usefulness. If when he speaks to sinners, he is
uncertain whether he is not himself a sinner, he cannot exhort with that
confidence and simplicity, that he could if he felt his own feet on a
rock. It is a favorite idea with some people, that it is best for saints to
be always in the dark, to keep them humble. 

Just as if it was calculated to make a child of God proud to know that
he is a child of God. Whereas, one of the most weighty considerations
in the universe to keep him from dishonoring God is, to know that he
is a child of God. When a person is in an anxious state of mind, he can
have but little faith, and his usefulness cannot be extensive till the
question is settled.

III. The practicability of this requirement.

It is a favorite idea with some, that in this world the question never can
be settled. It is amazing what a number of persons there are, that
seem to make a virtue of their great doubts, which they always have,
whether they are Christians. For hundreds of years it has been looked
upon by many as a suspicious circumstance, if a professor of religion
is not filled with doubts. It is considered as almost a certain sign, he
knows nothing of his own heart. One of the universal questions put to
candidates for admission has been, "Have you any doubts of your
good estate?" And if the candidate answers, "O yes, I have great
doubts," that is all very well, and is taken as evidence that he is
spiritual, and has a deep acquaintance with his own heart, and has a
great deal of humility. But if he has no doubts, it is taken as evidence
that he knows little of his own heart, and is most probably a hypocrite.
Over against all this, I maintain that the duty enjoined in the text is a
practicable duty, and that Christians can put themselves to such a
proof, as to know their own selves, and have a satisfactory assurance
of their real character.

1. This is evident from the command in the text, "Examine yourselves,
whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves." Will any one
believe that God requires us to examine ourselves and prove
ourselves, and see what is our true character, when he knows it to be
impossible for us ever to learn our true character.

2. We have the best possible medium of proof, to try ourselves and
prove our character, and that is our consciousness.

Consciousness gives the highest possible certainty as to the facts by
which our characters are to be determined, and the great question is
settled. What is our state before God? We may have, and ought to
have, the same kind of evidence of our state before God as we have
of our existence; and that is, consciousness. Nay, we cannot help
having the evidence. Consciousness is continually testifying what are
our states of mind, and it only needs for us to take notice of what
consciousness testifies, and we can settle the question as certainly as
we can our own existence.

3. God gives men such constant opportunities to act out what is in
their hearts, that nothing but negligence can prevent their coming to
a decision of the matter.

If men, were shut up in dungeons, where they had no opportunity to
act, and no chance of being influenced by circumstances, and no way
to develop the state of their hearts, they would not be so much to
blame for not knowing themselves. But God has placed them in the
circumstances in which they are in this life on purpose, as he said to
the children of Israel, to prove them, and to know what is in their
hearts, and whether they will keep his commandments or no. The
things around us must produce an impression on our minds, and lead
us to feel and act in some way. And this affords opportunities of
self-knowledge, when we see how we feel and how we are inclined to act
in such diversified circumstances.

4. We are farther qualified to trust to our own true characters, by
having a perfect rule to try them by.

The law of God is a true standard by which to try our characters. We
know exactly what that is, and we have therefore an infallible and an
invariable rule by which to judge of ourselves. We can bring our
feelings and actions to this rule, and compare them with this standard,
and know exactly what is their true character in the sight of God, for
God himself tries them by the same standard.

5. Our circumstances are such that nothing but dishonesty can
possibly lead us to self-deception.

The individual who is self-deceived is not only careless and negligent,
but decidedly dishonest, or he would not deceive himself. He must be
to a great degree prejudiced by pride, and blinded by self-will or he
could not but know that he is not what he professes to be. The
circumstances are so many and so various, that call forth the
exercises of his mind, that it must be willful blindness that is deceived.
If they never had any opportunities to act, or if circumstances did not
call forth their feelings, they might be ignorant. A person who had
never seen a beggar, might not be able to tell what were his true
feelings towards beggars. But place him where he meets beggars
every day, and he must be willfully blind or dishonest, if he do not
know the temper of his heart towards a beggar.

IV. I will mention a few things as to the manner of performing this duty.

First Negatively.

1. It is not done by waiting for evidence to come to us.

Many seem to wait, in a passive attitude, for the evidence to come to
them, to decide whether they are Christians or not. They appear to
have been waiting for certain feelings to come to them. Perhaps they
pray about it; perhaps they pray very earnestly, and then wait for the
feelings to come which will afford them satisfactory evidence of their
good estate. Many times they will not do anything in religion till they
get this evidence, and they sit and wait, and wait, in vain expectation
that the Spirit of God will come some time or other, and lift them out of
this slough, while they remain thus passive and stupid. They may wait
till doomsday and never get it in this way.

2. Not by any direct attempt to force the feelings into exercise which
are to afford the evidence.

The human mind is so constituted, that it never will feel by trying to
feel. You may try as hard as you please, to feel in a particular way.
Your efforts to put forth feelings are totally unphilosophical and absurd.
There is now nothing before the mind to produce emotion or feeling.
Feeling is always awakened in the mind by the mind's being intensely
fixed on some object calculated to awaken feeling. But when the mind
is fixed, not upon the object, but on direct attempts to put forth feeling,
this will not awaken feeling. It is impossible. The attention must be
taken up with the object calculated to awaken feeling, or there will be
no feeling. You may as well shut up your eye and attempt to see, or go
into a dark room. In a dark room there is no object to awaken the
sense of sight and you may exert yourself and strain your eyes, and
try to see, but you will see nothing. When the mind's attention is taken
up with looking inward, and attempting to examine the nature of the
present emotion, that emotion at once ceases to exist, because the
attention is no longer fixed on the object that causes the emotion. I
hold my hand before this lamp, it casts a shadow; but if I take the lamp
away, there is no shadow; there must be a light to produce a shadow. 

It is just as certain that if the mind is turned away from the object that
awakens emotion, the emotion ceases to exist. The mind must be
fixed on the object, not on the emotion, or there will be no emotion,
and consequently no evidence.

3. You will never get evidence by spending time in mourning over the
state of your heart.

Some people spend their time in nothing but complaining, "O, I don't
feel, I can't feel, my heart is so hard." What are they doing? Nothing
but mourning and crying because they don't feel. Perhaps they are
trying to work themselves up into feeling! Just as philosophical as
trying to fly. While they are mourning all the while, and thinking about
their hard hearts, and doing nothing, they are the ridicule of the devil.
Suppose a man should shut himself out from the fire and then go
about complaining how old he is, the very children would laugh at him.
He must expect to freeze, if he will shut himself out from the means of
warmth. And all his mournings and feeling bad will not help the matter.

Second Positively. What must be done in this duty?

If you wish to test the true state of your heart with regard to any object,
you must fix your attention on that object. If you wish to test the power
or accuracy of sight, you must apply the faculty to the object, and then
you will test the power and state of that faculty. You place yourself in
the midst of objects, to test the state of your eyes; or in the midst of
sounds, if you wish to test the perfectness of your ears. And the more
you shut out other objects that excite the other senses, and the more
strongly you fasten your minds on this one, the more perfectly you test
the keenness of your vision, or the perfectness of your hearing. A
multiplicity of objects is liable to distract the mind. When we attend to
any object calculated to awaken feeling, it is impossible not to feel.
The mind is so constituted that it cannot but feel. It is not necessary to
stop and ask, "Do I feel?"

Suppose you put your hand near the fire, do you need to stop and ask
the question, "Do I really feel the sensation of warmth?" You know, of
course, that you do feel. If you pass your hand rapidly by the lamp, the
sensation may be so slight as not to be noticed, but is none the less
real, and if you paid attention strictly enough, you would know it.
Where the impression is slight, it requires an effort of attention to
notion your own consciousness. So the passing feeling of the mind
may be so slight as not to occupy your thoughts, and thus may escape
your notice, but it is not the less real. But hold your hand in the lamp
a minute, and the feeling will force itself upon your notice, whatever be
your other occupations. If the mind is fixed on an object calculated to
excite emotions of any kind, it is impossible not to feel those emotions
in a degree; and if the mind is intently fixed, it is impossible not to feel
the emotions in such a degree as to be conscious that they exist.
These principles will show you how we are to come at the proof of our
characters, and know the real state of our feelings towards any object.
It is by fixing our attention on the object till our emotions are so excited
that we become conscious what they are.

I will specify another thing that ought to be borne in mind. Be sure the
things on which your mind is fixed, and on which you wish to test the
state of your heart, are realities.

There is a great deal of imaginary religion in the world, which the
people who are the subjects of it mistake for real. They have high
feelings, their minds are much excited, and the feeling corresponds
with the object contemplated. But here is the source of the delusion  
the object is imaginary. It is not that the feeling is false or imaginary.
It is real feeling. It is not that the feeling does not correspond with the
object before the mind. It corresponds perfectly. But the object is a
fiction. 

The individual has formed a notion of God, or of Jesus Christ, or of
salvation, that is altogether aside from the truth, and his feelings in
view of these imaginations are such as they would be towards the true
objects, if he had true religion, and so he is deluded. Here is
undoubtedly a great source of the false hope and professions in the
world.

V. I will now specify a few things on which it is your duty to try the state
of your minds.

1. Sin not your own particular sins, but sin itself, as an outrage
committed against God.

You need not suppose you will get at the true state of your hearts
merely, by finding in your mind a strong feeling of disapprobation of
sin. This belongs to the nature of an intelligent being, as such. All
intelligent beings feel a disapprobation of sin, when viewed abstractly,
and without reference to their own selfish gratification. The devil, no
doubt, feels it. The devil no more feels approbation for sin, when
viewed abstractly, than Gabriel. He blames sinners and condemns
their conduct, and whenever he has no selfish reason for being
pleased at what they do, he abhors it. You will often find in the wicked
on earth, a strong abhorrence of sin. There is not a wicked man on
earth, that would not condemn and abhor sin, in the abstract. The
mind is so constituted, that sin is universally and naturally and
necessarily abhorrent to right reason and to conscience. Every power
of the mind revolts at sin. Man has pleasure in them that commit
iniquity, only when he has some selfish reason for wishing then to
commit it. No rational being approves of sin, as sin.

But there is a striking difference between the constitutional
disapprobation of sin, as an abstract thing, and that hearty detestation
and opposition that is founded on love to God. To illustrate this idea.
It is one thing for that youth to feel that a certain act is wrong, and
quite another thing to view it as an injury to his father. Here is some
thing in addition to his former feeling. He has not only indignation
against the act as wrong, but his love to his father produces a feeling
of grief that is peculiar. So the individual who loves God feels not only
a strong disapprobation of sin, as wrong, but a feeling of grief mingled
with indignation when he views it as committed against God.

If, then, you want to know how you feel towards sin,   how do you
feel when you move around among sinners, and see them break
God's law? When you hear them swear profanely, or see them break
the Sabbath, or get drunk, how do you feel? Do you feel as the
Psalmist did when he wrote, "I beheld the transgressors, and was
grieved, because they kept not thy word?" So he says, "Rivers of
waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law." And
again, "Horror hath taken hold upon me, because of the wicked that
forsake thy law."

2. You ought to test the state of your hearts towards your own sins.

Look back on your past sins, call up your conduct in former times, and
see whether you do cordially condemn it and loathe it, and feel as an
affectionate child would feel, when he remembers how he has
disobeyed a beloved parent. It is one thing to feel a strong conviction
that your former conduct was wicked. It is quite another thing to have
this feeling attended with strong emotions of grief, because it was sin
against God. Probably there are few Christians who have not looked
back upon their former conduct towards their parents with deep
emotion, and thought how a beloved father and an affectionate mother
have been disobeyed and wronged; and who have not felt, in addition
to a strong disapprobation of their conduct, a deep emotion of grief,
that inclined to vent itself in weeping, and perhaps did gush forth in
irrepressible tears. Now this is true repentance towards a parent. And
repentance towards God is the same thing, and if genuine, it will
correspond in degree to the intensity of attention with which the mind
is fixed on the subject.

3. You want to test your feelings towards impenitent sinners.

Then go among them, and converse with them, on the subject of their
souls, warn them, see what they say, and how they feel, and get at the
real state of their hearts, and then you will know how you feel towards
the impenitent. Do not shut yourself up in your closet and try to
imagine an impenitent sinner. You may bring up a picture of the
imagination that will affect your sympathies, and make you weep and
pray. But go and bring your heart in contact with the living reality of a
sinner, reason with him, exhort him, find out his cavils, his obstinacy,
his insincerity, pray with him if you can. You cannot do this without
waking up emotions in your mind, and if you are a Christian, it will
wake up such mingled emotions of grief, compassion and indignation,
as Jesus Christ feels, and as will leave you no room to doubt what is
the state of your heart on this subject. Bring your mind in contact with
sinners, and fix it there, and rely on it you will feel.

4. You want to prove the state of your mind towards God.

Fix your thoughts intently on God. And do not set yourselves down to
imagine a God after your own foolish hearts, but take the Bible and
learn there what is the true idea of God. Do not fancy a shape or
appearance, or imagine how he looks, but fix your mind on the Bible
description of how he feels and what he does, and what he says, and
you cannot but feel. Here you will detect the real state of your heart.
Nay, this will constitute the real state of your heart, which you cannot
mistake.

5. Test your feelings towards Christ.

You are bound to know whether you love the Lord Jesus Christ or not.
Run over the circumstances of his life, and see whether they appear
as realities to your mind, his miracles, his sufferings, his lovely
character, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, his intercession
now at the right hand of the throne of God. Do you believe all these?
Are they realities to your mind? What are your feelings in view of
them? When you think of his willingness to save, his ability to save, his
atoning death, his power, if these things are realities to you, you will
have feelings of which you will be conscious, and concerning which
there will be no mistake.

6. What are your feelings towards the saints.

If you wish to test your heart on this point, whether you love the saints,
do not let your thoughts run to the ends of the earth, but fix your mind
on the saints by you and see whether you love them, whether you
desire their sanctification, whether you really long to have them grow
in grace, whether you can bear them in your heart to the throne of
grace in faith, and ask God to bestow blessings on them.

7. So in regard to revivals.

You wish to know what is the state of your feelings towards revivals,
then read about them, think of them, fix your mind on them, and you
cannot but have feelings that will evince the state of your heart. The
same is true of the heathen, of the slaves, of drunkards, of the Bible,
of any object of pious regard. The only way to know the state of your
heart is to fix your mind on the reality of those things, till you feel so
intensely that there is no mistaking the nature of your feelings.

Should you find a difficulty in attending to any of these objects
sufficiently to produce feeling, it is owing to one of two reasons, either
your mind is taken up with some other parts of religion, so as not to
allow of such fixed attention to the specified object, or your thought
wander with the fool's eyes, to the ends of the earth. The former is
sometimes the case, and I have known some Christians to be very
much distressed because they did not feel so intensely as they think
they ought, on some subjects. Their own sins, for instance. A person's
mind may be so much taken up with anxiety, and labor, and prayer for
sinners, that it requires an effort to think enough about his own soul to
feel deeply, and when he goes on his knee to pray about his own sins,
that sinner with whom he has been talking comes right up before his
mind and he can hardly pray for himself. It is not to be regarded as
evidence against you, if the reason why you do not feel on one subject
in religion is because your feelings are so engrossed about another,
of equal importance. But if your thoughts run all over the world, and
that is the reason you do not feel deeply enough to know what is your
true character, if your mind will not come down to the Bible, and fix on
any object of religious feeling, lay a strong hand on yourself, and fix
your thoughts with a death-grasp, till you do feel. You can command
your thoughts: God has put the control of your mind in your own
hands. And in this way, you can control your own feelings, by turning
your attention upon the object you wish to feel about. Bring yourself,
then, powerfully and resolutely, to that point, and give it not over till
you fasten your mind to the subject, and till the deep fountains of
feeling break up in your mind, and you know what is the state of your
heart, and understand your real character in the sight of God.

REMARKS.

1. Activity in religion is indispensable to self-examination.

An individual can never know what is the true state of his heart, unless
he is active in the duties of religion. Shut up in his closet, he never can
tell how he feels towards objects that are without, and he never can
feel right towards them until he goes out and acts. How can he know
his real feeling towards sinners, if he never brings his mind in contact
with sinners? He goes into his closet, and his imagination may make
him feel, but it is a deceitful feeling, because not produced by a reality.
If you wish to test the reality of your feelings towards sinners, go out
and warn sinners, and then the reality of your feelings will manifest
itself.

2. Unless persons try their hearts by the reality of things, they are
constantly subject to delusion, and are all the time managing to delude
themselves.

Suppose an individual shut up in a cloister, shut out from the world of
reality, and living in a world of imagination. He becomes a perfect
creature of imagination. So it is in religion, with those who do not bring
their mind in contact with realities. Such persons think they love
mankind, and yet do them no good. They imagine they abhor sin, and
yet do nothing to destroy it. How many persons deceive themselves,
by an excitement of the imagination about missions, for instance; how
common it is for persons to get up a great deal of feeling, and hold
prayer meetings for missions, who really do nothing to save souls.
Women will spend a whole day at a prayer meeting to pray for the
conversion of the world, while their impenitent servant in the kitchen
is not spoken to all day, and perhaps not in a month, to save her soul.
People will get up a public meeting, and talk about feeling for the
heathen, when they are making no direct efforts for sinners around
them. This is all a fiction of the imagination. There is no reality in such
a religion as that. If they had real love of God, and love of souls, and
real piety, the pictures drawn by the imagination about the distant
heathen would not create so much more feeling than the reality
around them.

It will not do to say, it is because their attention is not turned towards
sinners around them. They hear the profane oaths, and see the
Sabbath-breaking and other vices, as a naked reality before their
eyes, every day. And if these produce no feeling, it is in vain to
pretend that they feel as God requires for sinners in heathen lands, or
anywhere. Nay, take this very individual, now so full of feeling for the
heathen, as he imagines, and place him among the heathen  
transport him to the Friendly Islands, or elsewhere, away from the
fictions of imagination, and in the midst of the cold and naked reality
of heathenism, and all his deep feeling is gone. He may write letters
home about the abominations of the heathen, and all that, but his
feeling about their salvation is gone. You hear people talk so about the
heathen, who have never converted a soul at home rely upon it,
that is all imagination. If they do not promote revivals at home, where
they understand the language and have direct access to their
neighbors, much less can they be depended on to promote the real
work of religion on heathen ground. The churches ought to understand
this, and keep it in mind in selecting men to go on foreign missions.
They ought to know that if the naked reality at home does not excite
a person to action, the devil would only laugh at a million such
missionaries.

The same delusion often manifests itself in regard to revivals. There
is an individual who is a great friend to revivals. But mark they are
always revivals of former days, or of revivals in the abstract, or distant
revivals, or revivals that are yet to come. But as to any present revival,
he is always found aloof and doubtful. He can read about revivals in
President Edwards' day, or in Scotland, or in Wales, and be greatly
excited and delighted. He can pray, "O Lord, revive thy work; O, Lord,
let us have such revivals, let us have a Pentecost season, when
thousands shall be converted in a day." But get him into the reality of
things, and he never happens to see a revival in which he can take
any interest, or feel real complacency. He is friendly to the fictitious
imaginings of his own mind; he can create a state of things that will
excite his feelings, but no naked reality ever brings him out to
cooperate in actually promoting a revival.

In the days of our Savior, the people said, and no doubt really
believed, that they abhorred the doings of those who persecuted the
prophets. They said, "If we had been in the days of our fathers, we
would not have been partakers with them of the blood of the
prophets." No doubt they wondered that people could be so wicked as
to do such things But they had never seen a prophet; they were
moved simply by their imagination. And as soon as the Lord Jesus
Christ appeared, the greatest of prophets, on whom all the prophecies
centered, they rejected him, and finally put him to death, with as much
cold-hearted cruelty as ever their fathers had killed a prophet. "Fill ye
up," says our Savior, "the treasure of your fathers, that upon you may
come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth."

Mankind have always, in every age of the world, fallen in love with the
fictions of their own imagination, over which they have stumbled into
hell. Look at the Universalist. He imagines a God that will save
everybody, at any rate, and a heaven that will accommodate
everybody; and then he loves the God he has made, and the heaven
he has imagined, and perhaps will even weep with love. His feelings
are often deep, but they are delusive, because excited by fiction and
not by truth.

3. The more an individual goes out from himself, and makes things not
belonging to himself the subject of thought, the more piety he will
have, and the more evidence of his piety.

Religion consists in love, in feeling right and doing right, or doing good.
If therefore you wish to have great piety, do not think of having it by
cultivating it in a way which never caused piety to grow; that is, by
retiring into a cloister, and withdrawing from contact with mankind. If
the Lord Jesus Christ had supposed such circumstances to be
favorable to piety, he would have directed them so. But he knew
better. 

He has therefore appointed circumstances as they are, so that his
people may have a thousand objects of benevolence, a thousand
opportunities to do good. And if they go out of themselves, and turn
their hearts upon these things, they cannot fail to grow in piety, and to
have their evidences increasing and satisfactory.

4. It is only in one department of self-examination that we can
consistently shut ourselves up in the closet to perform the duty; that is,
when we want to look back and calmly examine the motives of our
past conduct. In such cases it is often necessary to abstract our
thoughts and keep out other things from our minds, to turn our minds
back and look at things we have done, and the motives by which we
were actuated. To do this effectually, it is often necessary to resort to
retirement, and fasting, and prayer. Some times it is impossible to
wake up a lively recollection of what we wish to examine, without
calling in the laws of association to our aid. We attempt to call up past
scenes, and all seems confusion and darkness, until we strike upon
some associated idea, that gradually brings the whole fresh before us.
Suppose I am to be called as a witness in court concerning a
transaction, I can sometimes gain a lively recollection of what took
place, only by going to the place, and then all the circumstances come
up, as if but of yesterday. So we may find in regard to the
reexamination of some part of our past history, that no shutting
ourselves up will bring it back, no protracted meditation or fasting, or
prayer, till we throw ourselves into some circumstances that will wake
up the associated ideas, and thus bring back the feelings we formerly
had.

Suppose a minister wishes to look back and see how he felt, and the
spirit with which he had preached years ago. He wishes to know how
much real piety there was in his labors. He might get at a great deal
in his closet on his knees, by the aid of the strong influences of the
Spirit of God. But he will come at it much more effectually by going to
the place, and preaching again there. The exact attitude in which his
mind was before, may thus recur to him, and stand in strong reality
before his mind.

5. In examining yourselves, be careful to avoid expecting to find all the
graces of the Christian in exercise in your mind at once.

This is contrary to the nature of mind. You ought to satisfy yourselves,
if you find the exercises of your mind are right, on the subject that is
before your mind. If you have wrong feelings at the time, that is
another thing. But if you find that the emotions at the time are right, do
not draw a wrong inference, because some other right emotion is not
in present exercise. The mind is so constituted, that it can only have
one train, of emotions at a time.

6. From this subject you see why people often do not feel more than
they do.

They are taking a course not calculated to produce feeling. They feel,
but not on the right subjects. Mankind always feel on some subjects;
and the reason why they do not feel deeply on religious subjects is,
because their attention is not deeply fixed on such subjects.

7. You see the reason why there is such a strange diversity in the
exercises of real Christians.

There are some Christians whose feelings, when they have any
feeling are always of the happy kind. There are others whose feelings
are always of a sad and distressing kind. They are in almost constant
agony for sinners. The reason is, that their thoughts are directed to
different objects. One class are always thinking of the class of objects
calculated to make them happy; the other are thinking of the state of
the church, or the state of sinners, and weighed down as with a
burden, as if a mountain were on their shoulders. Both may be
religious, both classes of feelings are right, in view of the objects at
which they look. 

The apostle Paul had continual heaviness and sorrow of heart on
account of his brethren. No doubt he felt right. The case of his
brethren who had, rejected the Savior, was so much the object of his
thoughts, the dreadful wrath that they had brought upon themselves,
the doom that hung over them, was constantly before him mind, and
how could he be otherwise than sad?

8. Observe the influence of these two classes of feelings in the
usefulness of individuals.

Show me a very joyful and happy Christian, and he is not generally a
very useful Christian. Generally, such are so taken up with enjoying
the sweets of religion, that they do but little. You find a class of
ministers, who preach a great deal on these subjects, and make their
pious hearers very happy in religion, but such ministers are seldom
instrumental in converting many sinners, however much they may
have refreshed, and edified, and gratified saints. On the other hand
you will find men who are habitually filled with deep agony of soul in
view of the state of sinners, and these men will be largely instrumental
in converting men. The reason is plain. Both preached the truth both
preached the gospel, in different proportions, and the feelings
awakened correspond with the views they preached. The difference
is, that one comforted the saints the other converted sinners.

You may see a class of professors of religion who are always happy,
and they are lovely companions, but they are very seldom engaged in
pulling sinners out of the fire. You find others always full of agony for
sinners, looking at their state, and longing to have souls converted.
Instead of enjoying the antepast of heaven on earth, they are
sympathizing with the Son of God when he was on earth, groaning in
his spirit, and spending all night in prayer.

9. The real revival spirit is a spirit of agonizing desires and prayer for
sinners.

10. You see how you may account for your own feelings at different
times.

People often wonder why they feel as they do. The answer is plain.
You feel so, because you think so. You direct your attention to those
objects which are calculated to produce those feelings.

11. You see why some people's feelings are so changeable.

There are many whose feelings are always variable and unsteady.
That is because their thoughts are unsteady. If they would fix their
thoughts, they would regulate their feelings.

12. You see the way to beget any desired state of feeling in your own
mind, and how to beget any desired state of feeling in others.

Place the thoughts on the subject that is calculated to produce those
feelings, and confine them there, and the feelings will not fail to follow.

13. There are multitudes of pious persons who dishonor religion by
their doubts.

They are perpetually talking about their doubts, and they take up a
hasty conviction that they have no religion. Whereas if instead of
dwelling on their doubts they will fix their minds on other subjects, on
Christ for instance, or go out and seek sinners, and try to bring them
to repentance, rely upon it, they will feel, and feel right, and feel so as
to dissipate their doubts.

Remember, you are not to wait till you feel right before you do this.
Perhaps some things that I said to this church have not been rightly
understood. I said you could do nothing for God unless you felt right.
Do not therefore infer, that you are to sit still and do nothing till you are
satisfied that you do feel right. But place yourself in circumstances to
make you feel right, and go to work. On one hand, to bustle about
without any feeling is no way, and on the other hand, to shut yourself
up in your closet and wait for feeling to come, is no way. Be sure to be
always active. You never will feel right otherwise. And then keep your
mind constantly under the influence of those objects that are
calculated to create and keep alive Christian feelings.

Chapter 12.

TRUE AND FALSE CONVERSIONS.

Behold all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with
sparks, walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks that ye have
kindled. This shall ye have of my hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow,  
Isaiah 50:11.

It is evident, from the connection of these words in the chapter, that
the prophet was addressing those who professed to be religious, and
who flattered themselves that they were in a state of salvation, but in
fact their hope was a fire of their own kindling, and sparks created by
themselves. Before I proceed to discuss the subject, let me say that
as I have given notice that it was my intention to discuss the nature of
true and false conversion, it will be of no use but to those who will be
honest in applying it to themselves. If you mean to profit by the
discourse, you must resolve to make a faithful application of it to
yourselves just as honest as if you thought you were now going to the
solemn judgment. If you will do this, I may hope to be able to lead you
to discover your true state, and if you are now deceived, direct you in
the true path to salvation. If you will not do this, I shall preach in vain,
and you will hear in vain.

I design to show the difference between true and false conversion, and
shall take up the subject in the following order:

I. Show that the natural state of man is a state of pure selfishness. II.
Show that the character of the converted is that of benevolence. III.
That the new birth consists in a change from selfishness to
benevolence. IV. Point out some things wherein saints and sinners, or
true and spurious converts, may agree, and some things in which they
differ. V. Answer some objections that may be offered against the view
I have taken, and conclude with some remarks.

I. I am to show that the natural state of man, or that in which all men
are found before conversion, is pure, unmingled selfishness.

By which I mean, that they have no gospel benevolence. Selfishness
is regarding one's own happiness supremely, and seeking one's own
good because it is his own. He who is selfish places his own
happiness above other interests of greater value; such as the glory of
God and the good of the universe. That mankind, before conversion,
are in this state, is evident from many considerations.

Every man knows that all other men are selfish. All the dealings of
mankind are conducted on this principle. If any man overlooks this,
and undertakes to deal with mankind as if they were not selfish, but
were disinterested, he will be thought deranged.

II. In a converted state, the character is that of benevolence.

An individual who is converted is benevolent, and not supremely
selfish. Benevolence is loving the happiness of others, or rather
choosing the happiness of others. Benevolence is a compound word,
that properly signifies good willing, or choosing the happiness of
others. This is God's state of mind. We are told that God is love; that
is, he is benevolent. Benevolence comprises his whole character. All
his moral attributes are only so many modifications of benevolence. An
individual who is converted is in this respect like God. I do not mean
to be understood, that no one is converted, unless he is purely and
perfectly benevolent, as God is; but that the balance of his mind, his
prevailing choice is benevolent. He sincerely seeks the good of others,
for its own sake. 

And, by disinterested benevolence I do not mean, that a person who
is disinterested feels no interest in his object of pursuit, but that he
seeks the happiness of others for its own sake, and not for the sake
of its reaction on himself, in promoting his own happiness. He chooses
to do good because he rejoices in the happiness of others, and
desires their happiness for its own sake. God is purely and
disinterestedly benevolent. He does not make his creatures happy for
the sake of thereby promoting his own happiness, but because he
loves their happiness and chooses it for its own sake. Not that he does
not feel happy in promoting the happiness of his creatures, but that he
does not do it for the sake of his own gratification. The man who is
disinterested feels happy in doing good. Otherwise doing good itself
would not be virtue in him. In other words, if he did not love to do
good, and enjoy doing good, it would not be virtue in him.

Benevolence is holiness. It is what the law of God requires: "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and soul and strength,
and thy neighbor as thyself." Just as certainly as the converted man
yields obedience to the law of God, and just as certainly as he is like
God, he is benevolent. It is the leading feature of his character, that he
is seeking the happiness of others, and not his own happiness, as his
supreme end.

III. That true conversion is a change from a state of supreme
selfishness to benevolence.

It is a change in the end of pursuit, and not a mere change in the
means of attaining the end. It is not true that the converted and the
unconverted differ only in the means they use, while both are aiming
at the same end. It is not true that Gabriel and Satan are pursuing the
same end, and both alike aiming at their own happiness, only pursuing
a different way. Gabriel does not obey God for the sake of promoting
his own happiness. A man may change his means, and yet have the
same end, his own happiness. He may do good for the sake of the
temporal benefit. He may not believe in religion, or in any eternity, and
yet may see that doing good will be for his advantage in this world.
Suppose, then, that his eyes are opened, and he sees the reality of
eternity; and then he may take up religion as a tears of happiness in
eternity. Now, every one can see that there is no virtue in this. It is the
design that gives character to the act, not the means employed to
effect the design. The true and the false convert differ in this. The true
convert chooses, as the end of his pursuit, the glory of God and the
good of his kingdom. This end he chooses for its own sake, because
he views this as the greatest good, as a greater good than his own
individual happiness. Not that he is indifferent to his own happiness,
but he prefers God's glory, because it is a greater good. He looks on
the happiness of every individual according to its real importance, as
far as he is capable of valuing it, and he chooses the greatest good as
his supreme object.


IV. Now I am to show some things in which true saints and deceived
persons may agree, and some things in which they differ.

1. They may agree in leading a strictly moral life.

The difference is in their motives. The true saint leads a moral life from
love to holiness; the deceived person from selfish considerations. He
uses morality as a means to an end, to effect his own happiness. The
true saint loves it as an end.

2. They may be equally prayerful, so far as the form of praying is
concerned.

The difference is in their motives. The true saint loves to pray; the
other prays because he hopes to derive some benefit to himself from
praying. 

The true saint expects a benefit from praying, but that is not his
leading motive. The other prays from no other motive.

3. They may be equally zealous in religion.

One may have great zeal, because his zeal is according to knowledge,
and he sincerely desires and loves to promote religion, for its own
sake. The other may show equal zeal, for the sake of having his own
salvation more assured, and because he is afraid of going to hell if he
does not work for the Lord, or to quiet his conscience, and not
because he loves religion for its own sake.

4. They may be equally conscientious in the discharge of duty; the true
convert because he loves to do duty, and the other because he dare
not neglect it.

5. Both may pay equal regard to what is right; the true convert
because he loves what is right, and the other because he knows he
cannot be saved unless he does right. He is honest in his common
business transactions, because it is the only way to secure his own
interest. Verily, they have their reward. They get the reputation of
being honest among men, but if they have no higher motive, they will
have no reward from God.

6. They may agree in their desires, in many respects. They may agree
in their desires to serve God; the true convert because he loves the
service of God, and the deceived person for the reward, as the hired
servant serves his master.

They may agree in their desires to be useful; the true convert desiring
usefulness for its own sake, the deceived person because he knows
that is the way to obtain the favor of God And then in proportion as he
is awakened to the Importance of having God's favor, will be the
intensity of his desires to be useful.

In desires for the conversion of souls; the true saint because it will
glorify God; the deceived person to gain the favor of God. He will be
actuated in this, just as he is in giving money. Who ever doubted that
a person might give his money to the Bible Society, or the Missionary
Society, from selfish motives alone, to procure happiness, or
applause, or obtain the favor of God? He may just as well desire the
conversion of souls, and labor to promote it, from motives purely
selfish.

To glorify God; the true saint because he loves to see God glorified,
and the deceived person because he know that is the way to be
saved. The true convert has his heart set on the glory of God, as his
great end, and he desires to glorify God as an end, for its own sake.
The other desires it as a means to his great end, the benefit of himself.

To repent. The true convert abhors sin on account of its hateful nature,
because it dishonors God, and therefore he desires to repent of it. The
other desires to repent, because he knows that unless he does repent
he will be damned.

To believe in Jesus Christ. The true saint desires it to glorify God, and
because he loves the truth for its own sake. The other desires to
believe, that he may have a stronger hope of going to heaven.

To obey God. The true saint that he may increase in holiness; the
false professor because he desires the rewards of obedience.


7. They may agree not only in their desires, but in their resolutions.
They may both resolve to give up sin, and to obey God, and to lay
themselves out in promoting religion, and building up the kingdom of
Christ; and they may both resolve it with great strength of purpose, but
with different motives.

8. They may also agree in their designs. They may both really design
to glorify God, and to convert men, and to extend the kingdom of
Christ, and to have the world converted; the true saint from love to
God and holiness, and the other for the sake of securing his own
happiness. 

One chooses it as an end, the other as a means to promote a selfish
end.

They may both design to be truly holy; the true saint because he loves
holiness, and the deceived person because he knows that he can be
happy in no other way.

9. They may agree not only in their desires, and resolutions and
designs, but also in their affection towards many objects.

They may both love the Bible; the true saint because it is God's truth,
and he delights in it, and feasts his soul on it; the other because he
thinks it is in his own favor, and is the charter of his own hopes.

They may both love God; the one because he sees God's character
to be supremely excellent and lovely in itself and he loves it for its own
sake; the other because he thinks God is his particular friend, that is
going to make him happy for ever, and he connects the idea of God
with his own interest.

They may both love Christ. The true convert loves his character; the
deceived person thinks he will save him from hell, and give him eternal
life   and why should he not love him?

They may both love Christians: the true convert because he sees in
them the image of Christ, and the deceived person because they
belong to his own denomination, or because they are on his side, and
he feels the same interest and hopes with them.

10. They may also agree in hating the same things. They may both
hate infidelity, and oppose it strenuously the true saint because it
is opposed to God and holiness, and the deceived person because it
injures an interest in which he is deeply concerned, and if true,
destroys all his own hopes for eternity. So they may hate error; one
because it is detestable in itself, and contrary to God and the other
because it is contrary to his views and opinions.

I recollect seeing in writing, some time ago, an attack on a minister for
publishing certain opinions, "because," said the writer, these
sentiments would destroy all my hopes for eternity." A very good
reason indeed! as good as a selfish being needs for opposing an
opinion.

They may both hate sin; the true convert because it is odious to God,
and the deceived person because it is injurious to himself. Cases have
occurred, where an individual has hated his own sins, and yet not
forsaken them. How often the drunkard, as he looks back at what he
once was, and contrasts his present degradation with what he might
have been, abhors his drink; not for its own sake, but because it has
ruined him. And he still loves his cups, and continues to drink, though,
when he looks at their effects, he feels indignation.

They may be both opposed to sinners. The opposition of true saints
is a benevolent opposition, viewing and abhorring their character and
conduct, as calculated to subvert the kingdom of God. The other is
opposed to sinners because they are opposed to the religion he has
espoused, and because they are not on his side.

11. So they may both rejoice in the same things. Both may rejoice in
the prosperity of Zion, and the conversion of souls; the true convert
because he has his heart set on it, and loves it for its own sake, as the
greatest good, and the deceived person because that particular thing
in which he thinks he has such a great interest is advancing.

12. Both may mourn and feel distressed at the low state of religion in
the church: the true convert because God is dishonored, and the
deceived person because his own soul is not happy, or because
religion is not in favor.

Both may love the society of the saints; the true convert because his
soul enjoys their spiritual conversation the other because he hopes to
derive some advantage from their company. The first enjoys it
because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; the
other because he loves to talk about the great interest he feels in
religion, and the hope he has of going to heaven.

13. Both may love to attend religious meetings; the true saint because
his heart delights in acts of worship, in prayer and praise, in hearing
the word of God and in communion with God and his saints, and the
other because he thinks a religious meeting a good place to prop up
his hope. He may have a hundred reasons for loving them, and yet not
at all for their own sake, or because he loves in itself, the worship and
the service of God.

14. Both may find pleasure in the duties of the closet. The true saint
loves his closet, because he draws near to God, and finds delight in
communion with God, where there are no embarrassments to keep
him from going right to God and conversing. The deceived person
finds a knife of satisfaction in it, because it is his duty to pray in secret
and he feels a self-righteous satisfaction in doing it. Nay, he may feel
a certain pleasure in it, from a kind of excitement of the mind which he
mistakes for communion with; God.

15. They may both love the doctrines of grace; the true saint because
they are so glorious to God, the other because he thinks them a
guarantee of his own salvation.

16. They may both love the precept of God's law; the true saint
because it is so excellent, so holy, and just, and good; the other
because he thinks it will make him happy if he loves it, and he does it
as a means of happiness.

Both may consent to the penalty of the law. The true saint consents to
it in his own case, because he feels it to be just in itself for God to
send him to hell. The deceived person because he thinks he is in no
danger from it.

He feels a respect for it, because he knows that it is right, and his
conscience approves it, but he has never consented to it in his own
case.

17. They may be equally liberal in giving to benevolent societies. None
of you doubt that two men may give equal sums to a benevolent
object, but from totally different motives. One gives to do good, and
would be just as willing to give as not, if he knew that no other living
person would give. The other gives for the credit of it, or to quiet his
conscience, or because he hopes to purchase the favor of God.
18. They may be equally self-denying in many things. Self-denial is not
confined to true saints. Look at the sacrifices and self-denials of the
Mohammedans, going on their pilgrimage to Mecca. Look at the
heathen, throwing themselves under the car of Juggernaut. Look at
the poor ignorant papists, going up and down over the sharp stones
on their bare knees, till they stream with blood. A Protestant
congregation will not contend that there is any religion in that. But is
there not self-denial? The true saint denies himself, for the sake of
doing more good to others. He is more set on this than on his own
indulgence or his own interest. The deceived person may go equal
lengths, but from purely selfish motives.

19. They may both be willing to suffer martyrdom. Read the lives of the
martyrs, and you will have no doubt that some were willing to suffer,
from a wrong idea of the rewards of martyrdom, and would rush upon
their own destruction because they were persuaded it was the sure
road to eternal life.

In all these cases, the motives of one class are directly over against
the other. The difference lies in the choice of different ends. One
chooses his own interest, the other chooses God's interest, as his
chief end. For a person to pretend that both these classes are aiming
at the same end, is to say that an impenitent sinner is just as
benevolent as a real Christian; or that a Christian is not benevolent like
God, but is only seeking his own happiness, and seeking it in religion
rather than in the world.

And here is the proper place to answer an inquiry, which is often
made: "If these two classes of persons may be alike in so many
particulars, how are we to know our own real character, or to tell to
which class we belong? We know that the heart is deceitful above all
things, and desperately wicked, and how are we to know whether we
love God and holiness for their own sake, or whether we are seeking
the favor of God, and aiming at heaven for our own benefit?"
I answer, 

1. If we are truly benevolent, it will appear in our daily transactions.
This character, if real, will show itself in our business, if anywhere. If
selfishness rules our conduct there, as sure as God reigns we are truly
selfish. If in our dealings with men we are selfish, we are so in our
dealings with God. "For whoso loveth not his brother, whom he hath
seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?" Religion is not
merely love to God, but love to man also. And if our daily transactions
show us to be selfish, we are unconverted; or else benevolence is not
essential to religion, and a man can be religious without loving his
neighbor as himself.

2. If you are disinterested in religion, religious duties will not be a task
to you. You will not go about religion as the laboring man goes to his
toil, for the sake of a living. The laboring man takes pleasure in his
labor, but it is not for its own sake. He would not do it if he could help
it. In its own nature it is a task, and if he takes any pleasure in it, it is
for its anticipated results, the support and comfort of his family, or the
increase of his property.

Precisely such is the state of some persons in regard to religion. They
go to it as the sick man takes his medicine, is cause they desire its
effects, and they know they must have it or perish. It is a task that they
never would do for its own sake. Suppose men love labor, as a child
loves play. They would do it all day long, and never be tired of doing
it, without any other inducement than the pleasure in doing it. So it is
in religion, where it is loved for its own sake, there is no weariness in
it.

3. If selfishness is the prevailing character of your religion, it will take
sometimes one form and sometimes another.

For instance: If it is a time of general coldness in the church, real
converts will still enjoy their own secret communion with God, although
there may not be so much doing to attract notice in public. But the
deceived person will then invariably be found driving after the world.
Now, let the true saints rise up, and make a noise, and speak their
joys aloud, so that religion begins to be talked of again; and perhaps
the deceived professor will soon begin to bustle about, and appear to
be even more zealous than the true saint. He is impelled by his
convictions and not affections. When there is no public interest, he
feels no conviction; but when the church awakes, he is convicted, and
compelled to stir about, to keep his conscience quiet. It is only
selfishness in another form.

4. If you are selfish, your enjoyment in religion will defend mainly on
the strength of your hopes of heaven, and not on the exercise of your
affections. Your enjoyments are not in the employments of religion
themselves, but of a vastly different kind from those of the true saint.
They are mostly from anticipating. When your evidences are renewed,
and you feel very certain of going to heaven, then you enjoy religion
a good deal. It depends on your hope, and not on your love for the
things for which you hope. You hear persons tell of their having no
enjoyment in religion when they lose their hopes. The reason is plain.
If they loved religion for its own sake, their enjoyment would not
depend on their hope. A person who loves his employment is happy
anywhere. And if you loved the employments of religion, you would be
happy if God should put you in hell, provided he would only let you
employ yourself in religion. If you might pray and praise God, you
would feel that you could be happy anywhere in the universe; for you
would still be doing the things in which your happiness mainly consists.
If the duties of religion are not the things in which you feel enjoyment,
and if all your enjoyment depends on your hope, you have no true
religion; it is all selfishness.

I do not say that true saints do not enjoy their hope. But that is not the
great thing with them. They think very little about their own hopes.
Their thoughts are employed about something else. The deceived
person, on the contrary, is sensible that he does not enjoy the duties
of religion; but only that the more he does, the more confident he is of
heaven. He takes only such kind of enjoyment in it, as a man does
who thinks that by great labor he shall have great wealth.

5. If you are selfish in religion, your enjoyments will be chiefly from
anticipation. The true saint already enjoys the peace of God, and has
heaven begun in his soul. He has not merely the prospect of it, but
eternal life actually begun in him. He has that faith which is the very
substance of things hoped for. Nay, he has the very feelings of heaven
in him. He anticipates joys higher in degree, but the same in kind. He
knows that he has heaven begun in him, and is not obliged to wait till
he dies to taste the joys of eternal life. His enjoyment is in proportion
to his holiness, and not in proportion to his hope.

6. Another difference by which it may be known whether you are
selfish in religion, is this   that the deceived person has only a
purpose of obedience, and the other has a preference of obedience.
This is an important distinction, and I fear few persons make it.
Multitudes have a purpose of obedience, who have no true preference
of obedience. Preference is actual choice, or obedience of heart. You
often hear individuals speak of their having had a purpose to do this
or that act of obedience, but failed to do it. And they will tell you how
difficult it is to execute their purpose. The true saint, on the other hand,
really prefers, and in his heart chooses obedience, and therefore he
finds it easy to obey. The one has a purpose to obey, like that which
Paul had before he was converted, as he tells us in the seventh
chapter of Romans. He had a strong purpose of obedience, but did not
obey, because his heart was not in it. The true convert prefers
obedience for its own sake; he actually chooses it, and does it. 

The other purposes to be holy, because he knows that is the only way
to be happy. The true saint chooses holiness for its own sake, and he
is holy.

7. The true convert and the deceived person also differ in their faith.
The true saint has a confidence in the general character of God, that
leads him to unqualified submission to God. A great deal is said about
the kinds of faith, but without much meaning. True confidence in the
Lord's special promises, depends on confidence in God's general
character. There are only two principles on which any government,
human or divine, is obeyed, fear and confidence. No matter whether
it is the government of a family, or a ship, or a nation, or a universe.
All obedience springs from one of these two principles. In the one
case, individuals obey from hope of reward and fear of the penalty. In
the other, from that confidence in the character of the government,
which works by love. One child obeys his parent from confidence in his
parent. He has faith which works by love. The other yields an outward
obedience from hope and fear. The true convert has this faith, or
confidence in God, that leads him to obey God because he loves God.
This is the obedience of faith he has that confidence in God, that he
submits himself wholly into the hands of God.

The other has only a partial faith, and only a partial submission. The
devil has a partial faith. He believes and trembles. A person may
believe that Christ came to save sinners, and on that ground may
submit to him, to be saved; while he does not submit wholly to him, to
be governed and disposed of. His submission is only on condition that
he shall be saved. It is never with that unreserved confidence in God's
whole character, that leads him to say, "Thy will be done." He only
submits to be saved. His religion is the religion of law. The other is
gospel religion. One is selfish, the other benevolent. Here lies the true
difference between the two classes. The religion of one is outward and
hypocritical. The other is that of the heart holy, and acceptable to God.

8. I will only mention one difference more. If your religion is selfish, you
will rejoice particularly in the conversion of sinners, where your own
agency is concerned in it, but will have very little satisfaction in it,
where it is through the agency of others. The selfish person rejoices
when he is active and successful in converting sinners, because he
thinks he shall have a great reward. But instead of delighting in it when
done by others, he will be even envious. The true saint sincerely
delights to have other useful, and rejoices when sinners are converted
by the instrumentality of others as much as if it was his own. There are
some who will take interest in a revival, only so far as themselves are
connected with it, while it would seem they had rather sinners should
remain unconverted, that they should be saved by the instrumentality
of an evangelist, or a minister of another denomination. The true spirit
of a child of God is to say, "Send, Lord, by whom thou wilt send  
only let souls be saved, and thy name glorified!"

V. I am to answer some objections which are made against this view
of the subject.

Objection 1. "Am I not to have any regard to my own happiness?"

Answer. It is right to regard your own happiness according to its
relative value. Put it in this scale, by the side of the glory of God and
the good of the universe, and then decide, and give it the value which
belongs to it. This is precisely what God does. And this is what he
means, when he commands you to love your neighbor as yourself.

And again you will in fact promote your own happiness, precisely
in proportion as you leave it out of view Your happiness will be in
proportion to your disinterestedness. True happiness consists mainly
in the gratification of virtuous desires. There may be pleasure in
gratifying desires that are selfish, but it is not real happiness. 
But to be virtuous, your desires must be disinterested. Suppose a man
sees a beggar in the street; there he sits on the curbstone, cold and
hungry, without friends, and ready to perish. The man's feelings are
touched? and he steps into a grocery close by, and buys him a loaf of
bread. At once the countenance of the beggar lights up, and he looks
unutterable gratitude. Now it is plain to be seen that the gratification of
the man in the act is precisely in proportion to the singleness of his
motive. If he did it purely and solely out of benevolence, his
gratification is complete in the act itself. But if he did it, partly to make
it known that he is a charitable and humane person, then his
happiness is not complete until the deed is published to others.
Suppose there is a sinner in his sins; he is truly wicked and truly
wretched. Your compassion is excited, and you convert and save him.
If your motives were to obtain honor among men, and to secure the
favor of God, you are not completely happy until the deed is told, and
perhaps put in the newspaper. But if you wished purely to save a soul
from death, then as soon as you see that done, your gratification is
complete and your joy unmingled. So it is in all religious duties; your
happiness is precisely in proportion as you are disinterested.

If you aim at doing good for its own sake, then you will be happy in
proportion as you do good. But if you aim directly at your own
happiness, and if you do good simply as a means of securing your
own happiness, you will fail. You will be like the child pursuing his own
shadow; he can never overtake it, because it always keeps just so far
before him. Suppose in the case I have mentioned, you have no desire
to relieve the beggar, but regard simply the applause of a certain
individual. Then you will feel no pleasure at all in the relief of the
beggar; but when that individual hears of it and commends it, then you
are gratified. But you are not gratified in the thing itself. Or suppose
you aim at the conversion of sinners; but if it s not love to sinners that
leads you to do it, how can the conversion of sinners make you
happy? It has no tendency to gratify the desire that prompted the
effort. The truth is, God has so constituted the mind of man, that it
must seek the happiness of others as its end or it cannot be happy.
Here is the true reason why all the world, seeking their own happiness,
and not the happiness of others, fail of their end. It is always just so far
before them. If they would leave off seeking their own happiness, and
lay themselves out to do good, they would be happy.

Objection 2. "Did not Christ regard the joy set before him? And did not
Moses also have respect unto the recompense of reward? And does
not the Bible say we love God because he first loved us."

Answer 1. It is true that Christ despised the shame and endured the
cross, and had regard to the joy set before him. But what was the joy
set before him? Not his own salvation, not his own happiness, but the
great good he would do in the salvation of the world. He was perfectly
happy in himself. But the happiness of others was what he aimed at.
This was the joy set before him. And that he obtained.

Answer 2. So Moses had respect to the recompense of reward. But
was that his own comfort? Far from it. The recompense of reward was
the salvation of the people of Israel. What did he say? When God
proposed to destroy the nation, and make of him a great nation, had
Moses been selfish he would have said, "That is right, Lord; be it unto
thy servant according to thy word." But what does he say? Why, his
heart was so set on the salvation of his people, and the glory of God,
that he would not think of it for a moment, but said, "If thou wilt, forgive
their sin; and if not, blot me I pray thee out of thy book, which thou
hast written." And in another case, when God said he would destroy
them, and make of Moses a greater and a mightier nation, Moses
thought of God's glory, and said, "Then the Egyptians shall hear of it,
and all the nations will say, Because the Lord was not able to bring
this people into the land." 

He could not bear to think of having his own interest exalted at the
expense of God's glory. It was really a greater reward, to his
benevolent mind, to have God glorified, and the children of Israel
saved, than any personal advantage whatever to himself could be.

Answer 3. Where it is said, "We love him because he first loved us" the
language plainly bears two interpretations; either that his love to us
has provided the way for our return and the influence that brought us
to love him, or that we love him for his favor shown to ourselves.  
That the latter is not the meaning is evident, because Jesus Christ has
so expressly reprobated the principle, in his sermon on the mount: "If
ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? Do not the
publicans the same?" If we love God, not for his character but for his
favors to us, Jesus Christ has written us reprobate.

Objection 3. "Does not the Bible offer happiness as the reward of
virtue?"

Answer. The Bible speaks of happiness as the result of virtue, but no
where declares virtue to consist in the pursuit of one's own happiness.
The Bible is every where inconsistent with this, and represents virtue
to consist in doing good to others. We can see by the philosophy of
the mind, that it must be so. If a person desires the good of others, he
will be happy in proportion as he gratifies that desire. Happiness is the
result of virtue, but virtue does not consist in the direct pursuit of one's
own happiness, but is wholly inconsistent with it.

Objection 4. "God aims at our happiness, and shall we be more
benevolent than God? Should we not be like God? May we not aim at
the same thing that God aims at? Should we not be seeking the same
end that God seeks?"

Answer. This objection is specious, but futile and rotten. God is
benevolent to others. He aims at the happiness of others, and at our
happiness. And to be like him, we must aim at, that is, delight in his
happiness and glory and the honor and glory of the universe,
according to their real value.

Objection 5. "Why does the Bible appeal continually to the hopes and
fears of men, if a regard to our own happiness is not a proper motive
to action?"

Answer l. The Bible appeals to the constitutional susceptibilities of
men, not to their selfishness. Man dreads harm, and it is not wrong to
avoid it. We may have a due regard to our own happiness, according
to its value.

Answer 2. And again; mankind are so besotted with sin, that God
cannot get their attention to consider his true character, and the
reasons for loving him, unless he appeals to their hopes and fears. But
when they are awakened, then he presents the gospel to them. When
a minister has preached the terrors of the Lord till he has got his
hearers alarmed and aroused, so that they will give attention, he has
gone far enough in that line; and then he ought to spread out all the
character of God before them, to engage their hearts to love him for
his own excellence.

Objection 6. "Do not the inspired writers say, Repent, and believe the
gospel, and you shall be saved?"

Answer. Yes; but they require "true" repentance that is, to forsake sin
because it is hateful in itself. It is not true repentance, to forsake sin on
condition of pardon, or to say, "I will be sorry for my sins, if you will
forgive me." So they require true faith, and true submission not
conditional faith, or partial submission. 

This is what the Bible insists on. It says he shall be saved, but it must
be disinterested repentance, and disinterested submission.

Objection 7. "Does not the gospel hold out pardon as a motive to
submission."

Answer. This depends on the sense in which you must the term
motive. If you mean that God spreads out before men his whole
character, and the whole truth of the case, as reasons to engage the
sinner's love and repentance, I say, Yes; his compassion, and
willingness to pardon, are reasons for loving God, because they are
a part of his glorious excellence, which we are bound to love. But if
you mean by "motive" a condition, and that the sinner is to repent on
condition he shall be pardoned, then I say, that the Bible no where
holds out any such view of the matter. It never authorizes a sinner to
say, "I will repent if you will forgive," and no where offers pardon as a
motive to repentance, in such a sense as this.

With two short remarks I will close.

1. We see, from this subject, why it is that professors of religion have
such different views of the nature of the gospel.

Some view it as a mere matter of accommodation to mankind, by
which God is rendered less strict than he was under the law; so that
they may be fashionable or worldly, and the gospel will come in and
make up the deficiencies and save them. The other class view the
gospel as a provision of divine benevolence, having for its main design
to destroy sin and promote holiness; and that therefore so far from
making it proper for them to be less holy than they ought to be under
the law, its whole value consists in its power to make them holy.

2. We see why some people are so much more anxious to convert
sinners, than to see the church sanctified and God glorified by the
good works of his people.

Many feel a natural sympathy for sinners, and wish to have them
saved from hell; and if that is gained, they have no farther concern.
But true saints are most affected by sin as dishonoring God. And they
are most distressed to see Christians sin, because it dishonors God
more. Some people seem to care but little how the church live, if they
can only see the work of conversion go forward. They are not anxious
to have God honored. It shows that they are not actuated by the love
of holiness, but by a mere compassion for sinners.

Chapter 13.

TRUE SUBMISSION.

Submit yourselves therefore to God.   James 4:7.

The subject of this lecture is, "What constitutes True Submission?"

Before I enter on the discussion of this subject, I wish to make two
remarks, introductory to the main question.

1. The first remark is this: If any of you are deceived in regard to your
hopes, and have built on a false foundation, the fundamental error in
your case was your embracing what you thought was the gospel plan
of salvation from selfish motives. Your selfish hearts were unbroken
This is the source of your delusion, if you are deceived. If your
selfishness was subdued, you are not deceived in your hope. If it was
not, all your religion is vain, and your hope is vain.

2. The other remark I wish to make is, that if any of you are deceived,
and have a false hope, you are in the utmost danger of reviving your
old hope, whenever you are awakened to consider your condition. It
is a very common thing for such professors, after a season of anxiety
and self-examination, to settle down again on the old foundation. The
reason is, their habits of mind have become fixed in that channel, and
therefore, by the laws of the mind it is difficult to break into a new
course. It is indispensable, therefore, if you ever mean to get right, that
you should see clearly that you have hitherto been wholly wrong, so
that you need not multiply any more the kind of efforts that have
deceived you heretofore.

Who does not know that there is a great deal of this and of deception?
How often will a great part of the church lie cold and dead, till a revival
commences? Then you will see them bustling about, and they get
engaged, as they call it, in religion, and renew their efforts and multiply
their prayers for a season; and this is what they call getting revived.
But it is only the same kind of religion that they had before. Such
religion lasts no longer than the public excitement. As soon as the
body of the church begin to diminish their efforts for the conversion of
Sinners, these individuals relapse into their former worldliness, and get
as near to what they were before their supposed conversion, as their
pride and their fear of the censures of the church will let them. When
a revival comes again, they renew the same round; and so they live
along by spasms over and over again, revived and backslidden,
revived and backslidden, alternately, as long as they live. The truth is,
they were deluded at first, by a spurious conversion, in which
selfishness never was broken down; and the more they multiply such
kind of efforts, the more sure they are to be lost.

I will now enter upon the direct discussion of the subject, and
endeavor to show you what true gospel submission is, in the following
order, viz.;

I. I shall show what is not true submission. II. Show what true
submission is.

I. I am to show what true submission is not.

1. True submission to God is not indifference. No two things can be
more unlike than indifference and true submission.

2. It does not consist in being willing to be sinful for the glory of God.

Some have supposed that true submission included the idea of being
willing to be sinful for the glory of God. But this is a mistake. To be
willing to be sinful is itself a sinful state of mind. And to be willing to do
anything for the glory of God, is to choose not to be sinful. The idea of
being sinful for the glory of God is absurd.

3. It does not consist in a willingness to be punished.

If we were now in hell, true submission would require that we should
be willing to be punished. Because then it would be certain that it was
God's will we should be punished. So, if we were in a world where no
provision was made for the redemption of sinners, and where our
punishment was therefore inevitable, it would be our duty to be willing
to be punished. If a man has committed murder, and there is no other
way to secure the public interest but for him to be hung, it is his duty
to be willing to be hung for the public good. But if there was any other
way in which the murderer could make the public interest whole, it
would not be his duty to be willing to be hung. So if he were in a world
solely under law, where there was no plan of salvation, and no
measure to secure the stability of government in the forgiveness of
sinners, it would be the duty of every man to be willing to be punished.
But as it is in this world, genuine submission does not imply a
willingness to be punished. Because we know it is not the will of God
that all shall be punished, but on the other hand, we know it is his will
that all who truly repent and submit to God shall be saved.

II. I am to show what genuine submission is.

1. It consists in perfect acquiescence in all the providential dealings
and dispensations of God; whether relating to ourselves, or to others,
or to the universe. Some persons suppose they do acquiesce in the
abstract, in the providential government of God. But yet, if you
converse with them you see they will find fault with God's
arrangements in many things. They wonder why God suffered Adam
to sin? Or why he suffered sin to enter the universe at all? Or why he
did this or that? Or why he made this or that, thus or so? In all these
cases, supposing we could assign no reason at all that would be
satisfactory, true submission implies a perfect acquiescence in what
ever he has suffered or done; and feeling that, so far as his
providence is concerned, it is all right.

2. True submission implies acquiescence in the precept of God's moral
law. The general precept of God's moral law is, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy strength, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself." Perhaps some will say, "I do acquiesce in this precept, I feel
that it is right, and I have no objection to this law." Here I want you to
make the distinction carefully between a constitutional approbation of
God's law, and actual submission to it. There is no mind but what
naturally, and by its own common sense of what is right, approves of
this law. There is not a devil in hell that does not approve of it. God
has so constituted mind that it is impossible to be a moral agent, and
not approve of his law. But this is not the acquiescence I am speaking
of. A person may feel this approbation to so great a degree as to be
even delighted without having true submission to it. There are two
ideas included in genuine submission, to which I wish your particular
attention.

(1.)The first idea is, that true acquiescence in God's moral law includes
actual obedience. It is vain for a child to pretend a real acquiescence
in his father's commands, unless he actually obeys them. It is in vain
for a citizen to pretend an acquiescence in the laws of the land, unless
he obeys the laws.


(2.)The main idea of submission is the yielding up of that which
constitutes the great point in controversy. And that is this; that men
have taken off their supreme affection from God and his kingdom, and
set up self-interest as the paramount object of regard. Instead of
laying themselves out in doing good, as God requires, they have
adopted the maxim that "Charity begins at home." This is the very
point in debate, between God and the sinner. The sinner aims at
promoting his own interest, as his supreme object. Now, the first ideal
implied in submission is the yielding up of this point. We must cease
placing our own interest as supreme, and let the interests of God and
his kingdom rise in our affections just as much above our own
interests as their real value is greater. The man who does not do this
is a rebel against God.

Suppose a civil ruler were to set himself to promote the general
happiness of his nation; and should enact laws wisely adapted to this
end, and should embark all his own resources in this object; and that
he should then require every subject to do the same. Then suppose
an individual should go and set up his own private interest in
opposition to the general interest. He is a rebel against the
government, and against all the interest which the government is set
to promote. Then the first idea of submission, on the part of the rebel,
is giving up that point, and falling in with the ruler and the obedient
subjects in promoting the public good. Now the law of God absolutely
requires that you should make your own happiness subordinate to the
glory of God and the good of the universe. And until you do this, you
are the enemy of God and the universe, and a child of hell.

And the gospel requires the same as the law. It is astonishing that
many, within a few years, have maintained that it is right for a man to
aim directly at his own salvation, and make his own happiness the
great object of pursuit. But it is plain that God's law is different from
this, and requires every one to prize God's interest supremely. And the
gospel requires the same with the law. Otherwise, Jesus Christ is the
minister of sin, and carne into the world to take up arms against God's
government.

It is easy to show, from the Bible, that the gospel requires
disinterested benevolence, or love to God and love to man, the same
as the law. The first passage I shall quote is this, "Seek first the
kingdom of God and his righteousness." What does that mean?
Strange as it may seem, a writer has lately quoted this very text to
prove that it is right to seek first our own salvation, or our own
happiness, and to make that the leading object of pursuit. But; that is
not the meaning. It requires every one to make the promotion of the
kingdom of God his great object. I suppose it to enjoin the duty of
aiming at being Holy, and not at our own happiness. Happiness is
connected with holiness, but it is not the same thing, but to seek
holiness or obedience to God, and to honor and glorify him, is a very
different thing from seeking supremely our own happiness.

Another passage is, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do
all to the glory of God." Indeed! What! may we not eat and drink to
please ourselves? No. We may not even gratify our natural appetite for
food, but as subordinate to the glory of God. This is what the gospel
requires, for the apostle wrote this to the Christian church.

Another passage is, "Look not on your own things, but every man on
the things of another." But it is vain to attempt to quote all the
passages that teach this. You may find, on almost every page of the
Bible, some passage that; means the same thing, requiring us not to
seek our own good, but the benefit of others.

Our Savior says, "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and
whosoever will lose his life shall save it." That is, If a man aim at his
own interest, he shall lose his own interest; if he aim at saving his soul,
as his supreme object, be will lose his own soul; he must go out of
himself and make the good of others his supreme object, or he will be
lost.

And again he says, "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife or children, or lands, for my
sake and the gospels, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in this
time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children,
and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come, eternal life."
Here some people may stumble, and say, There is a reward held out
as a motive. But, mark! What are you to do? Forsake self for the sake
of a reward to self? No; but to forsake self for the sake of Christ and
his gospel; and the consequence will be as stated. Here is the
important distinction.

In the 13th chapter of Corinthians Paul gives a full description of this
disinterested love, or charity, without which a person is nothing in
religion. It is remarkable how much he says a person may do, and yet
be nothing. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling
cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand 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, it profiteth me nothing "But
true gospel benevolence is of this character: "Charity suffereth long
and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed
up, doth not be have itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not
easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth
in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hope that things,
endureth all things." "Seeketh not her own." Mark that. It has no selfish
end, but seeks the happiness of others as its great end. Without this
kind of benevolence, we know there is not a particle of religion. You
see, I might stand here all night quoting and explaining passages to
the same point, showing that all pure religion consists in disinterested
benevolence.

Before I go farther, I wish to mention several objections to this view,
which may arise in your minds. I do this more particularly because
some of you may stumble right here, and after all get the idea that it
is right to have our religion consist in aiming at our own salvation as
our great object.

Objection l. "Why are the threatenings of the word of God given, if it is
selfishness to be influenced by a fear of the wrath to come?"

Many answers may be given to this objection.

Answer. Man is so constituted that by the laws of his being he dreads
pain. The Scripture threatenings, therefore, answer many purposes.
One is, to arrest the attention of the selfish mind, and lead it to
examine the reason there are for loving and obeying God. When the
Holy Spirit thus gets the attention, then he rouses the sinner's
conscience, and engages that to consider and decide on the
reasonableness and duty of submitting to God.

Objection 2. "Since God has given us these susceptibilities to pleasure
and pain, is it wrong to be influence by them?"

Answer. It is neither right nor wrong. These susceptibilities have no
moral character. If I had time tonight, I might make all plain to you. In
morals, there is a class of actions that come under the denomination
of prudential considerations. 

For instance: Suppose you stand on a precipice, where, if you throw
yourself down, you will infallibly break your neck. You are warned
against it. Now, if you do not regard the warning, but throw yourself
down, and destroy your life, that will be sin. But regarding it is no
virtue. It is simply a prudential act. There is no virtue in avoiding
danger, although it may often be sinful not to avoid it. It is sinful for
men to brave the wrath of God. But to be afraid of hell is not holy, no
more than the fear of breaking your neck down a precipice is holy. It
is simply a dictate of the constitution.

Objection 3. "Does not the Bible make it our immediate duty to seek
our own happiness?"

Answer. It is not sinful to seek our own happiness, according to its real
value. On the contrary, it is a real duty to do so. And he that neglects
to do this, commits sin. Another answer is, that although it is right to
seek our own happiness, and the constitutional laws of the mind
require us to regard our own happiness, still our constitution does not
indicate that to pursue our own happiness as the chief good, is right.
Suppose any one should argue, that because our constitution requires
food, therefore it is right to seek food as the supreme good would
that be sound? Certainly not; for the Bible expressly forbids any such
thing, and says "Whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God."

Objection 4. "Each one's happiness is put particularly in his own
power; and if every one should seek his own happiness, the happiness
of the whole will be secured, to the greatest amount that is possible."

This objection is specious, but not sound. I deny the conclusion
altogether. For,

(1.) The laws of the mind are such, that it is impossible for one to be
happy while he makes his own happiness the supreme object.
Happiness consists in the gratification of virtuous desires. But to be
gratified, the thing must be obtained "that is desired." To be happy,
therefore, the desires that are gratified must be right, and therefore
they must be disinterested desires. If your desires terminate on
yourself; for instance if you desire the conversion of sinners for the
sake of promoting your own happiness, when sinners are converted
it does not make you happy, because it is not the thing on which your
desire terminated. The law of the mind therefore, renders it
impossible, if each individual pursues his own happiness, that he
should ever obtain it. To be more definite. Two things are
indispensable to true happiness. First, there must be virtuous desire.
If the desire be not virtuous, conscience will remonstrate against it,
and therefore a gratification would be attended with pain. Secondly,
this desire must be gratified in the attainment of its object. The object
must be desired for its own sake, or the gratification would not be
complete, even should the object be obtained. If the object is desired
as a means to an end, the gratification would depend on obtaining the
end by this means. But if the thing was desired as an end, or for its
own sake, obtaining it would produce unmingled gratification. The
mind must, therefore, desire not its own happiness, for in this way it
can never be attained, but the desire must terminate on some other
object which is desired for its own sake, the attainment of which would
be a gratification, and thus result in happiness.

(2.) If each one pursues his own happiness as his supreme end, the
interests of different individuals will clash, and destroy the happiness
of all. This is the very thing we see in the world. This is the reason of
all the fraud, and violence, and oppression, and wickedness in earth
and hell. It is because each one is pursuing his own interest, and their
interests clash. The true way to secure our own happiness is, not to
pursue that as an end but to pursues another object, which, when
obtained, will afford complete gratification the glory of God and the
good of the universe. The question is not, whether it is right to desire
and pursue our own happiness at all, but whether it is right to make
our own happiness our supreme end.

Objection 5. "Happiness consists in gratifying virtuous desire. Then the
thing I aim at, is gratifying virtue desire. Is not that aiming at my own
happiness?"

Answer. The mind does not aim at gratifying the desire, but at
accomplishing the thing desired. Suppose you see a beggar, as
mentioned last week, and you give him a loaf of bread. You aim at
relieving the beggar. That is the object desired, and when that is done,
your desire is gratified, and you are happy. But if, in relieving the
beggar, the object you aimed at was your own happiness, then
relieving the beggar will not gratify the desire, and you render it
impossible to gratify it.

Thus you see, that both the law and the gospel require disinterested
benevolence, as the only condition on which man can be happy.

3. True submission implies acquiescence in the penalty of God's law.

I again advert to the distinction, which I have made before. We are not,
in this world, simply under a government of naked law. This world is
a province of Jehovah empire, that stands in a peculiar relation to
God's government. It has rebelled, and a new and special provision
has been made, by which God offers us mercy. The conditions are,
that we obey the precepts of the law, and submit to the justice of the
penalty. It is a government of law, with the gospel appended to it. The
gospel requires the same obedience with the law. It maintains the ill
desert of sin, and requires the sinner's acquiescence in the justice of
the penalty. If the sinner were under mere law, it would require that he
should submit to the infliction of the penalty. But man is not, and never
has been since the fall, under the government of mere law, but has
always known, more or less clearly, that mercy is offered. It has,
therefore, never been required, that men should be willing to be
punished. In this respect it is that gospel submission differs from legal
submission. Under naked law, submission would consist in willingness
to be punished. In this world, submission consists in acquiescence in
the justice of the penalty, and regarding himself as deserving the
eternal wrath of God.

4. True submission implies acquiescence in the sovereignty of God.

It is the duty of every sovereign to see that all his subjects submit to
his government. And it is his duty to enact such laws, that every
individual, if he obeys perfectly, will promote the public good, in the
highest possible degree. And then, if any one refuses to obey, it is his
duty to take that individual by force, and make him subserve the public
interest in the best way that is possible with a rebellious subject, If he
will not subserve the public good voluntarily he should be made to do
it involuntarily. The government must either hang him, or shut him up,
or in some way make him an example of suffering; or if the public good
admits of mercy, it may show mercy in such a way as will best
subserve the general interest. Now God is a sovereign ruler, and the
submission witch he requires is just what he is bound to require. He
would be neglecting his duty as a ruler, if he did not require it. And
since you have refused to obey this requirement, you are now bound
to throw yourself into his hands, for him to dispose of you, for time and
eternity, in the way that will most promote the interests of the universe.
You have forfeited all claim to any portion in the happiness of the
universe or the favor of God. And the thing which is now required of
you is, that since you cannot render obedience for the past, you
should acknowledge the justice of his law, and leave your future
destiny entirely and unconditionally at his disposal, for time and for
eternity. You must submit all you have and all you are to him. You
have justly forfeited all, and are bound to give up all at his bidding, in
any way that he calls for them, to promote the interests of his kingdom.


5. Finally, it requires submission to the terms of the gospel. The terms
of the gospel are  

(1.) Repentance, hearty sorrow for sin, justifying God and taking his
part against yourself.

(2.) Faith, perfect trust and confidence towards God, such as leads
you without hesitation to throw yourself, body and soul, and all you
have and are, into his hand, to do with you as he thinks good.

(3.) Holiness, or disinterested benevolence.

(4.) To receive salvation as a mere matter of pure grace, to which you
have no claim on the score of justice.

(5.) To receive Christ as your mediator and advocate, your atoning
sacrifice, your ruler and teacher, and in all the offices in which he is
presented to you in God's word. In short, you are to be wholly
acquiescent in God's appointed way of salvation.

REMARKS.

I. You see why there are so many false hopes in the church.

The reason is, that so many persons embrace what they consider the
gospel, without yielding obedience to the law. They look at the law with
dread, and regard the gospel as a scheme to get away from the law.
These tendencies have always been manifested among men. There
is a certain class that hold to the gospel and reject the law; and
another class that take the law and neglect the gospel. The
Antinomians think to get rid of the law altogether. They suppose the
gospel rule of life is different from the law; whereas, the truth is, that
the rule of life is the same in both, and both require disinterested
benevolence. Now, if a person thinks that, under the gospel, he may
give up the glory of God as his supreme object, and instead of loving
God with all his heart, and soul, and strength, may make his own
salvation his supreme object, his hopes are false. He has embraced
another gospel   which is no gospel at all.

II. The subject shows how we are to meet the common objection, that
faith in Christ implies making our own salvation our object or motive.

Answer. What is faith? It is not believing that you shall be saved, but
believing God's word concerning his Son. It is no where revealed that
you shall be saved. He has revealed the fact that Jesus Christ came
into the world to save sinners. What you call faith, is more properly
hope. The confident expectation that you shall be saved is an
inference from the act of faith; and an inference which you have a right
to draw when you are conscious of obeying the law and believing the
gospel. That is, when you exercise the feelings required in the law and
gospel, you have a right to trust in Christ for your own salvation.

III. It is an error to suppose that despair of mercy is essential to true
submission.

This is plain from the fact that, under the gospel, every body knows it
is the will of God that every soul should be saved that will exercise
disinterested benevolence. Suppose a man should come to me and
ask, "What shall I do to be saved?" and I should tell him, "If you expect
to be saved you must despair of being saved," what would he think?
What inspired writer ever gave any such direction as this? No, the
inspired answer is, "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,"
"Repent," "Believe the Gospel," and so on. Is there any thing here that
implies despair?

It is true that sinners sometimes do despair, before they obtain true
peace. But what is the reason? It is not because despair is essential
to true peace; but because of their ignorance, or of wrong instructions
given to them, or misapprehension of the truth. Many anxious sinners
despair because they get a false impression that they have sinned
away their day of grace, or that they have committed the
unpardonable sin, or that their sins are peculiarly aggravated, and the
gospel provision does not reach them. Sometimes they despair for this
reason   they know that there is mercy provided, and ready to be
bestowed as soon as they will comply with the terms, but they find all
their efforts at true submission vain. They find they are so proud and
obstinate, that they cannot get their own consent to the terms of
salvation. Perhaps most individuals who do submit, do in fact come to
a point where they give up all as lost. But is that necessary? That is
the question. Now, you see, it is nothing but their own wickedness
drives them to despair. They are so unwilling to take hold of the mercy
that is offered. Their despair, then, instead of being essential to true
submission under the gospel, is inconsistent with it, and no man ever
embraced the gospel while in that state. It is horrid unbelief then, it is
sin to despair; and to say it is essential to true submission, is saying
that sin is essential to true submission.

IV. True submission is acquiescing in the whole government of God.

It is acquiescing in his providential government, in his moral
government, in the precept of his law, and in the penalty of his law, so
that he is himself deserving of an exceeding great and eternal weight
of damnation; and submission to the terms of salvation in the gospel.
Under the gospel, it is no man's duty to be willing to be damned. It is
wholly inconsistent with his duty to be willing to be damned. The man
who submits to the naked law, and consents to be damned, is as
much in rebellion as ever; for it is one of God's express requirements
that he should obey the gospel.

V. To call on a sinner to be willing to be punished is a grand mistake,
for several reasons.

It is to set aside the gospel, and place him under another government
than that which exists. It sets before him a partial view of the character
of God, to which he is required to submit. It keeps back the true
motives to submission. It presents not the real and true God, but a
different being. It is practicing a deception on him, by holding out the
idea that God desires his damnation, and he must submit to it; for God
has taken his solemn oath that he desires not the death of the wicked,
but that he turn from his wickedness and live. It is a slander upon God,
and charging God with perjury. Every man under the gospel, knows
that God desires sinners to be saved, and it is impossible to hide the
fact. The true ground on which salvation should be placed is, that he
is not to seek his own salvation, but to seek the glory of God; not to
told out the idea that God desires or means he should go to hell.

What did the apostles tell sinners, when they inquired what they must
do to be saved? What did Peter tell them at the Pentecost? What did
Paul tell the jailer? To repent and forsake their selfishness, and
believe the gospel. This is what men must do to be saved.

There is another difficulty in attempting to convert mention this way. It
is attempting to convert them by the law, and setting aside the gospel.
It is attempting to make them holy, without the appropriate influences
to make them holy. Paul tried this way, thoroughly, and found it never
would answer. In the 7th of Romans, he gives us the result in his own
case. It drove him to confess that the law was holy and good, and he
ought to obey it; and there it left him in distress, and crying, "The good
that I would, I do not, but the evil that I would not, that I do." 

The law was not able to convert him, and he cries out, "O wretched
man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Just
here the love of God in sending his Son Jesus Christ, is presented to
his mind, and that did the work. In the next chapter he explains it:
"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
whole Bible testifies that it is only the influence of the gospel which can
bring sinners to obey the law. The law will never do it. Shutting out
from the soul that class of motives which cluster around it from the
gospel, will never convert a sinner.

I know there may be some persons who suppose they were converted
in this way, and that they have submitted to the law, absolutely, and
without any influence from the gospel. But was it ever concealed from
them for a moment, that Christ had died for sinners, and that if they
should repent and believe, they should be saved? These motives must
have had their influence, for all the time that they think they were
looking at the naked law they expected that if they believed they
should be saved.

I suppose the error of attempting to convert men by the law, without
the gospel, lies here; in the old Hopkinsian notion that men, in order
to be saved must be willing to be damned. It sets aside the fact, that
this world is, and since the fall always has been, under a dispensation
of mercy. If we were under a government of mere law, true submission
to God would require this. But men are not, in this sense, under the
law, and never have been; for immediately after the fall, God revealed
to Adam the intimations of mercy.

An objection arises here in the mind of some, which I will remove.

Objection. "Is not the offer of mercy, in the gospel calculated to
produce a selfish religion?"

Answer. The offer of mercy may be perverted, as every other good
thing may be, and then it may give rise to a selfish religion. And God
knew it would be so, when he revealed the gospel. But observe:
Nothing is calculated to subdue the rebellious heart of man, but this
very exhibition of the benevolence of God, in the offer of mercy.

There was a father who had a stubborn and rebellious son, and he
tried long to subdue him by chastisement. He loved his son, and
lodged to have him virtuous and obedient. But the child seemed to
harden his heart against his repeated efforts. At length the poor father
was quite discouraged, and burst out into a flood of convulsive
weeping "My son! my son! what shall I do? Can I save you? I have
done all that I could to save you; O what can I do more? "The son had
looked at the rod with a brow of brass, but when he saw the tears
rolling down his father's furrowed cheeks, and heard the convulsive
sobs of anguish from his aged bosom, he too burst into tears, and
cried out, "Whip me father! do whip me, as much as you please, but
don't cry!" Now the father had found out the way to subdue that
stubborn heart. Instead of holding over him nothing but the iron hand
of law, he let out his soul before him; and what was the effect? To
crash him into hypocritical submission? No, the rod did that. The
gushing tears of his father's love broke him down at once to true
submission to his father's will.

So it is with sinners. The sinner braves the wrath of Almighty God, and
hardens himself to receive the heaviest bolt of Jehovah's thunder; but
when he sees the love of his Heavenly Father's heart, if there is
anything that will make him abhor and execrate himself, that will do it,
when he sees God manifested in the flesh, stooping to take human
nature, hanging on the cross, and pouring out his soul in tears, and
bloody sweat, and death. Is this calculated to make hypocrites? 

No, the sinner's heart melt, and he cries out, "O, do any thing else,
and I can bear it; but the love of the blessed Jesus overwhelms me."
This is the very nature of the mind, to be thus influenced. Instead,
therefore, of being afraid of exhibiting the love of God to sinners, it is
the only way to make them truly submissive and truly benevolent. The
law may make hypocrites; but nothing but the gospel can draw out the
soul so true love to God.

Chapter 14.

SELFISHNESS NOT TRUE RELIGION.

Seeketh not her own.   1 Corinthians 13:5.

That is, Charity, or Christian love, seeketh not her own.

The proposition which I design to establish this evening, is the
following:

That a supreme regard to our own happiness is inconsistent with true
religion.

This proposition is naturally the first in the series that I have been
laboring to illustrate in the present lectures, and would have been the
first to be discussed, had I been aware that it was seriously called in
question by any considerable number of professed Christians. But I
can honestly say, that when I commenced these lectures, I did not
expect to meet any serious difficulty here; and therefore I took it in a
great measure for granted, that selfishness is not; religion. And hence,
I passed over this point with but a slight attempt at proving it. But
since, I learn that there are many professed Christians who maintain
that a supreme regard to our own happiness is true religion, I think it
necessary to examine the subject more carefully, and give you the
arguments in favor of what I suppose to be the truth. In establishing
my proposition, I wish to distinguish between things that differ; I shall
therefore,

I. Show what is not intended by the proposition, that a supreme regard
to our own happiness is not religion. II. Show what is meant by it. III.
Attempt to prove it.

I. I am to explain what is not meant by the proposition.

1. The point in dispute is not, whether it is lawful to have any regard to
our own happiness. On the contrary; it is admitted and maintained to
be a part of our duty to have a due regard to our own happiness,
according to its real value, in the scale with other interests. God has
commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves. This plainly makes
it a duty to love ourselves or regard our own happiness, by the same
rule that we regard that of others.

2. The proposition is not that we ought to have no regard to the
promises and threatenings of God, as affecting ourselves. It is plainly
right to regard the promises of God and threatenings of evil, as
affecting ourselves, according to the relative value of our own
interests. But who does not see that a threatening against us is not so
important as a threatening against a large number of individuals.
Suppose a threatening of evil against yourself as an individual. This is
plainly not so important as if it included your family. Then suppose it
extends to the whole congregation, or to the state, or the whole nation,
or the world. Here, it is easy to see, that the happiness of an
individual, although great, ought not to be regarded as supreme.

I am a minister. Suppose God says to me, "If you do not do your duty,
you shall be sent to hell." This is a great evil, and I ought to avoid it.
But suppose him to say, "If your people do not do their duty, they will
all be sent to hell; but if you do your duty faithfully, you will probably
save the whole congregation. "Is it right for me to be as much
influenced by the fear of evil to myself, as by the fear of having a
whole congregation sent to hell? Plainly not.

3. The question is not whether our own eternal internal interests ought
to be pursued in preference to our temporal interests. It is expressly
maintained by myself, and so it is by the Bible, that we are bound to
regard our eternal interests as altogether of more consequence than
our temporal interest.

Thus the Bible tells us "Labor not for the meat that perisheth, but for
that which endureth unto everlasting life." This teaches that we are not
to regard or value our temporal interests at all, in comparison with
eternal life.

So, where our Savior says, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on the
earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break
through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break not
through nor steal." Here the same duty is enjoined, of preferring
eternal to temporal interests.

There is another. When Christ sent out his disciples, two and two, to
preach and to work miracles, they came back full of joy and exultation,
because they found even the devils yielding to their power. "Lord, even
the devils are subject to us." Jesus saith, "Rejoice not that the devils
are subject to you; but rather rejoice in this, that your names are
written in heaven." Here he teaches, that it is a greater good to have
our names written in heaven, than to enjoy the greatest temporal
power, even authority over devils themselves.

The Bible everywhere teaches, that eternal good is to be preferred in
all our conduct to temporal good. But this is very different from
maintaining that our own individual eternal interest is to be aimed at as
the supreme object of regard.

4. The proposition is not, that hope and fear should not influence our
conduct. All that is implied is, that when we are influenced by hope
and fear, the things that are hoped or feared should be put into the
scale according to their real value, in comparison with other interests.

5. The question is not, whether the persons did right, who are spoken
of in the Bible, as having been at least in some degree influenced by
hope and fear, or having respect unto the recompense of reward, or
to the joy that was set before them. This is admitted. Noah was moved
with fear and built the ark. But was it the fear of being drowned
himself, or fear for his own personal safety that chiefly moved him?
The Bible does not say it. He feared for the safety of his family; yea,
more, he dreaded the destruction of the whole human race, with all the
interest depending thereon.

Whenever it is said that good men were influenced by hope and fear,
it is admitted. But in order to make it bear on this subject, it must be
shown that this hope or fear respecting their own personal interest was
the controlling motive. Now, this is no where affirmed in the Bible. It
was right for them to be influenced by promises and threatenings.
Otherwise they could not obey the second part of the law: "Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself."

II. I am to show what is meant by the proposition, that supreme regard
to our own interest is inconsistent with true religion.

The question is, whether supreme regard to our own happiness is
religion. It is, whether we are to fear our own damnation more than the
damnation of all other men, in the dishonor of God thereby. And
whether we are to aim at securing our own happiness more than the
happiness of all other men, and the glory of God. And whether, if we
do this, we act according to the requirements of the true religion, or
inconsistent with true religion. This is the proper point of inquiry, and
I wish you to bear it constantly in mind, and not to confound it with any
of the other points that I have referred to.

III. For the proof of the proposition.

Before proceeding to the proof of the proposition, that a supreme
regard to our own happiness is inconsistent with true religion, I will
observe that all true religion consists in being like God; in acting on the
same principles and grounds, and having the same feelings towards
different objects. I suppose this will not be denied. Indeed, if cannot
be, by any sane mind. I then observe, as the first proof of the
proposition,

1. That a supreme regard to our own happiness is not according to the
example of God; but is being totally unlike him.

The Bible tells us that "God is love." That is, benevolence is the sum
total of his character. All his other moral attributes, such as justice,
mercy, and the like, are but modifications of his benevolence. His love
is manifested in two forms. One is that of benevolence, good willing,
or desiring the happiness of others. The other complacency, or
approving the character of others who are holy. God's benevolence
regards all beings that are capable of happiness. This is universal.
Towards all holy beings, he exercises the love of complacency. In
other words, God loves his neighbor as himself. He regards he
interests of all beings, according to their relative value, as much as his
own. He seeks his own happiness, or glory, as the supreme good. But
not because it is his own, but because it is the supreme good. The
sum total of his happiness, as an infinite being, is infinitely greater than
the sum total of the happiness of all other beings, or of and possible
number of finite creatures.

Take a very familiar illustration. Here is a man that is kind to brutes.
This man and his horse fall into the river. Now, does true benevolence
require the man to drown himself in order to extricate his horse? No.
It would be true disinterested benevolence in him, to save himself,
and, if need be, leave his horse to perish; because his happiness is of
so much greater value than that of the horse. You see this at a glance.
But the difference between God and all created beings is infinitely
greater than between a man and a horse, or between the highest
anger and the meanest insect, God, therefore, regards the happiness
of all creatures precisely according to its real value. And unless we do
the same we are not like God. If we are like God, we must regard
God's happiness and glory in the same light that he does; that is, as
the supreme good, beyond every thing else in the universe. And if we
desire our own happiness more than God's happiness, we are infinitely
unlike God.

2. To aim at our own happiness supremely is inconsistent with true
religion, because it is contrary to the spirit of Christ.

We are told, that "if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none
of his." And it is repeatedly said of him as a man, that he sought not
his own, that he sought not his own glory, and the like. What was he
seeking? Was it his own personal salvation? No. Was it his own
personal happiness?

No. It was the glory of his Father, and the good of the universe,
through the salvation of men. He came on an errand of pure
benevolence, to benefit the kingdom of God, not to benefit himself.
This was "the joy that was set before him," for which "he endured the
cross, despising the shame." It was the great good he could do by thus
throwing himself out to labor and suffer for the salvation of men.

3. To regard our own happiness as the supreme object of pursuit is
contrary to the law of God.

I have mentioned this before, but recur to it again for the sake of
making my present demonstration complete. The sum of that law is
this   "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 thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 

This is the great thing required; benevolence towards God and man.
The first thing is really to love the happiness and glory of God, above
all other things, because it is so infinitely lovely and desirable, and is
properly the supreme good. Some have objected that it was not our
duty to seek the happiness of God, because his happiness is already
secured. Suppose, now, that the king of England is perfectly
independent of me, and has his happiness secured without me; does
that make it any the less my duty to wish him well, to desire his
happiness, and to rejoice in it? Because God is happy, in himself,
independent of his creatures, is that a reason why we should not love
his happiness, and rejoice in it? Strange.

Again: We are bound by the terms of God's law to exercise
complacency to God, because he is holy, infinitely holy.

Again: This law binds us to exercise the same good will, or
benevolence, towards others that we do to ourselves; that his, to seek
both their interests and our own, according to their relative value. Who
of you is doing this? And we are bound to exercise the love of
complacency toward those who are good and holy.

Thus we see that the sum of the law of God is to exercise
benevolence towards God and all beings, according to their relative
value, and complacency in all that are holy. Now I say that to regard
our own happiness supremely, or to seek it as our supreme end, is
contrary to that law, to its letter and to its spirit. And,

4. It is as contrary to the gospel as it is to the law.

In the chapter from which the text is taken, the apostle begins  
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, I am become as sounding brass, of a tinkling cymbal. And
though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and
all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." Charity here means
love. In the original it is the same word that is rendered love. "And
though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my
body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

Now mark! In no stronger language could he have expressed the idea
that charity, or benevolence, is essential to true religion. See how he
throws out his guards on every side, so that it is impossible to mistake
his views. If a person has not true charity, he is nothing. He then
proceeds and shows what are the characteristics of this true charity.
"Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth
not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all
things, hopeth all things endureth all things." Here you see that one
leading peculiarity of this love is, that charity "seeketh not her own."
Mark that. If this is true religion, and without it there is no religion, then
one peculiarity of true religion is, that it "seeketh not her own."

Those of you who have Bibles with marginal references can follow out
these references and find a multitude of passages that plainly teach
the same thing. Recollect the passages I quoted in the last lecture. I
will just refer to one of them "Whosoever will save his life shall lose
it." Here you see it laid down as an established principle of God's
government, that if a person aims supremely at his own interest he will
lose his own interest.

The same is taught in the tenth chapter of this epistle, verse 24: "Let
no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." 

If you look at the passage, you will see that word "wealth" is in italic
letters, to show that it is a word added by the translators, that is not in
the Greek. They might just as well have used the word happiness, or
welfare, as wealth. So in the 33rd verse: "Even as I please all men in
all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they
may be saved."

Therefore I say, that to make our own interest the supreme object of
pursuit, is as contrary to the gospel as it is to the law.

5. It is contrary to conscience.

The universal conscience of mankind has decided that a supreme
regard to our own happiness is not virtue. Men have always known
that to serve God and benefit mankind is what is right, and to seek
supremely their own personal interest is not right. They have always
regarded it mean and contemptible for individuals to seek their own
happiness as the supreme object, and consequently, we see how
much pains men take to conceal their selfishness and to appear
benevolent. It is impossible for any man, unless his conscience is
strangely blunted by sin, or perverted by false instruction, not to see
that it is sinful to regard his own happiness above other interests of
more importance.

6. It is contrary to right reason.

Right reason teaches us to regard all things according to their real
value. God does this, and we should do the same. God has given us
reason for this very purpose, that we should weigh and compare the
relative value of things. It is a mockery of reason, to deny that it
teaches us to regard things according to their real value. And if so,
then to aim at and prefer our own interest, as the supreme end, is
contrary to reason.

7. It is contrary to common sense.

That has the common sense of mankind decided on this point? Look
at the common sense of mankind in regard to what is called patriotism.
No man was ever regarded as a true patriot, in fighting for his country,
if his object was to subserve his own interest. Suppose it should
appear that his object in fighting was to get himself crowned king;
would anybody give him credit for patriotism? No. All men agree that
it is patriotism when a man is disinterested, like Washington; and fights
for his country, for his country's sake. The common sense of mankind
has written reprobation on that spirit that seeks its own things, and
prefers its own interest, to the greater interests of others. It is evident
that all men so regard it. Otherwise, how is it that every one is anxious
to appear disinterested.

8. It is contrary to the constitution of the mind.

I do not mean, by this, that it is impossible, by our very constitution, for
us to seek our own happiness as the supreme object. But we are so
constituted that if we do this, we never can attain it. As I have said in
a former lecture, happiness is the gratification of desire. We must
desire something, and gain the object we desire. Now, suppose a man
to desire his own happiness, the object of his desire will always keep
just so far before him, like his shadow, and the faster he pursues it the
faster it flies. Happiness is inseparably attached to the attainment of
the object desired. Suppose I desire a thousand dollars. That is the
thing on which my desire fastens, and when I get it that desire is
gratified, and I am happy, so far as gratifying this desire goes to make
me happy. But if I desire the thousand dollars for the purpose of
getting a watch, a dress, and such like things, the desire is not
gratified till I get those things. 

But now suppose the thing I desired was my own happiness. Getting
the thousand dollars then does not make me happy, because that is
not the thing my desire was fixed on. And so getting the watch, and
dress, and other things, do not make me happy, for they gratify not my
desire. God has so constituted things, and given such laws to the
mind, that man never can gain happiness by pursuing it. This very
constitution plainly indicates the duty of disinterested benevolence.
Indeed, he has made it impossible for them to be happy, but in
proportion as they are disinterested.

Here are two men walking along the street together. They come
across a man that has just been run over by a cart, and lies weltering
in his gore. They take him up, and carry him to the surgeon, and
relieve him. Now it is plain that their gratification is in proportion to the
intensity of their desire for his relief. If one of them felt but little and
cared but little about the sufferings of the poor man, he will be but little
gratified. But if his desire to have the man relieves amounted to agony,
his gratification would be accordingly. Now suppose a third individual
that had no desire to relieve the distressed man; certainly relieving him
could be no gratification to that person. He could pass right by him,
and see him die. Then he is not gratified at all. Therefore you see,
happiness is just in proportion as the desires are gratified by obtaining
the things desired.

Here observe, that in order to make the happiness of gratified desire
complete, the desire itself must be virtuous. Otherwise, if the desire is
selfish, the gratification will be mingled with pain, from the conflict of
the mind.

That all this is true, is a matter of consciousness, and is proved to us
by the very highest kind of testimony we can have. And for any one to
deny it, is to charge God foolishly, as if he had given us a constitution
that would not allow us to be happy in obeying him.

9. It is also inconsistent with our own happiness, to make our own
interest the supreme object. This follows from what I have just said.
Men may enjoy a certain kind of pleasure, but not true happiness. The
pleasure which does not spring from the gratification of virtuous desire,
is a deceptive delusion. The reason why all mankind do not find
happiness, when they are all so anxious for it, is that they are seeking
it. If they would seek the glory of God, and the good of the universe as
their supreme end, it would pursue them.

10. It is inconsistent with the public happiness. If each individual is to
aim at his own happiness as his chief end, these interests will
unavoidably clash and come into collision, and universal war and
confusion will follow in the train of universal selfishness.

11. To maintain that a supreme regard to our own interest is true
religion, is to contradict the experience of all real saints. I aver, that
every real saint knows that his supreme happiness consists in going
out of himself, and regarding the glory of God and the good of others.
If he does not know this he is no saint.

12. It is also inconsistent with the experience of all those who have
had a selfish religion, and have found out their mistake and got true
religion. This is a common occurrence. I suppose I have known
hundreds of cases. Some members in this church have recently made
this discovery; and they can all testify that they now know, by
experience, that benevolence is true religion.

13. It is contrary to the experience of all the impenitent. Every
impenitent sinner knows that he is aiming supremely at the promotion
of his own interest, and knows that he has not true religion. 
The very thing that his conscience condemns him for is this, that he is
regarding his own interest instead of the glory of God.

Now just turn the leaf over, for a moment, and admit that a supreme
regard for our own happiness is true religion; and then see what will
follow.

1. Then it will follow that God is not holy. That is, if a supreme regard
to our own interest, because it is our own, is true religion, then it will
follow that God is not holy. God regards his own happiness, but it is
because it is the greatest good, not because it is his own. But he is
love, or benevolence; and if benevolence is not true religion, God's
nature must be changed.

2. The law of God must be altered. If a supreme regard to our own
happiness is religion, then the law should read, "Thou shalt love
thyself with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and
with all thy strength, and God and thy neighbor infinitely less than
thyself."

3. The gospel must be reversed. Instead of saying "Whether ye eat or
drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God," it should read,
"Do all for your own happiness." Instead of "He that will save his life
shall lose it," we should find it saying, "He that is supremely anxious
to save his own life shall save it; but he that is benevolent, and willing
to lose his life for the good of others, shall lose it."

4. The consciences of men should be changed so as to testify in favor
of selfishness, and condemn and reprobate every thing like
uninterested benevolence.

5. Right reason must be made not to weigh things according to their
relative value, but to decide our own little interest to be of more value
than the greatest interests of God and the universe.

6. Common sense will have to decide, that true patriotism consists in
every man's seeking his own interest instead of the public good, and
each one seeking to build himself up as high as he can.

7. The human constitution must be reversed. If supreme selfishness
is virtue, the human constitution was made wrong. It is so made, that
man can be happy only by being benevolent. And if this doctrine is
true, that religion consists in seeking our own happiness as a supreme
good, then the more religion a man has the more miserable he is.

8. And the whole frame-work of society will have to be changed. Now
it is so, that the good of the community depends on the extent to which
every one regards the public interest. And if this doctrine holds, it must
be changed, so that the public good will be best promoted when every
man is scrambling for his own interest regardless of the interests of
others.

9. The experience of the saints will have to be reversed. Instead of
finding, as they now do, that the more benevolence they have, the
more religion and the more happiness, they should testify that the
more they aim at their own good, the more they enjoy of religion and
the favor of God.

10. The impenitent should be found to testify that they are supremely
happy in supreme selfishness, and that they find true happiness in it.

I will not pursue this proof any farther; it would look like trifling. 

If there is any such thing as proof to be had, it is fully proved, that to
aim at our own happiness supremely, is inconsistent with true religion.

REMARKS.

I. We see why it is, that while all are pursuing happiness, so few find
it.

The fact is plain. The reason is this; the greater part of mankind do not
know in what true happiness consists, and they are seeking it in that
which can never afford it. They do not find it because they are
pursuing it. If they would turn round and pursue holiness, happiness
would pursue them. If they would become disinterested, and lay
themselves out to do good, they could not but be happy. If they
choose happiness as an end, it flies before them. True happiness
consists in the gratification of virtuous desires; and if they would set
themselves to glorify God, and do good, they would find it. The only
class of persons that never do final it, in this world, or the world to
come, are those who seek it as an end.

II. The constitution of the human mind and of the universe, affords a
beautiful illustration of the economy of God.

Suppose man could find happiness, only by pursuing his own
happiness. Then each individual would have only the happiness that
himself had gained, and all the happiness in the universe would be
only the sum total of what individuals had gained, with the offset of all
the pain and misery produced by conflicting interests. Now mark! God
has so constituted things, that while each lays himself out to promote
the happiness of others, his own happiness is secured and made
complete. How vastly greater then is the amount of happiness in the
universe, than it would have been, had selfishness been the law of
Jehovah's kingdom. Because each one who obeys the law of God,
fully secures his own happiness by his benevolence, and the
happiness of the whole is increased by how much each receives from
all others.

Many say, "Who will take care of my happiness if I do not? If I am to
care only for my neighbor's interest, and neglect my own, none of us
will be happy." That would be true, if your care for your neighbor's
happiness were a detraction from your own. But if your happiness
consists in doing good and promoting the happiness of others, the
more you do for others, the more you promote your own happiness.

III. When I gave out the subject of this lecture, I avoided the use of the
term, selfishness, lest it should be thought invidious. But I now affirm,
that a supreme regard to our own interest is selfishness, and nothing
else. It would be selfishness in God, if he regarded his own interest;
supremely because it is his own. And it is selfishness in man. And
whoever maintains that a supreme regard to our own interest is true
religion, maintains that selfishness is true religion.

IV. If selfishness is virtue, then benevolence is sin. They are direct
opposites and cannot both be virtue. For a man to set up his own
interest over God's interest, giving it a preference, and placing it in
opposition to God's interest is selfishness. And if this is virtue, then
Jesus Christ, in seeking the good of mankind as he did, departed from
the principles of virtue. Who will pretend this?

V. Those who regard their own interest as supreme, and yet think they
have true religion, are deceived. I say it solemnly, because I believe
it is true, and I would say it if it were the last word I was to speak
before going to the judgment. Dear hearer, whoever you are, if you are
doing this, you are not a Christian. Don't call this being censorious. I
am not censorious. I would not denounce any one. 

But as God is true, and your soul is going to the judgment, you have
not the religion of the Bible.

VI. Some will ask here, "What! are we to have no regard to our
happiness, and if so, how are we to decide whether it is supreme or
not?" I do not say that. I say, you may regard it according to its relative
value. And now I ask, is there any real practical difficulty here? I
appeal to your consciousness. You cannot but know, if you are honest,
what it is that you regard supremely. Are these interests, your own
interest on one side, and God's glory and the good of the universe on
the other, so nearly balanced in your mind, that you cannot tell which
you prefer? It is impossible! If you are not as conscious that you prefer
the glory of God to your own interest, as you are that you exist, you
may take it for granted that you are all wrong.

VII. You see why the enjoyment of so many professors of religion
depends on their evidences. These persons are all the time hunting
after evidence; and just in proportion as that varies, their enjoyments
wax and wane. Now, mark! If they really regarded the glory of God and
the good of mankind, their enjoyment would not depend on their
evidences. Those who are purely selfish, may enjoy much in religion,
but it is by anticipation. The idea of going to heaven is pleasing to
them. But those who go out of themselves, and are purely benevolent,
have a present heaven in their breasts.

VIII. You see, here, that all of you who had no peace and joy in religion
before you had a hope, are deceived. Perhaps I can give an outline of
your experience. You were awakened, and were distressed, as you
had reason to be, by the fear of going to hell. By and by, perhaps while
you were engaged in prayer, or while some person was conversing
with you, your distress left you. You thought your sins were pardoned.
A gleam of joy shot through your mind, and warmed up your heart into
a glow, that you took for evidence, and this again increased your joy.
How very different is the experience of a true Christian! His peace
does not depend on his hope; but true submission and benevolence
produce peace and joy, independent of his hope.

Suppose the case of a man in prison, condemned to be hung the nest
day. He is in great distress, walking his cell, and waiting for the day.
By and by, a messenger comes with a pardon. He seizes the paper,
turns it up to the dim light that comes through his grate, reads the
word pardon, and almost faints with emotion, and leaps for joy. He
supposes the paper to be genuine. Now suppose it turns out that the
paper is counterfeit. Suddenly his joy is all gone. So in the case of a
deceived person. He was afraid of going to hell, and of course he
rejoices if he believes he is pardoned. If the devil should tell him so,
and he believed it, his joy would be just as great, while the belief lasts,
as if it was a reality. True Christian joy does not depend on evidence.
He submits himself into the hands of God with such confidence, and
that very act gives him peace. He had a terrible conflict with God, but
all at once he yields the controversy, and says, "God will do right, let
God's will be done." Then he begins to pray, he in subdued, he melts
down before God, and that very act affords sweet, calm, and heavenly
joy. Perhaps he has not thought of a hope. Perhaps he may go for
hours, or even for a day or two, full of joy in God, without thinking of
his own salvation. You ask him if he has a hope, he never thought of
that. His joy does not depend on believing that he is pardoned, but
consists in a state of mind, acquiescing in the government of God. In
such a state of mind, he should not but be happy.

Now let me ask which religion have you? If you exercise true religion,
suppose God should put you into hell, and there let you exercise
supreme love to God, and the same love to your neighbor as to
yourself, that itself is a state of mind inconsistent with being miserable.

I wish this to be fully understood. These hope-seekers will be always
disappointed. If you run after hope, you will never have a hope good
for anything. But if you pursue holiness, hope, and peace, and joy, will
come of course.

Is your religion the love of holiness, the love of God and of souls? Or
is it only a hope?

IX. You see why it is that anxious sinners do not find peace.

They are looking at their own guilt and danger. They are regarding
God as an avenger, and shrinking from his terrors. This will render it
impossible they should ever come at peace. While looking at the wrath
of God, making them wither and tremble, they cannot love him, they
hide from him. Anxious sinners, let me tell you a secret. If you keep
looking at that feature of God's character, it will drive you to despair,
and that is inconsistent with true submission. You should look at his
whole character, and see the reasons why you should love him, and
throw yourself upon him without reserve, and without distrust; and
instead of shrinking from him, come right to him, and say, "O, Father
in heaven, thou art not inexorable, thou art sovereignty, but thou art
good, I submit to thy government, and give myself to thee, with all I
have and all I am, body and soul, for time and for eternity."

The subject for the next lecture will be, the distinction between legal
submission and gospel submission, or between the religion of the law
and the religion of faith. And here let me observe, that when I began
to preach on the subject of selfishness in religion, I did not dream that
it would be regarded by any one as a controversial subject at all. I
have no fondness for controversy, and I should as soon think of calling
the doctrine of the existence of God a controversial subject, as this.
The question is one of the greatest importance, and we ought to weigh
the arguments, and decide according to the word of God. Soon we
shall go together to the bar of God, and you must determine whether
you will go there with selfishness in your hearts, or with that
disinterested benevolence that seeketh not her own. Will you now
be honest? For as God is true, if you are seeking your own, you will
soon be in hell, unless you repent. O be honest! and lay aside
prejudice, and act for eternity.

Chapter 15.

RELIGION OF THE LAW AND GOSPEL.

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after
righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness
which is of faith; but Israel, which followed after the law of
righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the
works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling-stone; as it is
written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offense;
and whosoever believeth in him shall not be ashamed. Romans 9:30-33.

In the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle pursues a systematic course
of reasoning, to accomplish a particular design. In the beginning of it,
he proves that not only the Gentiles, but the Jews also, were in a state
of entire depravity; and that the Jews were not, as they vainly
imagined, naturally holy. He then introduces the Moral Law, and by
explaining it, shows that by works of law no flesh could be saved. His
next topic is Justification by Faith, in opposition to Justification by Law.
Here I will observe, in passing, that it is my design to make this the
subject of my next lecture. The next subject, with which he begins
chap. 6, is to show that sanctification is by faith; or that all true religion,
all the acceptable obedience there ever was in the world, is based on
faith. In the eighth and ninth chapters, he introduces the subject of
divine sovereignty; and in the last part of the ninth chapter, he sums
up the whole matter, and asks, "What shall we say then?" What shall
we say of all this?   That the Gentiles who never thought of the law,
have become pious, and obtained the holiness which is by faith; but
the Jews attempting it by the law, have entirely failed. Wherefore?
Because they made the fatal mistake of attempting to become pious
by obeying the law, and have always come short, while the Gentiles
have obtained true religion, by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is
here called "that stumbling-stone," because the Jews were so opposed
to him. But whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.

My design tonight is, to point out as distinctly as I can, the true
distinction between the religion of law and the religion of faith. I shall
proceed in the following order; 

I. Show in what the distinction does not consist. II. Show in what it
does consist. III. Bring forward some specimens of both, to show more
plainly in what they differ.

I. I am to show in what the distinction between the religion of law and
the religion of faith does not consist.

1. The difference does not lie in the fact, that under the law men were
justified by works, without faith. The method of salvation in both
dispensations has been the same. Sinners were always justified by
faith. The Jewish dispensation pointed to a Savior to come, and if men
were saved at all, it was by faith in Christ. And sinners now are saved
in the same way.

2. Not in the fact that the gospel has canceled or set aside the
obligations of the moral law. It is true, it has set aside the claims of the
ceremonial law, or law of Moses. The ceremonial law was nothing but
a set of types pointing to the Savior, and was set aside, of course,
when the great anti-type appeared. It is now generally admitted by all
believers that the gospel has not set aside the moral law. But that
doctrine has been maintained in different ages of the church. Many
have maintained that the gospel has set aside the moral law, so that
believers are under no obligation to obey it. Such was the doctrine of
the Nicolaitans, so severely reprobated by Christ. 
The Antinomians, in the days of the apostles and since, believed that
they were without any obligation to obey the moral law; and held that
Christ's righteousness was so imputed to believers, and that he had
so fulfilled the law for them that they were under no obligation to obey
it themselves.

There have been many, in modern times, called Perfectionists, who
held that they were not under obligation to obey the law. They
suppose that Christ has delivered them from the law, and given them
the Spirit, and that the leadings of the Spirit are now to be their rule of
life, instead of the law of God. Where the Bible says, sin shall not have
dominion over believers, these persons understand by it, that the
same acts, which would be sin if done by an unconverted person, are
not sin in them. The others, they say, are under the law, and so bound
by its rules, but themselves are sanctified, and are in Christ, and if
they break the law it is no sin. But all such notions must be radically
wrong. God has no right to give up the moral law. He cannot discharge
us from the duty of love to God and love to man, for this is right in
itself. And unless God will alter the whole moral constitution of the
universe, so as to make that right which is wrong, he cannot give up
the claims of the moral law. Besides, this doctrine represents Jesus
Christ and the Holy Ghost as having taken up arms openly against the
government of God.

3. The distinction between law religion and gospel religion does not
consist in the fact that the gospel is any less strict in its claims, or
allows any greater latitude of self-indulgence than the law. Not only
does the gospel not cancel the obligations of the moral law, but it does
in no degree abate them. Some people talk about gospel liberty; as
though they had got a new rule of life, less strict, and allowing more
liberty than the Law. I admit that it has provided a new method of
justification, but it every where insists that the rule of life is the same
with the law. The very first sentence of the gospel, the command to
repent, is in effect a re-enactment of the law, for it is a command to
return to obedience. The idea that the liberty of the gospel differs from
the liberty of the law is erroneous.

4. Neither does the distinction consist in the fact that those called
legalists, or who have a legal religion, do, either by profession or in
fact, depend on their own works for justification. It is not often the
case, at least in our day, that legalists do profess dependence on their
own works, for there are few so ignorant as not to know that this is
directly in the face of the gospel. Nor is it necessarily the case that
they really depend on their own works.

Often they really depend on Christ for salvation. But their dependence
is false dependence, such as they have no right to have. They depend
on him, but they make it manifest that their faith, or dependence, is not
that which actually "worketh by love," or that "purifieth the heart," or
that "overcometh the world." It is a simple matter of fact that the faith
which they have does not do what the faith does which men must have
in order to be saved, and so it is not the faith of the gospel. They have
a kind of faith, but not that kind that makes men real Christians, and
brings them under the terms of the gospel.

II. I am to mention some of the particulars in which these two kinds of
religion differ.

There are several different classes of persons who manifestly have a
legal religion. There are some who really profess to depend on their
own works for salvation. Such were the Pharisees. The Hicksite
Quakers formerly took this ground, and maintained that men were to
be justified by works; setting aside entirely justification by faith. When
I speak of works, I mean works of law. And here I want you to
distinguish between works of law and works of faith. This is the grand
distinction to be kept in view. It is between works produced by legal
considerations, and those produced by faith. 

There are but two principles on which obedience to any government
can turn: One is the principle of hope and fear, under the influence of
conscience. Conscience points out what is right or wrong, and the
individual is induced by hope and fear to obey. The other principle is
confidence and love. You see this illustrated in families, where one
child always obeys from hope and fear, and another from affectionate
confidence. So in the government of God, the only thing that ever
produces even the appearance of obedience, is one of these two
principles.

There is a multitude of things that address our hopes and fears; such
as character, interest, heaven, and hell, etc. These may produce
external obedience, or conformity to the law. But filial confidence leads
men to obey God from love. This is the only obedience that is
acceptable to God. God not only requires a certain course of conduct,
but that this should spring from love. There never was and never can
be, in the government of God, any acceptable obedience but the
obedience of faith. Some suppose that faith will be done away in
heaven. This is a strange notion. As if there were no occasion to trust
God in heaven, or no reason to exercise confidence in him. Here is the
great distinction between the religion of law and gospel religion. Legal
obedience is influenced by hope and fear, and is hypocritical, selfish,
outward, constrained. Gospel obedience is from love, and is sincere,
free, cheerful, true. There is a class of legalists, who depend on works
of law for justification, who have merely deified what they call a
principle of right, and have set themselves to do right; it is not out of
respect to the law of God, or out of love to God, but just because it is
right.

There is another distinction here. The religion of law is the religion of
purposes, or desires, founded on legal considerations, and not the
religion of preference, or love to God. The individual intends to put off
his sins; he purposes to obey God and be religious; but his purpose
does not grow out of love to God, but out of hope and fear. It is easy
to see that a purpose, founded on such considerations, is very
different from a purpose growing out of love. But the religion of the
gospel is not a purpose merely, but an actual preference consisting in
love.

Again, there is a class of legalists that depend on Christ, but their
dependence is not gospel dependence, because the works which it
produces are works of law; that is, from hope and fear, not from love.
Gospel dependence may produce, perhaps, the very same outward
works, but the motives are radically different. The legalist drags on a
painful, irksome, moral, and perhaps, outwardly, religious life. The
gospel believer has an affectionate confidence in God, which leads
him to obey out of love. He obedience is prompted by his own feelings.
Instead of being dragged to duty, he goes to it cheerfully, because he
loves it, and doing it is a delight to his soul.

There is another point. The legalist expects to be justified by faith, but
he has not learned that he must be sanctified by faith. I propose to
examine this point another time, in full. Modern legalists do not expect
to be justified by works; they know these are inadequate they know
that the way to be saved is by Christ. But they have no practical belief
that justification by faith is only true, as sanctification by faith is true,
and that men are justified by faith only, as they are first sanctified by
faith. And therefore, while they expect to be justified by faith, they set
themselves to perform works that are works of law.

Again: I wish you to observe that the two classes may agree in these
points; the necessity of good works, and, theoretically, in what
constitutes good works; that is obedience springing from love to God.
And further, they may agree in aiming to perform good works of this
kind. But the difference lies here in the different influences to which
they look, to enable them to perform good works. 

The considerations by which they expect their minds to be affected,
are different. They look to different sources for motives. And the true
Christian alone succeeds in actually performing good works. The
legalist, aiming to perform good works, influenced by hope and fear,
and a selfish regard to his own interest, obeying the voice of
conscience because he is afraid to do otherwise, falls entirely short of
loving God with all his heart, and soul, and strength. The motives
under which he acts have no tendency to bring him to the obedience
of love. The true Christian, on the contrary, so appreciates God, so
perceives and understands God's character, in Christ, as begets such
an affectionate confidence in God, that he finds it easy to obey from
love. Instead of finding it, as a hymn has strangely represented, "Hard
to obey, and harder still to love,"

he finds it no hardship at all. The commandments are not grievous.
The yoke is easy, and the burden light. And he finds the ways of
wisdom to be ways of pleasantness, and all her paths to be peace.

Is it so with most professors of religion? Is it so with you? Do you feel,
in your religious duties constrained by love? Are you drawn by such
strong cords of love, that it would give you more trouble to omit duty
than to obey? Do your affections flow out in such a strong current to
God, that you cannot but obey? How is it with those individuals who
find it "hard to obey, and harder still to love?" What is the matter? Ask
that wife who loves her husband, if she finds it hard to try to please her
husband! suppose she answers, in a solemn tone, "O yes, I find it hard
to obey and harder still to love my husband," what would the husband
think? What would any one of you who are parents say, if you should
hear one of your children complaining, "I find it harder to obey my
father, and harder still to love?" The truth is, there is a radical defect
in the religion of those people who love such expressions and live as
if they were true. If any one of you find religion a painful thing, rely on
it, you have the religion of the law. Did you ever find it a painful thing
to do what you love to do? No. It is a pleasure to do it. The religion of
the gospel is no labor to them that exercise it. It is the feeling of the
heart. What would you do in heaven, if religion is such a painful thing
here? Suppose you were taken to heaven and obliged to grind out
just so much religion every week, and month and year, to eternity.
What sort of a heaven would it be to you? Would it be heaven, or
would it be hell? If you were required to have ten thousand times as
much as you have here, and your whole life were to be filled up with
this, and nothing else to do, or enjoy but an eternal round of such
duties, would not hell itself be a respite to you?

The difference, then, lies here. One class are striving to be religious
from hope and fear, and under the influence of conscience which
lashes them if they do not do their duty. The other class act from love
to God, and the impulses of their own feelings, and know what the text
means, which says, "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write
it on their hearts, I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

III. I will give some specimens of these two classes, by way of
illustration.

The first example I shall give is that of the apostle Paul, as he has
recorded it in the 7th of Romans, where he exhibits the struggle to
obey the law, under the influence of law alone. [Here Mr. Finney
proceeded, at a considerable length, to comment on the 7th chapter
of Romans, but as he has since concluded to give a separate lecture
on that subject, these remarks are omitted here. He showed how Paul
had struggled, and labored, under the motives of law, until he
absolutely despaired of help from that quarter; and how, when the
gospel was brought to view, the chain was broken, and he found it
easy to obey. He then proceeded.]

You may see the same in the experience of almost any convicted
sinner, after he has become truly converted. He was convicted, the
law was brought home to his mind, he struggled to fulfill the law, he
was in agony, and then he was filled with joy and glory. Why? He was
agonized under the law, he had no rest and no satisfaction, he tried to
please God by keeping the law, he went about in pain all the day, he
read the Bible, he tried to pray; but the Spirit of God was upon him,
showing him his sins, and he had no relief. The more he attempts to
help himself the deeper he sinks in despair. All the while his heart is
cold and selfish. But now let another principle be introduced, and let
him be influenced by love to God. The same Holy Spirit is upon him,
showing him the same sins that grieved and distressed him so before.
But now he goes on his knees, his tears flow like water as he
confesses his guilt, and his heart melts in joyful relentings, such as
cannot be described, but easily understood by them that have felt it.
Now he engages in performing the same duties that he tried before.
But, O, how changed! The Spirit of God has broken his chains, and
now he loves God and is filled with joy and peace in believing.

The same thing is seen in many professors of religion, who find
religion a painful thing. They have much conviction, and perhaps much
of what they call religion, but their minds are chiefly filled with doubts
and fears, doubts and fears all the time. By and by, perhaps, that
same professor will come out, all at once, a different character. His
religion now is not all complaints and sighs, but the love of God fills his
heart, and he goes cheerfully and happily to his duty; and his soul is
so light and happy in God, that he floats in an ocean of love and joy,
and the peace that fills him is like a river.

Here, then, is the difference between the slavery of law and the liberty
of the gospel. The liberty of the gospel does not consist in being freed
from doing what the law requires, but in a man's being in such a state
of mind that doing it is itself a pleasure instead of a burden. What is
the difference between slavery and freedom? The slave serves
because he is obliged to do so, the freeman serves from choice. The
man who is under the bondage of law does duty because conscience
thunders in his ears if he does not obey, and he hopes to go to heaven
if he does. The man who is in the liberty of the gospel does the same
things because he loves to do them. One is influenced by selfishness,
the other by disinterested benevolence.

REMARKS

I. You can easily see, that if we believe the words and actions of most
professors of religion, they have made a mistake; and that they have
the religion of law, and not gospel religion. They are not constrained
by the love of Christ, but moved by hopes and fears, and by the
commandments of God. They have gone no farther in religion than to
be convicted sinners. Within the last year, I have witnessed the
regeneration of so many professors of religion, that I am led to fear
that great multitudes in the church are yet under the law; and although
they profess to depend on Christ for salvation, their faith is not that
which works by love.

II. Some persons are all faith without works. These are Antinomians.
Others are all works and no faith: these are legalists. In all ages of the
church, men have inclined first to one of these extremes, and then
over to the other. Sometimes they are settled down on their lees,
pretending to be all faith, and waiting God's time; then they get roused
up, and dash on in works, without regard to the motive from which they
act.

III. You see the true character of those professors of religion who are
for ever crying out "Legality!" as soon as they are pressed up to
holiness. 


When I first began to preach, I found this spirit in many places; so that
the moment Christians were urged up to duty, the cry would rise, This
is legal preaching   do preach the gospel; salvation is by faith, not by
duty; you ought to comfort saints, not distress them. All this was
nothing but rank Antinomianism.

On the other hand, the same class of churches now complain, if you
preach faith to them, and show them what is the true nature of gospel
faith. They now want to do something, and insist that no preaching is
good that does not excite them, and stir them up to good works. They
are all for doing, doing, doing, and will be dissatisfied with preaching
that discriminates between true and false faith, and urges obedience
of the heart, out of love to God. The Antinomians wait for God to
produce right feelings in them. The Legalists undertake to get right
feelings by going to work. It is true that going to work is the way, when
the church feels right, to perpetuate and cherish right feelings. But it
is not the way to get right feeling, in the first place, to dash right into
the work, without any regard to the motives of the heart.

IV. Real Christians are a stumbling-block to both parties; to those who
wait God's time and do nothing, and to those who bustle about with no
faith. The true Christian acts under such a love to God and to his
fellow man, and he labors to pull sinners out of the fire with such
earnestness, that the waiting party cry out, "Oh, he is getting up an
excitement; he is going to work in his own strength; he does not
believe in the necessity of divine influences; we ought to feel our
dependence; let us wait God's time, and not try to get up a revival
without God." So they sit down and fold their hands, and sing, "We feel
our dependence, we feel our dependence; wait God's time; we do not
trust in our own works." On the other hand, the legalists, when once
they get roused to bustle about, will not see but their religion is the
same with the real Christian's. They make as strenuous outward
efforts, and suppose themselves to be actuated by the same spirit.

You will rarely see a revival, in which this does not show itself. If the
body of the church are awakened to duty, and have the spirit of prayer
and zeal for the conversion of sinners, there will be some who sit still
and complain that the church are depending on their own strength,
and others very busy and noisy, but without any feeling while the third
class are so full of love and compassion to sinners that they can hardly
eat or sleep, and yet so humble and tender that you would imagine
they felt themselves to be nothing. The legalist, with his dry zeal,
makes a great noise, deceives himself, perhaps, and thinks he is
acting just like a Christian. But mark! The true Christian is stirring and
active in the service of Christ, but moves with the holy fire that burns
within his bosom. The legalist depends on some protracted meeting,
or some other influence from without, to excite him to do his duty.

V. You see why the religion of some persons is so steady and uniform,
and that of others, is so fitful and evanescent. You will find some
individuals, who seem to be always engaged in religion. Talk to them
any time, on the subject, and their souls will kindle. Others are awake
only now and then.

Once in a while you may find them full of zeal. The truth is, when one
has the anointing that abides, he has something that is durable. But if
his religion is only that of the law, he will only have just so much of it
as he has of conviction at the present moment, and his religion will be
fitful and evanescent, of course.

VI. You see why some are so anxious to get to heaven, while others
are so happy here. There are some, who have such a love for souls,
and such a desire to have Christ's kingdom built upon earth, that they
are perfectly happy here, and willing to live and labor for God, as long
as he chooses to have them. 

Nay, if they were sent to hell, and permitted to labor there for souls,
they would be happy. While others talk as if people were never to
expect true enjoyment in this life; but when they get to heaven, they
expect to be happy. One class have no enjoyment but in hope. The
other has already the reality, the very substance of heaven begun in
the soul.

Now, beloved, I have as particularly as I could in the time, pointed out
to you the distinction between the religion of the law and the religion
of the gospel. And now, what religion have you? True religion is
always the same, and consists in disinterested love to God and man.
Have you that kind of religion? Or have you the kind that consists, not
in disinterested love, but in the pursuit of happiness as the great end.
Which have you? The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace. There is
no condemnation of such religion. But if any man have not the spirit of
Christ, he is none of his. Now, don't make a mistake here, and suffer
yourselves to go down to hell with a lie in your right hand, because you
have the religion of the law. The Jews failed here, while the Gentiles
attained true holiness by the gospel. O, how many are deceived, and
are acting under legal considerations, while they know nothing of the
real religion of the gospel!

Chapter 16.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the work 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.   Galatians
2:16.

This last sentiment is expressed in the same terms, in the third chapter
of Romans. The subject of the present lecture, as I announced last
week, is Justification by Faith. The order which I propose to pursue in
the discussion is this:

I. Show what justification by law, or legal justification is. II. Show that
by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified. III. Show what gospel
justification is. IV. Show what is the effect of gospel justification, or the
state into which it brings a person that is justified. V. Show that gospel
justification is by faith. VI. Answer some inquiries which arise in many
minds on this subject.

I. I am to show what legal justification is.

1. In its general legal sense it means not guilty. To justify an individual
in this sense, is to declare that he is not guilty of any breach of the law.
It is affirming that he has committed no crime. It is pronouncing him
innocent.

2 More technically, it is a form of pleading to a charge of crime, where
the individual who is charged admits the fact, but brings forward an
excuse, on which he claims that he had a right to do as he did, or thathe is not blameworthy. Thus, if a person is charged with murder, the
plea of justification admits that he killed the man, but alleges either
that it was done in self-defense and he had a right to kill him, or that
it was by unavoidable accident, and he could not help it. In either case,
the plea of justification admits the fact, but denies the guilt, on the
ground of a sufficient excuse.

II. I am to show that by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
justified. And this is true under either form of justification.

1. Under the first, or general form of justification. In this case, the
burden of proof is on the accuser, who is held to prove the facts
charged. And in this case, he only needs to prove that a crime has
been committed once. If it is proved once, the individual is guilty. He
cannot be justified, in this way, by the law. He is found guilty. It is not
available for him to urge that he has done more good than hurt, or that
he has kept God's law longer than he has broken it, but he must make
it out that he has fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law. Who can be
justified by the law in this way? No one.

2. Nor under the second, or technical form of justification. In this case,
the burden of proof lies on him who makes the plea. When he pleads
in justification he admits the fact alleged, and therefore he must make
good his excuse, or fail. There are two points to be regarded. The
thing pleaded as an excuse must be true, and it must be a good and
sufficient excuse or justification, not a frivolous apology, or one that
does not meet the case. If it is not true, or if it is insufficient, and
especially if it reflects on the court or government, it is an infamous
aggravation of his offense. You will see the bearing of this remark, by
and by.

I will now mention some of the prominent reasons which sinners are
in the habit of pleading as a justification, and will show what is the true
nature and bearing of these excuses, and the light in which they stand
before God. I have not time to name all these pleas, but will only refer
to two of each of the classes I have described, those which are good
if true, and those which are true but unavailing.

1. Sinners often plead their sinful nature, as a justification.

This excuse is a good one, if it is true. If it is true, as they pretend, that
God has given them a nature which is itself sinful, and the necessary
actings of their nature are sin, it is a good excuse for sin, and in the
face of heaven and earth, and at the day of judgment, will be a good
plea in justification. God must annihilate the reason of all the rational
universe, before they will ever blame you for sin if God made you sin,
or if he gave you a nature that is itself sinful. How can your nature be
sinful? What is sin? Sin is a transgression of the law. There is no other
sin but this. Now, does the law say you must not have such a nature
as you have? Nothing like it.

The fact is, this doctrine overlooks the distinction between sin and the
occasion of sin. The bodily appetites and constitutional susceptibilities
of body and mind, when strongly excited, become the occasion of sin.
So it was with Adam. No one will say that Adam had a sinful nature.
But he had, by his constitution, an appetite for food and a desire for
knowledge. These were not sinful, but were as God made them, and
were necessary to fit him to live in this world as a subject of God's
moral government; but being strongly excited, as you know, led to
prohibited indulgence, and thus became the occasions of his sinning
against God. They were innocent in themselves, but he yielded to
them in a sinful manner, and that was his sin. When the sinner talks
about his sinful nature as a justification, he confounds these innocent
appetites and susceptibilities, with sin itself. By so doing, he in fact,
charges God foolishly, and accuses him of giving him a sinful nature,
when in fact his nature, in all its elements, is essential to moral
agency, and God has made it as well as it could be made, and
perfectly adapted to the circumstances in which he lives in this world.
The truth is man's nature is all right, and is as well fitted to love and
obey God as to hate and disobey him. Sinner! the day is not far
distant, when it will be known whether this is a good excuse or not.
Then you will see whether you can face your Maker down in this way;
and when he charges you with sin, turn round and throw the blame
back upon him.

Do you inquire what influence Adam's sin has then had in producing
the sin of his posterity? I answer, it has subjected them to aggravated
temptation, but has by no means rendered their nature in itself sinful.

2. Another excuse coming under the same class, is inability. This also
is a good excuse if it is true. If sinners are really unable to obey God,
this is a good plea in justification. When you are charged with sin, in
not obeying the laws of God, you have only to show, if you can, by
good proof, that God has required what you were not able to perform,
and the whole intelligent universe will resound with the verdict of "not
guilty." If you have not natural power to obey God, they must give this
verdict, or cease to be reasonable beings. For it is a first law of
reason, that no being has a right to do what he has no power to do.

Suppose God should require you to undo something which you have
done. This, every one will see, is a natural impossibility. Now, are you
to blame for not doing it? God requires repentance of past sins, and
not that you should undo them. Now, suppose it was your duty, on the
first of January, to warn a certain individual, who is now dead. Are you
under obligation to warn that individual? No. That is an impossibility.
All that God can now require is, that you should repent. It never can be
your duty, now, to warn that sinner. God may hold you responsible for
not doing your duty to him when it was in your power. But it would be
absurd to make it your duty to do what is not in your power to do.
This plea being false, and throwing the blame of tyranny on God, is an
infamous aggravation of the offense. If God requires you to do what
you have no power to do, it is tyranny. And what God requires is on
penalty of eternal death   he threatens an infinite penalty for not
doing what you have no power to do, and so he is an infinite tyrant.
This plea, then, charges God with infinite tyranny, and is not only
insufficient for the sinner's justification, but is a horrible aggravation of
his offense.

Let us vary the case a little, suppose God requires you to repent for
not doing what you never had natural ability to do. You must either
repent, then, of not doing what you had no natural power to do, or you
must go to hell. Now, you can neither repent of this, nor can he make
you repent of it. What is repentance? It is to blame yourself and justify
God. But if you had no power, you can do neither. It is a natural
impossibility that a rational being should ever blame himself for not
doing what he is conscious he had not power to do. Nor can you justify
God. Until the laws of mind are reversed, the verdict of all intelligent
beings must pronounce it infinite tyranny to require that which there is
no power to perform.

Suppose God should call you to account, and require you to repent for
not flying. By what process can he make you blame yourself for not
flying, when you are conscious that you have no wings, and no power
to fly? If he could cheat you into the belief that you had the power, and
make you believe a lie, then you might repent. But that sort of a way
is that for God to take with his creatures?

What do you mean, sinner, by bringing such an excuse? Do you mean
to have it go, that you have never sinned? It is a strange contradiction
you make, when you admit that you ought to repent, and in the next
breath say you have no power to repent. You ought to take your
ground, one way or the other. If you mean to rely on this excuse, come
out with it in full, and take your ground before God's bar, and say,
"Lord I am not going to repent at all   I am not under any obligation
to repent, for I have not power to obey thy law, and therefore I plead
not guilty absolutely, for I have never sinned!"

In which of these ways can any one of you be justified? Will you, dare
you, take ground on this excuse, and throw back the blame upon
God?

3. Another excuse which sinners offer for their continued impenitence
is their wicked heart.

This excuse is true, but it is not sufficient. The first two that I
mentioned, you recollect, were good if they had been true, but they
were false. This is true, but is no excuse. What is a wicked heart? It is
not the bodily organ which we call the heart, but the affection of the
soul, the wicked disposition, the wicked feelings, the actings of the
mind. If these will justify you, they will justify the devil himself. Has he
not as wicked a heart as you have? Suppose you had committed
murder, and you should be put on trial and plead this plea. "It is true,"
you would say, "I killed the man but then I have such a thirst for blood,
and such a hatred of mankind, that I cannot help committing murder,
whenever I have an opportunity." "Horrible!" the judge would exclaim,
"Horrible! Let the gallows be set up immediately, and let this fellow be
hung before I leave the bench; such a wretch ought not to live an hour.
Such a plea! Why, that is the very reason he ought to be hung, if he
has such a thirst for blood, that no man is safe." Such is the sinner's
plea of a wicked heart in justification of sin. "Out of thine own mouth
will I condemn thee, thou wicked servant."

4. Another great excuse which people make is, the conduct of
Christians.

Ask many a man among your neighbors why he is not religious, and
he will point you at once to the conduct of Christians as his excuse.
"These Christians," he will say, "are no better than anybody else; when
see them live as they profess, I shall think it time for me to attend to
religion." Thus he is hiding behind the sins of Christians. He shows
that he knows how Christians ought to live, and therefore he cannot
plead that he has sinned through ignorance. But what does it amount
to as a ground of justification? I admit the fact that Christians behave
very badly, and do much that is entirely contrary to their profession.
But is that a good excuse for you? So far from it, this is itself one of the
strongest reasons why you ought to be religious. You know so well
how Christians ought to live, you are bound to show an example. If
you had followed them ignorantly because you did not know any
better, and had fallen into sin in that way, it would be a different case.
But the plea, as it stands, shows that you knew they are wrong, which
is the very reason why you ought to be right, and exert a better
influence than they do. Instead of following them, and doing wrong
because they do, you ought to break off from them, and rebuke them,
and pray for them, and try to lead them in a better way. This excuse,
then, is true in fact, but unavailing in justification. You only make it an
excuse for charging God foolishly, and instead of clearing you, it only
adds to your dreadful, damning guilt. A fine plea this, to get behind
some deacon, or some elder in the church, and there shoot your
arrows of malice and caviling at God!

Who among you, then, can be justified by the law? Who has kept it?
Who has got a good excuse for breaking it? Who dare go to the bar of
God on these pleas, and face his Maker with such apologies?

III. I am to show what gospel justification is.

First   Negatively.

1. Gospel justification is not the imputed righteousness of Jesus
Christ.

Under the gospel, sinners are not justified by having the obedience of
Jesus Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the law for
them, or in their stead. It is not an uncommon mistake to suppose, that
when sinners are justified under the gospel, they are accounted
righteous in the eye of the law, by having the obedience or
righteousness of Christ imputed to them. I have not time to enter into
an examination of this subject now. I can only say this idea is absurd
and impossible, for this reason, that Jesus Christ was bound to obey
the law for himself, and could no more perform works of
supererogation, or obey on our account, than anybody else. Was it not
his duty to love the Lord his God, with all his heart, and soul, and
mind, and strength, and to love his neighbor as himself? Certainly; and
if he had not done so, it would have been sin. The only work of
supererogation he could perform was to submit to sufferings that were
not deserved. This is called his obedience unto death, and this is set
down to our account. But if his obedience of the law is set down to our
account, why are we called on to repent and obey the law ourselves?
Does God exact double service, yes, triple service   first to have the
law obeyed by the surety for us, then that he must suffer the penalty
for us, and then that we must repent and obey ourselves? No such
thing is demanded. It is not required that the obedience of another
should be imputed to us. All we owe is perpetual obedience to the law
of benevolence. And for this there can be no substitute. If we fail of
this, we must endure the penalty, or receive a free pardon.

2. Justification by faith does not mean that faith is accepted as a
substitute for personal holiness, or that by an arbitrary constitution,
faith is imputed to us instead of personal obedience to the law.

Some suppose that justification is this, that the necessity of personal
holiness is set aside, and that God arbitrarily dispenses with the
requirement of the law, and imputes faith as a substitute. But this is
not the way, faith is accounted for just what it is, and not something
else that it is not. Abraham's faith was imputed unto him for
righteousness, because it was itself an act of righteousness, and
because it worked by love, and thus produced holiness. Justifying faith
is holiness, so far as it goes and produces holiness of heart and life,
and is imputed to the believer as holiness, not instead of holiness.

Nor does justification by faith imply that a sinner is justified by faith
without good works, or personal holiness.

Some suppose that justification by faith only, is with out any regard to
good works, or holiness. They have understood this from what Paul
has said, where he insists so largely on justification by faith. But it
should be borne in mind that Paul was combating the error of the
Jews, who expected to be justified by obeying the law. In opposition
to this error, Paul insists on it that justification is by faith, without works
of law. He does not mean that good works are unnecessary to
justification, but that works of law are not good works, because they
spring from legal considerations, from hope and fear, and not from
faith that works by love. But inasmuch as a false theory had crept into
the church on the other side, James took up the matter, and showed
them that they had misunderstood Paul. And to show this, he takes the
case of Abraham our father justified by words when he had offered
Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was
fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto
him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see
then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." This
epistle was supposed to contradict Paul, and some of the ancient
churches rejected it on that account. But they overlooked the fact that
Paul was speaking of one kind of works, and James of another. Paul
was speaking of works performed from legal motives. But he has
everywhere insisted on good works springing from faith, or the
righteousness of faith, as indispensable to salvation. All that he denies
is that works of law, or works grounded on legal motives, have
anything to do in the matter of justification. And James teaches the
same thing, when he teaches that men are justified, not by works nor
by faith alone, but by faith together with the works of faith: or as Paul
expresses it, faith that works by love. You will bear in mind that I am
speaking of gospel justification, which is very different from legal
justification.

Secondly   Positively.

4. Gospel justification, or justification by faith, consists in pardon and
acceptance with God.

When we say that men are justified by faith and holiness, we do not
mean that they are accepted on the ground of law, but that they are
treated as if they were righteous, on account of their faith and works
of faith. This is the method which God takes, in justifying a sinner. Not
that faith is the foundation of justification. The foundation is in Christ.
But this is the manner in which sinners are pardoned, and accepted,
and justified, that if they repent, believe, and become holy, their past
sins shall be forgiven, for the sake of Christ.

Here it will be seen how justification under the gospel differs from
justification under the law. Legal justification is a declaration of actual
innocence and freedom from blame. Gospel justification is pardon and
acceptance, as if he was righteous, but on other grounds than his own
obedience. When the apostle says, "By deeds of law shall no flesh be
justified, he uses justification as a lawyer, in a strictly legal sense." But
when he speaks of justification by faith, he speaks not of legal
justification, but of a person's being treated as if he were righteous.

IV. I will now proceed to show the effect of this method of justification;
or the state into which it brings those who are justified.

1. The first item to be observed is, that when an individual is pardoned,
the penalty of the law is released. The first effect of a pardon is to
arrest and set aside the execution of the penalty. It admits that the
penalty was deserved, but sets it aside. Then, so far as punishment is
concerned, the individual has no more to fear from the law, than if he
had never transgressed. He is entirely released. Those, then, who are
justified by true faith, as soon as they are pardoned, need no more be
influenced by fear or punishment. The penalty is as effectually set
aside, as if it had never been incurred.

2. The next effect of pardon is, to remove all the liabilities incurred in
consequence of transgression, such as forfeiture of goods, or
incapacity for being a witness, or holding any office under government.
A real pardon removes all these, and restores the individual back to
where he was before he transgressed. So, under the government of
God, the pardoned sinner is restored to the favor of God. He is
brought back into a new relation, and stands before God and is treated
by him, so far as the law is concerned, as if he were innocent. It does
not suppose or declares him to be really innocent, but the pardon
restores him to the same state as if he were.

3. Another operation of pardon under God's government is that the
individual is restored to sonship. In other words, it brings him into such
a relation to God, that he is received and treated as really a child of
God.

Suppose the son of a sovereign on the throne had committed murder,
and was convicted and condemned to die. A pardon, then, would not
only deliver him from death, but restore him to his place in the family.
God's children have all gone astray, and entered into the service of the
devil; but the moment a pardon issues to them, they are brought back;
they receive a spirit of adoption, are sealed heirs of God, and restored
to all the privileges of children of God.

4. Another thing effected by justification is to secure all needed grace
to rescue themselves fully out of the snare of the devil, and all the
innumerable entanglements in which they are involved by sin.

Beloved, if God were merely to pardon you, and then leave you to get
out of sin as you could by yourselves, of what use would your pardon
be to you? None in the world. If a child runs away from his father's
house, and wanders in a forest, and falls into a deep pit, and the father
finds him and undertakes to save him; if he merely pardons him for
running away, it will be of no use unless he lifts him up from the pit,
and leads him out of the forest So in the scheme of redemption,
whatever helps and aids you need, are all guaranteed, if you believe.
If God undertakes to save you, he pledges all the light and grace and
help that are necessary to break the chains of Satan and the
entanglements of sin, and leads you back to your Father's house.

I know when individuals are first broken down under a sense of sin,
and their hearts gush out with tenderness, they look over their past
lives and feel condemned and see that it is all wrong, and then they
break down at God's feet and give themselves away to Jesus Christ;
they rejoice greatly in the idea that they have done with sin. But in a
little time they begin to feel the pressure of old habits and former
influences, and they see so much to be done before they overcome
them all, that they often get discouraged and cry, "O, what shall I do,
with so many enemies to meet, and so little strength of resolution or
firmness of purpose to overcome them?" 
Let me tell you, beloved, that if God has undertaken to save you, you
have only to keep near to him, and he will carry you through. You need
not fear your enemies. Though the heavens should thunder and the
earth rock, and the elements melt, you need not tremble, nor fear for
enemies without or enemies within. God is for you, and who can be
against you? "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea,
rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us."

6. Justification enlists all the divine attributes in your favor, as much as
if you had never sinned.

See that holy angel, sent on an errand of love to some distant part of
the universe. God's eye follows him, and if he sees him likely to be
injured in any way, all the divine attributes are enlisted at once to
protect and sustain him. Just as absolutely are they all pledged for
you, if you are justified, to protect, and support, and save you.
Notwithstanding you are not free from remaining sin, and are so totally
unworthy of God's love, yet if you are truly justified, the only wise and
eternal God is pledged for your elevation. And shall you tremble and
be faint-hearted with such support?

If a human government pardons a criminal, it is then pledged to
protect him as a subject, as much as if he had never committed a
crime. So it is when God justifies a sinner. The Apostle says, "Being
justified by faith, we have peace with God." Henceforth God is on his
side, and pledged as his faithful and eternal Friend.

Gospel justification differs from legal justification, in this respect: If the
law justifies an individual, it holds no longer than he remains innocent.
As soon as he transgresses once, his former justification is of no more
avail. But when the gospel justifies a sinner, it is not so; but "if any
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous." A new relation is now constituted, entirely peculiar. The
sinner is now brought out from under the covenant of works, and
placed under the covenant of grace. He no longer retains God's favor
by the tenure of absolute and sinless obedience. If he sins, now, he is
not thrust back again under the law, but receives the benefit of the
new covenant. If he is justified by faith, and so made a child of God,
he receives the treatment of a child, and is corrected, and chastised,
and humbled, and brought back again. "The gifts and callings of God
are without repentance." The meaning of that is not, that God calls and
saves the sinner without his repenting, but that God never changes his
mind when once he undertakes the salvation of a soul

I know this is thought by some to be very dangerous doctrine, to teach
that believers are perpetually justified   because, say they, it will
embolden men to sin. Indeed. To tell a man that has truly repented of
sin, and heartily renounced sin, and sincerely desires to be free from
sin, that God will help him and certainly give him the victory over sin,
will embolden him to commit sin! Strange logic that! If this doctrine
emboldens any man to commit sin, it only shows that he never did
repent; that he never hated sin, and never loved God for his own sake,
but only feigned repentance, and if he loved God it was only a selfish
love, because he thought God was going to do him a favor. If he truly
hated sin, the consideration that notwithstanding all his unworthiness,
God had received him as a child, and would give him a child's
treatment, is the very thing break him down and melt his heart in the
most godly sorrow. O, how often has the child of God, melted in
adoring wonder at the goodness of God in using means to bring him
back, instead of sending him to hell, as he deserved! What
consideration is calculated to bring him lower in the dust, than the
thought that notwithstanding all God had done for him, and the
gracious help God was always ready to afford him, he should wander
away again, when his name was written in the Lamb's book of life!

6. It secures the discipline of the covenant. God has pledged himself
that if any who belong to Christ go astray, he will use the discipline of
the covenant, and bring them back. In the eighty-ninth psalm, God
says, putting David for Christ, "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 covenant
will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips."

Thus you see that professors of religion may always expect to be
more readily visited with God's judgments, if they get out of the way,than the impenitent. The sinner may grow fat, and live in riches, and
have no bands in his death, all according to God's established
principles of government. But let a child of God forsake his God, and
go after riches or any other worldly object, and as certain as he is a
child, God will smite him with his rod. And when he is smitten and
brought back, he will say with the Psalmist,' It is good for me that I
have been afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes. Before I was
afflicted, I went astray, but now have I kept thy word." Perhaps some
of you have known what it is to be afflicted in this way, and to feel that
it was good.

7. Another effect of gospel justification is, to insure sanctification. It not
only insures all the means of sanctification, but the actual
accomplishment of the work, so that the individual who is truly
converted, will surely persevere in obedience till he is fitted for heaven
and actually saved.

V. I am to show that this is justification by faith.

Faith is the medium by which the blessing is conveyed to the believer.
The proof of this is in the Bible. The text declares it expressly.
"Knowing that a man is no 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 he justified." The subject is
too often treated of in the New Testament to be necessary to go into
a labored proof. It is manifest, from the necessity of the case, that if
men are saved at all, they must be justified in this way, and not by
works of law, for "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified."

VI. I will now answer several inquiries which may naturally arise in your
minds, growing out of this subject.

1. "Why is justification said to be by faith, rather than by repentance,
or love, or any other grace."

Answer. It is no where said that men are justified or saved for faith, as
the ground of their pardon, but only that they are justified by faith, as
the medium or instrument. If it is asked why faith is appointed as the
instrument, rather than any other exercise of the mind, the answer is,
because of the nature and effect of faith. No other exercise could be
appointed. What is faith? It is that confidence in God which leads us
to love and obey him. We are therefore justified by faith because we
are sanctified by faith. Faith is the appointed instrument of our
justification, because it is the natural instrument of sanctification. It is
the instrument of bringing us back to obedience, and therefore is
designated as the means of obtaining the blessings of that return. It is
not imputed to us, by an arbitrary act, for what it is not, but for what it
is, as the foundation of all real obedience to God. This is the reason
why faith is made the medium through which pardon comes. It is
simply set down to us for what it really is; because it first leads us to
obey God, from a principle of love to God. 

We are forgiven our sins on account of Christ. It is our duty to repent
and obey God, and when we do so, this is imputed to us as what it is,
holiness, or obedience to God. But for the forgiveness of our past sins,
we must rely on Christ. And therefore justification is said to be by faith
in Jesus Christ.

2. The second query is of great importance:   "What is justifying
faith? What must I believe, in order to be saved?"

Answer

(1) Negatively, justifying faith does not consist in believing that your
sins are forgiven. If that were necessary, you would have to believe it
before it was done, or to believe a lie. Remember your sins are not
forgiven until you believe. But if saving faith is believing that they are
already forgiven, it is believing a thing before it takes place, which is
absurd. You cannot believe your sins are forgiven, before you have
the evidence that they are forgiven; and you cannot have the evidence
that they are forgiven until it is true that they are forgiven, and they
cannot be forgiven until you exercise saving faith. Therefore saving
faith must be believing something else.

(2) Nor does saving faith consist in believing that you shall be saved
at all. You have no right to believe that you shall be saved at all, until
after you have exercised justifying or saving faith.

(3) But justifying faith consists in believing the atonement of Christ, or
believing the record which God has given of his Son.

The correctness of this definition has been doubted by some; and I
confess my own mind has undergone a change on this point. It is said
that Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for
righteousness. But what did Abraham believe? He believed that he
should have a son. Was this all? By no means. But his faith included
the great blessing that depended on that event, that the Messiah, the
Savior of the world, should spring from him. This was the great subject
of the Abrahamic covenant, and it depended on his having a son. Of
course, Abraham's faith included the "Desire of all Nations," and was
faith in Christ. The apostle Paul has showed this, at full length, in the
third chapter of Galatians, that the sum of the covenant was, "In thee
shall all nations be blessed." In verse 16, he says, "Now to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many; but as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ."

It is said that in the 11th of Hebrews, the saints are not all spoken of
as having believed in Christ. But if you examine carefully, you will find
that in all cases, faith in Christ is either included in what they believe,
or fairly implied by it. Take the case of Abel. "By faith Abel offered unto
God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained
witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he
being dead yet speaketh." Why was his sacrifice more excellent?
Because, by offering the firstlings of his flock, he recognized the
necessity of the atonement, and that "without the shedding of blood
there is no remission." Cain was a proud infidel, and offered the fruits
of the ground, as a mere thank offering, for the blessings of
Providence, without any admission that he was a sinner, and needed
an atonement, as the ground on which he could hope for pardon.

Some suppose that an individual might exercise justifying faith while
denying, the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ. I deny this. The
whole sum and substance of revelation, like converging rays, all center
on Jesus Christ, his divinity and atonement. All that the prophets and
other writers of the Old Testament say about salvation comes to him. 
The Old Testament and the New, all the types and shadows, point to
him. All the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in him. Their
faith terminated in the coming Messiah, as that of the New Testament
saints did in the Messiah already come. In the 15th chapter of 1st
Corinthians the apostle Paul shows what place he would assign to this
doctrine: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that
he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures." Mark that expression, "first of all." It proves that Paul
preached that Christ died for sinners, as the "first," or primary doctrine
of the gospel. And so you will find it, from one end of the Bible to the
other that the attention of men was directed to this new and living way,
as the only way of salvation. This truth is the only truth that can
sanctify men. They may believe a thousand other things, but this is the
great source of sanctification, "God in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself." And this alone can therefore be justifying faith.

There may be many other acts of faith, that may be right and
acceptable to God. But nothing is justifying faith but believing the
record that God has given of his Son. Simply believing what God has
revealed on any point, is an act of faith; but justifying faith fastens on

Christ, takes hold of his atonement, and embraces him as the only
ground of pardon and salvation. There may be faith in prayer, the faith
that is in exercise in offering up prevailing prayer to God. But that is
not properly justifying faith.

3. "When are men justified?"

This is also an inquiry often made. I answer   Just all soon as they
believe in Christ, with the faith which worketh by love. Sinner, you
need not go home from this meeting under the wrath of Almighty God.
You may be justified here, on the spot, now, if you will only believe in
Christ. Your pardon is ready, made out and sealed with the broad seal
of heaven; and the blank will be filled up, and the gracious pardon
delivered, as soon as by one act of faith, you receive Jesus Christ as
he is offered in the gospel.

4. "How can I know whether I am in a state of justification or not?""

Answer. You can know it in no way, except by inference. God has not
revealed it in the Scriptures, that you, or any other individuals, are
justified; but he has set down the characteristics of a justified person,
and declared that all who have these characteristics are justified.

(1.) Have you the witness of the Spirit? All who are justified have this.
They have intercourse with the Holy Ghost, he explains the Scriptures
to them, and leads them to see their meaning, he leads them to the
Son and to the Father; and reveals the Son in them, and reveals the
Father. Have you this? If you have, you are justified. If not, you are yet
in your sins.

(2.) Have you the fruits of the Spirit? They are love, joy, peace, and so
on. These are matters of human consciousness; have you them? If so,
you are justified.

(3.) Have you peace with God? The apostle says, "Being justified by
faith, we have peace with God." Christ says to his disciples, "My peace
I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you." And again,
"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest." Do you find rest in Christ? Is your peace like a river, flowing
gently through your son, and filling you with calm and heavenly
delight? Or do you feel a sense of condemnation before God?

Do you feel a sense of acceptance with God, of pardoned sin, of
communion with God? This must be a matter of experience, if it exists.
Don't imagine you can be in a justified state, and yet have no evidence
of it. You may have great peace in reality, filling your soul, and yet not
draw the inference that you are justified. I remember the time, when
my mind was in a state of such sweet peace, that it seemed to me as
if all nature was listening for God to speak; but yet I was not aware
that this was the peace of God, or that it was evidence of my being in
a justified state. I thought I had lost all my conviction, and actually
undertook to bring back the sense of condemnation that I had before.
I did not draw the inference that I was justified, till after the love of God
was so shed abroad in my soul by the Holy Ghost, that I was
compelled to cry out, "Lord, it is enough, I can bear no more." I do not
believe it possible for the sense of condemnation to remain, where the
act of pardon is already past.

(4.) Have you the spirit of adoption? If you are justified, you are also
adopted, as one of God's dear children, and he has sent forth his Spirit
into your heart, so that you naturally cry, "Abba, Father!" He seems to
you just like a father, and you want to call him father. Do you know any
thing of this? It is one thing to call God your father in heaven, and
another thing to feel towards him as a father. This is one evidence of
a justified state, when God gives the spirit of adoption.

REMARKS.

I. I would go around to all my dear hearers tonight, and ask them one
by one, "Are you in a state of justification? Do you honestly think you
are justified?"

I have briefly run over the subject, and showed what justification is not,
and what it is, how you can be saved, and the evidences of
justification.

Have you it? Would you dare to die now? Suppose the loud thunders
of the last trumpet were now to shake the universe, and you should
see the Son of God coming to judgment   are you ready? Could you
look up calmly and say. "Father, this is a solemn sight, but Christ has
died, and God has justified me, and who is he that shall condemn
me?"

II. If you think you ever was justified, and yet have not at present the
evidence of it, I want to make an inquiry. Are you under the discipline
of the covenant?   If not, have you any reason to believe you ever
were justified? God's covenant with you, if you belong to Christ, is this
  
"If they backslide, I will visit their iniquity with the rod, and chasten
them with stripes." Do you feel the stripes? Is God awakening your
mind, and convicting your conscience, is he smiting you? If not, where
are the evidences that he is dealing with you as a son? If you are not
walking with God, and at the same time are not under chastisement,
you cannot have any good reason to believe you are God's children.

III. Those of you who have evidence that you are justified, should
maintain your relation to God, and live up to your real privileges. This
is immensely important. There is no virtue in being distrustful and
unbelieving. It is important to your growth in grace. One reason why
many Christians do not grow in grace is, that they are afraid to claim
the privileges of God's children which belong to them. Rely upon it,
beloved, this is no virtuous humility, but criminal unbelief. If you have
the evidence that you are justified, take the occasion from it to press
forward to holiness of heart, and come to God with all the boldness
that an angel would, and know how near you are to him. It is your duty
to do so. Why should you hold back? Why are you afraid to recognize
the covenant of grace, in its full extent? Here are the provisions of your
Father's house, all ready and free; and are you converted and justified,
and restored to his favor, and yet afraid to sit down at your Father's
table? Do not plead that you are so unworthy.

This is nothing but self-righteousness and unbelief. True, you are so
unworthy. But if you are justified, that is no longer a bar.

It is now your duty to take hold of the promises as belonging to you.
Take any promise you can find in the Bible, that is applicable, and go
with it to your Father, and plead it before him, believing. Do you think
he will deny it? These exceeding great and precious promises were
given you for this very purpose, that you may become a partaker of
the divine nature. Why then should you doubt? Come along, beloved,
come along up to the privileges that belong to you, and take hold of
the love, and peace, and joy, offered to you in this holy gospel.

IV. If you are not in a state of justification, however much you have
done, and prayed, and suffered, you are nothing. If you have not
believed in Christ, if you have not received and trusted in him, as he
is set forth in the gospel, you are yet in a state of condemnation and
wrath. You may have been, for weeks and months, and even for
years, groaning with distress, but for all that, you are still in the gall of
bitterness. Here you see the line drawn; the moment you pass this,
you are in a state of justification.

Dear hearer, are you now in a state of wrath? Now believe in Christ.
All your waiting and groaning will not bring you any nearer. Do you say
you want more conviction? I tell you to come now to Christ. Do you
say you must wait till you have prayed more? What is the use of
praying in unbelief? Will the prayers of a condemned rebel avail? Do
you say you are so unworthy? But Christ died for such as you. He
comes right to you now, on your seat. Where do you sit? Where is that
individual I am speaking to? Sinner, you need not wait You need not
go home in your sins, with that heavy load on your heart. Now is the
day of salvation. Hear the word of God. "If thou believe in thine heart
in the Lord Jesus Christ, and if thou confess with thy mouth that God
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Do you say, "What must I believe?" Believe just what God says of his
Son; believe any of those great fundamental truths which God has
revealed respecting the way of salvation, and rest your soul on it, and
you shall be saved. Will you now trust Jesus Christ to dispose of you?
Have you confidence enough in Christ to leave yourself with him, to
dispose of your body and your soul, for time and eternity? Can you say

"Here, Lord, I give myself away;  This all that I can do?"

Perhaps you are trying to pray yourself out of your difficulties before
coming to Christ. Sinner, it will do no good. Now, cast yourself down
at his feet, and leave your soul in his hands. Say to him, "Lord, I give
myself to thee, with all my powers of body and of mind; use me and
dispose of me as thou wilt, for thine own glory; I know thou wilt do
right, and that is all I desire." Will you do it?

*************************************************************************

Please go back one page to get the next section.

FIRES OF REVIVAL

http://concentric.net/~fires/