LECTURE 40 SANCTIFICATION



Objections answered.



I will consider those passages of scripture which are by some

supposed to contradict the doctrine we have been considering.



"If they sin against Thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not), and

Thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they

carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near" (1

Kings 8:46), etc. On this passage, I remark:



1. That this sentiment in nearly the same language, is repeated in 2

Chron. 6:26, and in Eccl. 7:20, where the same original word in the

same form is used.



2. These are the strongest passages I know of in the Old Testament,

and the same remarks are applicable to the three.



3. I will quote, for the satisfaction of the reader, the note of Dr. Adam

Clarke upon this passage, and also that of Barclay, the celebrated and

highly spiritual author of "An Apology for the True Christian Divinity." 

And let me say, that they appear to me to be satisfactory answers to

the objection founded upon these passages.



CLARKE: "If they sin against Thee." This must refer to some general

defection from truth; to some species of false worship, idolatry, or

corruption of the truth and ordinances of the Most High; as for it, they

are here stated to be delivered into the hands of their enemies, and

carried away captive, which was the general punishment of idolatry,

and what is called, (verse 47), acting perversely and committing

wickedness.



"If they sin against Thee, for there is no man that sinneth not." The

second clause, as it is here translated, renders the supposition in the

first clause, entirely nugatory; for, if there be no man that sinneth not, it

is useless to say, if they sin; but this contradiction is taken away, by

reference to the original ki yechetau lak, which should be translated, if

they shall sin against Thee; or should they sin against Thee, ki ein

adam asher lo yecheta; `for there is no man that may not sin;' that is,

there is no man impeccable, none infallible; none that is not liable to

transgress. This is the true meaning of the phrase in various parts of

the Bible, and so our translators have understood the original, for even

in the thirty-first verse of this chapter, they have translated yecheta, if

a man trespass; which certainly implies he might or might not do it;

and in this way they have translated the same word, if a soul sin, in 

Levit. 5:1, 6:2, 1 Sam. 2:25, 2 Chron. 4:22; and in several other

places. The truth is, the Hebrew has no mood to express words in the

permissive or optative way, but to express this sense it uses the future

tense of the conjugation kal.



"This text has been a wonderful strong-hold for all who believe that

there is no redemption from sin in this life; that no man can live without

committing sin; and that we cannot be entirely freed from it till we die."



"1. The text speaks no such doctrine; it only speaks of the possibility

of every man's sinning; and this must be true of a state of probation."



"2. There is not another text in the divine records that is more to the

purpose than this."



"3. The doctrine is flatly in opposition to the design of the gospel; for

Jesus came to save His people from their sins, and to destroy the

works of the devil."



"4. It is a dangerous and destructive doctrine, and should be blotted

out of every Christian's creed. There are too many who are seeking to

excuse their crimes by all means in their power; and we need not

embody their excuses in a creed, to complete their deception, by

stating that their sins are unavoidable."



BARCLAY: "Secondly, another objection is from two passages of

scripture, much of one signification. The one is: `For there is no man

that sinneth not' (1 Kings 8:46). The other is: `For there is not a just

man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not' (Eccl. 7:20).



"I answer":



"1. These affirm nothing of a daily and continual sinning, so as never

to be redeemed from it; but only that all have sinned, that there is none

that doth not sin, though not always so as never to cease to sin; and in

this lies the question. Yea, in that place of the Kings he speaks within

two verses of the returning of such with all their souls and hearts,

which implies a possibility of leaving off sin."



"2. There is a respect to be had to the seasons and dispensations; for

if it should be granted that in Solomon's time there were none that

sinned not, it will not follow that there are none such now, or that it is a

thing not now attainable by the grace of God under the gospel."



"3. And lastly, this whole objection hangs upon a false interpretation;

for the original Hebrew word may be read in the potential mood, thus,

There is no man who may not sin, as well as in the indicative; so both

the old Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, and Vatablus have it, and the

same word is so used, `Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might

not sin against Thee' (Psalms 119:11), in the potential mood, and not

in the indicative: which being more answerable to the universal scope

of the scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the sense of almost all

interpreters, doubtless ought to be so understood, and the other

interpretation rejected as spurious."



Whatever may be thought of the views of these authors, to me it is a

plain and satisfactory answer to the objection founded upon these

passages, that the objection might be strictly true under the Old

Testament dispensation, and prove nothing in regard to the

attainability of a state of entire sanctification under the New. What!

Does the New Testament dispensation differ nothing from the Old in

its advantages for the acquisition of holiness? If it be true, that no one

under the comparatively dark dispensation of Judaism, attained a state

of permanent sanctification, does that prove such a state is not

attainable under the gospel? It is expressly stated in the Epistle to the

Hebrews, that "the old covenant made nothing perfect, but the bringing

in of a better hope did" (Heb. 7:19). Under the old covenant, God

expressly promised that he would make a new one with the house of

Israel, in "writing the law in their hearts," and in "engraving it in their

inward parts." And this new covenant was to be made with the house

of Israel, under the Christian dispensation. What then do all such

passages in the Old Testament prove, in relation to the privileges and

holiness of Christians under the new dispensation?



Whether any of the Old Testament saints did so far receive the new

covenant by way of anticipation, as to enter upon a state of permanent

sanctification, it is not my present purpose to inquire. Nor will I inquire,

whether, admitting that Solomon said in his day, that there was not a

just man upon the earth that liveth and sinneth not, the same could

with equal truth have been asserted of every generation under the

Jewish dispensation. It is expressly asserted of Abraham, and

multitudes of the Old Testament saints, that they "died in faith, not

having received the promises" (Heb. 11:13). Now what can this

mean? It cannot be, that they did not know the promises; for to them

the promises were made. It cannot mean, that they did not receive

Christ, for the Bible expressly asserts that they did that "Abraham

rejoiced to see Christ's day" (John 8:56), that Moses, and indeed all

the Old Testament saints, had so much knowledge of Christ as a

Saviour to be revealed, as to bring them into a state of salvation. But

still they did not receive the promise of the Spirit, as it is poured out

under the Christian dispensation. This was the great thing all along

promised, first to Abraham, or to his seed, which is Christ. "That the

blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;

that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." "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"

(Gal. 3:14, 16), and afterwards to the Christian church, by all the

prophets. "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And

it shall come to pass in the last days (saith God), I will pour out of My

Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream

dreams; and on My servants, and on My handmaidens, I will pour out

in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy; and I will show

wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and

fire and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the

moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come;

and it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the

Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:16-21), "Then Peter said unto them,

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ

for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy

Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all

that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts

2:38, 39). "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that

follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these

days." "Unto you first, God having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him

to bless you, in turing away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts

3:24, 26), and lastly, by Christ Himself, which He expressly styles "the

promise" of the Father. "And being assembled together with them,

commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait

for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of Me. 

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the

Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:4, 5). They did not receive

the light and the glory of the Christian dispensation, nor the fullness of

the Holy Spirit. And it is asserted in the Bible, "they without us," that

is, without our privileges, "could not be made perfect."



The next objection is founded upon the Lord's Prayer. In this Christ

has taught us to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those

who trespass against us" (Matt. 6:14). Here it is objected, that if a

person should become entirely sanctified, he could no longer use this

clause of this prayer, which, it is said, was manifestly designed to be

used by the church to the end of time. Upon this prayer I remark:



1. Christ has taught us to pray for entire, in the sense of perpetual

sanctification. "Thy will be done on earth, as it is done in heaven"

(Matt. 6:10).



2. He designed, that we should expect this prayer to be answered, or

that we should mock Him by asking what we do not believe is

agreeable to His will, and that too which we know could not

consistently be granted; and that we are to repeat this insult to God as

often as we pray.



3. The petition for forgiveness of our trespasses, it is plain, must apply

to past sins, and not to sins we are committing at the time we make

the prayer; for it would be absurd and abominable to pray for the

forgiveness of a sin which we are then in the act of committing.



4. This prayer cannot properly be made in respect to any sin of which

we have not repented; for it would be highly abominable in the sight of

God, to pray for the forgiveness of a sin of which we did not repent.



5. If there be any hour or day in which a man has committed no actual

sin, he could not consistently make this prayer in reference to that

hour or that day.



6. But at the very time, it would be highly proper for him to make this

prayer in relation to all his past sins, and that too, although he may

have repented of, and confessed them, and prayed for their

forgiveness, a thousand times before. This does not imply a doubt,

whether God has forgiven the sins of which we have repented; but it is

only a renewal of our grief and humiliation for our sins, and a fresh

acknowledgment of, and casting ourselves upon, His mercy. God may

forgive when we repent, before we ask Him, and while we abhor

ourselves so much as to have no heart to ask for forgiveness; but His

having forgiven us does not render the petition improper.



7. And although his sins may be forgiven, he ought still to confess

them, to repent of them, both in this world and in the world to come. 

And it is perfectly suitable, so long as he lives in the world, to say the

least, to continue to repent, and repeat the request for forgiveness. 

For myself, I am unable to see why this passage should be made a

stumbling block; for if it be improper to pray for the forgiveness of sins

of which we have repented, then it is improper to pray for forgiveness

at all. And if this prayer cannot be used with propriety in reference to

past sins of which we have already repented, it cannot properly be

used at all, except upon the absurd supposition, that we are to pray for

the forgiveness of sins which we are now committing, and of which we

have not repented. And if it be improper to use this form of prayer in

reference to all past sins of which we have repented, it is just as

improper to use it in reference to sins committed today or yesterday, of

which we have repented.



Another objection is founded on: "My brethren, be not many masters,

knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many

things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a

perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:1, 2). 

Upon this passage I remark:



1. The term rendered masters here, may be rendered teachers,

critics, or censors, and be understood either in a good or bad sense. 

The apostle exhorts the brethren not to be many masters, because if

they are so, they will incur the greater condemnation: "for," says he, "in

many things we offend all." The fact that we all offend is here urged

as a reason why we should not be many masters; which shows that

the term masters is here used in a bad sense. "Be not many masters,"

for if we are masters, "we shall receive the greater condemnation,"

because we are all great offenders. Now I understand this to be the

simple meaning of this passage; do not many (or any) of you become

censors, or critics, and set yourselves up to judge and condemn

others. For inasmuch as you have all sinned yourselves, and we are

all great offenders, we shall receive the greater condemnation, if we

set ourselves up as censors. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye

shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured

to you again" (Matt. 7:2).



2. It does not appear to me that the apostle designs to affirm anything

at all of the present character of himself, or of those to whom he wrote;

nor to have had the remotest allusion to the doctrine of entire

sanctification, but simply to affirm a well-established truth in its

application to a particular sin; that if they became censors, and

injuriously condemned others, inasmuch as they had all committed

many sins, they should receive the greater condemnation.



3. That the apostle did not design to deny the doctrine of Christian

perfection or entire sanctification, as maintained in these lectures,

seems evident from the fact, that he immediately subjoins, "If any man

offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle

the whole body" (James 3:2).



Another objection is founded on: "If we say we have no sin, we

deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Upon this I

remark:



1. Those who make this passage an objection to the doctrine of entire

sanctification in this life, assume that the apostle is here speaking of

sanctification instead of justification; whereas an honest examination

of the passage, if I mistake not, will render it evident that the apostle

makes no allusion here to sanctification, but is speaking solely of

justification. A little attention to the connection in which this verse

stands will, I think, render this evident. But before I proceed to state

what I understand to be the meaning of this passage, let us consider it

in the connection in which it stands, in the sense in which they

understand it who quote it for the purpose of opposing the sentiment

advocated in these lectures. They understand the apostle as

affirming, that, if we say we are in a state of entire sanctification and

do not sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Now if this

were the apostle's meaning, he involves himself, in this connection, in

two flat contradictions.



2. This verse is immediately preceded by the assertion that the "blood

of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin."  Now it would be very

remarkable, if immediately after this assertion the apostle should mean

to say that it does not cleanse us from all sin, and if we say it does, we

deceive ourselves; for he had just asserted, that the blood of Jesus

Christ does cleanse us from all sin. If this were his meaning, it

involves him in as palpable a contradiction as could be expressed.



3. This view of the subject then represents the apostle in the

conclusion of the seventh verse, as saying, the blood of Jesus Christ

His Son cleanseth us from all sin; and in the eighth verse, as saying,

that if we suppose ourselves to be cleansed from all sin, we deceive

ourselves, thus flatly contradicting what he had just said. And in the

ninth verse he goes on to say, that "He is faithful and just to forgive us

our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"; that is, the

blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin; but if we say it does, we

deceive ourselves. "But if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just

to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1

John 1:9 ). Now, all unrighteousness is sin. If we are cleansed from

all unrighteousness, we are cleansed from sin. And now suppose a

man should confess his sin, and God should in faithfulness and justice

forgive his sin, and cleanse him from all unrighteousness, and then he

should confess and profess that God had done this; are we to

understand, that the apostle would then affirm that he deceives

himself, in supposing that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all

sin? But, as I have already said, I do not understand the apostle as

affirming anything in respect to the present moral character of any

one, but as speaking of the doctrine of justification.



This then appears to me to be the meaning of the whole passage. If

we say that we are not sinners, that is, have no sin to need the blood

of Christ; that we have never sinned, and consequently need no

Savior, we deceive ourselves. For we have sinned, and nothing but

the blood of Christ cleanseth from sin, or procures our pardon and

justification. And now, if we will not deny, but confess that we have

sinned, "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us

from all unrighteousness." "But if we say we have not sinned, we make

Him a liar, and His word is not in us."



These are the principal passages that occur to my mind, and those I

believe upon which the principal stress has been laid, by the opposers

of this doctrine. And as I do not wish to protract the discussion, I shall

omit the examination of other passages.



There are many objections to the doctrine of entire sanctification,

besides those derived from the passages of scripture which I have

considered. Some of these objections are doubtless honestly felt, and

deserve to be considered. I will therefore proceed to notice such of

them as now occur to my mind.



1. It is objected, that the doctrine of entire and permanent

sanctification in this life, tends to the errors of modern perfectionism. 

This objection has been urged by some good men, and I doubt not,

honestly urged. But still I cannot believe that they have duly

considered the matter. It seems to me, that one fact will set aside this

objection. It is well known that the Wesleyan Methodists have, as a

denomination, from the earliest period of their history, maintained this

doctrine in all its length and breadth. Now if such is the tendency of

the doctrine, it is passing strange that this tendency has never

developed itself in that denomination. So far as I can learn, the

Methodists have been in a great measure, if not entirely, exempt from

the errors held by modern perfectionists. Perfectionists, as a body,

and I believe with very few exceptions, have arisen out of those

denominations that deny the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life.



Now the reason of this is obvious to my mind. When professors of

religion, who have been all their life subject to bondage, begin to

inquire earnestly for deliverance from their sins, they have found

neither sympathy nor instruction, in regard to the prospect of getting

rid of them in this life. Then they have gone to the Bible, and there

found, in almost every part of it, Christ presented as a Savior from

their sins. But when they proclaim this truth, they are at once treated

as heretics and fanatics by their brethren, until, being overcome of evil,

they fall into censoriousness; and finding the church so decidedly and

utterly wrong, in her opposition to this one great important truth, they

lose confidence in their ministers and the church, and being influenced

by a wrong spirit, Satan takes the advantage of them, and drives them

to the extreme of error and delusion. This I believe to be the true

history of many of the most pious members of the Calvinistic churches. 

On the contrary, the Methodists are very much secured against these

errors. They are taught that Jesus Christ is a Savior from all sin in this

world. And when they inquire for deliverance, they are pointed to

Jesus Christ as a present and all-sufficient Redeemer. Finding

sympathy and instruction on this great and agonizing point, their

confidence in their ministers and their brethren remains, and they walk

quietly with them.



It seems to me impossible that the tendency of this doctrine should be

to the peculiar errors of the modern perfectionists, and yet not an

instance occur among all the Methodist ministers, or the thousands of

their members, for one hundred years.



And here let me say, it is my full conviction, that there are but two

ways in which ministers of the present day can prevent members of

their churches from becoming perfectionists. One is, to suffer them to

live so far from God, that they will not inquire after holiness of heart;

and the other is, most fully to inculcate the glorious doctrine of entire

consecration; and that it is the high privilege as well as the duty of

Christians, to live in a state of entire consecration to God. I have

many additional things to say upon the tendency of this doctrine, but at

present this must suffice.



By some it is said to be identical with perfectionism; and attempts are

made to show in what particulars antinomian perfectionism and our

views are the same. On this I remark:



(1.) It seems to have been a favorite policy of certain controversial

writers for a long time, instead of meeting a proposition in the open

field of fair and Christian argument, to give it a bad name, and attempt

to put it down, not by force of argument, but by showing that it is

identical with, or sustains a near relation to Pelagianism,

Antinomianism, Calvinism, or some other ism, against which certain

classes of minds are deeply prejudiced. In the recent controversy

between what are called old and new school divines, who has not

witnessed with pain the frequent attempts that have been made to put

down the new school divinity, as it is called, by calling it Pelagianism,

and quoting certain passages from Pelagius and other writers, to show

the identity of sentiment that exists between them.



This is a very unsatisfactory method of attacking or defending any

doctrine. There are no doubt, many points of agreement between

Pelagius and all truly orthodox divines, and so there are many points

of disagreement between them. There are also many points of

agreement between modern perfectionists and all evangelical

Christians, and so there are many points of disagreement between

them and the Christian church in general. That there are some points

of agreement between their views and my own, is no doubt true. And

that we totally disagree in regard to those points that constitute their

great peculiarities is, if I understand them, also true. But did I really

agree in all points with Augustine, or Edwards, or Pelagius, or the

modern perfectionists, neither the good nor the ill name of any of these

would prove my sentiments to be either right or wrong. It would

remain, after all, to show that those with whom I agreed were either

right or wrong, in order, on the one hand, to establish that for which I

contend, or on the other, to overthrow that which I maintain. It is often

more convenient to give a doctrine or an argument a bad name, than it

is soberly and satisfactorily to reply to it.



(2.) It is not a little curious, that we should be charged with holding the

same sentiments with the perfectionists; while yet they seem to be

more violently opposed to our views, since they have come to

understand them, than almost any other persons whatever. I have

been informed by one of their leaders, that he regards me as one of

the master-builders of Babylon.



With respect to the modern perfectionists, those who have been

acquainted with their writings, know that some of them have gone

much farther from the truth than others. Some of their leading men,

who commenced with them, and adopted their name, stopped far short

of adopting some of their most abominable errors; still maintaining the

authority and perpetual obligation of the moral law; and thus have

been saved from going into many of the most objectionable and

destructive notions of the sect. There are many more points of

agreement between that class of perfectionists and the orthodox

church, than between the church and any other class of them. And

there are still a number of important points of difference, as every one

knows who is possessed of correct information upon this subject.



I abhor the practice of denouncing whole classes of men for the errors

of some of that name. I am well aware, that there are many of those

who are termed perfectionists, who as truly abhor the extremes of

error into which many of that name have fallen, as perhaps do any

persons living.



2. Another objection is, that persons could not live in this world, if they

were entirely sanctified. Strange. Does holiness injure a man? Does

perfect conformity to all the laws of life and health, both physical and

moral, render it impossible for a man to live? If a man break off from

rebellion against God, will it kill him? Does there appear to have been

anything in Christ's holiness inconsistent with life and health? The fact

is, that this objection is founded in a gross mistake, in regard to what

constitutes entire sanctification. It is supposed by those who hold this

objection, that this state implies a continual and most intense degree

of excitement, and many things which are not at all implied in it. I have

thought, that it is rather a glorified than a sanctified state, that most

men have before their minds, whenever they consider this subject. 

When Christ was upon earth, He was in a sanctified but not in a

glorified state. "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master"

(Matt. 10:25). Now, what is there in the moral character of Jesus

Christ, as represented in His history, that may not and ought not to be

fully copied into the life of every Christian? I speak not of His

knowledge, but of His spirit and temper. Ponder well every

circumstance of His life that has come down to us, and say, beloved,

what is there in it that may not, by the grace of God, be copied into

your own? And think you, that a full imitation of Him, in all that relates

to His moral character, would render it impossible for you to live in the

world.



3. Again, it is objected, that should we become entirely, in the sense

of permanently, sanctified, we could not know it, and should not be

able intelligently to profess it. I answer: All that a sanctified soul needs

to know or profess is, that the grace of God in Christ Jesus is sufficient

for him, so that he finds it to be true, as Paul did, that he can do all

things through Christ who strengtheneth him, and that he does not

expect to sin, but that on the contrary, he is enabled through grace "to

reckon himself dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God through

Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:11). A saint may not know that he

shall never sin again; he may expect to sin no more, because of his

confidence, not in his own resolutions, or strength, or attainments, but

simply in the infinite grace and faithfulness of Christ. He may come to

look upon, to regard, account, reckon himself, as being dead in deed

and in fact unto sin, and as having done with it, and as being alive

unto God, and to expect henceforth to live wholly to God, as much as

he expects to live at all; and it may be true that he will thus live, without

his being able to say that he knows that he is entirely, in the sense of

permanently, sanctified. This he need not know, but this he may

believe upon the strength of such promises as: "And the very God of

peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul,

and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it" (1 Thess.

5:23, 24). It is also true, that a Christian may attain a state in which he

will really fall no more into sin, as a matter of fact, while, at the same

time, he may not be able to express even a thorough persuasion that

he shall never fall again. All he may be able intelligently to say is:

"God knoweth I hope to sin no more, but the event will show. May the

Lord keep me; I trust that He will." 



4. Another objection is, that the doctrine tends to spiritual pride. And

is it true, indeed, that to become perfectly humble tends to pride? But

entire humility is implied in entire sanctification. Is it true, that you

must remain in sin, and of course cherish pride, in order to avoid

pride? Is your humility more safe in your own hands, and are you

more secure against spiritual pride, in refusing to receive Christ as

your helper, than you would be in at once embracing Him as a full

Savior?



I have seen several remarks in the papers of late, and have heard

several suggestions from various quarters, which have but increased

the fear which I have for some time entertained, that multitudes of

Christians, and indeed many ministers, have radically defective views

of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. To the doctrine of entire

sanctification in this life, as believed and taught by some of us, it has

been frequently of late objected, that prayers offered in accordance

with this belief, and by a sanctified soul, would savor strongly of

spiritual pride and self-righteousness. I have seen this objection

stated in its full force of late, in a religious periodical, in the form of a

supposed prayer of a sanctified soul, the object of which was

manifestly to expose the shocking absurdity, self-righteousness, and

spiritual pride, of a prayer, or rather thanksgiving, made in accordance

with a belief that one is entirely sanctified. Now, I must confess, that

prayer, together with objections and remarks which suggest the same

idea, have created in my mind no small degree of alarm. I fear much

that many of our divines, in contending for the doctrines of grace, have

entirely lost sight of the meaning of the language they use, and have in

reality but very little practical understanding of what is intended by

salvation by grace, in opposition to salvation by works. If this is not the

case, I know not how to account for their feeling, and for their stating

such an objection as this to the doctrine of entire sanctification.



Now, if I understand the doctrine of salvation by grace, both

sanctification and justification are wrought by the grace of God, and

not by any works or merits of our own, irrespective of the grace of

Christ through faith. If this is the real doctrine of the Bible, what

earthly objection can there be to our confessing, professing, and

thanking God for our sanctification, any more than for our justification? 

It is true, indeed, that in our justification our own agency is not

concerned, while in our sanctification it is. Yet I understand the

doctrine of the Bible to be, that both are brought about by grace

through faith, and that we should no sooner be sanctified without the

grace of Christ, than we should be justified without it. Now, who

pretends to deny this? And yet if it is true, of what weight is that class

of objections to which I have alluded? These objections manifestly

turn upon the idea, no doubt latent and deep seated in the mind, that

the real holiness of Christians, in whatever degree it exists, is, in some

way, to be ascribed to some goodness originating in themselves, and

not in the grace of Christ. But do let me ask, how is it possible that

men who entertain, really and practically, right views upon this subject,

can by any possibility feel, as if it must be proof conclusive of

self-righteousness and Pharisaism, to profess and thank God for

sanctification? Is it not understood on all hands, that sanctification is

by grace, and that the gospel has made abundant provision for the

sanctification of all men? This certainly is admitted by those who have

stated this objection. Now, if this is so, which is the most honorable to

God, to confess and complain that our sins triumph and gain dominion

over us, or to be able truly and honestly to thank Him for having given

us the victory over our sins? God has said, "Sin shall not have

dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace"

(Romans 6:14).



Now, in view of this and multitudes of kindred promises, suppose we

come to God, and say: "O Lord, Thou hast made these great and

precious promises, but, as a matter of fact, they do not accord with our

own experience. For sin does continually have dominion over us. Thy

grace is not sufficient for us. We are continually overcome by

temptation, notwithstanding Thy promise, that in every temptation

Thou wilt make a way for us to escape. Thou hast said, the truth shall

make us free, but we are not free. We are still the slaves of our

appetites and lusts."



Now, which, I inquire, is the most honorable to God, to go on with a

string of confessions and self-accusations, that are in flat contradiction

to the promises of God, and almost, to say the least, a burlesque upon

the grace of the gospel, or to be able, through grace, to confess that

we have found it true in our own experience, that His grace is sufficient

for us that as our day is so our strength is, and that sin does not have

dominion over us, because we are not under the law, but under grace?



To this I know it will be answered, that in this confessing of our sins

we do not impeach the grace or faithfulness of God, inasmuch as all

these promises are conditionated upon faith, and consequently, that

the reason of our remaining in sin is to be ascribed to our unbelief, and

is therefore no disparagement to the grace of Christ. But I beg that it

may be duly considered, that faith itself is of the operation of God is

itself produced by grace; and therefore the fact of our being obliged to

confess our unbelief is a dishonor to the grace of Christ. Is it

honorable or dishonorable to God, that we should be able to confess

that even our unbelief is overcome, and that we are able to testify from

our own experience, that the grace of the gospel is sufficient for our

present salvation and sanctification? There is no doubt a vast amount

of self-righteousness in the church, which, while it talks of grace, really

means nothing by it. For a man to go any farther than to hope that he

is converted, seems to many minds to savor of self-righteousness. 

Now, why is this, unless they themselves entertain self-righteous

notions in regard to conversion? Many persons would feel shocked to

hear a man in prayer unqualifiedly thank God that he had been

converted and justified. And they might just as well feel shocked at

this, and upon precisely the same principle, as to feel shocked, if he

should unqualifiedly thank God that he had been sanctified by His

grace.



But again, I say, that the very fact that a man feels shocked to hear a

converted or a sanctified soul unqualifiedly thank God for the grace

received, shows that down deep in his heart lies concealed a

self-righteous view of the way of salvation, and that in his mind all

holiness in Christians is a ground of boasting; and that, if persons

have become truly and fully sanctified, they really have a ground of

boasting before God. I know not how else to account for this

wonderful prejudice. For my own part, I do not conceive it to be the

least evidence of self-righteousness, when I hear a man sincerely and

heartily thank God for converting and justifying him by His grace. Nor

should I feel either shocked, horrified, or disgusted, to hear a man

thank God that He had sanctified him wholly by His grace. If in either

or both cases I had the corroborative evidence of an apparently holy

life, I should bless God, take courage, and feel like calling on all

around to glorify God for such an instance of His glorious and

excellent grace.



The feeling seems to be very general, that such a prayer or

thanksgiving is similar, in fact, and in the principle upon which it rests,

with that of the Pharisee noticed by our Savior. But what reason is

there for this assumption? We are expressly informed, that was the

prayer of a Pharisee. But the Pharisees were self-righteous, and

expressly and openly rejected the grace of Christ. The Pharisee then

boasted of his own righteousness, originated in and consummated by,

his own goodness, and not in the grace of Christ. Hence he did not

thank God, that the grace of Christ had made him unlike other men. 

Now, this prayer was designed to teach us the abominable folly of any

man's putting in a claim to righteousness and true holiness,

irrespective of the grace of God by Jesus Christ. But certainly this is

an infinitely different thing from the thanksgiving of a soul, who fully

recognizes the grace of Christ, and attributes his sanctification entirely

to that grace. And I cannot see how a man, who has entirely divested

himself of Pharisaical notions in respect to the doctrine of

sanctification, can suppose these two prayers to be analogous in their

principle and spirit. --------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 41



SANCTIFICATION, FURTHER OBJECTIONS



5. Again it is objected, that many who have embraced this doctrine,

really are spiritually proud. To this I answer:



(1.) So have many who believed the doctrine of regeneration been

deceived and amazingly puffed up with the idea that they have been

regenerated when they have not been. But is this a good reason for

abandoning the doctrine of regeneration, or any reason why the

doctrine should not be preached?



(2.) Let me inquire whether a simple declaration of what God has

done for their souls, has not been assumed as of itself sufficient

evidence of spiritual pride, on the part of those who embrace this

doctrine, while there was in reality no spiritual pride at all? It seems

next to impossible, with the present views of the church, that an

individual should really attain this state, and profess to live without

known sin in a manner so humble, as not, of course, to be suspected

of enormous spiritual pride. This consideration has been a snare to

some, who have hesitated and even neglected to declare what God

had done for their souls, lest they should be accused of spiritual pride. 

And this has been a serious injury to their piety.



6. But again it is objected, that this doctrine tends to censoriousness. 

To this I reply:



(1.) It is not denied, that some who have professed to believe this

doctrine have become censorious. But this no more condemns this

doctrine than it condemns that of regeneration. And that it tends to

censoriousness, might just as well be urged against every

acknowledged doctrine of the Bible, as against this doctrine.



(2.) Let any Christian do his whole duty to the church and the world in

their present state, let him speak to them and of them as they really 

are, and he would of course incur the charge of censoriousness. It is

therefore the most unreasonable thing in the world, to suppose that 

the church in its present state, would not accuse any perfect Christian

of censoriousness. Entire sanctification implies the doing of all our

duty. But to do all our duty, we must rebuke sin in high places and in

low places. Can this be done with all needed severity, without in many

cases giving offence, and incurring the charge of censoriousness? 

No, it is impossible; and to maintain the contrary would be to impeach

the wisdom and holiness of Jesus Christ Himself.



7. It is objected that the believers in this doctrine lower the standard of

holiness to a level with their own experience. To this I reply, that it has

been common to set up a false standard, and to overlook the true spirit

and meaning of the law, and to represent it as requiring something

else than what it does require; but this notion is not confined to those

who believe in this doctrine. The moral law requires one and the same

thing of all moral agents, namely, that they shall be universally and

disinterestedly benevolent; in other words, that they shall love the Lord

their God with all their heart, and their neighbor as themselves. This is

all that it does require of any. Whoever has understood the law as

requiring less or more than this, has misunderstood it. Love is the

fulfilling of the law. But I must refer the reader to what I have said

upon this subject when treating of moral government.



The law, as we have seen on a former occasion, levels its claims to

us as we are, and a just exposition of it, as I have already said, must

take into consideration all the present circumstances of our being. 

This is indispensable to a right apprehension of what constitutes entire

sanctification. There may be, as facts show, danger of

misapprehension in regard to the true spirit and meaning of the law, in

the sense that, by theorizing and adopting a false philosophy, one may

lose sight of the deepest affirmations of his reason, in regard to the

true spirit and meaning of the law; and I would humbly inquire, whether

the error has not been in giving such an interpretation of the law, as

naturally to beget the idea so prevalent, that, if a man should become

holy, he could not live in this world? In a letter lately received from a

beloved, and useful, and venerated minister of the gospel, while the

writer expressed the greatest attachment to the doctrine of entire

consecration to God, and said that he preached the same doctrine

which we hold to his people every Sabbath, but by another name, still

he added, that it was revolting to his feelings to hear any mere man

set up the claim of obedience to the law of God. Now let me inquire,

why should this be revolting to the feelings of piety? Must it not be

because the law of God is supposed to require something of human

beings in our state, which it does not and cannot require? Why should

such a claim be thought extravagant, unless the claims of the living

God be thought extravagant? If the law of God really requires no more

of men than what is reasonable and possible, why should it be

revolting to any mind to hear an individual profess to have attained to

entire obedience? I know that the brother to whom I allude, would be

almost the last man deliberately and knowingly to give any strained

interpretation to the law of God; and yet, I cannot but feel that much of

the difficulty that good men have upon this subject, has arisen out of a

comparison of the lives of saints with a standard entirely above that

which the law of God does or can demand of persons in all respects in

our circumstances, or indeed of any moral agent whatever.



8. Another objection is, that, as a matter of fact, the grace of God is

not sufficient to secure the entire sanctification of saints in this life. It is

maintained, that the question of the attainability of entire sanctification

in this life, resolves itself after all into the question, whether Christians

are sanctified in this life? The objectors say, that nothing is sufficient

grace that does not, as a matter of fact, secure the faith, and

obedience, and perfection of the saints; and therefore that the

provisions of the gospel are to be measured by the results; and that

the experience of the church decides both the meaning of the

promises, and the extent of the provisions of grace. Now to this I

answer: If this objection be good for anything in regard to entire

sanctification, it is equally true in regard to the spiritual state of every

person in the world. If the fact that men are not perfect, proves that no

provision is made for their perfection, their being no better than they

are proves, that there is no provision for their being any better than

they are, or that they might not have aimed at being any better, with

any rational hope of success. But who, except a fatalist, will admit any

such conclusion as this? And yet I do not see but this conclusion is

inevitable from such premises. As well might an impenitent sinner

urge, that the grace of the gospel is not, as a matter of fact, sufficient

for him, because it does not convert him: as well might he resolve

everything into the sovereignty of God, and say, the sovereignty of

God must convert me, or I shall not be converted; and since I am not

converted, it is because the grace of God has not proved itself

sufficient to convert me. But who will excuse the sinner, and admit his

plea, that the grace and provisions of the gospel are not sufficient for

him?



Let ministers urge upon both saints and sinners the claims of God. 

Let them insist that sinners may, and can, and ought, immediately to

become Christians, and that Christians can, and may, and ought to

live wholly to God. Let them urge Christians to live without sin, and

hold out the same urgency of command, and the same

encouragement that the new school holds out to sinners; and we shall

soon find that Christians are entering into the liberty of perfect love, as

sinners have found pardon and acceptance. Let ministers hold forth

the same gospel to all, and insist that the grace of the gospel is as

sufficient to save from all sin as from a part of it; and we shall soon

see whether the difficulty has not been, that the gospel has been hid

and denied, until the churches have been kept weak through unbelief. 

The church has been taught not to expect the fulfillment of the

promises to them; that it is dangerous error to expect the fulfillment to

them, for example, of the promise: "And the very God of peace

sanctify you wholly and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and

body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it" (1 Thess.

5:23, 24). When God says He will sanctify us wholly, and preserve us

blameless unto the coming of the Lord, masters in Israel tell us that to

expect this is dangerous error.



9. Another objection to this doctrine is, that it is contrary to the views

of some of the greatest and best men in the church: that such men as

Augustine, Calvin, Doddridge, Edwards etc., were of a different

opinion. To this I answer:



(1.) Suppose they were; we are to call no man father, in such a sense

as to yield up to him the determination of our views of Christian

doctrine.



(2.) This objection comes with a very ill grace from those who wholly

reject the opinions of these divines on some of the most important

points of Christian doctrine.



(3.) Those men all held the doctrine of physical moral depravity, which

was manifestly the ground of their rejecting the doctrine of entire

sanctification in this life. Maintaining, as they seem to have done, that

the constitutional susceptibilities of body and mind were sinfully

depraved, consistency of course led them to reject the idea, that

persons could be entirely sanctified while in the body. Now, I would

ask what consistency is there in quoting them as rejecting the doctrine

of entire sanctification in this life, while the reason of this rejection in

their minds, was founded in the doctrine of physical moral depravity,

which notion is entirely denied by those who quote their authority?



10. But again; it is objected, that, if we should attain this state of

continual consecration or sanctification, we could not know it until the

day of judgment; and that to maintain its attainability is vain, inasmuch

as no one can know whether he has attained it or not. To this I reply:



(1.) A man's consciousness is the highest and best evidence of the

present state of his own mind. I understand consciousness to be the

mind's recognition of its own existence and exercises, and that it is the

highest possible evidence to our own minds of what passes within us. 

Consciousness can of course testify only to our present sanctification;

but, 



(2.) With the law of God before us as our standard, the testimony of

consciousness, in regard to whether the mind is conformed to that

standard or not, is the highest evidence which the mind can have of a

present state of conformity to that rule.



(3.) It is a testimony which we cannot doubt, any more than we can

doubt our existence. How do we know that we exist? I answer, by our

consciousness. How do I know that I breathe, or love, or hate, or sit,

or stand, or lie down, or rise up, that I am joyful or sorrowful? In short,

that I exercise any emotion, or volition, or affection of mind? How do I

know that I sin, or repent, or believe? I answer, by my own

consciousness. No testimony can be "so direct and convincing as

this."



Now, in order to know that my repentance is genuine, I must know

what genuine repentance is. So if I would know whether my love to

God and man, or obedience to the law is genuine, I must have clearly

before my mind the real spirit, and meaning, and bearing of the law of

God. Having the rule before my mind, my own consciousness affords

"the most direct and convincing evidence possible," whether my

present state of mind is conformed to the rule. The Spirit of God is

never employed in testifying to what my consciousness teaches, but in

setting in a strong light before my mind the rule to which I am to

conform my life. It is His province to make me understand, to induce

me to love and obey the truth; and it is the province of consciousness

to testify to my own mind whether I do or do not obey the truth, when I

apprehend it. When God so presents the truth, as to give the mind

assurance, that it understands His mind and will upon any subject, the

mind's consciousness of its own state in view of that truth, is "the

highest and most direct possible" evidence of whether it obeys or

disobeys.



(4.) If a man cannot be conscious of the character of his own supreme

or ultimate choice, in which choice his moral character consists, how

can he know when, and of what, he is to repent? If he has committed

sin of which he is not conscious, how is he to repent of it? And if he

has a holiness of which he is not conscious, how could he feel that he

has peace with God?



But it is said, that a man may violate the law, not knowing it, and

consequently have no consciousness that he sinned, but that,

afterwards, a knowledge of the law may convict him of sin. To this I

reply, that if there was absolutely no knowledge that the thing in

question was wrong, the doing of that thing was not sin, inasmuch as

some degree of knowledge of what is right or wrong is indispensable

to the moral character of any act. In such a case, there may be a

sinful ignorance, which may involve all the guilt of those actions that

were done in consequence of it; but that blameworthiness lies in that

state of heart that has induced this, and not at all in the violation of the

rule of which the mind was, at the time, entirely ignorant.



(5.) The Bible everywhere assumes, that we are able to know, and

unqualifiedly requires us to know, what the moral state of our mind is. 

It commands us to examine ourselves, to know and to prove our own

selves. Now, how can this be done, but by bringing our hearts into the

light of the law of God, and then taking the testimony of our own

consciousness, whether we are, or are not, in a state of conformity to

the law? But if we are not to receive the testimony of our own

consciousness, in regard to our present sanctification, are we to

receive it in respect to our repentance, or any other exercise of our

mind whatever?  The fact is, that we may deceive ourselves, by

neglecting to compare ourselves with the right standard. But when our

views of the standard are right, and our consciousness bears witness

of a felt, decided, unequivocal state of mind, we cannot be deceived

any more than we can be deceived in regard to our own existence.



(6.) But it is said, our consciousness does not teach us what the

power and capacities of our minds are, and that therefore if

consciousness could teach us in respect to the kind of our exercises, it

cannot teach us in regard to their degree, whether they are equal to

the present capacity of our mind. To this I reply:



Consciousness does as unequivocally testify whether we do or do not

love God with all our heart, as it does whether we love Him at all. How

does a man know that he lifts as much as he can, or runs, or walks as

fast as he is able? I answer, by his own consciousness. How does he

know that he repents or loves with all his heart? I answer, by his own

consciousness. This is the only possible way in which he can know it.



The objection implies that God has put within our reach no possible

means of knowing whether we obey Him or not. The Bible does not

directly reveal the fact to any man, whether he obeys God or not. It

reveals his duty, but does not reveal the fact whether he obeys. It

refers for this testimony to his own consciousness. The Spirit of God

sets our duty before us, but does not directly reveal to us whether we

do it or not; for this would imply that every man is under constant

inspiration.



But it is said, the Bible directs our attention to the fact, whether we

outwardly obey or disobey, as evidence whether we are in a right state

of mind or not. But I would inquire, How do we know whether we obey

or disobey? How do we know anything of our conduct but by our

consciousness? Our conduct, as observed by others, is to them

evidence of the state of our hearts. But, I repeat it, our consciousness

of obedience to God is to us the highest, and indeed the only,

evidence of our true character. If a man's own consciousness is not to

be a witness, either for or against Him, other testimony can never

satisfy him of the propriety of God's dealing with him in the final

judgment. There are cases of common occurrence, where the

witnesses testify to the guilt or innocence of a man, contrary to the

testimony of his own consciousness. In all such cases, from the very

laws of his being, he rejects all other testimony: and let me add, that

he would reject the testimony of God, and from the very laws of his

being must reject it, if it contradicted his own consciousness. When

God convicts a man of sin, it is not by contradicting his consciousness;

but by placing the consciousness which he had at the time, in the clear

strong light of his memory, causing him to discover clearly, and to

remember distinctly what light he had, what thoughts, what

convictions, what intention or design; in other words, what

consciousness he had at the time. And this, let me add, is the way,

and the only way, in which the Spirit of God can convict a man of sin,

thus bringing him to condemn himself. Now, suppose that God should

bear testimony against a man, that at such a time he did such a thing,

that such and such were all the circumstances of the case; and

suppose that at the same time the individual's consciousness

unequivocally contradicts Him. The testimony of God in this case

could not satisfy the man's mind, nor lead him into a state of

self-condemnation. The only possible way in which this state of mind

could be induced, would be to annihilate his opposing consciousness,

and to convict him simply upon the testimony of God.



(7.) Men may overlook what consciousness is. They may mistake the

rule of duty, they may confound consciousness with a mere negative

state of mind, or that in which a man is not conscious of a state of

opposition to the truth. Yet it must forever remain true that, to our own

minds, "consciousness must be the highest possible evidence" of what

passes within us. And if a man does not by his own consciousness

know whether he does the best that he can, under the circumstances

whether he has a single eye to the glory of God and whether he is in a

state of entire consecration' to God he cannot know it in any way

whatever. And no testimony whatever, either of God or man, could,

according to the laws of his being, satisfy him either as to conviction of

guilt on the one hand, or self-approbation on the other.



(8.) Let me ask, how those who make this objection know that they

are not in a sanctified state? Has God revealed it to them? Has He

revealed it in the Bible? Does the Bible say to A.B., by name, "You are

not in a sanctified state?" Or does it lay down a rule, in the light of

which his own consciousness bears this testimony against him? Has

God revealed directly by His Spirit, that he is not in a sanctified state,

or does He hold the rule of duty strongly before the mind, and thus

awaken the testimony of consciousness that he is not in this state? 

Now just in the same way consciousness testifies of those that are

sanctified, that they are in this state. Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of

God makes any new or particular revelation to them by name. But the

Spirit of God bears witness to their spirits by setting the rule in a strong

light before them. He induces that state of mind which conscience

pronounces to be conformity to the rule. This is as far as possible

from setting aside the judgment of God in the case; for conscience,

under these circumstances, is the testimony of God, and the way in

which He convinces of sin on the one hand, and of entire consecration

on the other; and the decision of conscience is given to us in

consciousness.



By some it is still objected, that consciousness alone is not evidence

even to ourselves of our being, or not being, in a state of entire

sanctification; that the judgment of the mind is also employed in

deciding the true intent and meaning of the law, and is therefore as

absolutely a witness in the case as consciousness is. 

"Consciousness," it is said, "gives us the exercises of our own mind,

and the judgment decides whether these exercises are in accordance

with the law of God." So then it is the judgment rather than the

consciousness, that decides whether we are, or are not, in a state of

entire sanctification; and therefore if, in our judgment of the law, we

happen to be mistaken, than which nothing is more common, in such

case we are utterly deceived if we think ourselves in a state of entire

sanctification. To this I answer:



It is indeed our judgment that decides upon the intent and meaning of

the law. We may be mistaken in regard to its true application in

certain cases, as it respects outward conduct, but let it be

remembered, that neither sin nor holiness is to be found in the outward

act. They both belong only to the ultimate intention. No man, as was

formerly shown, can mistake his real duty. Every one knows, and

cannot but know, that disinterested benevolence is his duty. This is,

and nothing else is, his duty. This he can know, and about this he

need not mistake. And sure it is, that if man can be certain of

anything, he can be certain in respect to the end for which he lives, or

in respect to his supreme ultimate intention.



I deny that it is the judgment which is to us the witness, in respect to

the state of our own minds. There are several powers of the mind

called into exercise, in deciding upon the meaning of, and in obeying,

the law of God; but it is consciousness alone that gives us these

exercises. Nothing but consciousness can possibly give us any

exercise of our own minds; that is, we have no knowledge of any

exercise but by our own consciousness. Suppose then the judgment

is exercised, the will is exercised, and all the involuntary powers are

exercised. These exercises are revealed to us only and simply by

consciousness; so that it remains an invariable truth, that

consciousness is to us the only possible witness of what our exercises

are, and consequently of the state of our own minds. When, therefore,

I say, that by consciousness a man may know whether he is in a state

of sanctification, I mean, that consciousness is the real and only

evidence that we can have of being in this state.



This objection is based upon a misapprehension of that which

constitutes entire or continued sanctification. It consists, as has been

shown, in abiding consecration to God, and not as the objection

assumes, in involuntary affections and feelings. When it is considered,

that entire sanctification consists in an abiding good will to God and to

being in general, in living to one end, what real impossibility can there

be in knowing whether we are supremely devoted to this end, or

supremely devoted to our own interest?



11. Again, it is objected, that if this state were attained in this life, it

would be the end of our probation. To this I reply, that probation since

the fall of Adam, or those points on which we are in a state of

probation or trial, are:



(1.) Whether we will repent and believe the gospel.



(2.) Whether we will persevere in holiness to the end of life.



Some suppose, that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints

sets aside the idea of being at all in a state of probation after

conversion. They reason thus: If it is certain that the saints will

persevere, then their probation is ended; because the question is

already settled, not only that they are converted, but that they will

persevere to the end; and the contingency, in regard to the event, is

indispensable to the idea of probation. To this I reply, that a thing may

be contingent with man that is not at all so with God. With God, there

is not, and never was any contingency, in the sense of uncertainty,

with regard to the final destiny of any being. But with men almost all

things are contingent. God knows with absolute certainty whether a

man will be converted, and whether he will persevere. A man may

know that he is converted, and may believe that by the grace of God

he shall persevere. He may have an assurance of this in proportion to

the strength of his faith. But the knowledge of this fact is not at all

inconsistent with his idea of his continuance in a state of trial till the

day of his death, inasmuch as his perseverance depends upon the

exercise of his own voluntary agency; and also, because his

perseverance is the condition of his final salvation.



In the same way some say, that if we have attained a state of entire or

permanent sanctification, we can no longer be in a state of probation. 

I answer, that perseverance in this depends upon the promises and

grace of God, just as the final perseverance of the saints does. In

neither case can we have any other assurance of our perseverance,

than that of faith in the promise and grace of God; nor any other

knowledge that we shall continue in this state, than that which arises

out of a belief in the testimony of God, that He will preserve us

blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. If this be

inconsistent with our probation, I see not why the doctrine of the

saint's perseverance is not equally inconsistent with it. If any one is

disposed to maintain, that for us to have any judgment or belief

grounded on the promises of God, in regard to our final perseverance,

is inconsistent with a state of probation, all I can say is, that his views

of probation are very different from my own, and so far as I

understand, from those of the church of God.



Again: there is a very high and important sense in which every moral

being will remain on probation to all eternity. While under the moral

government of God, obedience must for ever remain a condition of the

favor of God. And continued obedience will for ever depend on the

faithfulness and grace of God; and the only confidence we can ever

have, either in heaven, or on earth, that we shall continue to obey,

must be founded upon the faithfulness and truth of God.



Again: if it were true, that entering upon a state of permanent

sanctification in this life, were, in some sense, an end of our probation,

that would be no objection to the doctrine; for there is a sense in which

probation often ends long before the termination of this life. Where, for

example, for any cause God has left sinners to fill up the measure of

their iniquity, withdrawing forever His Holy Spirit from them, and

sealing them over to eternal death: this, in a very important sense, is

the end of their probation, and they are as sure of hell as if they were

already there. So on the other hand, when a person has received,

after believing, the sealing of the Spirit unto the day of redemption, as

an earnest of his inheritance, he may regard, and is bound to regard

this as a solemn pledge on the part of God, of his final perseverance

and salvation, and as no longer leaving the final question of his destiny

in doubt.



Now it should be remembered, that in both these cases the result

depends upon the exercise of the agency of the creature. In the case

of the sinner given up of God, it is certain that he will not repent,

though his impenitence is voluntary, and by no means a thing naturally

necessary. So, on the other hand, the perseverance of the saints is

certain, though not necessary. If in either case there should be a

radical change of character, the result would differ accordingly.



12. Again: while it is admitted by some, that entire sanctification in this

life is attainable, yet it is denied, that there is any certainty that it will be

attained by any one before death; for it is said, that as all the promises

of entire sanctification are conditionated upon faith, they therefore

secure the entire sanctification of no one. To this I reply, that all the

promises of salvation in the Bible are conditionated upon faith and

repentance; and therefore it does not follow on this principle, that any

person ever will be saved. What does all this arguing prove? The fact

is, that while the promises of both salvation and sanctification, are

conditionated upon faith, yet the promises that God will convert and

sanctify the elect, spirit, soul and body, and preserve and save them,

must be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, by free grace drawing and

securing the concurrence of free-will. With respect to the salvation of

sinners, it is promised that Christ shall have a seed to serve Him, and

the Bible abounds with promises to Christ that secure the salvation of

great multitudes of sinners. So the promises, that the church, as a

body, at some period of her earthly history, shall be entirely sanctified,

are, as it regards the church, unconditional, in the sense that they will

assuredly be accomplished. But, as I have already shown, as it

respects individuals, the fulfillment of these promises must depend

upon the exercise of faith. Both in respect to the salvation of sinners

and the sanctification of Christians, God is abundantly pledged to bring

about the salvation of the one and the sanctification of the other, to the

extent of His promise to Christ.



13. It is also objected, that the sanctification of the saints depends

upon the sovereignty of God. To this I reply, that both the

sanctification of the saints and the conversion of sinners is, in some

sense dependent upon the sovereign grace of God. But who except

an antinomian would, for this reason, hesitate to urge it upon sinners

to repent immediately and believe the gospel? Would any one think of

objecting to the doctrine or the fact of repentance, that repentance and

the conversion of sinners were dependent upon the sovereignty of

God? And yet, if the sovereignty of God can be justly urged as a bar

to the doctrine of entire sanctification, it may, for aught I see, with

equal propriety be urged as a bar to the doctrine and fact of

repentance. We have no controversy with any one upon the subject of

entire sanctification, who will as fully and as firmly hold out the duty

and the possibility, and the practical attainability, of entire

sanctification, as of repentance and salvation. Let them both be put

where the Bible puts them, upon the same ground, so far as the duty

and the practicability of both are concerned. Suppose any one should

assert, that it were irrational and dangerous for sinners to hope or

expect to be converted, and sanctified, and saved, because all this

depends upon the sovereignty of God, and they do not know what God

will do. Who would say this? But why not as well say it, as make the

objection to sanctification which we are now considering?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 42



SANCTIFICATION



Remarks



1. There is an importance to be attached to the sanctification of the

body, of which very few persons appear to be aware. Indeed, unless

the bodily appetites and powers be consecrated to the service of God

unless we learn to eat, and drink, and sleep, and wake, and labor, and

rest, for the glory of God, permanent sanctification as a practical thing

is out of the question. It is plain, that very few persons are aware of

the great influence which their bodies have over their minds, and of

the indispensable necessity of bringing their bodies under, and

keeping them in subjection.



Few people seem to keep the fact steadily in view, that unless their

bodies be rightly managed, they will be so fierce and overpowering a

source of temptation to the mind, as inevitably to lead it into sin. If

they indulge themselves in a stimulating diet, and in the use of those

condiments that irritate and rasp the nervous system, their bodies will

be, of course and of necessity, the source of powerful and incessant

temptation to evil tempers and vile affections. If persons were aware

of the great influence which the body has over the mind, they would

realize, that they cannot be too careful to preserve the nervous system

from the influence of every improper article of food or drink, and

preserve that system as they would the apple of their eye, from every

influence that could impair its functions. No one who has opportunity

to acquire information in regard to the laws of life and health, and the

best means of sanctifying the whole spirit, soul, and body, can be

guiltless if he neglects these means of knowledge. Every man is

bound to make the structure and laws of both body and mind the

subject of as thorough investigation as his circumstances will permit, to

inform himself in regard to what are the true principles of perfect

temperance, and in what way the most can be made of all his powers

of body and mind for the glory of God.



2. From what has been said in these lectures, the reason why the

church has not been entirely sanctified is very obvious. As a body the

church has not believed that such a state was attainable until near the

close of life. And this is a sufficient reason, and indeed the most

weighty of all reasons, for her not having attained it.



3. From what has been said, it is easy to see, that the true question in

regard to entire sanctification in this life is: Is it attainable as a matter

of fact? Some have thought the proper question to be: Are Christians

entirely sanctified in this life? Now certainly this is not the question

that needs to be discussed. Suppose it to be fully granted that they

are not; this fact is sufficiently accounted for, by the consideration that

they do not know or believe it to be attainable until the close of life. If

they believed it to be attainable, it might no longer be true that they do

not attain it. But if provision really is made for this attainment, it

amounts to nothing, unless it be recognized and believed. The thing

needed then is, to bring the church to see and believe, that this is her

high privilege and her duty. It is not enough, as has been shown, to

say that it is attainable, simply on the ground of natural ability. This is

as true of the devil, and the lost in hell, as of men in this world. But

unless grace has put this attainment so within our reach, as that it may

be aimed at with the reasonable prospect of success, there is, as a

matter of fact, no more provision for our entire sanctification in this life,

than for the devil's. As has been said, it seems to be trifling with

mankind, merely to maintain the attainability of this state, on the

ground of natural ability only, and at the same time to tell them, that

they certainly never will exercise this ability unless disposed to do so

by the grace of God; and furthermore, that it is a dangerous error for

us to expect to receive grace from God to secure this result; that we

might by natural possibility make this attainment, but it is irrational and

dangerous error to expect or hope to make it, or hope to receive

sufficient grace to secure it.



The real question is, has grace brought this attainment so within our

reach, that we may reasonably expect, by aiming at it, to experience it

in this life? It is admitted, that on the ground of natural ability, both

wicked men and devils have the power to be entirely holy. But it is

also admitted that their indisposition to use this power aright is so

complete, that as a matter of fact, they never will, unless influenced to

do so by the grace of God. I insist therefore that the real question is,

whether the provisions of the gospel are such, that did the church fully

understand and lay hold upon the proffered grace, she might attain

this state? Are we as fully authorized to offer this grace to Christians,

as we are the grace of repentance and pardon to sinners? May we as

consistently urge Christians to lay hold on sanctifying grace sufficient

to keep them from all sin, as to urge sinners to lay hold of Christ for

justification? May we insist upon the one as really and as honestly as

the other?



4. We see how irrelevant and absurd the objection is, that as a matter

of fact the church has not attained this state, and therefore it is not

attainable. Why, if they have not understood it to be attainable, it no

more disproves its attainableness, than the fact that the heathen have

not embraced the gospel, proves that they will not when they know it. 

Within my memory it was thought to be dangerous to call sinners to

repent and believe the gospel; and on the contrary, they were told by

Calvinists, that they could not repent, that they must wait God's time;

and it was regarded as a dangerous error for a sinner to think that he

could repent. But who does not know, that the thorough inculcation of

an opposite doctrine has brought scores of thousands to repentance? 

Now the same course needs to be pursued with Christians. Instead of

being told, that it is dangerous to expect to be entirely sanctified in this

life, they ought to be taught to believe at once, and take hold on the

promises of perfect love and faith.



5. You see the necessity of fully preaching and insisting upon this

doctrine, and of calling it by its true scriptural name. It is astonishing

to see to what an extent there is a tendency among men to avoid the

use of scriptural language, and to cleave to the language of such men

as Edwards, and other great and good divines. They object to the

terms perfection and entire sanctification, and prefer to use the terms

entire consecration, and such other terms as have been common in

the church.

Now, I would by no means contend about the use of words; but still it

does appear to me to be of great importance, that we use scripture

language, and insist upon men being "perfect as their Father in

heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48), and being "sanctified wholly, body,

soul and spirit" (1 Thess. 5:23). This appears to me to be the more

important for this reason, that if we use the language to which the

church has been accustomed upon this subject, she will, as she has

done, misunderstand us, and will not get before her mind that which

we really mean. That this is so, is manifest from the fact, that the

great mass of the church will express alarm at the use of the terms

perfection and entire sanctification, who will neither express nor feel

any such alarm, if we speak of entire consecration. This

demonstrates, that they do not by any means understand these terms

as meaning the same thing. And although I understand them as

meaning precisely the same thing, yet I find myself obliged to use the

terms perfection and entire sanctification to possess their minds of

their real meaning. This is Bible language. It is unobjectionable

language. And inasmuch as the church understands entire

consecration to mean something less than entire sanctification or

Christian perfection, it does seem to me of great importance, that

ministers should use a phraseology which will call the attention of the

church to the real doctrine of the Bible upon this subject. With great

humility, I would submit the question to my beloved brethren in the

ministry, whether they are not aware, that Christians have entirely too

low an idea of what is implied in entire consecration, and whether it is

not useful and best to adopt a phraseology in addressing them, that

shall call their attention to the real meaning of the words which they

use?



6. Young converts have not been allowed so much as to indulge the

thought that they could live even for a day wholly without sin. They

have as a general thing no more been taught to expect to live even for

a day without sin, than they have been taught to expect immediate

translation, soul and body, to heaven. Of course, they have not known

that there was any other way than to go on in sin; and however

shocking and distressing the necessity has appeared to them, in the

ardor of their first love, still they have looked upon it as an unalterable

fact, that to be in a great measure in bondage to sin is a thing of

course while they live in this world. Now, with such an orthodoxy as

this, with the conviction in the church and ministry so ripe, settled and

universal, that the utmost that the grace of God can do for men in this

world is to bring them to repentance, and to leave them to live and die

in a state of sinning and repenting, is it at all wonderful, that the state

of religion should be as it really has been?



In looking over the results to Christians, of preaching the doctrine in

question, I feel compelled to say, that so far as all observation can go,

I have the same evidence that it is truth, and as such is owned and

blessed of God to the elevation of the holiness of Christians, as I have,

that those are truths which I have so often preached to sinners, and

which have been blessed of God to their conversion. This doctrine

seems as naturally calculated to elevate the piety of Christians, and as

actually to result in the elevation of their piety, under the blessing of

God, as those truths that I have preached to sinners were to their

conversion.



7. Christ has been in a great measure lost sight of in some of His

most important relations to mankind. He has been known and

preached as a pardoning and justifying Savour; but as an actually

indwelling and reigning Savior in the heart, he has been but little

known. I was struck with a remark a few years since, of a brother

whom I have from that time greatly loved, who had been for a time in a

desponding state of mind, borne down with a great sense of his own

vileness, but seeing no way of escape. At an evening meeting the

Lord so revealed Himself to him, as entirely to overcome the strength

of his body, and his brethren were obliged to carry him home. The

next time I saw him, he exclaimed to me with a pathos I shall never

forget, "Brother Finney, the church have buried the Savior." Now it is

no doubt true, that the church have become awfully alienated from

Christ have in a great measure lost a knowledge of what He is, and

ought to be, to her; and a great many of her members, I have good

reason to know, in different parts of the country, are saying with deep

and overpowering emotion, "They have taken away my Lord, and I

know not where they have laid Him" (John 20:13).



8. With all her orthodoxy, the church has been for a long time much

nearer to Unitarianism than she has imagined. This remark may

shock some of my readers, and you may think it savors of

censoriousness. But, beloved, I am sure it is said in no such spirit. 

These are the words of truth and soberness. So little has been known

of Christ, that, if I am not entirely mistaken, there are multitudes in the

orthodox churches, who do not know Christ, and who in heart are

Unitarians, while in theory they are orthodox. They have never known

Christ, in the sense of which I have spoken of Him in these lectures.



I have been, for some years, deeply impressed with the fact, that so

many professors of religion are coming to the ripe conviction that they

never knew Christ. There have been in this place almost continual

developments of this fact; and I doubt, whether there is a minister in

the land who will present Christ as the gospel presents Him, in all the

fullness of his official relations to mankind, who will not be struck and

agonized with developments that will assure him, that the great mass

of professors of religion do not know the Savior. It has been to my

mind a painful and serious question, what I ought to think of the

spiritual state of those who know so little of the Blessed Jesus. That

none of them have been converted, I dare not say. And yet, that they

have been converted, I am afraid to say. I would not for the world

"quench the smoking flax, or break the bruised reed" (Isaiah 42:3), or

say anything to stumble, or weaken the feeblest lamb of Christ; and

yet my heart is sore pained, my soul is sick; my bowels of compassion

yearn over the church of the blessed God. O, the dear church of

Christ! What does she in her present state know of the gospel-rest, of

that "great and perfect peace" (Isaiah 26:3), which they have whose

minds are stayed on God? The church in this place is composed, to a

great extent, of professors of religion from different parts of the world,

who have come hither for educational purposes, and from religious

considerations. And as I said, I have sometimes been appalled at the

disclosures which the Spirit of God has made of the real spiritual state

of many who have come here, and were considered by others before

they came, and by themselves, as truly converted to God.



9. If I am not mistaken, there is an extensive feeling among Christians

and ministers, that much that ought to be known and may be known of

the Savior, is not known. Many are beginning to find that the Savior is

to them "as a root out of a dry ground, having neither form nor

comeliness" (Isaiah 53:2), that the gospel which they preach or hear is

not to them "the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16), from

sin; that it is not to them "glad tidings of great joy" (Luke 1:19), that it is

not to them a peace-giving gospel; and many are feeling that if Christ

has done for them all that His grace is able to do in this life, the plan of

salvation is sadly defective; that Christ is not after all a Savior suited to

their necessities; that the religion which they have is not suited to the

world in which they live; that it does not, cannot make them free, but

leaves them in a state of perpetual bondage. Their souls are

agonized, and tossed to and fro without a resting-place. Multitudes

also are beginning to see, that there are many passages, both in the

Old and the New Testament, which they do not understand; that the

promises seem to mean much more than they have ever realized; and

that the gospel and the plan of salvation, as a whole, must be

something very different from that which they have as yet

apprehended. There are, if I mistake not, great multitudes all over the

country, who are inquiring more earnestly than ever before, after a

knowledge of that Jesus who is to save His people from their sins.



10. If the doctrine of these lectures is true, you see the immense

importance of preaching it clearly and fully, in revivals of religion. 

When the hearts of converts are warm with their first love, then is the

time to make them fully acquainted with their Savior, to hold Him up in

all His offices and relations, so as to break the power of every sin to

lead them to break off forever from all self-dependence, and to receive

Christ as a present, perfect, everlasting Savior, so far as this can

possibly be done with their limited experience.



11. Unless this course be taken, their backsliding is inevitable. You

might as well expect to roll back the waters of Niagara with your hand,

as to stay the tide of their former habitudes of mind, surrounded as

they are with temptation, without a deep, and thorough, and

experimental acquaintance with the Savior. And if they are thrown

upon their own watchfulness and resources, for strength against

temptation, instead of being directed to the Savior, they are certain to

become discouraged, and fall into dismal bondage.



12. But, before I conclude these remarks, I must not omit to notice the

indispensable necessity of a willingness to do the will of God, in order

rightly to understand this doctrine. If a man is unwilling to give up his

sins, to deny himself all ungodliness and every worldly lust, if he is

unwilling to be set apart wholly and forever to the service of the Lord,

he will either reject it as doctrine altogether, or only intellectually admit

it, without receiving it into his heart. It is an eminently dangerous state

of mind to assent to this, or any other doctrine of the gospel, and not

reduce it to practice.



13. Much evil has been done by those who have professedly

embraced this doctrine in theory, and rejected it in practice. Their

spirit and temper have been such as to lead those who saw them to

infer, that the tendency of the doctrine itself was bad. And it is not to

be doubted that some who have professed to have experienced the

power of this doctrine in their hearts, have greatly disgraced religion,

by exhibiting a very different spirit from that of an entirely sanctified

one. But why in a Christian land should this be a stumbling block? 

When the heathen see persons from Christian nations who

professedly adopt the Christian system, exhibit on their shores, and in

their countries, the spirit which many of them do, they infer that this is

the tendency of the Christian religion. To this our missionaries reply,

that they are only nominal Christians, only speculative, not real

believers. Should thousands of our church members go among them,

they would have the same reason to complain; and might reply to the

missionaries, these are not only nominal believers, but profess to have

experienced the Christian religion in their own hearts. Now what

would the missionaries reply? Why, to be sure, that they were

professors of religion; but that they really did not know Christ, that they

were deceiving themselves with a name to live, while in fact they were

dead in trespasses and sins.



It has often been a matter of astonishment to me, that in a Christian

land, it should be a stumbling-block to any, that some, or if you please,

a majority of those who profess to receive and to have experienced

the truth of this doctrine, should exhibit an unchristian spirit. What if

the same objection should be brought against the Christian religion;

against any and every doctrine of the gospel, that the great majority of

all the professed believers and receivers of those doctrines were

proud, worldly, selfish, and exhibited anything but a right spirit? This

objection might be made with truth to the professed Christian church. 

But would the conclusiveness of such an objection be admitted in

Christian lands? Who does not know the ready answer to all such

objections as these, that the doctrines of Christianity do not sanction

such conduct, and that it is not the real belief of them that begets any

such spirit or conduct; that the Christian religion abhors all these

objectionable things. And now suppose it should be replied to this,

that a tree is known by its fruits, and that so great a majority of the

professors of religion could not exhibit such a spirit, unless it were the

tendency of Christianity itself to beget it. Who would not reply to this,

that this state of mind and course of conduct of which they complain, is

the natural state of man uninfluenced by the gospel of Christ; that, in

these instances, on account of unbelief, the gospel has failed to

correct what was already wrong, and that it needed not the influence

of any corrupt doctrine to produce that state of mind? It appears to

me, that these objectors against this doctrine, on account of the fact

that some and perhaps many who have professed to receive it, have

exhibited a wrong spirit, take it for granted that the doctrine produces

this spirit, instead of considering that a wrong spirit is natural to men,

and that the difficulty is that through unbelief, the gospel has failed to

correct what was before wrong. They reason as if they supposed he

human heart needed something to beget within it a bad spirit, and as if

they supposed, that a belief in this doctrine had made men wicked;

instead of recognizing the fact, that they were before wicked, and that

through unbelief the gospel has failed to make them holy.



14. But let it not be understood, that I suppose or admit, that the great

mass who have professed to have received this doctrine into their

hearts, have exhibited a bad spirit. I must say, that it has been

eminently otherwise, so far as my own observation extends. And I am

fully convinced, that if I have ever seen Christianity and the spirit of

Christ in the world, it has been exhibited by those, as a general thing,

who have professed to receive this doctrine into their heart.

15. How amazingly important it is, that the ministry and the church

should come fully to a right understanding and embracing of this

doctrine. O, it will be like life from the dead! The proclamation of it is

now regarded by multitudes as "good tidings of great joy." From every

quarter, we get the gladsome intelligence, that souls are entering into

the deep rest and peace of the gospel, that they are awaking to a life

of faith and love and that, instead of sinking down into antinomianism,

they are eminently more benevolent, active, holy and useful than ever

before; that they are eminently more prayerful, watchful, diligent,

meek, sober-minded, and heavenly in all their lives. This is the

character of those, to a very great extent, at least, with whom I have

been acquainted, who have embraced this doctrine, and professed to

have experienced its power. I say this for no other reason, than to

relieve the anxieties of those who have heard very strange reports,

and whose honest fears have been awakened in regard to the

tendency of this doctrine.



16. Much pains have been taken to demonstrate, that our views of

this subject are wrong. But in all the arguing to this end hitherto, there

has been one grand defect. None of the opponents of this doctrine

have yet showed us "a more excellent way, and told us what is right"

(1 Cor. 12:31). It is certainly impossible to ascertain what is wrong, on

any moral subject, unless we have before us the standard of right. 

The mind must certainly be acquainted with the rule of right, before it

can reasonably pronounce anything wrong: "for by the law is the

knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). It is therefore certainly absurd, for

the opponents of the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, to

pronounce this doctrine wrong without being able to show us what is

right. To what purpose, then, I pray, do they argue, who insist upon

this view of the subject as wrong, while they do not so much as

attempt to tell us what is right? It cannot be pretended, that the

scriptures teach nothing upon this subject. And the question is, what

do they teach? We therefore call upon the denouncers of this

doctrine, and we think the demand reasonable, to inform us definitely,

how holy Christians may be, and are expected to be in this life. And it

should be distinctly understood, that until they bring forward the rule

laid down in the scripture upon this subject, it is but arrogance to

pronounce anything wrong; just as if they should pronounce anything

to be sin without comparing it with the standard of right. Until they

inform us what the scriptures do teach, we must beg leave to be

excused from supposing ourselves obliged to believe, that what is

taught in these lectures is wrong, or contrary to the language and spirit

of inspiration. This is certainly a question that ought not to be thrown

loosely aside, without being settled. The thing at which we aim is, to

establish a definite rule, or to explain what we suppose to be the real

and explicit teachings of the Bible upon this point. And we do think it

absurd, that the opponents of this view should attempt to convince us

of error, without so much as attempting to show what the truth upon

this subject is. As if we could easily enough decide what is contrary to

right, without possessing any knowledge of right. We therefore

beseech our brethren, In discussing this subject, to show us what is

right. And if this is not the truth, to show us a more excellent way, and

convince us that we are wrong, by showing us what is right. For we

have no hope of ever seeing that we are wrong, until we can see that

something else than what is advocated in this discussion, is right.



17. But before I close my remarks upon this subject, I must not fail to

state what I regard as the present duty of Christians. It is to hold their

will in a state of consecration to God, and to lay hold on the promises

for the blessing promised in such passages as: "And the very God of

peace sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul,

and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ; faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it" (1 Thess. 5:23,

24). This is present duty. Let them wait on the Lord in faith, for that

cleansing of the whole being which they need, to confirm, strengthen,

settle them. All they can do, and all that God requires them to do, is to

obey Him from moment to moment, and to lay hold of Him for the

blessing of which we have been speaking; and to be assured, that

God will bring forth the answer in the best time and in the best

manner. If you believe, the anointing that abideth will surely be

secured in due time. ----------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 43



ELECTION



In discussing this subject, 



I shall notice some points in which there is a general agreement

among all denominations of Christians respecting the natural and

moral attributes of God.



1. It is agreed that eternity is a natural attribute of God in the sense

that He grows no older. He was just as old before the world or

universe was made, as He is now, or as He will be at the day of

judgment.



2. It is agreed that omniscience is an attribute of God, in the sense

that He knows from a necessity of His infinite nature all things that are

objects of knowledge.



3. That He has necessarily and eternally possessed this knowledge,

so that He never has, and never can have, any accession to His

knowledge. Every possible thing that ever was, or will be, or can be

an object of knowledge, has been necessarily and eternally known to

God. If this were not true, God would be neither infinite nor

omniscient.



4. It is agreed also that God exercises an universal providence,

embracing all events that ever did or ever will occur in all worlds. 

Some of these events He secures by His own agency, and others

occur under His providence, in the sense that He permits or suffers

them to occur rather than interpose to prevent them. They may be

truly said to occur under His providence, because His plan of

government in some sense embraces them all. He made provision to

secure those that are good, that is, the holy intentions of moral agents,

and to overrule for good those that are evil, that is, the selfish

intentions of moral agents. These intentions are events, and may be

said to occur under Divine Providence, because all events that do, or

ever will, occur, are and must be foreseen results of God's own

agency, or of the work of creation.



5. It is agreed that infinite benevolence is the sum of the moral

attributes of God.



6. That God is both naturally and morally immutable; that in His

natural attributes He is necessarily so, and in His moral attributes is

certainly so.



7. It is agreed that all who are converted, sanctified and saved, are

converted, sanctified, and saved by God's own agency; that is, God

saves them by securing, by His own agency, their personal and

individual holiness.



What the Bible doctrine of election is not.



1. The Bible doctrine of election is not that any are chosen to

salvation, in such a sense, that they will or can be saved without

repentance, faith, and sanctification.



2. Nor is it that some are chosen to salvation, in such a sense, that

they will be saved irrespective of their being regenerated, and

persevering in holiness to the end of life. The Bible most plainly

teaches, that these are naturally indispensable conditions of salvation,

and of course election cannot dispense with them.



3. Nor is it that any are chosen to salvation for, or on account of their

own foreseen merits, or good works. "Who hath saved us, and called

us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His

own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the

world began" (2 Tim. 1:9). The foreseen fact, that by the wisest

governmental arrangement God could convert and sanctify and fit

them for heaven, must have been a condition in the sense of a sine

qua non, of their election to salvation, but could not have been the

fundamental reason for it, as we shall see. God did not elect them to

salvation, for or on account of their foreseen good works, but upon

condition of their foreseen repentance, faith and perseverance.



4. The Bible doctrine of election is not that God elected some to

salvation, upon such conditions that it is really uncertain whether they

will comply with those conditions, and be finally saved. The Bible does

not leave the question of the final salvation of the elect as a matter of

real uncertainty. This we shall see in its place. The elect were chosen

to salvation, upon condition that God foresaw that He could secure

their repentance, faith, and final perseverance.



What the Bible doctrine of election is.



It is, that all of Adam's race, who are or ever will be saved, were from

eternity chosen by God to eternal salvation, through the sanctification

of their hearts by faith in Christ. In other words, they are chosen to

salvation by means of sanctification. Their salvation is the end their

sanctification is a means. Both the end and the means are elected,

appointed, chosen; the means as really as the end, and for the sake of

the end. The election of some individuals and nations to certain

privileges, and to do certain things, is not the kind of election of which I

treat at this time; but I am to consider the doctrine of election as it

respects election unto salvation, as just explained.



I am to prove the doctrine as I have stated it to be true.



1. It is plainly implied in the teaching of the Bible: the Bible

everywhere assumes and implies the truth of this doctrine just as

might be expected, since it so irresistibly follows from the known and

admitted attributes of God. Instead of formally revealing it as a truth

unknown to, or unknowable by, the human reason, the scriptures in a

great variety of ways speak of the elect, of election, etc., as a truth

known by irresistible inference from His known attributes. To deny it

involves a denial of the attributes of God. I have been surprised at the

labored and learned efforts to show that this doctrine is not expressly

taught in the Bible. Suppose it were not, what then? Other truths are

taught and reason irresistibly affirms truths, from which the doctrine of

election, as I have stated it, must follow. It is common for the inspired

writers to treat truths of this class in the same manner in which this is,

for the most part, treated. Suppose it were possible so to explain

every passage of scripture as that no one of them should

unequivocally assert the doctrine in question, this would be to no

purpose; the doctrine would still be irresistibly inferrible from the

attributes of God. It would still be true, that the Bible assumes the

truth of the doctrine, and incidentally speaks of it as a truth of reason,

and as following of course from the attributes of God. It is thus treated

throughout the entire scriptures. The Bible as really assumes the truth

of this doctrine, as it does the existence of God. It asserts it just as it

does the attributes of God. The learned and labored efforts to show

that this doctrine is not expressly asserted in the Bible, are of no value,

since it would follow as a certain truth from the attributes of God, and

from the revealed facts, that some will be saved, and that God will

save them, even had the Bible been silent on the subject. I shall

therefore only introduce a few passages for the purpose of showing

that the inspired writers repeatedly recognize the truth of this doctrine,

and thus preserve their own consistency. But I shall not attempt by

labored criticism to prove it from scripture, for reasons just mentioned.



"So the last shall be first, and the first last, for many be called, but few

chosen" (Matt. 20:16).



"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be

saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened" (Matt.

24:22).



"I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen" (John 8:18).



"Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,

that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should

remain; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in My name, He

may give it you. If ye were of the world, the world would love His own;

but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the

world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:16, 19).



"And we know that all things work together for good for them that love

God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom

He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the

image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many

brethren" (Romans 8:28-29).



"And not only this, but when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by

our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having

done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election

might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.) It was said unto her,

The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved,

but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there

unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses, I will

have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on

whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:10-15).



"Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the

election of grace. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he

seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were

blinded" (Romans 11:5, 7).



"According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the

world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. In

whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated

according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the

counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:4, 11).



"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God" (1 Thess. 1:4).



"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by

our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9).



"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren

beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you

to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth"

(2 Thess. 2:13).



"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through

sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood

of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:2).



"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of

the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the

earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the book of life

from the foundation of the world), when they behold the beast that

was, and is not, and yet is" (Rev. 17:8). This doctrine is expressly

asserted, or indirectly assumed and implied in every part of the Bible,

and in ways and instances too numerous to be quoted in these

lectures. The above are only specimens of the scripture treatment of

this subject.



2. It is plainly the doctrine of reason.

(1.) It is admitted that God by His own agency secures the

conversion, sanctification, and salvation of all that ever were or will be

saved.



(2.) Whatever volitions or actions God puts forth to convert and save

men, He puts forth designing to secure that end; that is, He does it in

accordance with a previous design to do as and what He does. This

must be an universal truth, to wit, that whatever God does for the

salvation of men, He does with the design to secure the salvation of all

who ever will be saved, or of all whose salvation He foresees that He

can secure, and with the certain knowledge that He shall secure their

salvation. He also does much for the non-elect, in the sense of using

such means with them as might secure, and ought to secure, their

salvation. But as He knows He shall not succeed in securing their

salvation, on account of their voluntary and persevering wickedness, it

cannot be truly said, that He uses these means with design to save

them, but for other, and good, and wise reasons. Although He

foresees, that He cannot secure their salvation because of their wilful

and persevering unbelief, yet He sees it important under His

government to manifest a readiness to save them, and to use such

means as He wisely can to save them, and such as will ultimately be

seen to leave them wholly without excuse.



But with respect to those whom He foresees that He can and shall

save, it must be true, since He is a good being, that He uses means

for their salvation, with the design to save them. And since, as we

have seen, He is an omniscient being, He must use these means, not

only with a design to save them, but also with the certainty that He

shall save them. With respect to them, He uses these means for the

sake of this end; that is, for the sake of their salvation.



(3.) But if God ever chooses to save any human beings, He must

always have chosen to do so, or else He has changed. If He now has,

or ever will have, any design about it, He must always have had this

design; for He never has, and never can have, any new design. If He

ever does, or will, elect any human being to salvation, He must always

have chosen or elected him, or He has, or will form some new

purpose, which is inconsistent with His immutability.



(4.) If He will ever know who will be saved, He must always have

known it, or He will obtain some new knowledge, which is contrary to

His omniscience.



(5.) We are told by Christ, that at the day of judgment He will say to

the righteous, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom

prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34), that

is, from eternity. Now, has the Judge at that time any new knowledge

or design respecting those individuals? Certainly not.



(6.) Since God of necessity eternally knew all about the elect that will

ever be true, He must of necessity have chosen something in respect

to them; for it is naturally impossible, that He should have had no

choice about, or in respect to, them and their salvation.



(7.) Since God must of necessity from eternity have had some choice

in respect to their salvation, it follows, that He must have chosen that

they should be saved, or that He would not use such means as He

foresaw would save them. If He chose not to use those means that

He foresaw would save them, but afterwards saves them, He has

changed, which is contrary to His immutability. If He always chose

that they should be saved, this is the very thing for which we are

contending.



(8.) It must therefore be true, that all whom God will ever save were

from eternity chosen to salvation by Him; and since He saves them by

means of sanctification, and does this designedly, it must be that this

also was eternally designed or intended by Him.



To deny the doctrine of election, therefore, involves a denial of the

attributes of God.



(9.) It must also be true, that God foreknew all that ever will be true of

the non-elect, and must have eternally had some design respecting

their final destiny. And also that He has from eternity had the same,

and the only design that He ever will have in respect to them. But this

will come up for consideration in its place.



What could not have been the reasons for election.



1. It is admitted that God is infinitely benevolent and wise.



It must follow that election is founded in some reason or reasons; and

that these reasons are good and sufficient; reasons that rendered it

obligatory upon God to choose just as He did, in election. Assuming,

as we must, that God is wise and good, we are safe in affirming that

He could have had none but benevolent reasons for His election of

some to eternal life in preference to others. Hence we are bound to

affirm, that election was not based upon, nor does it imply partiality in

God, in any bad sense of that term. Partiality in any being, consists in

preferring one to another without any good or sufficient reason, or in

opposition to good and sufficient reasons. It being admitted that God

is infinitely wise and good, it follows, that He cannot be partial; that He

cannot have elected some to eternal salvation and passed others by,

without some good and sufficient reason. That is, He cannot have

done it arbitrarily. The great objection that is felt and urged by

opposers of this doctrine is, that it implies partiality in God, and

represents Him as deciding the eternal destiny of moral agents by an

arbitrary sovereignty. But this objection is a sheer and altogether

unwarrantable assumption. It assumes, that God could have had no

good and sufficient reasons for the election. It has been settled, that

good is the end upon which God set His heart; that is, the highest

well-being of Himself and the universe of creatures. This end must be

accomplished by means. If God is infinitely wise and good, He must

have chosen the best practicable means. But He has chosen the best

means for that end, and there can be no partiality in that.



In support of the assumption, that election implies partiality, and the

exercise of an arbitrary sovereignty in God, it has been affirmed, that

there might have been divers systems of means for securing the same

end in every respect equal to each other; that is, that no reason

existed for preferring any one, to many others; that therefore in

choosing the present, God must have been partial, or must have

exercised an arbitrary sovereignty. To this I answer:



(1.) There is no ground for the assumption, that there are or can be

divers systems of means of precisely equal value in all respects, in

such a sense, that there could have been no good reason for

preferring one to the other.



(2.) I reply, that if there were divers such systems, choosing the one,

and not any other, would not imply preference. Choice of any one in

such case must have proceeded upon the following ground; to wit, the

value of the end demanded, that one should be chosen. There being

no difference between the various systems of means, God chooses

one without reference to the other, and makes no choice respecting it,

any more than if it did not exist. He must choose one, He has no

reason for preference, and consequently He cannot prefer one to the

offer. His benevolence leads Him to choose one because the end

demands it. He therefore takes any one of many exact equals,

indifferently, without preferring it to any of the others. This implies no

partiality in God in any bad sense of the term. For upon the

supposition, He was shut up to the necessity of choosing one among

many exact equals. If He is partial in choosing the one He does, He

would have been equally so had He chosen any other. If this is

partiality, it is a partiality arising out of the necessity of the case, and

cannot imply anything objectionable in God.



That there is no preference in this case is plain, because there is no

ground or reason for preference whatever, according to the

supposition. But there can be no choice or preference, when there is

absolutely no reason for the choice or preference. We have seen on a

former occasion, that the reason that determines choice, or the reason

in view of which, or in obedience to which, or for the sake of which, the

mind chooses, and the object or end chosen, are identical. When

there is absolutely no reason for a choice, there is absolutely no object

of choice, nothing to choose, and of course there can be no choice. 

Choice must have an object; that is, choice must terminate upon

something. If choice exists, something must be chosen. If there are

divers systems of means, between which there is no possible ground

of preference, there can absolutely be no such thing as preferring one

to the other, for this would be the same as to choose without any

object of choice, or without choosing anything, which is a contradiction.



If it be said, that there may be absolutely no difference in the system

of means, so far as the accomplishment of the end is concerned, but

that one may be preferred or preferable to another, on some other

account, I ask on what other account? According to the supposition, it

is only valued or regarded as an object of choice at all, because of its

relation to the end. God can absolutely choose it only as a means, a

condition, or an end; for all choice must respect these. The inquiry

now respects means. Now, if as a means, there is absolutely no

difference between diverse systems in their relation to the end, and

the value of the end is the sole reason for choosing them, it follows,

that to prefer one to another is a natural impossibility. But one must

be chosen for the sake of the end, it matters not which; any one is

taken indifferently so far as others are concerned. This is no partiality,

and no exercise of arbitrary sovereignty in any objectionable sense.



But as I said, there is no ground for the assumption, that there are

various systems of means for accomplishing the great end of

benevolence in all respects equal. There must have been a best way,

a best system, and if God is infinitely wise and good, He must have

chosen that for that reason; and this is as far as possible from

partiality. Neither we nor any other creature may be able now to

discover any good reasons for preferring the present to any other

system, or for electing those who are elected, in preference to any

other. Nevertheless, such reasons must have been apparent to the

Divine mind, or no such election could have taken place.



2. Election was not an exercise of arbitrary sovereignty. By arbitrary

sovereignty is intended the choosing and acting from mere will, without

consulting moral obligation or the public good. It is admitted that God

is infinitely wise and good. It is therefore impossible that He should

choose or act arbitrarily in any case whatever. He must have good

and sufficient reasons for every choice and every act.



Some seem to have represented God, in the purpose or act of

election, as electing some and not others, merely because He could or

would, or in other words, to exhibit His own sovereignty, without any

other reasons than because so He would have it. But it is impossible

for God to act arbitrarily, or from any but a good and sufficient reason;

that is, it is impossible for Him to do so, and continue to be benevolent. 

We have said that God has one, and but one end in view; that is, He

does, and says, and suffers all for one and the same reason, namely,

to promote the highest good of being. He has but one ultimate end,

and all His volitions are only efforts to secure that end. The highest

well-being of the universe, including His own, is the end on which His

supreme and ultimate choice terminates. All His volitions are designed

to secure this end, and in all things He is and must be directed by His

infinite intelligence, in respect not only to His ultimate end, but also in

the choice and use of the means of accomplishing this end. It is

impossible that this should not be true, if He is good. In election then

He cannot possibly have exercised any arbitrary sovereignty, but must

have had the best of reasons for the election. His intelligence must

have had good reasons for the choice of some and not of others to

salvation, and have affirmed His obligation in view of those reasons to

elect just as and whom He did. So good must the reasons have been,

that to have done otherwise, would have been sin in Him; that is, to

have done otherwise would not have been wise and good.



3. Election was not based on a foreseen difference in the moral

character of the elect and the non-elect, previous to regeneration. The

Bible everywhere affirms, that, previous to regeneration, all men have

precisely the same character, and possess one common heart or

disposition, that this character is that of total moral depravity. God did

not choose some to salvation because He foresaw that they would be

less depraved and guilty, previous to regeneration, than the non-elect. 

Paul was one of the elect, yet he affirms himself to have been the chief

of sinners. We often see, and this has been common in every age, the

most outwardly abandoned and profligate converted and saved.



The reason of election is not found in the fact, that God foresaw that

some would be more readily converted than others. We often see

those who are converted hold out for a long time in great obstinacy

and rebellion, while God brings to bear upon them a great variety of

means and influences, and takes much more apparent pains to

convert them than He does to convert many others who are, as well as

those who are not, converted. There is reason to believe, that if the

same means were used with those who are not converted that are

used with those who are, many who are not converted would be. It

may not be wise in God to use the same means for the non-elect, and

if He should, they might, or might not be saved by them. God often

uses means that to us seem more powerful to convert the non-elect

than are used to convert many of the elect. This is fully implied in

Matt. 11:20-24. The fact is, He must have some reason aside from

their characters for stubbornness or otherwise, for electing them to

salvation.



What must have been the reasons for election.



1. We have seen that God is infinitely wise and good. From the

wisdom and goodness of God, it follows, that He must have chosen

some good end, and must have had some plan, or system of means,

to secure it. The end, we know, is the good of being. The means, we

know from reason and revelation, include election in the sense

explained. It follows, that the fundamental reason for election was the

highest good of the universe. That is, the best system of means for

securing the great end of benevolence, included the election of just

those who were elected, and no others. This has been done by the

wisdom and benevolence of God. It follows, that the highest good

demanded it. All choice must respect ends, or conditions and means. 

God has, and can have, but one ultimate end. All other choices or

volitions must respect means. The choice or election of certain

persons to eternal salvation, etc., must have been founded in the

reason, that the great end of benevolence demanded it.



2. It is very easy to see, that under a moral government, it might be

impossible so to administer law, as to secure the perpetual and

universal obedience of all. It is also easy to see, that under a remedial

system, or system of grace, it might be impossible to secure the

repentance and salvation of all. God must have foreseen all possible

and actual results. He must have foreseen how many, and whom He

could save by the wisest and best possible arrangement, all things

considered. The perfect wisdom and benevolence of God being

granted, it follows, that we are bound to regard the present system of

means as the best, all things considered, that He could adopt for the

promotion of the great end of His government, or the great end of

benevolence. The fact, that the wisest and best system of government

would secure the salvation of those who are elected, must have been

a condition of their being elected. As God does everything for the

same ultimate reason, it follows, that the intrinsic value of their

salvation was His ultimate end, and that their salvation in particular

must have been of greater relative value in promoting the highest good

of the universe at large, and the glory of God, than would have been

that of others; so that the intrinsic value of the salvation of those

elected in particular, the fact that by the wisest arrangement He could

save them in particular, and the paramount good to be promoted by it,

must have been the reasons for election.



When the election was made.



1. Not when the elect are converted. It is admitted, that God is

omniscient, and has known all things from eternity as really and as

perfectly as He ever will. It is also admitted, that God is

unchangeable, and consequently has no new plans, designs, or

choices. He must have had all the reasons He ever will have for

election, from eternity, because He always has had all the knowledge

of all events that He ever will have; consequently He always or from

eternity chose in respect to all events just as He always will. There

never can be any reason for change in the Divine mind, for He never

will have any new views of any subject. The choice which constitutes

election, then, must be an eternal choice.



2. Thus the scriptures represent it.



"According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the

world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love"

(Eph. 1:4).



"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good

works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them"

(Eph. 2:10).



"Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according

to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was

given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim. 1:9).



"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of

the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the

earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the book of life

from the foundation of the world), when they behold the beast that

was, and is not, and yet is" (Rev. 17:8).



This language means from eternity, beyond question.



3. But the question will arise, was election in the order of nature

subsequent to, or did it precede the Divine foreknowledge. The

answer to this plainly is, that in the order of nature what could be

wisely done must have been foreseen before it was determined what

should be done. And what should be done must, in the order of

nature, have preceded the knowledge of what would be done. So that

in the order of nature, foreknowledge of what could be wisely done

preceded election, and foreknowledge of what would be done,

followed or was subsequent to election. 



   In other words, God must have known whom He could wisely

save, prior, in the order of nature, to His determination to save them. 

But His knowing who would be saved must have been, in the order of

nature, subsequent to His election or determination to save them, and

dependent upon that determination.

  

  Election does not render means for the salvation of the elect

unnecessary.



  We have seen that the elect are chosen to salvation through the

use of means. Since they are chosen to be saved by means, they

cannot be saved in any other way or without them.

  

  Election is the only ground of hope in the success of means.



  1. No means are of any avail unless God gives them efficiency.



  2. If God gives them efficiency in any case, it is, and will be, in

accordance with, and in execution of, His election.



  3. It follows that election is the only ground of rational hope in the

use of means to effect the salvation of any.



  Election does not pose any obstacle to the salvation of the

non-elect.



  1. God has taken care to bring salvation within the reach of all, and

to make it possible to all.



  2. He sincerely offers to save all, and does all to save all that He

wisely can.



  3. His saving some is no discouragement to others, but should

rather encourage them to lay hold on eternal life.



  4. The election of some is no bar to the salvation of others.



  5. Those who are not elected may be saved, if they will but comply

with the conditions, which they are able to do.



  6. God sincerely calls, and ministers may sincerely call on the

non-elect to lay hold on salvation.



  7. There is no injury or injustice done to the non-elect by the

election of others. Has not God "a right to do what He will with His

own?" If He offers salvation to all upon terms the most reasonable,

and if He does all He wisely can for the salvation of all, shall some

complain if God, in doing for all what He wisely can, secures the

salvation of some and not of others?

  

  There is no injustice in election.

  

  God was under obligation to no one He might in perfect justice

have sent all mankind to hell. The doctrine of election will damn no

one: by treating the non-elect according to their deserts, He does them

no injustice; and surely His exercising grace in the salvation of the

elect, is no act of injustice to the non-elect; and especially will this

appear to be true, if we take into consideration the fact, that the only

reason why the non-elect will not be saved is, because they

pertinaciously refuse salvation. He offers mercy to all. The atonement

is sufficient for all. All may come, and are under an obligation to be

saved. He strongly desires their salvation, and does all that He wisely

can to save them. Why then should the doctrine of election be thought

unjust? *[See note at end of Lecture.]

  

  This is the best that could be done for the inhabitants of this world.

  

  It is reasonable to infer from the infinite benevolence of God, that

His present government will secure a greater amount of good than

could have been secured under any other mode of administration. 

This is as certain as that infinite benevolence must prefer a greater to

a less good. To suppose that God would prefer a mode of

administration that would secure a less good than could have been

secured under some other mode, would manifestly be to accuse Him

of a want of benevolence. It is doubtless true that He could so vary

the course of events as to save other individuals than those He does;

to convert more in one particular neighborhood, or family, or nation, or

at one particular time; or it may be a greater number upon the whole

than He does. It would not follow that He does not secure the greater

good upon the whole.

  Suppose there is a man in this town, who has so strongly

entrenched himself in error, that there is but one man in all the land

who is so acquainted with his refuge of lies as to be able to answer his

objections, and drive him from his hiding-places. Now, it is possible,

that if this individual could be brought in contact with him, he might be

converted; yet if he is employed in some distant part of the vineyard,

his removal from that field of labor to this town, might not, upon the

whole, be most for the glory of God's kingdom; and more might fail of

salvation through his removal here, than would be converted by such

removal. God has in view the good of His whole kingdom. He works

upon a vast and comprehensive scale. He has no partialities for

individuals, but moves forward in the administration of His government

with his eye upon the general good, designing to secure the greatest

amount of happiness within His kingdom that can be secured by the

wisest possible arrangement, and administration of His government.

  

  How we may ascertain our own election.

  

  Those of the elect that are already converted, are known by their

character and conduct. They have evidence of their election in their

obedience to God. Those that are unconverted may settle the

question each one for himself, whether he is elected or not, so as to

have the most satisfactory evidence whether he is of that happy

number. If you will now submit yourselves to God, you may have

evidence that you are elected. But every hour you put off submission,

increases the evidence that you are not elected.



  Every sinner under the gospel has it within his power to accept or

reject salvation. The elect can know their election only by accepting

the offered gift. The non-elect can know their non-election only by the

consciousness of a voluntary rejection of offered life. If any one fears

that he is one of the non-elect, let him at once renounce his unbelief,

and cease to reject salvation, and the ground of fear and complaint

instantly falls away.

  

  Inferences and remarks.

  

  1. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free

agency. The elect were chosen to eternal life, upon condition that God

foresaw that in the perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be

induced to repent and embrace the gospel.



  2. You see why many persons are opposed to the doctrine of

election, and try to explain it away; 1st, they misunderstand it, and

2nd, they deduce unwarrantable inferences from it. They suppose it to

mean, that the elect will be saved at all events, whatever their conduct

may be; and again, they infer from the doctrine that there is no

possibility of the salvation of the non-elect. The doctrine, as they

understand it, would be an encouragement to the elect to persevere in

sin, knowing that their salvation was sure, and their inference would

drive the non-elect to desperation, on the ground that for them to

make efforts to be saved would be of no avail. But both the doctrine,

as they understand it, and the inference, are false. For election does

not secure the salvation of the elect irrespective of their character and

conduct; nor, as we have seen, does it throw any obstacle in the way

of the salvation of the non-elect.



  3. This view of the subject affords no ground for presumption on

the one hand, nor for despair upon the other. No one can justly say, If

I am to be saved I shall be saved, do what I will. Nor can any one say,

If I am to be damned I shall be damned, do what I will. But the

question is left, so far as they are concerned, as a matter of entire

contingency. Sinners, your salvation or damnation is as absolutely

suspended upon your own choice, as if God neither knew nor

designed anything about it.



  4. This doctrine lays no foundation for a controversy with God. But

on the other hand, it does lay a broad foundation for gratitude, both on

the part of the elect and non-elect. The elect certainly have great

reason for thankfulness, that they are thus distinguished. Oh, what a

thought, to have your name written in the book of life, to be chosen of

God an heir of eternal salvation, to be adopted into His family, to be

destined to enjoy His presence, and to bathe your soul in the

boundless ocean of His love for ever and ever! Now are the non-elect

without obligations of thankfulness. You ought to be grateful, if any of

your brethren of the human family are saved. If all were lost, God

would be just. And if any of this dying world receive the gift of eternal

life, you ought to be grateful, and render everlasting thanks to God.



  5. The non-elect often enjoy as great or greater privileges than the

elect. Many men have lived and died under the sound of the gospel,

have enjoyed all the means of salvation during a long life, and have at

last died in their sins, while others have been converted upon their first

hearing the gospel of God. Nor is this difference owing to the fact, that

the elect always have more of the strivings of the Spirit than the

non-elect. Many who die in their sins, appear to have had conviction

for a great part of their lives; have often been deeply impressed with a

strong sense of their sins and the value of their souls, but have

strongly entrenched themselves under refuges of lies, have loved the

world and hated God, and fought their way through all the obstacles

that were thrown around them to hedge up their way to death, and

have literally forced their passage to the gates of hell. Sin was their

voluntary choice.



  6. Why should the doctrine of election be made a stumbling-block

in the way of sinners? In nothing else do they make the same use of

the purposes and designs of God, as they do on the subject of religion;

and yet, in everything else, God's purposes and designs are as much

settled, and have as absolute an influence. God has as certainly

designed the day and circumstances of your death, as whether your

soul shall be saved. It is not only expressly declared in the Bible, but

is plainly the doctrine of reason. What would you say if you should be

called in to see a neighbor who was sick; and, on inquiry, you should

find he would neither eat nor drink, and that he was verily starving

himself to death. On expostulating with him upon his conduct,

suppose he should calmly reply, that he believed in the sovereignty of

God, in foreknowledge, election and decrees; that his days were

numbered, that the time and circumstances of his death were settled,

that he could not die before his time, and that all efforts he could make

would not enable him to live a moment beyond his time; and if you

attempted to remonstrate against his inference, and such an abuse

and perversion of the doctrine of decrees, he should accuse you of

being a heretic, of not believing in divine sovereignty. Now, should

you see a man on worldly subjects reasoning and acting thus, you

would pronounce him insane. Should farmers, mechanics, and

merchants, reason in this way in regard to their worldly business, they

would be considered fit subjects for bedlam.



  7. How forcibly the perversion and abuse of this doctrine illustrate

the madness of the human heart, and its utter opposition to the terms

of salvation! The fact that God foreknows, and has designs in regard

to every other event, is not made an excuse for remaining idle, or

worse than idle, on these subjects. But where men's duty to God is

concerned, and here alone, they seize these scriptures, and wrest

them to their own destruction. How impressively does this fact bring

out the demonstration, that sinners want an excuse for disobeying

God; that they desire an apology for living in sin; that they seek an

occasion for making war upon their Maker.



  8. I have said, that the question is as much open for your decision,

that you are left as perfectly to the exercise of your freedom, as if God

neither knew or designed anything in regard to your salvation. 

Suppose there was a great famine in New York city, and that John

Jacob Astor alone had provisions in great abundance; that he was a

benevolent and liberal-minded man, and willing to supply the whole

city with provisions, free of expense; and suppose there existed a

universal and most unreasonable prejudice against him, insomuch that

when he advertised in the daily papers that his storehouses were

open, that whosoever would, might come and receive provisions,

without money and without price, they all, with one accord, began to

make excuse, and obstinately refused to accept the offers. Now,

suppose that he should employ all the cartmen to carry provisions

around the city, and stop at every door. But still they strengthened

each other's hands, and would rather die than be indebted to him for

food. Many had said so much against him, that they were utterly

ashamed to feel and acknowledge their dependence upon him. 

Others were so much under their influence as to be unwilling to offend

them; and so strong was the tide of public sentiment, that no one had

the moral courage to break loose from the multitude and accept of life. 

Now, suppose that Mr. Astor knew beforehand the state of the public

mind, and that all the citizens hated him, and had rather die than be

indebted to him for food. Suppose he also knew, from the beginning,

that there were certain arguments that he could bring to bear upon

certain individuals, that would change their minds, and that he should

proceed to press them with these considerations, until they had given

up their opposition, had most thankfully accepted his provisions, and

were saved from death. Suppose he used all the arguments and

means that he wisely could to persuade the rest, but that,

notwithstanding all his benevolent efforts, they adhered to the

resolution, and preferred death to submission to his proposals. 

Suppose, further, he had perfect knowledge from the beginning, of the

issue of this whole matter, would not the question of life and death be

as entirely open for the decision of every individual as if he knew

nothing about it?



  9. Some may ask, Why does God use means with the non-elect,

which He is certain they will not accept? I answer, because He

designs that they shall be without excuse. He will demonstrate His

willingness and their obstinacy before the universe. He will stop their

mouths effectually in judgment by a full offer of salvation; and although

He knows that their rejection of the offer will only enhance their guilt,

and aggravate their deep damnation, still He will make the offer, as

there is no other way in which to illustrate His infinite willingness to

save them, and their perverse rejection of His grace.



  10. Lastly, God requires you to give all diligence to make your

calling and election sure. In choosing His elect, you must understand

that He has thrown the responsibility of their being saved upon them;

that the whole is suspended upon their consent to the terms; you are

all perfectly able to give your consent and this moment to lay hold on

eternal life. Irrespective of your own choice, no election could save

you, and no reprobation can damn you. The "Spirit and the Bride say

Come: let him that heareth say, Come; let him that is athirst come; and

whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). The

responsibility is yours. God does all that He wisely can, and

challenges you to show what more He could do that He has not done. 

If you go to hell, you must go stained with your own blood. God is

clear, angels are clear. To your own Master you stand or fall; mercy

waits; the Spirit strives; Jesus stands at the door and knocks. Do not

then pervert this doctrine, and make it an occasion of stumbling, till

you are in the depths of hell.



  * To this paragraph it has been objected as follows: "Can it be

said, that the only reason why the non-elect are not saved is their

rejection of salvation, etc? Is there not a reason back of this? God

does not give that gracious influence in their case, which He does in

the case of the elect. If the only reason why the non-elect are not

saved is their pertinacious refusal, then it would follow that the only

reason why the elect are saved, is their acceptance of salvation. If

these two points are so, then why all this discussion about election to

salvation, and the means to that end, and God's reason for electing? 

The whole matter would resolve itself into free will, and God would

stand quite independent of the issue in every case. Then would there

be no such thing as election." The objection contains a non sequitur.



  I say, the only reason why the non-elect are not saved, is because

they pertinaciously refuse salvation. But if this is true, he says, "it will

follow that the only reason why the elect are saved, is their acceptance

of salvation. But this does not follow. The non-elect fail of salvation

only because they resist all the grace that God can wisely bestow

upon them. This grace they resist, and fail of salvation. It is no more

reasonable to say, that God's not giving them more divine influence to

convert them "is a reason back of this," than it would be to say that His

not having by a gracious influence, restrained them from sin

altogether, is "a reason back of" their pertinacious resistance of grace. 

If the non-elect are lost, or fail of salvation only because they resist all

the grace that God can wisely bestow, it would not follow that the only

reason why the elect are saved, is because they accept, or yield to the

same measure of gracious influence as that bestowed upon the

non-elect, for it may be, and in many cases the fact is, that God does

bestow more gracious influence on the elect, than on the non-elect,

because He can wisely do so. Here then is a plain non sequitur. 

Observe, I am writing in the paragraph in question upon the justice of

the divine proceeding. I say, that so far as this is concerned, he fails

of salvation, not because God withholds the grace that He could wisely

bestow, but only because he rejects the grace proffered, and all that

can be wisely proffered.



  If I understand this objector, there is another non sequitur in his

objection. I understand him to say, that upon the supposition that the

elect and the non-elect have the same measure of gracious influence,

and that the reason why the elect are saved, and the non-elect not

saved is, that the elect yield to, and the non-elect resist this influence;

the whole question resolves into free will, and there is no election

about it. If this is his meaning, as I think it must be, it is a plain non

sequitur. Suppose God foresaw that this would be so, and in view of

this foreseen fact elected those who He foresaw would yield both to

the privileges and gracious influence to which He foresaw they would

yield, and to salvation as a consequence of this influence and yielding. 

And suppose He foresaw that the non-elect, although ordained or

elected to enjoy the same measure of gracious influence, would resist

and reject salvation, and for this cause rejected or reprobated them in

His eternal purpose. Would not this be election? To be sure, in this

case the different results would turn upon the fact that the elect

yielded, and the non-elect did not yield, to the same measure of

gracious influence. But there would be an election of the one to

eternal life, and a rejection of the other. I cannot see how this objector

can say, that in this case there could be no election, unless in his idea

of election there is the exercise of an arbitrary sovereignty. I suppose

that God bestows on men unequal measures of gracious influence, but

that in this there is nothing arbitrary; that, on the contrary, He sees the

wisest and best reasons for this; that being in justice under obligation

to none, He exercises His own benevolent discretion, in bestowing on

all as much gracious influence as He sees to be upon the whole wise

and good, and enough to throw the entire responsibility of their

damnation upon them if they are lost. But upon some He foresaw that

He could wisely bestow a sufficient measure of gracious influence to

secure their voluntary yielding, and upon others He could not bestow

enough in fact to secure this result. In accordance with this

foreknowledge, He chose the elect to both the gracious influence and

its results, eternal life. In all this there was nothing arbitrary or unjust. 

He does all for all that He wisely can. He does enough for all to leave

them without excuse. If the non-elect would yield to that measure of

gracious influence which He can and does bestow upon them, which is

the best He can do without acting unwisely, and of course wickedly,

they would be saved. To this they might yield. To this they ought to

yield. God has no right to do more than He does for them, all things

considered; and there is no reason of which they can justly complain

why they are not saved. They can with no more reason complain of

His not giving them more gracious influence than that He created

them, or that He made them free agents, or that He did not restrain

them from sin altogether, or do anything else which it had been

unwise, and therefore wrong to have done. Nor is the fact that God

does not bestow on them sufficient grace to secure their yielding and

salvation, a "reason back of their obstinacy to which their not being

saved is to be ascribed," any more than any one of the above-named

things is such a reason.



  This objection proceeds upon the assumption, that election must

be unconditional to be election at all that election must be so defined,

as to be the cause of the difference in the eternal state of the elect and

non-elect. But I see not why election may not be conditionated upon

the foreseen fact, that the wisest possible administration of moral

government would secure the free concurrence of some, and not of

others. What could be wisely done being foreseen, the purpose that

so it should be done would be election. No man has a right to define

the terms election and reprobation in such a sense, as to exclude all

conditions, and then insist that conditional election is no election at all.



-------------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 44



REPROBATION



In discussing this subject I shall endeavor to show, 



What the true doctrine of reprobation is not.



1. It is not that the ultimate end of God in the creation of any was their

damnation. Neither reason nor revelation confirms, but both contradict

the assumption, that God has created or can create any being for the

purpose of rendering him miserable as an ultimate end. God is love,

or He is benevolent, and cannot therefore will the misery of any being

as an ultimate end, or for its own sake. It is little less than blasphemy

to represent God as creating any being for the sake of rendering him

miserable, as an ultimate end of His creation.



2. The doctrine is not, that any will be lost or miserable to all eternity,

do what they can to be saved, or in spite of themselves. It is not only

a libel upon the character of God, but a gross misrepresentation of the

true doctrine of reprobation, to exhibit God as deciding to send sinners

to hell in spite of themselves, or notwithstanding their endeavors to

please God and obtain salvation.



3. Nor is this the true doctrine of reprobation, to wit: that the purpose

or decree of reprobation is the procuring cause of the destruction of

reprobates. God may design to destroy a soul because of his

foreseen wickedness; but His design to destroy him for this reason

does not cause his wickedness, and consequently does not prove his

destruction.



4. The doctrine is not, that any decree or purpose of reprobation

throws any obstacles in the way of the salvation of any one. It is not

that God has purposed the damnation of any one in such sense as

that the decree opposes any obstacle to the salvation of any soul

under heaven.



5. Nor is it that any one is sent to hell, except for his own voluntary

wickedness and ill-desert.



6. Nor is it that any one will be lost who can be induced, by all the

means that can be wisely used, to accept salvation, or to repent and

believe the gospel.



7. Nor is it, nor does it imply, that all the reprobates might not be

saved, if they would but comply with the indispensable conditions of

salvation.



8. Not does it imply, that the decree of reprobation presents or

opposes any obstacle to their compliance with the necessary

conditions of salvation.



9. Nor does it imply, that anything hinders or prevents the salvation of

the reprobate, but their perverse perseverance in sin and rebellion

against God, and their wilful resistance of all the means that can be

wisely used for their salvation.



What the true doctrine of reprobation is.



The term reprobation, both in the Old and the New Testament,

signifies refuse, cast away. "Reprobate silver shall men call them,

because the Lord hath rejected them" (Jerem. 6:30). The doctrine is,

that certain individuals of mankind are, in the fixed purpose of God

cast away, rejected and finally lost.



This is a doctrine of reason.



By this is intended, that since the Bible reveals the fact, that some will

be finally cast away and lost, reason affirms that if God casts them off,

it must be in accordance with a fixed purpose on His part to do so, for

their foreseen wickedness. If, as a matter of fact, they will be cast

away and lost, it must be that God both knows and designs it. That is,

He both knows that they will be cast away, and designs to cast them

off for their foreseen wickedness. God can certainly never possess

any new knowledge respecting their character and deserts, and since

He is unchangeable, He can never have any new purpose respecting

them.



Again, it follows from the doctrine of election. If God designs to save

the elect, and the elect only, as has been shown, not for the reason,

but upon condition of their foreseen repentance and faith in Christ, it

must be that He designs, or purposes to cast away the wicked, for

their foreseen wickedness. He purposes to do something with those

whom He foresees will finally be impenitent. He certainly does not

purpose to save them. What He will ever do with them, He now knows

that He shall do with them. What He will intend to do with them He

now intends to do with them, or He were not unchangeable. But we

have seen that immutability or unchangeableness is an attribute of

God. Therefore the present reprobation of those who will be finally

cast away or lost, is a doctrine of reason.



The doctrine of reprobation is not the election of a part of mankind to

damnation, in the same sense that the elect unto salvation are elected

to be saved. The latter are chosen or elected, not only to salvation,

but to holiness. Election, with those who are saved, extends not only

to the end, salvation, but also to the conditions or means; to wit, the

sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth. This has been

shown. God has not only chosen them to salvation, but to be

conformed to the image of His Son. Accordingly, He uses means with

them, with the design to sanctify and save them. But He has not

elected the reprobate to wickedness, and does not use means to

make them wicked, with the ultimate design to destroy them. He

knows, indeed, that His creating them, together with His providential

dispensations, will be the occasion, not the cause, of their sin and

consequent destruction. But their sin and consequent destruction are

not the ultimate end God had in view in their creation, and in the train

of providences that thus result. His ultimate end must in all cases be

benevolent, or must be the promotion of good. Their sin and

damnation are only an incidental result, and not a thing intended as an

end, or for its own sake. God can have no pleasure, in either their sin

or consequent misery for its own sake; but on the contrary, He must

regard both as in themselves evils of enormous magnitude. He does

not, and cannot therefore elect the reprobate to sin and damnation, in

the same sense in which He elects the saints to holiness and

salvation. The elect unto salvation He chooses to this end, from

regard to, or delight in the end. But the reprobate He chooses to

destroy, not for the sake of their destruction as an end, or from delight

in it for its own sake; but He has determined to destroy them for the

public good, since their foreseen sinfulness demanded it. He does not

use means to make them sinful, or with this design; but His providence

is directed to another end, which end is good; and the destruction of

the reprobate is, as has been said, only an incidental and an

unavoidable result. That is, God cannot wisely prevent this result.



This is the doctrine of revelation.



That this view of the subject is sustained by divine revelation, will

appear from a consideration of the following passages:



"And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in

thee My power, and that My name may be declared throughout all the

earth" (Exodus 9:16).



"Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord;

though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished" (Prov. 16:5).



"And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the mystery of

the kingdom of God, but unto them that are without, all these things

are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive, and

hearing they may hear and not understand, lest at any time they

should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them" (Mark

4:11-12).



"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose

have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee, and that My

name might be declared throughout all the earth. What if God, willing

to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much

long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. And that He

might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy,

which He had before prepared unto glory. Even us, whom He hath

called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:17,

22-24).



"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own

selves; know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you,

except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not

reprobates" (2 Cor. 13:56).



"But these as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,

speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly

perish in their own corruption" (2 Peter 2:12).



"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord

God; and not that he should return from his ways, and live? For I have

no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God,

wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye?" (Ezek. 18:23, 32).



"Say unto them, as I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the

death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live;

turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of

Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11).



"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count

slackness, but is long-suffering to us ward, not willing that any should

perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). These

passages when duly considered are seen to teach:



1. That some men are reprobates, in the sense that God does not

design to save, but to destroy them, and, 



2. That He does not delight in their destruction for its own sake; but

would prefer their salvation, if under the circumstances in which His

wisdom has placed them, they could be induced to obey Him.



3. But that He regards their destruction as a less evil to the universe,

than would be such a change in the administration and arrangements

of His government as would secure their salvation. Therefore, for their

foreseen wickedness and perseverance in rebellion, under

circumstances the most favorable to their virtue and salvation, in which

He can wisely place them, He is resolved upon their destruction; and

has already in purpose cast them off for ever.



Why sinners are reprobated or rejected.



This has been already substantially answered. But to avoid

misapprehension upon a subject so open to cavil, I repeat:



1. That the reprobation and destruction of the sinner is not an end, in

the sense that God delights in misery, and destroys sinners to gratify a

thirst for destruction. Since God is benevolent, it is impossible that this

should be.



2. It is not because of any partiality in God, or because He loves the

elect, and hates the reprobate, in any sense implying partiality. His

benevolence is disinterested, and cannot of course be partial.

3. It is not from any want of interest in, and desire to save them, on

the part of God. This He often affirms, and abundantly attests by His

dealings with them, and the provision He has made for their salvation.



4. But the reprobates are reprobated for their foreseen iniquities:



"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God

gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not

convenient" (Romans 1:28).



"Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who,

by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, honor, and

immortality, eternal life; But unto them that are contentious, and do not

obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath;

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the

Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honor, and peace, to every

man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For

there is no respect of persons with God" (Romans 2:6-11).



"Behold all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul

of the son is Mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Yet say ye, Why? 

Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath

done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all My statutes, and

hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. 

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father

bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be

upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek.

18:4, 19-20).



"For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every

one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath

done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 5:10).



"Be not deceived, God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,

that shall he also reap" (Gal. 6:7).



"Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall

he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free" (Eph. 6:8).



"Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the

inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ" (Col. 3:24).



"And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every

man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22:12). 



"Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected

them" (Jerem. 6:30).



These passages show the teachings of inspiration on this subject. Be

it remembered, then, that the reason why any are reprobated, is

because they are unwilling to be saved; that is, they are unwilling to be

saved on the terms upon which alone God can consistently save them. 

Ask sinners whether they are willing to be saved, and they all say, yes;

and with perfect sincerity they may say this, if they can be saved upon

their own terms. But when you propose to them the terms of salvation

upon which the gospel proposes to save them; when they are required

to repent and believe the gospel, to forsake their sins, and give

themselves up to the service of God, they will with one consent begin

to make excuse. Now, to accept these terms, is heartily and

practically to consent to them. For them to say, that they are willing to

accept salvation, while they actually do not accept it, is either to

deceive themselves, or to utter an infamous falsehood. To be willing

is to accept it; and the fact, that they do not heartily consent to, and

embrace the terms of salvation, is demonstration absolute, that they

are unwilling. Yes, sinners, the only terms on which you can possibly

be saved, you reject. Is it not then an insult to God for you to pretend

that you are willing? The only true reason why all of you are not

Christians, is that you are unwilling. You are not made unwilling by

any act of God, or because you are reprobate; but if you are

reprobate, it is because you are unwilling.



But do any of you object and say, why does not God make us willing? 

Is it not because He has reprobated us, that He does not change our

hearts and make us willing? No, sinner, it is not because He has

reprobated you; but because you are so obstinate that He cannot,

wisely, and in consistency with the public good; take such measures

as will convert you. Here you are waiting for God to make you willing

to go to heaven, and all the while you are diligently using the means to

get to hell yes, exerting yourself with greater diligence to get to hell,

than it would cost to insure your salvation, if applied with equal zeal in

the service of your God. You tempt God, and then turn round and ask

Him why He does not make you willing? Now, sinner, let me ask you,

do you think you are a reprobate? It so, what do you think the reason

is that has led the infinitely benevolent God to reprobate you? There

must be some reason; what do you suppose it is? Did you ever

seriously ask yourself, what is the reason that a wise and infinitely

benevolent God has never made me willing to accept salvation? It

must be for one of the following reasons. Either:



(1.) He is a malevolent being, and wills your damnation for its own

sake; or:



(2.) He cannot make you willing if He would; or



(3.) You behave in such a manner in the circumstances in which you

are, that, to His infinitely benevolent mind it appears unwise to take

such a course as would bring you to repentance. Such a change in

the administration of His government as would make you willing, would

not, upon the whole, be wise.



Now, which of these do you think it is? You will not probably take the

ground that He is malevolent, and desires your damnation because He

delights in misery; nor will you, I suppose, take the ground that He

could not convert you if He would, that is, if He thought it wise to do so.



The other, then, must be the reason, to wit: that your heart, and

conduct, and stubbornness, are so abominable in His sight, that, every

thing considered, He sees that to use such further means with you as

to secure your conversion, would, on the whole, do more hurt than

good to His kingdom. I have not time at present to agitate the

question whether you, as a moral agent, could not resist any possible

amount of moral influence that could be brought to bear upon you,

consistently with your moral freedom.



Do you ask how I know that the reason why God does not make you

willing is, that He sees that it would be unwise in Him to do so? I

answer, that it is an irresistible inference, from these two facts, that He

is infinitely benevolent, and that He does not actually make you willing. 

I do not believe that God would neglect anything that He saw to be

wise and benevolent, in the great matter of man's salvation. Who can

believe that He could give His only-begotten and well-beloved Son to

die for sinners, and then neglect any wise and benevolent means for

their salvation? No, sinner, if you are a reprobate, it is because God

foresaw that you would do just as you are doing; that you would be so

wicked as to defeat all the efforts that He could wisely make for your

salvation. What a variety of means He has used with you. At one time

He has thrown you into the furnace of affliction; and when this has not

softened you, He has turned round and loaded you with favors. He

has sent you His word, he has striven by His Spirit, He has allured you

by the cross; He has tried to melt you by the groanings of Calvary; and

tried to drive you back from the way to death, by rolling in your ears

the thunders of damnation. At one time clouds and darkness have

been round about you; the heavens have thundered over your head;

divine vengeance has hung out, all around your horizon, the

portentous clouds of coming wrath. At another time mercy has smiled

upon you from above like the noonday sun, breaking through an ocean

of storms. He urges every motive; He lays heaven, earth and hell,

under perpetual contributions for considerations to move your stony

heart. But you deafen your ears, and close your eyes, and harden

your heart, and say, "Cause the holy one of Israel to cease from

before us" (Isaiah 30:11). And what is the inference from all this? 

How must all this end? "Reprobate silver shall men call them,

because the Lord has rejected them" (Jerem. 6:30).



When sinners are reprobated.



1. In respect to the act of casting them off, they are cast away only

when, and not until, the cup of their iniquity is full.



2. In respect to the purpose of reprobation, they are in the purpose of

God reprobated or rejected from eternity. This follows irresistibly from

the omniscience and immutability of God. He has certainly and

necessarily had from eternity all the knowledge He ever can or will

have of the character of all men, and must have designed from all

eternity all things respecting them which He ever will design. This

follows from His unchangeableness. If He ever does cast off sinners,

He must do it designedly or undesignedly. He cannot do it without any

design. He must therefore do it designedly. But if He does it

designedly, it must be either that He eternally entertained this design,

or that He has changed. But change of purpose or design is

inconsistent with the moral immutability of God. Therefore, the

purpose of reprobation is eternal; or the reprobates were in the fixed

purpose of God cast off and rejected from eternity.



Reprobation is just.



Is it not just in God to let men have their own choice, especially when

the highest possible motives are held out to them as inducements to

choose eternal life? What! Is it not just to reprobate men when they

obstinately refuse salvation when every thing has been done that is

consistent with infinite wisdom and benevolence to save them? Shall

not men be willing to be either saved or lost? What shall God do with

you? You are unwilling to be saved; why then should you object to

being damned? If reprobation under these circumstances is not just, I

challenge you, sinner, to tell what is just.



Reprobation is benevolent



It was benevolent in God to create men, though He foresaw that they

would sin and become reprobate. If He foresaw that, upon the whole,

He could secure such an amount of virtue and happiness by means of

moral government, as to more than counterbalance the sin and misery

of those who would be lost, then certainly it was a dictate of

benevolence to create them. The question was, whether moral beings

should be created, and moral government established, when it was

foreseen that a great evil would be the incidental consequence. 

Whether this would be benevolent or not, must turn upon the question,

whether a good might be secured that would more than

counterbalance the evil. If the virtue and happiness that could be

secured by the administration of moral government, would greatly out

measure the incidental evils arising out of a defection of a part of the

subjects of this government, it is manifest that a truly benevolent mind

would choose to establish the government, the attendant evils to the

contrary notwithstanding. Now, if those who are lost deserve their

misery, and bring it upon themselves by their own choice, when they

might have been saved, then certainly in their damnation there can be

nothing inconsistent with justice or benevolence. God must have a

moral government, or there can be no such thing as holiness in the

created universe. For holiness in a creature is nothing else than a

voluntary conformity to the government of God.



Since the penalty of the law, although infinite, under the wisest

possible administration of moral government, could not secure

universal obedience; and since multitudes of sinners will not be

reclaimed and saved by the gospel, one of three things must be done;

either moral government must be given up; or the wicked must be

annihilated, or they must be reprobated and sent to hell. Now, that

moral government should be given up, will not be pretended;

annihilation would not be just, inasmuch as it would not be an

adequate expression of the abhorrence with which the divine ruler

regards the violation of His law, and consequently it would not meet

the demands of public justice. Now, as sinners really deserve eternal

death, and as their punishment may be of real value to the universe, in

creating a respect for the authority of God, and thus strengthening His

government, it is plain that their reprobation and damnation is, for the

general good, making the best use of the wicked that can be made.



Doubtless God views the loss of the soul as a great evil, and He

always will look upon it as such, and would gladly avoid the loss of any

soul, if it were consistent with the wisest administration of His

government. How slanderous, injurious, and offensive to God it must

be, then, to say, that He created sinners on purpose to damn them. 

He pours forth all the tender yearnings of a father over those whom He

is obliged to destroy. "How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I

deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I

set thee as Zeboim? My heart is turned within me, My repentings are

kindled together" (Hosea 11:8). And now, sinner, can you find it in

your heart to accuse the blessed God of a want of benevolence? "O

ye serpents! Ye generation of vipers! How can you escape the

damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).



How it may be known who are reprobates.



It may be difficult for us to ascertain with certainty in this world, who

are reprobates; but there are so many marks of reprobation given in

the Bible, that by a sober and judicious investigation, we may form a

pretty correct opinion, whether we or those around us are reprobates

or not.



1. One evidence of reprobation is a long course of prosperity in sin. 

The Psalmist lays it down as such in: "When the wicked spring as the

grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish, it is that they

shall be destroyed forever" (Psalms 92:7). God often gives the wicked

their portion in this world, and lets them prosper and wax fat like a

stalled ox, and then brings them forth to the slaughter. "The wicked

are reserved unto the day of wrath" (2 Peter 3:7).



When therefore you see an individual for a long time prospering in his

sins, there is great reason to fear that man is a reprobate. In this

passage inspiration assumes the truth of the distinction between

evidence and proof. The Psalmist does not mean to be understood as

affirming a universal truth. He did not intend, that prosperity in sin was

proof conclusive that the prosperous sinner is a reprobate. But the

least that could have been intended was, that such prosperity in sin

affords alarming evidence of reprobation. It may be called

presumptive evidence.



2. Habitual neglect of the means of grace is a mark of reprobation. If

men are to be saved at all, it is through the sanctification of the Spirit

and belief of the truth; and it will probably be found to be true, that not

one in ten thousand is saved of those who habitually absent

themselves from places where God presents His claims. Sometimes, I

know, a tract, or the conversation or prayer of some friend, may

awaken an individual, and lead him to the house of God; but, as a

general fact, if a man stays away from the means of grace, and

neglects his Bible, it is a fearful sign of reprobation, and that he will die

in his sins. He is voluntary in it, and he does not neglect the means of

grace because he is reprobated, but was reprobated because God

foresaw that he would take this course. Suppose a pestilence were

prevailing, that was certain to prove fatal in every instance where the

appropriate remedy was not applied. Now, if you wished to know

whose days were numbered and finished, and who among the sick

were certain to die with the disease, if you found any among them

neglecting and despising the only appropriate remedy, you would

know that they were the persons.



3. Those who have grown old in sin, are probably reprobates. It is a

solemn and alarming fact, that a vast majority of those who give

evidence of piety, are converted under twenty-five years of age. Look

at the history of revivals, and see, even in those that have manifested

the greatest power, how few aged persons have been converted. The

men who are set upon the attainment of some worldly object, and

determined to secure that before they will attend to religion, and yield

to the claims of their Maker, expecting afterwards to be converted, are

almost always disappointed. Such a cold calculation is odious in the

sight of God. What! Take advantage of His forbearance, and say, that

because He is merciful you will venture to continue in sin, till you have

secured your worldly objects, and worn yourself out in the service of

the devil, and thus turn your Maker off with the jaded remnant of your

abused mortality! You need not expect God to set His seal of

approbation upon such a calculation as this, and suffer you at last to

triumph, and say, that you had served the devil as long as you

pleased, and got to heaven at last.



4. Absence of chastisements is a sign of reprobation. God says in the

epistle to the Hebrews: "My son, despise not thou the chastening of

the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him; for whom the Lord

loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth; if

ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son

is he whom the Father chasteneth not; but if ye be without

chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not

sons" (Heb. 12:8).



5. When men are chastened and not reformed by it, it is a mark of

reprobation. A poet has said, "When pain can't bless, heaven quits us

in despair." God says of such, "Why should ye be stricken any more? 

Ye will revolt more and more" (Isaiah 1:5). When your afflictions are

unsanctified, when you harden yourselves under His stripes, why

should He not leave you to fill up the measure of your iniquity?



6. Embracing damnable heresies, is another mark of reprobation. 

Where persons seem to be given up to believe a lie, there is solemn

reason for fearing that they are among that number upon whom God

sends strong delusions, that they may believe a lie, and be damned,

because they obey not the truth, but have pleasure in

unrighteousness. Where you see persons giving themselves up to

such delusions, the more certainly they believe them, the greater

reason there is for believing that they are reprobates. The truth is so

plain, that with the Bible in your hands, it is next to impossible to

believe a fundamental heresy, without being given up to the judicial

curse of God. It is so hard to believe a lie, with the truth of the Bible

before you, that the devil cannot do it. If therefore you reject your

Bible, and embrace a fundamental falsehood, you are more stupid and

benighted than the devil is. When a man professes to believe a lie,

almost the only hope of his salvation that remains, is, that he does not

cordially believe it. Sinner, beware how you trifle with God's truth. 

How often have individuals begun to argue in favor of heresy, for the

sake of argument, and because they loved debate, until they have

finally come to believe their own lie, and are lost for ever.



Objections



1. To the idea that God rejected the reprobate for their foreseen

wickedness, it is replied that "The Lord hath made all things for

Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4), teaches

another doctrine; that this passage teaches, that God made the

reprobates for the day of evil, or for the purpose of destroying them.



To this I reply, that if He did create them to destroy them, or with a

design when He created them to destroy them, it does not follow that

their destruction was an ultimate end, or a thing in which He delighted

for its own sake. It must be true, as has been said, that He designed

from eternity to destroy them, in view, and in consequence, of their

foreseen wickedness; and of course, He designed their destruction

when be created them. In one sense then, it was true, that He created

them for the day of evil, that is, in the sense that He knew how they

would behave, and designed as a consequence to destroy them when,

and before, He created them. But this is not the same as His creating

them for the sake of their destruction as an ultimate end. He had

another and a higher ultimate end, which end was a benevolent one. 

He says "I have created all things for Myself, even the wicked for the

day of evil" (Prov. 16:4), that is, He had some great and good end to

accomplish by them, and by their destruction. He foresaw that He

could use them for some good purpose, notwithstanding their foreseen

wickedness; and even that He could overrule their sin and destruction

to manifest His justice, and thus show forth His glory, and thereby

strengthen His government. He must have foreseen that the good that

might thus, from His overruling providence, result to Himself and to the

universe, would more than compensate for the evil of their rebellion

and destruction; and therefore, and upon this condition, He created

them, knowing that He should destroy and intending to destroy them. 

That destruction was not the ultimate end of their creation, must follow

from such scriptures as the following:



"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in

the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:

turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of

Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11).



"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die; saith the Lord

God; and not that he should return from his ways and live?" (Ezek.

18:23).



"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count

slackness, but is long-suffering to us ward, not willing that any should

perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).



"He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love. And we have

known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he

that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:8, 16).



"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for

the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He by the

grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9).



2. Another objection to the doctrine of this lecture is founded on: "Nay,

but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing

formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath

not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one

vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to

shew His wrath, and make His power known, endured with much

long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He

might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy,

which He had before prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:20-23).



From this passage it has been inferred, that God creates the

character and disposes of the destinies of both saints and sinners with

as absolute and as irresistible a sovereignty as that exercised by the

potter over his clay; that He creates the elect for salvation, and the

reprobate for damnation, and forms the character of both so as to fit

them for their respective destinies, with an absolutely irresistible and

efficient sovereignty; that His ultimate end was in both cases His own

glory, and that the value of the end justifies the use of the means, that

is, of such means. To this I reply:



(1.) That it is absurd and nonsensical, as we have abundantly seen, to

talk of creating moral character, either good or bad, by an irresistible

efficient sovereignty. This is naturally impossible, as it implies a

contradiction. Moral character must be the result of proper, voluntary

action, and the moral character of the vessels of wrath or of mercy

neither is, nor can be, formed by any irresistible influence whatever.



(2.) It is not said nor implied in the passage under consideration, that

the character of the vessels of wrath was created, or that God had any

such agency in procuring their character, as He has in forming the

character of the vessels of mercy. Of the vessels of wrath it is only

said they are "fitted to destruction," that is, that their characters are

adapted for hell; while of the vessels of mercy it is said "which He had

before prepared unto glory." The vessels of wrath are fitted, or had

fitted themselves to destruction, under the light and influence that

should have made them holy. The vessels of mercy God had, by the

special grace and influence of the Holy Spirit, engaging and directing

their voluntary agency, before prepared for glory.



(3.) But the lump spoken of in the text contemplates, not the original

creation of men, nor the forming or creating in them of a wicked

character. But it manifestly contemplates them as already existing as

the potter's clay exists; and not only as existing, but also as being

sinners. God may reasonably proceed to form out of this lump vessels

of wrath or of mercy, as seems wise and good unto Him. He may

appoint one portion to honor and another to dishonor, as is seen by

Him to be demanded by the highest good.



(4.) The passage under consideration cannot, in any event, be

pressed into the service of those who would insist, that the destruction

of the reprobate is chosen for its own sake, and therefore implies

malevolence in God. Hear what it says: "What if God, willing to show

His wrath, and make His power known, endured with much

long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He

might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy,

which He had before prepared unto glory?" Here it appears, that He

designed to show and make known His attributes. This cannot have

been an ultimate, but must have been a proximate, end. The ultimate

end must have been the highest glory of Himself, and the highest good

of the universe, as a whole. If God willed thus to make known His

holiness and His mercy, for the purpose of securing the highest good

of the universe, who has a right to say, What doest Thou? or Why

doest Thou thus?



3. Another objection is, if God knew that they would be reprobate or

lost, why did He create them? If He knew that such would be the

result, and yet created them, it follows that He created them to destroy

them. I reply:



This objection has been already answered, but for the sake of

perspicuity I choose here to answer it again.



From the admitted fact, that God knew when He created them just

what their destiny would be, it does not follow that their destruction

was the end for which He created them. He created them, not for their

sin and destruction as an ultimate end, but for another and a good

end, notwithstanding His foreknowledge of their sin and ultimate ruin.



4. It is further objected, that if God designed to make known His

attributes, in the salvation of the vessels of mercy, and in the

destruction of the vessels of wrath, He must have designed their

characters as well as their end, inasmuch as their characters are

indispensable conditions of this result.



I reply, that it is true, that the characters of both the vessels of wrath

and of mercy must have been in some sense purposed or designed by

God. But it does not follow that He designed them both in the same

sense. The character of the righteous He designed to beget, or induce

by His own agency; the character of the wicked He designed to suffer

him to form for himself. He doubtless designed to suffer the one rather

than to interfere, in such manner and form as would prevent sin,

seeing as He did, that, hateful as it was in itself, it could be overruled

for good. The other He designed to produce, or rather induce, both on

account of the pleasure He has in holiness, and also for the sake of its

bearings on the subject of it, and upon the universe.



5. To the doctrine of this lecture it is further objected, that if one is a

reprobate it is of no use for him to try to be saved. If God knows what

he will be in character, and designs his destruction, it is impossible that

it should be otherwise than as God knows and designs, and therefore

one may as well give up in despair first as last.



(1.) To such an objector I would say, you do not know that you are a

reprobate, and therefore you need not despair.



(2.) If God designs to cast you off, though you cannot know this, it is

only because He foresees that you will not repent and believe the

gospel; or in other words, for your voluntary wickedness. He

foreknows that you will be wicked simply because you will be, and not

because His foreknowledge makes you so. Neither His foreknowledge

respecting your character, nor His design to cast you off, in

consequence of your character, has any agency in making you

wicked. You are therefore perfectly free to obey and be saved, and

the fact that you will not, is no reason why you should not.



(3.) You might just as reasonably make the same objection to every

thing that takes place in the universe. Everything that did, or will, or

can occur, is as infallibly known to God, as the fact of your wickedness

and destruction is. He also has a fixed and eternal design about

everything that ever did or will occur. He knows how long you will live,

where you will live, and when and where you will die. His purposes

respecting these and all other events are fixed, eternal, and

unchangeable. Why, then, do you not live without food and say, I

cannot make one hair black or white; I cannot die before my time, nor

can I prolong my days beyond the appointed time, do what I will;

therefore, I will take no care of my health? No this would be

unreasonable.



Why not also apply this objection to everything, and settle down in

despair of ever doing or being anything, but what an irresistible fate

makes you? The fact is, that the true doctrine, whether of election or

reprobation, affords not the least countenance to such a conclusion. 

The foreknowledge and designs of God respecting our conduct or our

destiny, do not in the least degree interfere with our free agency. We,

in every case, act just as freely as if God neither knew nor designed

anything about our conduct. Suppose the farmer should make the

same objection to sowing his seed, and to doing anything to secure a

crop; what would be thought of him? And yet he might with as much

reason, since he can plead the foreknowledge and designs of God, as

an excuse for doing nothing to secure his salvation. God as really

knows now whether you will sow and whether you will have a crop,

and has from eternity known this, as perfectly as He ever will. He has

either designed that you shall, or that you shall not, have a crop this

year, from all eternity; and it will infallibly come to pass just as He has

foreseen and designed. Yet you are really just as free to raise a crop,

or to neglect to do so, as if He neither knew nor designed anything

about it.



The man who will stumble either at the doctrine of election or

reprobation, as defined and maintained in these lectures, should, to be

consistent, stumble at everything that takes place, and never try to

accomplish anything whatever; because the designs and the

foreknowledge of God extend equally to everything; and unless He

has expressly revealed how it will be, we are left in the dark, in respect

to any event, and are left to use means to accomplish what we desire,

or to prevent what we dread, as if God knew and designed nothing

about it.



6. But it is objected, that this is a discouraging doctrine, and liable to

be a stumbling-block, and therefore should not be inculcated. I

answer:



(1.) It is taught in the Bible, and plainly follows also from the attributes

of God, as revealed in the reason. The scriptures that teach it are not

less likely to be a snare and a stumbling-block, than are the definition

and explanation of the doctrine.



(2.) The proper statement, explanation, and defense of the doctrines

of election and reprobation, are important to a proper understanding of

the nature and attributes of God.



(3.) The scriptures that teach these doctrines are often subjects of

cavil, and sometimes of real difficulty. Religious teachers should,

therefore, state these doctrines and explain them, so as to aid the

inquirer after truth, and stop the mouths of gainsayers.



(4.) Again, these doctrines have often been so misstated and

perverted as to make them amount to an iron system of fatalism. 

Many souls have heard or read these perversions, and greatly need to

be enlightened upon the subject. It is therefore all the more important,

that these truths should find a place in religious instruction. Let them

be understood, properly stated, explained, and defended, and they

can no more be a stumbling-block, than the fact of God's omniscience

can be so.

----------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 45



DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY



In this discussion I shall endeavor to show:



What is not intended by the term "sovereignty" when applied to God, 



It is not intended, at least by me, that God, in any instance, wills or

acts arbitrarily, or without good reasons; reasons so good and so

weighty, that He could in no case act otherwise than He does, without

violating the law of His own intelligence and conscience, and

consequently without sin. Any view of divine sovereignty that implies

arbitrariness on the part of the divine will, is not only contrary to

scripture, but is revolting to reason, and blasphemous. God cannot

act arbitrarily, in the sense of unreasonably, without infinite

wickedness. For Him to be arbitrary, in the sense of unreasonable,

would be wickedness as much greater than any creature is capable of

committing, as His reason or knowledge is greater than theirs. This

must be self-evident. God should therefore never be represented as a

sovereign, in the sense that implies that He is actuated by self or

arbitrary will, rather than by His infinite intelligence.



Many seem to me to represent the sovereignty of God as consisting in

a perfectly arbitrary disposal of events. They seem to conceive of God

as being wholly above and without any law or rule of action guiding His

will by His infinite reason and conscience. They appear shocked at

the idea of God Himself being the subject of moral law, and are ready

to inquire, Who gives law to God? They seem never to have

considered that God is, and must be, a law unto Himself; that He is

necessarily omniscient, and that the divine reason must impose law

on, or prescribe law to, the divine will. They seem to regard God as

living wholly above law, and as disposed to have His own will at any

rate, reasonable or unreasonable; to set up His own arbitrary pleasure

as His only rule of action, and to impose this rule upon all His subjects. 

This sovereignty they seem to conceive of as controlling and disposing

of all events, with an iron or adamantine fatality, inflexible, irresistible,

omnipotent. "Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will"

(Eph. 1:11). This text they dwell much upon, as teaching that God

disposes all events absolutely, not according to His own infinite

wisdom and discretion, but simply according to His own will; and, as

their language would often seem to imply, without reference at all to

the universal law of benevolence. I will not say, that such is the view

as it lies in their own mind; but only that from the language they use,

such would seem to be their idea of divine sovereignty. Such,

however, is not the view of this subject which I shall state and defend

on the present occasion.



What is intended by divine sovereignty.



The sovereignty of God consists in the independence of His will, in

consulting His own intelligence and discretion, in the selection of His

end, and the means of accomplishing it. In other words, the

sovereignty of God is nothing else than infinite benevolence directed

by infinite knowledge. God consults no one in respect to what shall be

done by Him. He asks no leave to do and require what His own

wisdom dictates. He consults only Himself; that is, His own infinite

intelligence. So far is He from being arbitrary in His sovereignty, in the

sense of unreasonable, that He is invariably guided by infinite reason. 

He consults His own intelligence only, not from any arbitrary

disposition, but because His knowledge is perfect and infinite and

therefore it is safe and wise to take counsel nowhere else. It were

infinitely unreasonable, and weak, and wicked in God to ask leave of

any being to act in conformity with His own judgment. He must make

His own reason His rule of action. God is a sovereign, not in the

sense that He is not under law, or that He is above all law, but in the

sense that He is a law to Himself; that He knows no law but what is

given Him by His own reason. In other words still, the sovereignty of

God consists in such a disposal of all things and events, as to meet

the ideas of His own reason, or the demands of His own intelligence. 

"He works all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11), in

the sense that He formed and executes His own designs

independently; in the sense that He consults His own infinite

discretion; that is, He acts according to His own views of propriety and

fitness. This He does, be it distinctly understood, without at all setting

aside the freedom of moral agents. His infinite knowledge enabled

Him to select an end and means, that should consist with and include

the perfect freedom of moral agents. The subjects of His moral

government are free to obey or disobey, and take the consequences. 

But foreseeing precisely in all cases how they would act, He has lad

His plan accordingly, so as to bring out the contemplated and desired

results. In all His plans He consulted none but Himself. But this leads

me to say:



That God is and ought to be an absolute and a universal sovereign.



By absolute, I mean, that His expressed will, in obedience to His

reason, is law. It is not law because it proceeds from His arbitrary will,

but because it is the revelation or declaration of the affirmations and

demands of His infinite reason. His expressed will is law, because it is

an infallible declaration of what is intrinsically fit, suitable, right. His

will does not make the things that He commands, right, fit, proper,

obligatory, in the sense, that should He require it, the opposite of what

He now requires would be fit, proper, suitable, obligatory; but in the

sense that we need no other evidence of what is in itself intrinsically

proper, fit, obligatory, than the expression of His will. Our reason

affirms, that what He wills must be right; not because He wills it, but

that He wills it because it is right, or obligatory in the nature of things;

that is, our reason affirms that He wills as He does, only upon

condition, that His infinite intelligence affirms that such willing is

intrinsically right, and therefore He ought to will or command just what

He does.



He is a sovereign in the sense that His will is law, whether we are able

to see the reason for His commands or not, because our reason

affirms that He has and must have good and sufficient reasons for

every command; so good and sufficient, that He could not do

otherwise than require what He does, under the circumstances,

without violating the law of His own intelligence. We therefore need no

other reason for affirming our obligation to will and to do, than that God

requires it; because we always and necessarily assume, that what

God requires must be right, not because He arbitrarily wills it, but

because He does not arbitrarily will it: on the contrary that He has, and

must have in every instance, infinitely good and wise reasons for every

requirement.



Some persons represent God as a sovereign, in the sense, that His

arbitrary will is the foundation of obligation. But if this is so, He could

in every instance render the directly opposite course from what He

now requires, obligatory. But this is absurd. The persons just

mentioned seem to think, that unless it be admitted that God's will is

the foundation of obligation, it will follow that it does not impose

obligation, unless He discloses the reasons for His requirements. But

this is a great mistake. Our own reason affirms that God's expressed

will is always law, in the sense that it invariably declares the law of

nature, or discloses the decisions of His own reason.



God must and ought to be an absolute sovereign in the sense just

defined. This will appear if we consider:



1. That His end was chosen and means decided upon, when no being

but Himself existed, and of course, there was no one to consult but

Himself.



2. Creation and providence are only the results, and the carrying out

of His plans settled from eternity.



3. The law of benevolence, as it existed in the divine reason, must

have eternally demanded of Him the very course He has taken.



4. His highest glory and the highest good of universal being demand

that He should consult His own discretion, and exercise an absolute

and a universal sovereignty, in the sense explained. Infinite wisdom

and goodness ought of course to act independently in the promotion of

their end. If infinite wisdom or knowledge is not to give law, what or

who shall? If infinite benevolence shall not declare and enforce law,

what or who shall? God's attributes and relations render it obligatory

upon Him to exercise just that holy sovereignty we have ascribed to

Him.



(1.) This sovereignty, and no other, He claims for Himself.



"But our God is in the heavens; He hath done whatsoever He hath

pleased" (Psalms 115:3).



"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in earth, in

the seas, and all deep places" (Psalms 135:6).



"For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and

returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth

and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater; So

shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return

unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall

prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).



"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank Thee, O Father, Lord

of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the

wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so,

Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight" (Matt. 11:25-26).



"For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then

it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that

showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this

same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in

thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. 

Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He

will He hardeneth" (Romans 9:15-18).



"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated

according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the

counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).



(2.) Again: God claims for Himself all the prerogatives of an absolute

and a universal sovereign, in the sense already explained. For

example, He claims to be the rightful and sole proprietor of the

universe.



"Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and

the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven and in the

earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as

head above all" (1 Chron. 29:11).



"For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand

hills; I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the

field are Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell Thee, for the world is

Mine, and the fullness thereof" (Psalms 1:10-12).



"The sea is His, and He made it, and His hands formed the dry land. 

O come, let us worship, and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord

our Maker; For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture,

and the sheep of His hand" (Psalms 95:5-7).



"Know ye that the Lord He is God, it is He that hath made us, and not

we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture"

(Psalms 100:3).



"Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul

of the son is Mine; the soul that sinneth it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4).



"For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we

die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's"

(Romans 14:8).



(3.) Again: God claims to have established the natural or physical

laws of the universe.



"Thy faithfulness is unto all generations, Thou hast established the

earth, and it abideth. They continue this day according to Thine

ordinances, for all are Thy servants" (Psalms 119:90-91).



"The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth, by understanding hath

He established the heavens. By His knowledge the depths are broken

up, and the clouds drop down the dew" (Prov. 3:19-20).



"Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the

stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves

thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is His name" (Jerem. 31:35).



"Thus saith the Lord, if My covenant be not with day and night, and if I

have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I

cast away the seed of Jacob, and David My servant, so that I will not

take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and

Jacob; for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on

them" (Jerem. 33:25-26).



(4.) God claims the right to exercise supreme authority.



"Thine, O Lord, is the greatness and the power, and the glory, and the

victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven and the earth is

Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head

above all" (1 Chron. 29:11).



"For God is the king of all the earth, sing ye praises with

understanding" (Psalms 47:7).



"For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our

king; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22).



(5.) God claims the right to exercise His own discretion in using such

means, and in exerting such an agency as will secure the regeneration

of men, or not, as it appears wise to Him.



"Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to

see, and ears to hear, unto this day" (Deut. 29:4).



"Wherefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, Because ye speak this

word, behold, I will make My words in thy mouth fire, and this people

wood, and it shall devour them" (Jerem. 5:14).



"And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest Thou to

them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is

given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to

them it is not given" (Matt. 13:10).



"What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power

known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to

destruction. And that He might make known the riches of His glory on

the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto glory"

(Romans 9:22-23).



"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God

peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the

truth" (2 Tim. 2:25).



(6.) God claims the right to try His creatures by means of temptation. 

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and

giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to

pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, let us go after other Gods,

which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not

hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for

the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your

God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3).



"And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and

fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said

on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the

Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him,

Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in

the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him,

and prevail also; go forth, and do so" (1 Kings 22:20-22).



"And the Lord said unto Satan, hast thou considered My servant Job,

that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man,

one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? And still he holdeth fast his

integrity, although thou movedst Me against him, to destroy him

without cause. So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord,

and smote Job with sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto his crown"

(Job 2:3, 7).



"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted

of the devil" (Matt. 4:1).



(7.) God also claims the right to use all creatures, and to dispose of all

creatures and events, so as to fulfil His own designs.



"I will be his father, and he shall be my son; if he commit iniquity, I will

chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of

men" (2 Samuel 7:14).



"Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great

man with his master, and honorable, because by him the Lord had

given deliverance unto Syria; he was also a mighty man in valor, but

he was a leper" (2 Kings 5:1).



"And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they

have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I am escaped

alone to tell thee. While he was yet speaking, there came also

another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell

upon the camels, and have carried them away; yea, and slain the

servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped to tell

thee. And Job said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and

naked shall I return thither; the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken

away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:15, 17, 21).



"O Assyrian, the rod of Mine anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine

indignation: I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against

the people of My wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and

to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. 

Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in

his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few. Wherefore it shall

come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed His whole work

upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout

heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. Shall the

axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Or shall the saw

magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake

itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself,

as if it were no wood" (Isaiah 10:5-7, 12, 15).



"And I will lay My vengeance upon Edom by the hand of My people

Israel; and they shall do in Edom according to Mine anger, and

according to My fury; and they shall know My vengeance, saith the

Lord God" (Ezek. 24:14).



"For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which

shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the

dwelling-places that are not theirs. Art Thou not from everlasting, O

Lord, my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die, O Lord, Thou hast

ordained them for judgment; and O mighty God, Thou hast established

them for correction" (Hab. 1:6, 12).



(8.) God claims the right to take the life of His sinful subjects at His

own discretion.



"And He said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou

lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a

burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of" (Gen.

22:2).



"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give

thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. 

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the

Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the

Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach

you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto

their Gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God" (Deut.

20:16-18).



"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and

spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox

and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Sam. 15:3).



(9.) God declares that He will maintain His own sovereignty.



"I am the Lord; that is My name: and My glory will I not give to

another, neither My praise to graven images" (Isaiah 42:8).



"For Mine own sake, even for Mine own sake, will I do it: for how

should My name be polluted? and I will not give My glory unto

another" (Isaiah 48:11).



These passages will disclose the general tenor of scripture upon this

subject.



Remarks



1. The Sovereignty of God is an infinitely amiable, sweet, holy, and

desirable sovereignty. Some seem to conceive of it as if it were

revolting and tyrannical. But it is the infinite opposite of this, and is the

perfection of all that is reasonable, kind and good.



"For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose

name is holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of

a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to

revive the heart of the contrite ones. For I will not contend for ever,

neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before Me, and

the souls which I have made. For the iniquity of his covetousness was

I wroth, and smote him: I hid Me, and was wroth, and he went on

forwardly in the way of his heart. I have seen his ways, and will heal

him; I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him, and to his

mourners. I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far

off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord; and I will heal him" (Isaiah

57:15-19).



2. Many seem afraid to think or speak of God's sovereignty, and even

pass over, with a very slight reading, those passages of scripture that

so fully declare it. They think it unwise and dangerous to preach upon

the subject, especially unless it be to deny or explain away the

sovereignty of God. This fear in pious minds has no doubt originated

in a misconception of the nature of this sovereignty. They have been

led either by false teaching, or in some way, to conceive of the divine

sovereignty as an iron and unreasonable despotism. That is, they

have understood the doctrine of divine sovereignty to so represent

God. They therefore fear and reject it. But let it be remembered and

for ever understood, to the eternal joy and unspeakable consolation of

all holy beings, that God's sovereignty is nothing else than infinite love

directed by infinite knowledge, in such a disposal of events as to

secure the highest well-being of the universe; that, in the whole details

of creation, providence and grace, there is not a solitary measure of

His that is not infinitely wise and good.

3. A proper understanding of God's universal agency and sovereignty,

of the perfect wisdom and benevolence of every measure of His

government, providential and moral, is essential to the best

improvement of all His dispensations toward us, and to those around

us. When it is understood, that God's hand is directly or indirectly in

everything that occurs, and that He is infinitely wise and good, and

equally wise and good in every single dispensation that He has one

end steadily and always, in view that He does all for one and the same

ultimate end and that this end is the highest good of Himself and of

universal being; I say, when these things are understood and

considered, there is a divine sweetness in all His dispensations. There

is then a divine reasonableness, and amiableness, and kindness,

thrown like a broad mantle of infinite love over all His character, works

and ways. The soul, in contemplating such a sacred, universal, holy

sovereignty, takes on a sweet smile of delightful complacency, and

feels secure, and reposes in perfect peace, surrounded and supported

by the everlasting arms.



4. Many entertain most ruinous conceptions of divine sovereignty. 

They manifestly conceive of it as proceeding wholly independent of

law, and of second causes, or means. They often are heard to use

language that implies this. They say, "if it is God's will, you cannot

hinder it. If God has begun the work, He will accomplish it." In fact,

their language means nothing, unless they assume that in the

dispensation of grace all is miracle. They often represent a thing as

manifestly from God, or as providential, because it was, or appeared

to be, so disconnected with appropriate means and instrumentalities. 

In other words it was quite miraculous.



Now, I suppose, that God's sovereignty manifests itself through and

by means, or second causes, and appropriate instrumentalities. God

is as much a sovereign in the kingdom of nature as of grace. Suppose

farmers, mechanics, and shopkeepers should adopt, in practice, this

absurd view of divine sovereignty of which I am speaking? Why, they

would succeed about as well in raising crops and in transacting

business, as those Christians and ministers who apply their views of

sovereignty to spiritual matters, do in saving souls.

------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 46



PURPOSES OF GOD



In discussing this subject I shall endeavor to show, 



What I understand by the purposes of God.

Purposes, in this discussion, I shall use as synonymous with design,

intention. The purposes of God must be ultimate and proximate. That

is, God has and must have an ultimate end. He must purpose to

accomplish something by His works and providence, which He regards

as a good in itself, or as valuable to Himself, and to being in general. 

This I call His ultimate end. That God has such an end or purpose,

follows from the already established facts, that God is a moral agent,

and that He is infinitely wise and good. For surely He could not be

justly considered as either wise or good, had He no intrinsically

valuable end which He aims to realize, by His works of creation and

providence. His purpose to secure His great and ultimate end, I call

His ultimate purpose. His proximate purposes respect the means by

which He aims to secure His end. If He purposes to realize an end,

He must of course purpose the necessary means for its

accomplishment. The purposes that respect the means are what I call

in this discussion, His proximate purposes.



Distinction between purpose and decree.



Purpose has just been defined, and the definition need not be

repeated. The term decree is used in a variety of senses. The term is

used in the Bible as synonymous:



1. With foreordination or determination, appointment.



"He putteth forth His hand upon the rock; he overturneth the

mountains by the roots. When He made a decree for the rain, and a

way for the lightning of the thunder" (Job 28:10, 26).



"I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my

son; this day have I begotten Thee" (Psalms 11:2).



"He hath also established them for ever and ever; He hath made a

decree which shall not pass" (Psalms 148:6).



"When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not

pass His commandment; when He appointed the foundations of the

earth" (Prov. 8:29).



"Fear ye not Me?, saith the Lord: Will ye not tremble at My presence,

which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, by a perpetual

decree that it cannot pass it, and though the waves thereof toss

themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they

not pass over it?" (Jerem. 5:22).



"This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most

High, which is come upon my lord the king" (Daniel 4:24).



2. It is used as synonymous with ordinance, statute, law.



"All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the

counselors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a

royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a

petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he

shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree,

and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the

Medes and Persians, which altereth not. I make a decree, that in

every dominion of My kingdom men tremble and fear before the God

of Daniel; for He is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and His

kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and His dominion shall be

even unto the end" (Daniel 6:7-8, 26).



This term has been generally used by theological writers as

synonymous with fore-ordination, appointment. To decree, with these

writers, is to appoint, ordain, establish, settle, fix, render certain. This

class of writers also often confound decree with purpose, and use the

word as meaning the same thing. I see no objection to using the term

decree, in respect to a certain class of physical events, as

synonymous with appointment, foreordination, fixing, rendering

certain. But I think this use of it, applied, as it has been, to the actions

of moral agents, is highly objectionable, and calculated to

countenance the idea of fatality and necessity, in respect to the

actions of men. It seems inadmissible to speak of God's decreeing the

free actions of moral agents, in the sense of fixing, settling,

determining foreordaining them as He fixes, settles, renders certain all

physical events. The latter He has fixed or rendered certain by a law

of necessity. The former, that is, free acts, although they may be, and

are certain, yet they are not rendered so by a law of fate or necessity;

or by an ordinance or decree that fixes them so, that it is not possible

they should be otherwise.



In respect to the government of God, I prefer to use the term purpose,

as I have said, to signify the design of God, both in respect to the end

at which He aims, and the means He intends or purposes to use to

accomplish it. The term decree I use as synonymous with command,

law, or ordinance. The former I use as expressive of what God

purposes or designs to do Himself, and by His own agency, and also

what He purposes or designs to accomplish by others. The latter I use

as expressive of God's will, command, or law. He regulates His own

conduct and agency in accordance with the former, that is, with His

purposes. He requires His creatures to conform to the latter, that is, to

His decrees or laws. We shall see, in its proper place, that both His

purposes and His actions are conformed to the spirit of His decrees, or

laws; that is, that He is benevolent in His purposes and conduct, as He

requires His creatures to be. I distinguish what God purposes or

designs to accomplish by others, and what they design. God's end or

purpose is always benevolent. He always designs good. His

creatures are often selfish, and their designs are often the direct

opposite to the purpose of God, even in the same events. For

example, see the following cases:



"And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you; and

they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye

sold into Egypt. Now therefore, be not grieved, nor angry with

yourselves that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you, to

preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the land,

and yet there are five years, in the which there shall neither be earing

nor harvest" (Gen. 45:4-6).



"And Joseph said unto them, Fear not; for am I in the place of God? 

But as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good,

to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen.

1:19-20).



"O Assyrian, the rod of Mine anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine

indignation. I will send him against a hypocritical nation, and against

the people of My wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and

to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. 

Howbeit he meaneth not so, but it is in his heart to destroy, and cut off

nations not a few. Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord

hath performed His whole work upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I

will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the

glory of his high looks" (Isaiah 10:5-7, 12).



"But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the

king of the Jews? (For he knew that the chief priests had delivered

Him for envy)" (Mark 15:9-10).



"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that

whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting

life" (John 3:16).



"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge

of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"

(Acts 2:23).

There must be some sense in which God's purposes extend to all

events.



1. This is evident from reason. His plans must, in some sense,

include all actual events. He must foreknow all events by a law of

necessity. This is implied in His omniscience. He must have matured

and adopted His plan in view of, and with reference to, all events. He

must have had some purpose or design respecting all events that He

foresaw. All events transpire in consequence of His own creating

agency; that is, they all result in some way directly or indirectly, either

by His design or sufferance, from His own agency. He either

designedly brings them to pass, or suffers them to come to pass

without interposing to prevent them. He must have known that they

would occur. He must have either positively designed that they

should, or, knowing that they would result from the mistakes or

selfishness of His creatures, negatively designed not to prevent them,

or, He had no purpose or design about them. The last hypothesis is

plainly impossible. He cannot be indifferent to any event. He knows

all events, and must have some purpose or design respecting them.



2. The Bible abundantly represents God's purposes as in some sense

extending to all events. For example:



"He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment; a

God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is He" (Deut. 32:4).



"O Lord, how wonderful are Thy works; in wisdom hast Thou made

them all; the earth is full of Thy riches" (Psalms 104:24).



"Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with

Thee; Thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass" (Job

14:5).



"This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth; and this is

the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations" (Isaiah 19:26).



"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the

face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed,

and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26).



"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated

according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the

counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).



"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge

of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"

(Acts 2:23).



"For of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast

anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the

people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever Thy

hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:27-28).



"And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him

down from the tree, and laid Him in a sepulcher" (Acts 13:29).



"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old

ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our

God, into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord

Jesus Christ" (Jude 4).



"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil His will, and to agree, and

give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be

fulfilled" (Rev. 17:17).



"And now I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there shall be no loss

of any man's life among yon, but of the ship. For there stood by me

this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying,

Fear not Paul, thou must be brought before Caesar; and, lo, God hath

given thee all them that sail with thee. And as the shipmen were about

to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea,

under color as though they would have cast anchors out of the

foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, except these

abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 37:22-24, 30-31).



"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren,

beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you

to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth"

(2 Thess. 2:13).



"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through

sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood

of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:2).



"Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the

earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains. He giveth to

the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry. He sendeth

forth His commandment upon earth; His word runneth very swiftly. He

giveth snow like wool; He scattereth the hoar-frost like ashes. He

casteth forth His ice like morsels; who can stand before His cold? He

sendeth out His word and melteth them, He causeth His winds to blow,

and the waters flow" (Psalms 147:8, 9, 15-18).



"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I

the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).



"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and He

doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the

inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him,

What doest Thou?" (Daniel 4:36).



"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? 

Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6).



"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not

fall on the ground without your Father" (Matt. 10:29).



"For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things" (Romans

11:36).



"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated

according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the

counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11).



"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He

maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain

on the just and on the unjust" (Matt. 5:45).



"Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor

gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not

much better than they? And why take ye thought for raiment? 

Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do

they spin. And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory,

was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the

grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven,

shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?" (Matt. 6:26, 28,

19, 30).



"O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man

that walketh to direct his steps" (Jerem. 10:23).



"O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. 

Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in Mine hand, O

house of Israel" (Jerem. 18:6).



"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything, as of

ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God" (2 Cor. 3:5).



"Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone: Thou hast made heaven, the

heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are

therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all;

and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee" (Neh. 9:5).



"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the

Lord have deceived that prophet; and I will stretch out My hand upon

him, and will destroy him from the midst of My people Israel" (Ezek.

14:6).



"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank Thee, O Father,

Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the

wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so,

Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight" (Luke 10:21).



"Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He

hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not

see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted,

and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw His

glory, and spake of Him" (John 12:32, 40, 41).



"Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom

He will He hardeneth" (Romans 9:18).



"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;

because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be

saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusions, that

they should believe a lie; That they all might be damned who believed

not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:10-12).



These passages will show the general tenor of scripture upon this

subject.



Different sense in which God purposes different events.



1. The great end of all His works and ways He must have purposed

positively, that is, absolutely. This end, namely His own good and the

highest good of the universe, He set His heart upon securing. This

end He no doubt properly intended, or purposed to secure. This must

have been His ultimate intention or purpose. This end was no doubt a

direct object of choice.



2. God must no doubt also, in some sense, have purposed all the

necessary means to this result. Such actions as tended naturally, or

on account of their own nature, to this result, He must have purposed

positively, in the sense that He delighted in them, and chose them

because of their own nature, or of their natural relation to the great

end He proposed to accomplish by them. Observe, the end was an

ultimate end, delighted in and chosen for its own sake. This end was

the highest good or well-being of Himself and the universe of sentient

existences. This has been sufficiently shown in former lectures; and

besides it follows of necessity from the nature and attributes of God. If

this were not so, He would be neither wise nor good. Since He

delighted in and those the end for its own sake or value, and purposed

it with a positive purpose, He must also have chosen and delighted in

the necessary means. He must have created the universe, both of

matter and of mind, and established its laws, with direct reference to,

and for the sake of, the end He purposed to accomplish. The end was

valuable in itself, and chosen for that reason. The necessary means

were as really valuable as the end which depended upon them. This

value, though real, because of their tendency and natural results, is

not ultimate, but relative; that is, they are not, in the same sense that

the end is, valuable in themselves; but they being the necessary

means to this end, are as really valuable as the end that depends

upon them. Thus our necessary food is not valuable in itself, but is the

necessary means of prolonging our lives. Therefore, though not an

ultimate good, yet it is a real good of as great value, as the end that

naturally depends upon it. The naturally necessary means of securing

a valuable end we justly esteem as equally valuable with the end,

although this value is not absolute but relative. We are so accustomed

to set a value on the means, equal to the estimated importance of the

end to which they sustain the relation of necessary means, that we

come loosely to regard and to speak of them as valuable in

themselves, when in fact their value is not absolute but relative. God

must have purposed to secure, so far as He wisely could, obedience

to the laws of the universe. These laws were established for the sake

of the end to which they tended, and obedience to them must have

been regarded by God as of real, though not ultimate, value, equal to

that of the end, for the accomplishment of which they were ordained. 

He must have delighted in obedience to these laws for the sake of the

end, and must have purposed to secure this obedience so far as He

could in the nature of things; that is, in so far as He wisely could. 

Since moral law is a rule for the government of free moral agents, it is

conceivable, that, in some cases, this law might be violated by the

subjects of it, unless God resorted to means to prevent it, that might

introduce an evil of greater magnitude than the violation of the law in

the instances under consideration would be. It is conceivable, that, in

some cases, God might be able so to overrule a violation of His laws,

as upon the whole to secure a greater good than could be secured, by

introducing such a change into the policy and measures of His

administration, or so framing His administration, as to prevent

altogether the violation of any law. In this case, He might regard the

violation as the less of two evils and suffer it rather than change the

arrangements of His government. He might sincerely deplore and

abhor these violations of law, and yet might see it not wise to prevent

them, because the measures necessary to prevent them might result

in an evil of still greater magnitude. He might purpose to suffer these

violations, and take the trouble to overrule them, so far as was

possible, for the promotion of the end He had in view, rather than

interpose for their prevention. These violations He might not have

purposed in any other sense than that He foresaw them, and purposed

not to prevent them, but on the contrary to suffer them to occur, and to

overrule them for good, so far as this was practicable. These events,

or violations of law, have no natural tendency to promote the highest

well-being of God and of the universe, but have in themselves a

directly opposite tendency. Nevertheless, God could so overrule them

as that these occurrences would be a less evil than that change would

be that could have prevented them. Violations of law then, He might

have purposed only to suffer, while obedience to law He might have

designed to produce or secure.



3. We have seen, that God and men may have different motives for

the same event, as in the case of the brethren of Joseph, already

alluded to: "And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I

pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your

brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved nor

angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither; for God did send me

before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been

in the land; and yet there are five years, in the which there shall

neither be earing nor harvest!" (Gen. 45:4-6).



As also in the case of the king of Assyria: "O Assyrian, the rod of Mine

anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine indignation. I will send him

against a hypocritical nation, and against the people of My wrath will I

give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread

them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so,

neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut

off nations not a few. Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the

Lord hath performed His whole work upon mount Zion, and on

Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of

Assyria, and the glory of his high looks" (Isaiah 10:5-7, 12).



Also, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten

Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have

everlasting life" (John 3:16).



"Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge

of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain"

(Acts 2:23).



These, and such like instances, show that wicked agents may, and

often do, and when wicked always do, entertain a very different reason

for their conduct from what God entertains in suffering it. They have a

selfish end in view, or do what they do for a selfish reason. God, on

the contrary, has a benevolent end in view in not interposing to

prevent their sin; that is, He hates their sin as tending in itself, to

destroy, or defeat the great end of benevolence. But foreseeing that

the sin, notwithstanding its natural evil tendency, may be so overruled,

as upon the whole to result in a less evil than the changes requisite to

prevent it would, He benevolently prefers to suffer it rather than

interpose to prevent it. He would, no doubt, prefer their perfect

obedience, under the circumstances in which they are, but would

sooner suffer them to sin, than so change the circumstances as to

prevent it; the latter being, all things considered, the greater of two

evils. God then always suffers His laws to be violated, because He

cannot benevolently prevent it under the circumstances. He suffers it

for benevolent reasons. But the sinner always has selfish reasons.



4. The Bible informs us, that God brings good out of evil, in the sense

that He overrules sin to promote His own glory, and the good of being:



"Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee; the remainder of wrath

shalt Thou restrain" (Psalms 76:10).



"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what

shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as

a man.) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie

unto His glory; why yet am I judged as a sinner? And not rather (as

we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us

do evil, that good may come? Whose damnation is just" (Romans 3:5,

7).



"Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound; but where

sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).



"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love

God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans

8:28).



5. The Bible also informs us that God does not aim at producing sin in

creation and providence; that is, that He does not purpose the

existence of sin in such a sense as to design to secure and promote it,

in the administration of His government. In other words still, sin is not

the object of a positive purpose on the part of God. It exists only by

sufferance and not as a thing which naturally tends to secure His great

end, and which therefore He values on that account and endeavors to

promote, as He does obedience to the law.



"Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and

burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other Gods whom ye know

not?  And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by

My name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?"

(Jere. 7:9-10).



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all

churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14:33).



"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God

cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man; But every

man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin when it is

finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every

good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from

the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of

turning" (James 1:13-17).



"But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and

lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but

is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is

confusion, and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is

first pure, then peaceable, and gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of

mercy and good fruits, without partiality and hypocrisy" (James

3:14-17).



"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the

eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world" (1

John 2:16).



Obedience to law is an object of positive purpose. God purposes to

promote it, and uses means with that design. Sin occurs incidentally,

so far as the purpose of God is concerned. It need not be, and

doubtless is not, the object of positive design or purpose, but comes to

pass because it cannot wisely be prevented. God uses means to

promote obedience. But moral agents, in the exercise of their free

agency, often disobey in spite of all the inducements to the contrary

which God can wisely set before them. God never sets aside the

freedom of moral agents to prevent their sinning, nor to secure their

obedience. The Bible everywhere represents men as acting freely

under the government and universal providence of God, and it

represents sin as the result of, or as consisting in, an abuse of their

freedom.



"And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our

brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us,

and we would not hear; therefore, is this distress come upon us" (Gen.

42:21).



"And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he

let the people go" (Exodus 8:32).



"And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto

them, I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my

people are wicked" (Exodus 9:27).



"Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I

have sinned against the Lord your God, and against you. Now

therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the

Lord your God, that He may take away from me this death only"

(Exodus 10:16-17).



"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set

before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life,

that both thou and thy seed may live" (Deut. 30:19).



"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose ye this day

whom ye will serve; whether the Gods which your fathers served that

were on the other side of the flood, or the Gods of the Amorites, in

whose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the

Lord" (Joshua 24:15).



"And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He

moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. And

David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And

David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done:

and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Thy

servant; for I have done very foolishly" (2 Samuel 24:1, 10).



"My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. For that they hated

knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord; They would none

of My counsel; they despised all My reproof; Therefore shall they eat

of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices" (Prov.

1:10, 29-31).



"A man's heart deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps"

(Prov. 16:9).



The following things appear to be true in respect to the purposes of

God, as taught both by reason and revelation:



(1.) That God's purposes extend in some sense to all events.



(2.) That He positively purposes the highest good of being, as a whole

as His end.



(3.) That He has ordained wise and wholesome laws as the

necessary means of securing this end.



(4.) That He positively purposes to secure obedience to these laws in

so far as He wisely can, and uses means with this design.



(5.) That He does not positively purpose to secure disobedience to

His laws in any case, and use means with that design; but that He only

purposes to suffer violations of His law rather than prevent them,

because He foresees that, by His overruling power, He can prevent

the violation from resulting in so great an evil as the change necessary

to prevent it would do. Or in other words, He sees that He can secure

a greater good upon the whole, by suffering the violation under the

circumstances in which it occurs, than He could by interposing to

prevent it. This is not the same thing as to say, that sin is the

necessary means of the greatest good. For should all moral agents

perfectly obey, under the identical circumstances in which they

disobey, this might, and doubtless would result in the highest possible

good. But God, foreseeing that it were more conducive to the highest

good of being to suffer some to sin, rather than so change the

circumstances as to prevent it, purposed to suffer their sin, and

overrule it for good; but He did not aim at producing it, and use means

with that intent.



God's revealed will is never inconsistent with His secret purpose.



It has been common to represent sin as the necessary occasion,

condition, or means of the greatest good, in such a sense, that upon

the whole God secretly, but really prefers sin to holiness in every case

where it exists; that while He has forbidden sin under all

circumstances, upon pain of eternal death, yet because it is the

necessary occasion, condition, or means of the greatest good, God

really prefers its existence to holiness in every instance in which it

exists. It has been said, sin exists. God does not therefore prevent it. 

But He could and would prevent it, if He did not upon the whole prefer

it to holiness, in the circumstances in which it occurs. Its existence,

then, it has been said, is proof conclusive that God secretly prefers its

existence to holiness, in every case in which it occurs. But this is a

non sequitur. It does not follow from the existence of sin, that God

prefers sin to holiness in the circumstances in which it occurs; but it

may be that He only prefers sin to such a change of circumstances as

would prevent it. Suppose I require my son to do a certain thing. I

know that he will do it, if I remain at home and see to it. But I know

also, that if I go from home he will not do it. Now I might prefer that he

should do as I command, and consider his disobedience as a great

evil; still I might regard it as a less evil than for me to remain at home,

and keep my eye upon him. I might have just reasons for supposing

that, under the circumstances, a greater good could be secured upon

the whole by my going from home, although his disobedience might be

the consequence, than by remaining at home, and preventing his

disobedience. Benevolence therefore might require me to go.



But should my son infer from my leaving him, under these

circumstances, that I really, though secretly, preferred his

disobedience to his obedience, under the identical circumstances in

which I gave the command, would his inference be legitimate? No,

indeed. All that he could justly infer from my leaving him, with the

knowledge that he would disobey me if I did, would be, that although I

regarded his disobedience as a great evil, yet I regarded remaining at

home a greater.



Just so, it may be when sin exists. God is sincere in prohibiting it. He

would greatly prefer that it should not exist. All that can be justly

inferred from His not preventing it is, that, although He regards its

existence as a great and real evil, yet upon the whole He regards it as

a less evil, than would result from so great a change in the

administration of His government as would prevent it. He is therefore

entirely and infinitely sincere in requiring obedience, and in prohibiting

disobedience, and His secret purpose is in strict keeping with His

revealed will. Were the moral law universally obeyed, under the

circumstances in which all moral agents exist, no one can say, that this

would not be better for the universe, and more pleasing to God than

disobedience is in the same circumstances. Nor is it fair to infer, that

upon the whole, God must prefer sin to holiness, where it occurs, from

the fact that He does not prevent it. As has been said, all that can

justly be inferred from His not preventing it is, that under the

circumstances He prefers not sin to holiness, but prefers to suffer the

agent to sin and take the consequences, rather than introduce such

changes in the policy and administration of His government as would

prevent it. Or it may be said, that the present system is the best that

infinite wisdom could devise and execute, not because of sin, but in

spite of it, and notwithstanding sin is a real though incidental evil. It is

a palpable contradiction and an absurdity to affirm, that any being can

sin, intending thereby to promote the greatest good. This will appear if

we consider:



1. That it is admitted on all hands, that benevolence is virtue.



2. That benevolence consists in willing good, or the highest good of

being as an end.



3. That it is duty to will both the end and the necessary means to

promote it.



4. That right and benevolence are always at one, that is, that which is

benevolent must always be right, and can in no case be wrong.



5. That consequently it can never be sin to choose the highest good

of being, with all the necessary occasions, conditions, and means of

promoting it.



6. It is impossible therefore for a being to sin, or to consent to sin, as

an occasion, condition, or means, or designing thereby to promote the

highest good of being; for this design would be virtue, and not sin. 

Whether all virtue consists in benevolence, or not, still it must be

admitted, that all forms of virtue must be consistent with benevolence,

unless it be admitted, that there can be a law of right inconsistent with,

and opposed to, the law of benevolence. But this would be to admit,

that two moral laws might be opposed to each other; which would be

to admit, that a moral agent might be under an obligation to obey two

opposing laws at the same time, which is a contradiction. Thus it

appears, that there can be no law of right opposed to, or separate

from, the law of benevolence. Benevolence and right must then

always be at one. If this be so, it follows, that whatever benevolence

demands, cannot be wrong, but must be right. But the law of

benevolence demands not only the choice of the highest good of being

as an end, but also demands the choice of all the known necessary

occasions, conditions, and means with a design to promote that end.

It is naturally impossible to sin, in using means designed and known

to be necessary to the promotion of the end of benevolence. It is

therefore naturally impossible to do evil, or to sin, that good may

come, or with the design to promote good thereby.



Let those who hold that right and benevolence may be opposed to

each other, and that a moral agent can sin with a benevolent intention,

see what their doctrine amounts to, and get out of the absurdity as

best they can. The fact is, if willing the highest good of being is always

virtuous, it must always be right to will all the necessary occasions,

conditions, and means to that end. It is therefore a contradiction to

say that sin can be among the necessary and intended occasions,

conditions, and means; that is, that any one could sin intending

thereby to promote the highest good. But it is not pretended by those

who hold this dogma, that sin sustains to the highest good the same

relations that holiness does. Holiness has a natural tendency to

promote the highest good; but the supposition now under

consideration is, that sin is hateful in itself, and that it therefore must

dissatisfy and disgust all moral agents, and that its natural tendency is

to defeat the end of moral government, and to prevent rather than

promote the highest good; but that God foresees that, notwithstanding

its intrinsically odious and injurious nature, He can so overrule it as to

make it the condition, occasion, or instrument of the highest good of

Himself and of His universe, and that for this reason He really upon

the whole is pleased that it should occur, and prefers its existence in

every instance in which it does exist, to holiness in its stead. The

supposition is, that sin is in its own nature infinitely odious and

abominable to God, and perfectly odious to all holy moral agents, yet it

is the occasion of calling into development and exercise such

emotions and feelings in God and in holy beings, and such

modifications of benevolence, as do really more than compensate for

all the disgust and painful emotions that result to holy beings, and for

all the remorse, agony, despair, and endless suffering, that result to

sinners.



It is not supposed by any one that I know of, that sin naturally tends to

promote the highest good at all, but only that God can, and does, so

overrule and counteract its natural tendency, as to make it the

occasion or condition of a greater good, than holiness would be in its

stead. Now in reply to this, I would say, that I pretend not to determine

to what extent God can, and will, overrule and counteract the naturally

evil and injurious tendency of sin. It surely is enough to say that God

prohibits it and that it is impossible for creatures to know that sin is the

necessary occasion, or condition, or means of the highest good.



If sin is known by God to be the necessary occasion, condition, or

means of the highest good of Himself and of the universe, whatever it

may be in itself, yet viewed in its relations, it must be regarded by Him

as of infinite value, since it is the indispensable condition of infinite

good. According to this theory, sin in every instance in which it exists,

is and must be regarded by God as of infinitely greater value than

holiness would be in its stead. He must then, upon the whole, have

infinite complacency in it. But this leads me to attend to the principal

arguments by which it is supposed this theory is maintained. It is said,

for example:



(1.) That the highest good of the universe of moral agents is

conditionated upon the revelation of the attributes and character of

God to them; that but for sin these attributes, at least some of them,

could never have been revealed, inasmuch as without sin there would

have been no occasion for their display or manifestation; that neither

justice nor mercy, nor forbearance, nor self denial, nor meekness,

could have found the occasions of their exercise or manifestation, had

sin never existed.



To this I reply, that sin has indeed furnished the occasion for a

glorious manifestation of the moral perfections of God. From this we

see that God's perfections enable Him greatly to overrule sin, and to

bring good out of evil: but from this we are not authorized to infer, that

God could not have revealed these attributes to His creatures without

the existence of sin. Nor can we say, that these revelations would

have been necessary to the highest perfection and happiness of the

universe, had all moral agents perfectly and uniformly obeyed. When

we consider what the moral attributes of God are, it is easy to see that

there may be myriads of moral attributes in God of which no creature

has, or ever will have, any knowledge; and the knowledge of which is

not at all essential to the highest perfection and happiness of the

universe of creatures. God's moral attributes are only His

benevolence, existing and contemplated in its various relations to the

universe of beings. Benevolence in any being must possess as many

attributes as there are possible relations under which it can be

contemplated, and should their occasions arise, these attributes would

stand forth in exercise. It is not at all probable, that all of the attributes

of benevolence, either in the Creator or in creatures, have yet found

the occasions of their exercise, nor, perhaps, will they ever. As new

occasions rise to all eternity, benevolence will develop new and

striking attributes, and manifest itself under endless forms and

varieties of loveliness. There can be no such thing as exhausting its

capabilities of development.



In God benevolence is infinite. Creatures can never know all its

attributes, nor approach any nearer to knowing all of them than they

now are. There can be no end to its capabilities of developing in

exercise new forms of beauty and loveliness. It is true, that God has

taken occasion to show forth the glory of His benevolence through the

existence of sin. He has seized the occasion, though mournful in

itself, to manifest some of the attributes of His benevolence by the

exercise of them. It is also true, that we cannot know how or by what

means God could have revealed these attributes, if sin had not

existed; and it is also true, that we cannot know that such a revelation

was impossible without the existence of sin; nor that, but for sin, the

revelation would have been necessary to the highest good of the

universe.



God forbids sin, and requires universal holiness. He must be sincere

in this. But sin exists. Shall we say that He secretly chooses that it

should, and really, though secretly, prefers its existence to holiness,

the circumstances in which it occurs? Or shall we assume, that it is an

evil, that God regards it as such, but that He cannot wisely prevent it;

that is, to prevent it would introduce a still greater evil? It is an evil,

and a great evil, but still the less of two evils; that is, to suffer it to

occur, under the circumstances, is a less evil than such a change of

circumstances, as would prevent it, would be. This is all we can justly

infer from its existence. This leaves the sincerity of God

unimpeached, and sustains His consistency, and the consistency and

integrity of His law. The opposite supposition represents God and the

law as infinitely deceitful.



(2.) It has been said, that the Bible sustains the supposition, that sin is

the necessary means of the highest good. I trust the passages that

have been quoted, disprove this saying.



(3.) It is said, that to represent sin as not the means of the highest

good, and God as unable to prevent it, is to represent God as unable

to accomplish all His will; whereas He says, He will do all His pleasure,

and that nothing is too hard for Him.



I answer: God pleases to do only what is naturally possible, and He is

well pleased to do that and nothing more. This He is able to do. This

He will do. This He does. This is all He claims to be able to do; and

this is all that in fact infinite wisdom and power can do.



(4.) But it is said, that if sin is an evil, and God can neither prevent nor

overrule it, so as to make it a means of greater good than could be

secured without it, He must be unhappy in view of this fact, because

He cannot prevent it, and secure a higher good without it.



I answer: God neither desires nor wills to perform natural

impossibilities. God is a reasonable being, and does not aim at nor

desire impossibilities. He is well content to do as well as, in the nature

of the case, is possible, and has no unreasonable regrets because He

is not more than infinite, and that He cannot accomplish what is

impossible to infinity itself. His good pleasure is, to secure all the good

that is possible to infinity: with this He is infinitely well pleased.



Again: does not the objection, that the view of the subject here

presented limits the divine power, lie with all its force against those

who make this objection? To hold that sin is the necessary means or

condition of the highest good, is to hold that God was unable to

promote the highest good without resorting to such vile means as sin. 

Sin is an abomination in itself; and do not they, as really and as much

limit the power of God, who maintain His inability to promote the

highest good without it, as they do who hold, that He could not wisely

so interfere with the free actions of moral agents as to prevent it? Sin

exists. God abhors it. How is its existence to be accounted for? I

suppose it to be an evil unavoidably incidental to that system of moral

government which, notwithstanding the evil, was upon the whole the

best that could be adopted. Others suppose that sin is the necessary

means or condition of the greatest good; and account for its existence

in this way: that is, they suppose that God admits or permits its

existence as a necessary occasion, condition, or means of the highest

good; that He was not able to secure the highest good without it. The

two explanations of the admitted fact that sin exists, differ in this:



One method of explanation holds, that sin is the necessary occasion,

condition, or means of the highest good; and that God actually, upon

the whole, prefers the existence of sin to holiness, in every instance in

which it exists; because, in those circumstances, it is a condition or

means of greater good than could have been secured by holiness in

its stead. This theory represents God as unable to secure His end by

other means, or upon other conditions, than sin. The other theory

holds, that God really prefers holiness to sin in every instance in which

it occurs; that He regards sin as an evil, but that while He regards it as

an evil, He suffers its existence as a less evil than such a change in

the administration of His government as would prevent it, would be. 

Both theories must admit, that in some sense God could not wisely

prevent it. Explain the fact of its existence as you will, it must be

admitted, that in some sense God was not able to prevent it, and

secure His end.



If it be said, that God could neither wisely prevent it, nor so overrule it

as to make it the means or condition of the highest good, He must be

rendered unhappy by its existence; I reply, that this must be equally

true upon the other hypothesis. Sin is hateful, and its consequences

are a great evil. These consequences will be eternal and indefinitely

great. God must disapprove these consequences. If sin is the

necessary condition or means of the greatest good, must not God

lament that He cannot secure the good without a resort to such

loathsome, and such horrible means? If His inability wisely to prevent

it will interfere with and diminish His happiness, must not the same be

true of His inability to secure the highest good, without such means as

will prove the eternal destruction of millions?



Wisdom and benevolence of the purposes of God.



We have seen that God is both wise and benevolent. This is the

doctrine both of reason and of revelation. The reason intuitively

affirms that God is, and is perfect. The Bible assumes that He is, and

declares that He is perfect. Both wisdom and benevolence must be

attributes of the infinite and perfect God. These attributes enter into

the reason's idea of God. The reason could not recognize any being

as God to whom these attributes did not belong. But if infinite wisdom

and benevolence are moral attributes of God, it follows of course that

all His designs or purposes are both perfectly wise and benevolent. 

God has chosen the best possible end, and pursues it in the use of the

best practicable means. His purposes embrace the end and the

means necessary to secure it, together with the best practicable

disposal of the sin, which is the incidental result of His choosing this

end and using these means; and they extend no further; they are all

therefore perfectly wise and good.



The immutability of the divine purposes.



We have seen that immutability is not only a natural, but also a moral

attribute of God. The reason affirms, that the self-existent and

infinitely perfect God is unchangeable in all His attributes. The ground

of this affirmation it is not my purpose here to inquire into. It is

sufficient here to say, what every one knows, that such is the

affirmation of the reason. This is also everywhere assumed and

taught in the Bible. God's moral attributes are not immutable in the

sense of necessity, but only in the sense of certainty. Although God is

not necessarily benevolent, yet He is as immutably so, as if He were

necessarily so. If His benevolence were necessary, it would not be

virtuous, for the simple reason that it would not be free. But being

free, its immutability renders it all the more praiseworthy.

The purposes of God are a ground of eternal and joyful confidence.



That is, they may reasonably be a source of eternal comfort, joy, and

peace. Selfish beings will not of course rejoice in them, but

benevolent beings will and must. If they are infinitely wise and good,

and sure to be accomplished, they must form a rational ground of

unfailing confidence and joy. God says:



"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the

things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will

do all My pleasure" (Isaiah 46:10).



"The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart

to all generations" (Psalms 33:11).



"There are many devices in a man's heart, nevertheless, the counsel

of the Lord, that shall stand" (Prov. 19:21).



"But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found

even to fight against God" (Acts 5:39).



These, and many parallel passages are reasonably the source of

perpetual confidence and joy to those who love God, and sympathize

with Him.



The relation of God's purposes to His prescience or foreknowledge.



We have seen that God is omniscient, that is, that He necessarily and

eternally knows whatever is, or can be, an object of knowledge. His

purposes must also be eternal and immutable, as we have seen. In

the order of time, therefore, His purposes and His foreknowledge must

be coeval, that is, they must be co-eternal.



But in the order of nature, God's knowledge of what He could do, and

what could be done, must have preceded His purposes: that is, He

could not, so to speak, in the order of nature, have formed His purpose

and made up His mind what to do, until He had considered what could

be done, and what was best to be done. Until all possible ends, and

ways, and means, were weighed and understood, it was of course

impossible to make a selection, and settle upon the end with all the

necessary means; and also settle upon the ways and means of

overruling any evil, natural or moral, that might be seen to be

unavoidably incidental to any system. Thus it appears, that, in the

order of nature, fore-knowledge of what could be done, and what He

could do, must have preceded the purpose to do. The purpose

resulted from the prescience or foreknowledge. He knew what He

could do, before He decided what He would do. But, on the other

hand, the purpose to do must, in the order of nature, have preceded

the knowledge of what He should do, or of what would be done, or

would come to pass as a result of His purpose. Viewed relatively to

what He could do, and what could be done, the Divine prescience

must in the order of nature have preceded the Divine purposes. But

viewed relatively to what He would do, and what would be done, and

would come to pass, the Divine purposes must, in the order of nature,

have preceded the Divine prescience. But I say again, as

fore-knowledge was necessarily eternal with God, His purposes must

also have been eternal, and therefore, in the order of time, neither His

prescience could have preceded His purposes, nor His purposes have

preceded His prescience. They must have been contemporaneous

and co-eternal.



God's purposes are not inconsistent with, but demand the use of

means both on His part, and on our part, to accomplish them.



The great end upon which He has set His heart necessarily depends

upon the use of means, both moral and physical, to accomplish it. The

highest well-being of the whole universe is His end. This end can be

secured only by securing conformity to the laws of matter and of mind. 

Mind is influenced by motives, and hence moral and physical

government are naturally necessary means of securing the great end

proposed by the Divine mind.



Hence also results the necessity of a vast and complicated system of

means and influences, such as we see spread around us on every

hand. The history of the universe is but the history of creation, and of

the means which God is using to secure His end, with their natural and

incidental results. It has already been shown, that the Bible teaches

that the purposes of God include and respect both means and ends. I

will only add, that God's purposes do not render any event, dependent

upon the acts of a moral agent, necessarily certain, or certain with a

certainty of necessity. Although, as was before said, all events are

certain with some kind of certainty, and would be and must be, if they

are ever to come to pass, whether God purposes them, or whether He

foreknows them or not; yet no event, depending upon the will of a free

agent, is, or can be, certain with a certainty of necessity. The agent

could by natural possibility do otherwise than he will do, or than God

purposes to suffer him to do, or wills that he shall do. God's purposes,

let it be understood, are not a system of fatality. They leave every

moral agent entirely free to choose and act freely. God knows

infallibly how every creature will act, and has made all His

arrangements accordingly, to overrule the wicked actions of moral

agents on the one hand, and to produce or induce, the holy actions of

others on the other hand. But be it remembered, that neither the

Divine fore-knowledge nor the Divine purpose, in any instance, sets

aside the free agency of the creature. He, in every instance, acts as

freely and as responsibly, as if God neither knew nor purposed

anything respecting his conduct, or his destiny.



God's purposes extend to all events in some sense, as has been

shown. They extend as really to the most common events of life as to

the most rare. But in respect to the every day transactions of life, men

are not wont to stumble, and cavil, and say, Why, if I am to live, I shall

live, whatever I may do to destroy my health and life; and if I am to die,

I cannot live, do what I will. No, in these events they will not throw off

responsibility, and cast themselves upon the purposes of God; but on

the contrary, they are as much engaged to secure the end they have

in view, as if God neither knew nor purposed anything about it. Why

then should they do as they often do, in regard to the salvation of their

souls, cast off responsibility, and settle down in listless inactivity, as if

the purposes of God in respect to salvation were but a system of iron

fatality, from which there is no escape? Surely "madness is in their

hearts while they live" (Eccl. 9:3). But let them understand, that, in

thus doing, they sin against the Lord, and be sure their sin will find

them out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

LECTURE 47



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS



In discussing this subject, I will, 



Notice the different kinds of certainty.



Every thing must be certain with some kind of certainty. There is a

way in which all things and events either have been, are, or will be. All

events that ever did or will occur, were and are as really certain before

as after their occurrence. To an omniscient mind their real certainty

might and must have been known, as really before as after their

occurrence. All future events, for example, will occur in some way,

and there is no real uncertainty in fact, nor can there be any real

uncertainty in the knowledge of God respecting them. They are really

as certain before they come to pass as they will ever be, and they are

as truly and perfectly known as certain by God as they ever will be. 

They are as truly present to the Divine foreknowledge as they ever will

be. Whatever of contingency and uncertainty there may be respecting

them in some respects, yet, in point of fact, all events are certain, and

there is no real uncertainty in respect to any event that ever did or will

occur. This would be equally true, whether God or any other being

knew how they would be or not. The foreknowledge of God does not

make them certain. He knows them to be certain simply because they

are so. Omniscience is the necessary knowledge of all objects of

knowledge, past, present, and future. But omniscience does not

create objects of knowledge. It does not render events certain, but

only knows how they certainly will be, because it is certain, not only

that they will be, but how and when they will be. All the free actions of

moral agents are as really certain before they occur, as they ever will

be. And God must as truly know how they will be before they occur,

as He does after they have occurred.



1. The first kind of certainty that I shall notice, is that of absolute

necessity; that is, a certainty depending on no conditions whatever. 

This is the highest kind of certainty. It belongs to the absolute and the

infinite, to the existence of space, duration, and to the existence of

God; and in short to everything that is self-existent, infinite, and

immutable in a natural sense; that is, to everything infinite that does

not imply voluntariness. The natural attributes of God are certain by

this kind of certainty, but His moral attributes, consisting as they do in

a voluntary state of mind, though infinite and eternal, do not belong to

this class.



2. A second kind of certainty is that of physical, but conditional

necessity. To this class belong all those events that come to pass

under the operation of physical law. These belong properly to the

chain of cause and effect. The cause existing, the effect must exist. 

The event is rendered certain and necessary by the existence of its

cause. Its certainty is conditionated upon its cause. The cause

existing, the event must follow by a law of necessity, and the events

would not occur of course, did not their causes exist. The causes

being what they are, the events must be what they are. This class of

events are as really certain as the foregoing class. By speaking of one

of them as certain in a higher sense than the other, it is not intended,

that one class is any more certain than the other, but only that the

certainty is of a different kind. For example, the first class are certain

by a kind of certainty that does not, and never did depend on the will of

any being whatever. There never was any possibility that these things

should be otherwise than they are. This, it will be seen, must be true

of space and duration, and of the existence and the natural attributes

of God.



But all other things except the self-existent, the naturally immutable

and eternal, are certain only as they are conditionated directly or

indirectly upon the will of some being. For example, all the events of

the physical universe were rendered certain by creation, and the

establishing and upholding of those physical and necessary laws that

cause these events. These are, therefore, certain by a conditionated,

though physical necessity. There is no freedom or liberty in the events

themselves; they occur necessarily, when their causes or conditions

are supplied.



3. A third kind of certainty is that of a moral certainty. I call it a moral

certainty, not because the class of events which belong to it are less

certain than the foregoing, but because they consist in, or are

conditionated upon, the free actions of moral agents. This class do

not occur under the operation of a law of necessity, though they occur

with certainty. There is no contingency predicable of the absolutely

certain in the sense of absolute certainty above defined. The second

class of certainties are contingent only in respect to their causes. 

Upon condition that the causes are certain, the events depending

upon them are certain, without or beyond any contingency. This third

class, though no less certain than the former two, are nevertheless

contingent in the highest sense in which anything can be contingent. 

They occur under the operation of free will, and consequently there is

not one of them that might not by natural possibility fail, or be

otherwise than it is or will in fact be. This kind of certainty I call a

moral certainty, as opposed to a physical certainty, that is, it is not a

certainty of necessity in any sense; it is only a mere certainty, or a

voluntary certainty, a free certainty, a certainty that might, by natural

possibility in every case, be no certainty at all. But, on the contrary,

the opposite might in every instance be certain by a natural possibility. 

God in every instance, knows how these events will be, as really as if

they occurred by necessity; but His foreknowledge does not affect

their certainty one way or the other. They might in every instance by

natural possibility be no certainties at all, or be the opposite of what

they are or will be, God's foreknowledge in any wise notwithstanding. 

God knows them to be certain, not because His knowledge has any

influence of itself to necessitate them, but because they are certain in

themselves. Because it is certain in itself that they will be, God knows

that they will be. To this class of events belong all the free actions of

moral agents. All events may be traced ultimately to the action of

God's free will; that is, God's free actions gave existence to the

universe, with all its physical agencies and laws, so that all physical

events are in some sense owing to, and result from the actions of free

will. But physical events occur nevertheless under the immediate

operation of a law of necessity. The class now under consideration

depend not upon the operation of physical law as their cause. They

are caused by the free agent himself. They find the occasions of their

occurrence in the providential events with which moral agents are

surrounded, and therefore may be traced indirectly, and more or less

remotely, to the actions of the Divine will.



Concerning this class of events, I would further remark that they are

not only contingent in such a sense, that they might in every case by

natural possibility be other than they are, but there may be, humanly

speaking, the utmost danger that they will be otherwise than they

really will be, that is, there may be danger, and the utmost danger, in

the only sense in which there can be in fact any danger that any event

will be otherwise than what it turns out to be. All events being really

certain, there is in fact no danger that any event whatever will turn out

differently from what it does, in the sense that it is not certain how it

will be. But since all acts of free will, and all events dependent on

those acts, are contingent in the highest sense in which any event can

in the nature of things be contingent; and in the sense that, humanly

speaking, there may be millions of chances to one that they will be

otherwise than they will in fact turn out to be, we say of all this class of

events, that there is danger that they may or may not occur.



Again: I remark in respect to this class of events, that God may

foresee that so intricate is the labyrinth, and so complicated are the

occasions of failure, that nothing but the utmost watchfulness and

diligent use of means on His part, and on our part, can secure the

occurrence of the event. Everything revealed in the Bible concerning

the perseverance and final salvation of the saints, and everything that

is true, and that God knows of the free actions and destinies of the

saints, may be of this class. These events are nevertheless certain,

and are known to God as certainties. Not one of them will, in fact, turn

out differently from what He foresees that they will; and yet by natural

possibility, they might every one of them turn out differently; and there

may, in the only sense in which danger is predicable of anything, be

the utmost danger that some or all of them will turn out differently from

what they in fact will. These events are contingent in such a sense,

that should the means fail to be used, or should any event in the whole

chain of influences connected with their occurrence, be otherwise than

it is, the end or event resulting, would or might be otherwise, than in

fact it will be. They are, nevertheless, certain, every one of them,

together with all the influences upon which each free act depends. 

Nothing is uncertain in respect to whether it will occur or not; and yet

no free act, or event depending upon a free act, is certain, in the sense

that it cannot by natural possibility be otherwise, nor in the sense that

there may not be great danger, or, humanly speaking, a probability

that it will be otherwise, and that, humanly speaking, there may not be

many chances to one that it will be otherwise.



When I say, that any event may, by natural possibility, be otherwise

than what it will in fact be, I mean, that the free agent has natural

power in every instance to choose otherwise than he does or actually

will choose. As an illustration of both the contingency and the certainty

of this class of events, suppose a man about to attempt to cross Lake

Erie on a wire, or to pass down the falls of Niagara in a bark canoe. 

The result of this attempt is really certain. God must know how it will

be. But this result, though certain, is conditionated upon a multitude of

things, each of which the agent has natural power to make otherwise

than in fact he will. To secure his safe crossing, every volition must be

just what and as it will be; but there is not one among them that might

not, by natural possibility, be the opposite of what it will be.



Again, the case may be such, and the danger of failure so great, that

nothing could secure the safe crossing, but a revelation from God that

would inspire confidence, that the adventurer should in fact cross the

lake, or venture down the falls safely: I say, this revelation of God

might be indispensable to his safe crossing. Suppose it were revealed

to a man under such circumstances, that he should actually arrive in

safety; but the revelation was accompanied with the emphatic

assurance, that the end depended upon the most diligent, cautious,

and persevering use of means on his part, and that any failure in these

would defeat the end. Both the revelation of the certainty of success,

and the emphatic warning, might be indispensable to the securing of

the end. Now, if the adventurer had confidence in the promise of

success, he would have confidence in the caution not to neglect the

necessary means, and his confidence in both might secure the desired

result. But take an example from scripture:



"But after long abstinence. Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and

said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed

from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss. And now I exhort

you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life

among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel

of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, Saying, Fear not, Paul: thou

must be brought before Caesar: and lo, God hath given thee all them

that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe

God, that it shall be even as it was told me. Howbeit we must be cast

upon a certain island. But when the fourteenth night was come, as we

were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen

deemed that they drew near to some country; And sounded, and found

it twenty fathoms: and when they had gone a little further, they

sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. Then fearing lest we

should have fallen upon rocks, they cast anchors out of the stern, and

wished for the day. And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the

ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea, under color as

though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship, Paul said to

the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye

cannot be saved" (Acts 27:21-31). Here the end was foreknown and

expressly foretold at first, without any condition expressed, though

they plainly understood that the end was to be secured by means. 

Paul afterwards informed them, that if they neglected the means, the

end would fail. Both the means and the end were certain in fact, and

God therefore expressly revealed the certainty of the result, and

afterwards by a subsequent revelation secured the use of the

necessary means. There was uncertainty, in the sense that the thing

might, in fact, turn out otherwise than it did, and yet it was uncertain in

the sense that, by natural possibility, both the means and the end

might fail.



I remark, again, in respect to events that are morally certain, that if

they are greatly desired, they are not the more, but all the less, in

danger of failing, by how much stronger the confidence is that they will

occur, provided it be understood, that they are certain only by a moral

certainty; that is, provided it be understood, that the event is

conditionated upon the free acts of the agent himself.



Again: it is generally admitted, that hope is a condition of success in

any enterprise; and if this is so, assurance of success, upon the proper

conditions, cannot tend to defeat the end.



I remark, again, that there is a difference between real danger, and a

knowledge or sense of danger. There may be as great and as real

danger when we have no sense or knowledge of it, as when we have. 

And on the other hand, when we have the highest and the keenest

sense of danger, there may be, in fact, no real danger; and indeed, as

has been said, there never is any danger in the sense that anything

will, as a matter of fact, turn out differently from what God foresees it

will be.



Again: the fact that anything is revealed as certain, does not make it

certain; that is, the revelation does not make it certain. It had been

certain, had not this certainty been revealed, unless it be in cases

where the revelation is a condition or means of the certainty revealed. 

An event may be really certain, and may be revealed as certain, and

yet humanly speaking, there may be millions of chances to one, that it

will not be as it is revealed; that is, so far as human foresight can go,

the probabilities may all be against it. 

State what is not intended by the perseverance of the saints, as I hold

the doctrine.



1. It is not intended that any sinner will be saved without complying

with the conditions of salvation; that is, without regeneration, and

persevering in obedience to the end of life, in a sense to be hereafter

explained.



2. It is not intended that saints, or the truly regenerate, cannot fall

from grace, and be finally lost, by natural possibility. It must be

naturally possible for all moral agents to sin at any time. Saints on

earth and in heaven can by natural possibility apostatize and fall, and

be lost. Were not this naturally possible, there would be no virtue in

perseverance.



3. It is not intended, that the true saints are in no danger of apostasy

and ultimate damnation. For, humanly speaking, there may be, and

doubtless is, the greatest danger in respect to many, if not of all of

them, in the only sense in which danger is predicable of any event

whatever, that they will apostatize, and be ultimately lost.



4. It is not intended, that there may not be, humanly speaking,

myriads of chances to one, that some, or that many of them will fall

and be lost. This may be, as we say, highly probable; that is, it may

be probable in the only sense in which it is probable, that any event

whatever may be different from what it will turn out to be.



5. It is not intended, that the salvation of the saints is possible, except

upon condition of great watchfulness and effort, and perseverance on

their part, and great grace on the part of God.



6. It is not intended, that their salvation is certain, in any higher sense

than all their future free actions are. The result is conditionated upon

their free actions, and the end can be no more certain than its means

or conditions. If the ultimate salvation of the saints is certain, it is

certain only upon condition, that their perseverance in obedience to

the end of life is certain. Every act of this obedience is free and

contingent in the highest sense in which contingency can be

predicated of any thing whatever. It is also uncertain by the highest

kind of uncertainty that can be predicated of any event whatever. 

Therefore there is and must be, as much real danger of the saints

failing of ultimate salvation, as there is that any event whatever will be

different from what it turns out to be.



But here it should be distinctly remembered, as was said, that there is

a difference between a certainty and a knowledge of it. It is one thing

for an event to be really certain, and another thing for us to have a

knowledge of it as certain. Everything is really equally certain, but

many things are not revealed to us as certain. Those that are

revealed as certain, are no more really so than others, but with respect

to future things, not in some way revealed to us, we know not how

they will prove to be. The fact that a thing is revealed to us as certain

does not make it certain, nor is it really any the less uncertain because

it is revealed to us as certain, unless the revelation tends to secure the

certainty. Suppose the ultimate salvation of all the saints is certain,

and that this certainty is revealed to us; unless this revelation is the

means of securing their salvation, they are in just as much real danger

of ultimately failing of eternal life, as if no such revelation had been

made. Notwithstanding the certainty of their salvation, and the fact

that this certainty is revealed to them, there is just as much real,

though unknown, certainty or uncertainty, in respect to any future

event whatever, as there is in respect to this. All events are certain

with some kind of certainty, and would be whether any being whatever

knew the certainty or not. So all events, consisting in or depending

upon the free acts of free agents, are really as uncertain as any event

can be, and this is true whether the certainty is revealed or not. The

salvation of the saints then, is not certain with any higher certainty

than belongs to all future events that consist in, or are conditionated

upon, the free acts of free will, though this certainty may be revealed

to us in one case, and not in the other.



7. Of course the salvation of the saints is not certain by any kind or

degree of certainty that affords the least ground of hope of impunity in

a course of sin. "For if they are to be saved, they are to be saved

upon condition of continuing in faith and obedience to the end of life."



Moreover, their salvation is no more certain than their future free

obedience is. The certainty of future free obedience, and a knowledge

of this certainty, cannot be a reason for not obeying, or afford

encouragement to live in sin. So no more can the knowledge of the

conditional and moral certainty of our salvation afford a ground for

hope of impunity in a life of sin.



8. The salvation of the saints is not certain by any kind or degree of

certainty that renders their salvation or their damnation any more

impossible, than it renders impossible any future acts of sin or

obedience. Consequently, it is not certain in such a sense as to afford

the least encouragement for hope of salvation in sin, any more than a

certainty that a farmer would raise a crop upon condition of his diligent,

and timely, and persevering use of the appropriate means, would

encourage him to neglect those means. If the farmer had a knowledge

of the certainty with its conditions, it would be no temptation to neglect

the means; but, on the other hand, this knowledge would operate as a

powerful incentive to the required use of them. So neither can the

knowledge of the certainty of the salvation of the saints, with the

condition of it, be to them a temptation to live in sin; but, on the

contrary, this knowledge must act as a powerful incentive to the

exercise of confidence in God, and perseverance in holiness unto the

end. So neither can the certainty that the necessary means will be

used, afford any encouragement to neglect the use of them in the case

of man's salvation, any more than the revealed certainty that a farmer

will sow his field and have a crop, would encourage him to neglect to

sow. The known certainty of both the means and the end, with an

understanding of the moral nature of the certainty, has no natural

tendency to beget presumption and neglect; but, on the contrary, to

beget a diligent, and cheerful, and confident use of the necessary

means.



Show what is intended by the doctrine in question.



It is intended, that all who are at any time true saints of God, are

preserved by His grace and Spirit through faith, in the sense that

subsequently to regeneration, obedience is their rule, and

disobedience only the exception; and that being thus kept, they will

certainly be saved with an everlasting salvation.



Before I proceed to the direct proof of the doctrine, a few remarks

may be desirable.



1. I would remark, that I have felt greater hesitancy in forming and

expressing my views upon this, than upon almost any other question

in theology. I have read whatever I could find upon both sides of this

question, and have uniformly found myself dissatisfied with the

arguments on both sides. After very full and repeated discussion, I

feel better able to make up and express an opinion upon the subject

than formerly. I have at some periods of my ministry been nearly on

the point of coming to the conclusion that the doctrine is not true. But I

could never find myself able to give a satisfactory reason for the

rejection of the doctrine. Apparent facts that have come under my

observation have sometimes led me seriously to doubt the soundness

of the doctrine; but I cannot see, and the more I examine the more

unable I find myself to see, how a denial of it can be reconciled with

the scriptures.



I shall give the substance of what I regard as the scripture proof of

this doctrine, and beg the reader to make up his opinion for himself by

a careful examination. Perhaps what has been satisfactory to my

mind may not be so to the minds of others. Let no one believe this, or

any other doctrine upon my authority, but "prove all things and hold

fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).



2. I observe, that its truth cannot be inferred from the nature of

regeneration. It is true, as was said, and as will be farther shown, that

perseverance is an attribute or characteristic of Christian character;

but this does not necessarily result from the nature of regeneration,

but from the indwelling Spirit of Christ. It has been common for that

class of writers and theologians, who hold what is called the Taste

Scheme of regeneration, to infer the truth of this doctrine from the

nature of the change that constitutes the new birth. In this they have

been entirely consistent. If, as they suppose, regeneration consists in

a change in the constitution of the mind, in the implanting or infusion of

a new constitutional taste, relish, or appetite; if it consists in or implies

a change back of all voluntary action, and such a change as to secure

and necessitate a change of voluntary action; why, then it is

consistent, to infer from such a change the perseverance of the saints,

unless it can be made to appear that either God, or Satan, or voluntary

sin, can change the nature back again. If, in regeneration, the nature

is really changed, if there be some new appetite or taste implanted,

some holy principle implanted or infused into the constitution, why,

then it must follow, that they will persevere by a physical law of the

new nature or constitution. I see not how, in this case, they could

even be the subjects of temporary backsliding, unless the new

appetite should temporarily fail, as does sometimes our appetite for

food. But if this may be, yet if regeneration consists in or implies a

new creation of something that is not voluntary, a creation of a new

nature, instead of a new character, I admit, that perseverance might

be reasonably inferred from the fact of such a change. But since I

reject wholly this theory of regeneration, and maintain that it is wholly a

voluntary change, I cannot consistently infer the final salvation of the

saints from the nature of the change that occurs in regeneration. I

have ben struck with the inconsistency of those who hold the Taste

Scheme of regeneration, and yet contend, not only for falling from a

regenerate state, but also that the regenerate may and do fall into a

state of entire depravity, every time they sin; that they fall from this

state of physical or constitutional regeneration every time they commit

sin, and must be regenerated or converted anew, or be lost. Now this

is not reconcilable with the idea of the physical regeneration.



3. Nor can we infer the perseverance of the saints, with any justice,

from their being, at their conversion, brought into a state of

justification.



By perseverance some seem to mean, not that the saints do

persevere or continue in obedience, but that they will be saved at any

rate, whether they persevere in obedience or not. It was against this

idea that such men as the Wesleys, and Fletcher, and their coadjutors

fought so valiantly. They resisted justly and successfully the doctrine

of perpetual justification, upon condition of one act of faith, and

maintained that the saints as well as sinners are condemned

whenever they sin. They also contended that there is no kind of

certainty that all true saints will be saved. Since I have endeavored to

refute the doctrine of a perpetual justification, conditionated upon the

first act of faith, I cannot of course infer the final salvation of the saints

from the nature of justification.



Those who hold, that the first act of faith introduces the soul into a

new relation of such a nature that, from thenceforth, it is not

condemned by the law, do what it will, may justly infer from the nature

of such a justification, that all who ever exercise faith will escape the

penalty of the Divine law. But we have seen, that this is not the nature

of gospel justification, and therefore we must not infer that all saints

will be saved, from the mere fact that they have once believed and

been justified.

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



Please go back one page to get the next section. 

FIRES OF REVIVAL 



http://www.concentric.net/~fires/