The Oberlin Evangelist

February 27, 1839

Lecture V.

THE LAW OF GOD--No. 1

by the Rev. Charles G. Finney

Modernized by Cliff Collins

“‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets’.” (Matt. 22:36-40)

Today’s message is the first message of two messages on this subject. In discussing this subject today, I will show,

I. Obedience to these two commandments comprises the whole of true Religion.

II. What constitutes true obedience?

III. Several errors that people have made on this subject.

Then, in my next lecture, I plan to continue this subject, and I will then show in more detail that the law of God can never be repealed or altered.

I. Obedience to these two commandments comprises the whole of true religion.

1. This is clear from our passage itself. On these two precepts, our Savior said, “hang all the Law and the Prophets”. This sums up everything that is required in the law and the prophets.

2. In Rom. 13:8-10, it says, “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery’, ‘you shall not murder’, ‘you shall not steal’, ‘you shall not bear false witness’, ‘you shall not covet’, and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Here Paul declares that love, with its corresponding action, of course, comprises all of our duty to our fellowmen.

Our reason tells us that there is no virtue without love, and that perfect love to God and our neighbor, with its natural fruits, is the consummation, and the whole of virtue. This agrees with the dictates of our conscience and common sense.

3. The law of God is the standard of right and wrong. The whole law of God is summed up in these two precepts, love God and love your neighbor. As a result, obedience to these two precepts is the whole of virtue or true religion. In other words, it is all that God requires of us. However, I won’t have to elaborate on this, since you probably don’t deny or doubt it.

II. What constitutes true obedience?

Love is the sum of true obedience. But what is the kind of love required by these commands? I will consider:

1. What is the kind of love that must be exercised towards God?

(1) The kind of love that must be exercised towards God must be love from our heart, and not a mere emotion. By our heart, I mean our will. Emotions, or feelings, are often involuntary states of our mind; that is, they are not choices, or willful actions, and because of this, they do not govern our conduct. Love, in the form of an emotion, may exist in opposition to our will. For example, we may exercise emotions of love contrary to our conscience and our judgment, even in opposition to our will. Thus, the sexes often exercise feelings of love towards those to whom all the voluntary powers of their mind feel opposed, and with whom they will not associate. It is true, that in most situations, our emotions agree with our will. But they are often opposed to each other.

Now, the law of God requires a voluntary state of mind; that is, it lays its claims on our will. Our will controls our conduct. Therefore, it is the love of our heart or will, that God requires.

(2) Unselfishness is one of the modifications of love, which we are to exercise towards God. Unselfish love is good will, and certainly, we must exercise this kind of love to God. It is a dictate of reason, of conscience, of common sense, and of immutable justice, that we should exercise good, and not ill will, to God. It doesn’t matter whether God needs our good will, or whether our good or ill will, can, in any way, affect Him. The question does not concern what is needed, but what is deserved.

God’s well-being is certainly an infinite good all by itself, and as a result, we are required to desire His well-being, to rejoice in it and to will it, and rejoice in it in proportion to its own importance. And since His well-being is certainly a matter of infinite importance, we are under an infinite obligation to will God’s well-being with all our hearts.

(3) Another modification of this love is contentment in one’s good moral character or esteem. This esteem, as a phenomenon of our will, consists in willing the highest actual happiness of holy beings in particular as a good all by itself, and on condition of their moral excellence. God’s character is infinitely good. Therefore, we must not just love Him with an unselfish; but we must exercise the highest degree of esteem or satisfaction in His character. Declaring God good and lovely is merely saying that He deserves to be loved. If He deserves to be loved because of His goodness and love, then He deserves to be loved in proportion to His goodness and loveliness. Therefore, our obligation to exercise the highest degree of contented love towards Him is infinitely great. We are capable of doing this.

These remarks are confirmed by the Bible, by reason, by conscience, and by common sense.

(4) Another peculiarity of this love, which must not be overlooked, is that we should not love God for selfish reasons. We should simply love Him for who He is. We should love Him with an unselfish love because His well-being is an infinite good. We should love Him with esteem because His character is infinitely excellent. We should love Him with our heart (will); because all virtue belongs to our heart (will). It is obvious that nothing short of this unselfish love is virtue. The Savior recognizes and settles this truth in Luke 6:32-34: “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.” These words sum up the whole doctrine of the Bible on this subject, and lays down the broad principle, that loving God or anyone else for selfish reasons is not virtue.

(5) Another peculiarity of this love is that it must always be supreme. Our passage clearly requires that we love God more than anything else. Besides, anything less than supreme love to God, must be idolatry. If we love anything else more than God, then that is our God.

Notice that God emphasizes the importance of the degree of love. The degree of love is essential to the kind of love. If it is not supreme in degree, it is completely defective and in no sense acceptable to God.

2. What kind of love should we exercise towards our fellowmen?

(1) It must be the love that reigns in our heart, and not mere desire or emotion. It is very natural to desire the good of others, to pity those who are in distress, and to feel strong emotions of compassion towards those who are afflicted. But these feelings are not virtue. Unless we will their good, as well as desire their good, it is not true love. James 2:15, 16: “If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled’, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?”

Here the Apostle James fully recognizes the principle that a mere desire for the good of others, which of course will satisfy itself with good words, is not a good deed. It is not virtue. If it were good willing, instead of simply good desiring, it would produce corresponding action; and unless it is good willing, there is no holiness in it.

(2) Unselfish love towards others is a prime modification of holy love. This is included in what I have said above, but needs to be clearly stated and explained.

It is a clear dictate of reason, of conscience, of common sense, and immutable justice, that we should exercise good will towards our fellowmen; that we should will their good in proportion to its importance; that we should rejoice in their happiness, and try to promote it according to its real value in the scale of everything that exists.

(3) Contentment towards those who are virtuous is another modification of holy love. I say towards those who are virtuous, because while we exercise unselfish love towards everyone, irrespective of their character, we have a right to exercise an approving contentment towards only those who are holy.

To exercise contentment towards the wicked is to be as wicked as they are. But to exercise total contentment to those that are holy, is to be holy ourselves.

(4) This love must always be equal. By equal, I’m not talking about that kind of love that selfish beings have for themselves. That kind of love is supreme. There is a big difference between self-love and selfishness. Self-love is loving self impartially, or unselfishly. Self-love is a regard for our own best interest, which is very important. Selfishness is the excess of self-love. In other words, selfishness is placing self-love above everything else. It is making our own happiness the supreme object of our pursuit, simply because it is our own. Selfishness does not attach that importance to other’s interests, and the happiness of others, which their importance demands. The love of self is the most important thing to a selfish mind.

Now the law of God does not require or permit us to love our neighbor with this degree of love, for that would be idolatry. However, the command, “to love our neighbor as ourselves”, implies several things.

(a) Loving our neighbor as ourselves implies that we should love ourselves less than supremely, and attach no more importance to our own interests and happiness than to our neighbor’s interest. So that the first thing implied in this command is that we love ourselves less than supremely, and that we love our neighbor with the same degree of love that it is lawful for us to exercise towards ourselves.

(b) Equal love does not imply that we should neglect our own appropriate concerns while we attend to the affairs of others. God has appointed to every man a particular sphere in which to act, and particular affairs that he must attend to. And, this business, whatever it is, must be conducted for God and not for us. Therefore, for a man, to neglect his particular calling under the pretense of attending to the business of others is neither required nor permitted by this law.

Nor are we to neglect our own families, and the nurture and education of our children, and attend to others instead. “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (I Timothy 5:8) We are to attend to these duties for God. No man or woman is required or permitted to neglect the children God has given them, under the pretense of attending to the families of others.

Nor does this law require or permit us to squander our possessions on the intemperate, immoral, or the reckless. Not that we shouldn’t relieve the desperate needs of such people under any circumstances, but it must always to be done in such a way that it doesn’t encourage, but rather, it rebukes their evil courses.

Nor does this law require or permit us to allow others to live by sponging off our possessions, while they themselves are not engaged in promoting the good of others.

Nor does it require or permit us to lend money to speculators, or for speculating purposes, or in any way to encourage selfishness.

(c) But, equal love means that we have the same love in kind and degree that is lawful for us to exercise towards ourselves. It is lawful; in fact, it is our duty to exercise a suitable regard for our own happiness. This is unselfish love to self, or what is commonly called self-love. We are required to exercise this same kind and amount of self love to all our fellow men..

(5) Another feature of holy love is that it must be impartial. In other words, it must extend to enemies as well as friends. Otherwise it is selfish love, and comes under the reprobation our Savior gave, in the passage I quoted before, Luke 6:32-34, “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.”

Now, please notice that we must always apply this test to the kind of love we exercise to our fellow men, in order to understand whether our love is genuine or not. God’s love is love to enemies. It was for His enemies that He gave His Son. Our love must be the same in kind. Our love must extend to enemies, as well as friends. And if it does not, it is partial and selfish.

III. People have fallen into several mistakes on this subject.

1. It seems to be a very common opinion among people today, that love to God and men may be genuine in kind but deficient in degree; in other words, we may have some true love for God that is not supreme love.

Now this can’t be true. For God, in His law, emphasizes the degree of love. Besides, it is perfectly clear, if it is not supreme in degree, then the mind must love something else more, and as a result, the mind must be in a state of idolatry, instead of having a holy love.

2. There seems to be a very general opinion that there is such a thing as imperfect obedience to God, that is, one and the same act of obedience can be imperfect.

Obedience may be imperfect in respect to its constancy. An individual may obey at one time, and disobey at another time. But I cannot see how an imperfect obedience can possibly relate to one and the same act. Imperfect OBEDIENCE? The only thing this can mean is disobedient OBEDIENCE, which is sinful HOLINESS!

Now, to decide the character of any act, we must bring it into the light of the law of God. If it agrees with this law, it is obedience, it is right, totally right. If, in any way, it differs from what the law of God requires, it is disobedience, it is wrong, totally wrong. However,

3. Many people believe that a person can be partly holy, and partly sinful, in the same act and exercise.

I once believed this myself; and I believe, that in some of my lectures I said this. I once reasoned this way; that some act could be accomplished in view of several motives, some of which were right, and some were wrong. Therefore, this act had the complex character of the motives that produced it. But, I am now persuaded that this philosophy is false. Whatever may have preceded a given act, that may have led the way to its being performed, is not the question; nor does it change the character of that act. For whenever something is done, it must be in view of one consideration, which the mind contemplates at that time. If the reason the mind has for doing something is unselfish, that action is holy. Otherwise, it is sinful. By unselfish, I don’t mean that the person must necessarily feel that he has no personal interest in the act. But, the degree of self-interest that he feels should not be disproportional to the interest that he takes in the matter because of its own importance. In other words, if one‘s interest in it is selfish, the act, whatever it may be, is sinful. If it is not selfish, it is holy, although there may be a suitable regard to his own interest, at the time he decides to perform that act.

But, the action or affection must be either right or wrong. It seems to be very clear to me, that when we apply the test of God’s law, we must pronounce an act either an act of obedience or disobedience. That an act should be so complex that it is both obedient and disobedient appears, to me, to be impossible if we consider the nature of God’s law. Please remember that holiness and sin belong to our will; it is the result of the choice that our mind makes. When our mind is under the influence of an existing sinful choice, we should realize that this choice is sinful because it is selfish. Now from time to time, many considerations may present themselves to our mind that may diminish the power of a wrong or sinful preference or choice. But, no matter how much the power of a selfish choice may be weakened, yet there is no virtue until the mind comes to exercise an opposite or an unselfish choice. Now, whenever we make a holy, or an unselfish choice, it is absurd and contradictory to say that some degree of selfishness is exercised when we make that choice. For selfishness is supreme self-love. Therefore, it is naturally impossible that selfishness should mingle with holiness. Saying this is the same thing as saying that supreme selfish love can co-exist with supreme unselfish love. Therefore, a willful act can’t possibly have a mixed character; in other words, it can’t be partly selfish and partly holy. If any degree of sin can be affirmed of any given act; if it is in any way defective, it must be because of the degree of its strength, and not because its selfishness co-exists with some degree of unselfishness.

Please understand that a conscious decision can’t be defective in degree, and still be holy, unless it can be holy without agreeing with the law of God. It must be supreme in degree to have the character of holiness at all. It must be unselfish, not selfish, or it is totally sinful. If, therefore, this love is free from bias and self-interest, it is unselfish in kind, and supreme in degree. This love is a right affection. Otherwise, if this love is not free, unselfish, and supreme in degree, it is wrong.

4. Another mistake people make is that they believe that holiness can be deficient in degree as well as not permanent.

This is only another way of expressing nearly the same idea. But in order for you to understand this, I will repeat that you can’t have true holiness that’s deficient in degree and not permanent.

Now, listen, holiness is love. Therefore, to say that holiness may be deficient in degree, is the same as saying that true, acceptable love to God can be less than the most important thing in your life, which clearly contradicts both the letter and spirit of God’s law. In other words, love may be acceptable to God, while we love something else more, and are, in fact, idolaters.

5. Another error is thinking that we can be aware of loving God less than something else, and still have some genuine love, and some true religion.

Now love, to be genuine, must possess all the attributes that the law of God requires. And since it is infinitely important to God that this love be supreme, if we are aware that we love other things or other people more than God, it is impossible that we are exercising any true religion.

6. Many people think that feelings of love, even though the heart or will is selfish, is true religion.

The fact that we may have emotions, and have strong emotions of love to a being, or anything that our will is opposed to, is an everyday experience. Therefore, I can’t see why emotions of love for God, as well as emotions of gratitude to God can’t exist while the will is selfish and the heart is completely depraved. I know from my own experience, that such emotions can exist in an unconverted mind; and it appears to me, that here lies the biggest delusion of vast multitudes of professing Christians, and many who admit they are unrepentant. When some flashes of light concerning some of the attributes of God are witnessed, when the light of the gospel shines on them and feelings of compassion are thrown out before their minds, there will be a flood of emotions that are often mistaken for true religion, even though their hearts are completely selfish. I know this by experience, and I don’t see why it shouldn’t agree with true philosophy. This is illustrated in the character of those who, in revivals and times of religious excitement, will demonstrate a high degree of religious emotion, while in their business operations they prove to be completely selfish.

7. Many people erroneously think that some degree of selfishness can co-exist with some degree of holiness.

I say co-exist. I am not denying that a mind may be selfish at one time and unselfish at another time. But I do deny that a mind can be selfish and unselfish at the same time. I do not believe that any degree of holiness can exist in a mind that is exercising selfishness. Selfishness, as we have already seen, is the supreme love of self. It is always the supreme affection of the mind, and cannot be exercised in any one instance, in any other form than that of supreme regard for self. It is what God expressly forbids. Therefore, every exercise of selfishness not only implies that we love ourselves more than we love our neighbor; but since it is a violation of the law of God, it is loving ourselves more than we love and respect the authority of God.

Therefore, to say that some degree of selfishness can co-exist with some degree of holiness, is just a absurd as to say that we can love ourselves supremely, and God supremely, at one and the same time.

8. Some claim that we may be aware of loving our neighbor less than ourselves, and still love our neighbor with some degree of acceptable or holy love.

Now this is a radical and disastrous error. That we should feel compassion or pity for a person in distress is natural, no matter what the state of our will is in. However, if our love only amounts to a desire, if our love is not good willing as well as good desiring, there is not one particle of anything good in it. We must have a love that comes from our heart, or will. We must have a love that will control our conduct. Let me repeat James 2:15, 16: “If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled’, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?”

Now there can be no doubt that multitudes are radically deceived on this point. They mistake their kind feelings, which are merely constitutional, for that love which the law of God requires them to exercise. As a result, they will unselfishly love in word but not in deed.

9. Others wrongly believe that a person can be selfish in his occupation, both in his purpose and in the way he does his job, and still be truly, though defectively religious. These people feel that a person, who establishes himself in business, can have a supreme regard for his own interest. In other words, he is not motivated by his love for God or man in establishing his business, but his goal or purpose may be to gain luxuries for himself and his family. Yet, these people feel that he can still be truly religious. His business may be conducted on the principle that, in his dealings with others, he may aim mainly at promoting his own interest, and he may consult his own side of the bargain, with very little concern for the individual he is trading with, or the community he lives in.

I believe this is a sad and damaging error. A person is normally engaged in his business or his occupation five out of every seven days throughout his adult life. His occupation occupies most of his time, thoughts, and energies. Now, if he is selfish, either in his purpose, or in the way he performs his business, it is just as impossible that he can have any degree of true religion, since he can’t be supremely selfish and religious at the same time.

Many also believe that selfish love to God is true religion. In my lecture to Christians, published in the last volume of my Sermons, there is a whole lecture, devoted especially to discussing this question of selfishness. Since, you can read that, I will not discuss it here. (See “Selfishness not true Religion” 1837)

10. Many people believe that selfish, or partial love towards others is true religion.

There are many who can’t say one nice word about an enemy, who are, nevertheless, very affectionate to their friends. They seem to have adopted the corrupt maxim of the Jews: “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy”, which Jesus Christ so severely condemned. Christ insisted, that, to be like God, we must “love our enemies, we must “do good to those who hate us”, and “pray for those who despitefully use us”. (Matt 5:43-44) No doubt, many people make a terrible mistake here. They have plenty of affection for individuals who are friendly to them, to those who belong to their own sect, or their party, or their way of thinking, while they exhibit and manifest anything but love towards those who differ from them.

11. Some believe that complete holiness implies a high, constant, and, of course insupportable degree of excited emotion.

Whatever may be true of the mind after it separates from the body, it is certain that as long as it acts through a physical body, a constant state of excitement is impossible. When the mind is strongly excited, there will naturally be an increased flow of blood to the brain. A high degree of excitement certainly cannot continue for a long period of time without wearing the mind out, or producing inflammation of the brain, possibly producing insanity. And the law of God does not require any degree of emotion, or mental excitement, that is inconsistent with life and health.

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not appear to have been in a state of continuous excitement. After He and His disciples had experienced a period of intense excitement, they would go away, “and rest awhile”.

Anyone, who has ever philosophized on this subject, knows that the high degree of excitement that is sometimes witnessed in religious revivals can’t last too long or the people will become worn out, or maybe even deranged. Sometimes, it seems that a high degree of excitement for a time is necessary to grab public and individual attention, and to draw people away from other pursuits to attend to the concerns of their souls. But if any believe that this high degree of excitement is either necessary, or desirable, or possible, and should be continued for a long time, they have not considered the matter very well.

And here is one huge mistake the Church makes. They believe that a revival consists mostly in this state of excited emotion, rather than conforming the human will to the will of God. As a result, when the reasons for a lot of the excitement has ceased, and the public mind begins to calm down, they immediately point out that the revival is declining; when, in fact, with much less excited emotion, there may be a lot more real religion in the community.

Excitement is often important and indispensable. But, vigorous acts of the will are infinitely more important. And this state of mind can exist in the absence of highly excited emotions.

12. Many people think that totally conforming to the law of God implies that the attention of the mind must be constantly and exclusively, directed to God. Therefore, God is always the direct object of thoughts, conscious decisions, and feelings.

Now holiness never implies this. The law of God requires supreme love of our heart. By this, I mean that our mind’s supreme preference should be God; that God should be the great object of our supreme love, and delight. But this state of mind is perfectly consistent with our engaging in any of our necessary daily activities in life, giving to our job or business the attention that it needs, and exercising all those affections and emotions that its nature and importance demand.

If a man loves God supremely, and engages in any business to promote His glory, if his eye is focused on God, his affections and conduct are holy whenever he conducts his business properly even though, for the time being, his thoughts or his affections may not be on God.

In the same way, a man who is supremely devoted to his family may be acting consistently with his supreme affection, and rendering them the most important and perfect service, even while he does not think about them at all. As I have tried to show, in my lecture on the text, “Make yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit”, (Ezek 18:31. See “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts” from Sermons on Important Topics, 1836) I consider the moral heart to be our mind’s supreme preference. As I stated there, our natural, or fleshly heart, is the seat of animal life, and propels our blood through our physical bodies. Now there is an amazing analogy between our physical and our moral heart. Just like the natural heart pumps life throughout our physical bodies; so our moral heart, or the supreme governing preference of our mind, is that which gives life and character to our moral actions. For example, suppose that I am a Math teacher. My supreme desire is to glorify God in this particular calling. Now, in solving some of math’s intricate propositions, perhaps I must spend hours focusing all my attention to the problem that is before me. Now, as long as my mind is intensely focused on this business before me, it is impossible for me to think about God, or even exercise any direct affections or emotions, or willful thoughts towards Him. Yet, if, in my particular calling, all selfishness is excluded, and my ultimate goal is to glorify God, my mind is in a sanctified state, even though, for the time being, I don’t think about God.

Please understand that, as long as the supreme preference of my mind has the efficiency to exclude all selfishness, and to exercise just the right amount of strength of my conscious decisions, thoughts, affections, and emotions that are required to do my duty properly, my heart is in a sanctified state. By the right amount of thoughts and feelings to do my duty properly, I mean the exact amount of thought and energy of action that the nature and importance of the particular duty that I am called to perform demands.

In this statement, I take it for granted, that my brain, together with all the circumstances of my constitution are such, that the required amount of thought and feelings are possible. If I am physically or mentally so exhausted that I am unable to exercise the amount of effort that the nature of the subject might otherwise demand, even in this situation, my fatigued efforts, although far below the importance of the subject, would be all that God’s law requires. Therefore, anyone who thinks that a state of total sanctification implies a state where one’s mind is always focused on God labors under a serious mistake. That state of mind is inconsistent with our duty and that state of mind is impossible to maintain as long as we are in the flesh.

13. One common error is the thought that entire holiness implies an equal degree of strength in the affections of our mind all the time.

Now, this is neither consistent with our duty, nor possible. Every particular duty that we are called to do, does not demand the same strength of mental action. Nor, as I have already said, is our brain (the physical organ through which our mind acts) capable of sustaining the same degree of mental affections all the time. In performing any work for God, our affections should be as strong as the nature of that particular subject requires in order to perform that work properly. In every situation where the action of our mind is equal in strength to the present capacity of our brain, that is all that God’s law requires. Please remember that the holiness of our mind, when some kind of business or labor for God is the object of our mind’s attention, does not consist in the varying strength of those particular affections as the state of our brain may allow, or the nature of the subject may require. But, the holiness of our mind really consists in the supreme preference of our mind, in that state of supreme devotion to God that has called our mind to perform that particular work for the glory of God.

14. Another false idea is that a state of entire holiness implies equal strength in every conscious decision that we make.

This is absurd. God never requires this. It isn’t even possible. Conscious decisions don’t need to have the same strength. They can’t have equal strength, because they are not produced by equally powerful reasons.

Does a person have to exercise as much willpower to pick up an apple, as to extinguish the flames of a burning house? Should a mother, watching over her sleeping infant when all is quiet and secure, put forth as much willpower, as might be required to snatch that baby from the devouring flames? Now, suppose that she was just as devoted to God in watching her sleeping baby as she was in rescuing it from the jaws of death. Her holiness would not consist in the fact that she exercised the same amount of willpower in both situations; but, that, in both situations, the amount of willpower was enough to accomplish what needed to be done. So people can be completely holy, and still the strength of their affections can constantly vary according to their circumstances, their physical condition, and the business that they are engaged in.

15. Many of these same people feel that no degree of mental lethargy or rest is consistent with a state of complete holiness.

This is far from true. Every degree of rest, every lack of physical or mental energy, that we physically or naturally require, is consistent with a state of entire sanctification.

16. Another error concerns what constitutes partial, and what constitutes complete sanctification.

As I have already said, some appear to believe that partial sanctification relates just as much to the degree of holy affection as it does to its constancy. I trust I have already said enough to show that partial sanctification cannot relate to the degree of holy love, but that love must be supreme in degree to be holiness at all. And here, let me remind you again, that all holy affections, thoughts, and conscious decisions that focus on other things, rather than directly on God, are completely holy when the supreme purpose of the mind, in engaging in these things, is to glorify God. Also, please understand that by the consistancy of holy affections, I don’t mean they should always have God for their immediate object, or that it is an interruption of obedience for the mind to think, act, and feel on any subject to which duty demands.

What I mean by partial sanctification is that state of mind that sometimes acts selfishly and at other times, it acts unselfishly.

17. Another mistake is that entire holiness in a person implies the same degree of holiness that is in God.

No such thing is implied, for God’s holiness is infinite. For us to be holy as God is holy does not mean to be as holy as He is in degree, but to have our eye focused on the good of the universe as His eye is focused of the good of all His creation.

Nor does entire sanctification imply the same strength of holy affections that Adam may have had before the fall, before his powers were weakened by sin.

Nor does it imply that we exercise the same strength, or consistency of holy affection, that we might have exercised if we had never sinned. If we love God with whatever strength we have, be it more or less, and however weakened our powers may be, that is all that the law of God requires.

Nor does entire sanctification imply that we should love Him as much as we could if we were not so ignorant, or if we had as much knowledge of Him as we might have had if we would have made better use of our time and opportunities gaining information about God. The law of God requires nothing more than the right use of our powers, just as they are, without respect to whatever might have been, or would have been, if we had never sinned.

18. Some think that a state of entire holiness is inconsistent with the existence and exercise of our constitutional feelings.

Many of the temptations that we are subject to, consists in the excited state of our mental and physical feelings that are purely constitutional. Christ must have experienced the same natural feelings that we have, or He could not have been “tempted in all points like as we are”. (Hebrews 4:15) The excitement of Adam’s constitutional appetites and feelings led him to sin. But his sin did not consist in the existence of these feelings and appetites, or in their being excited, but in consenting to gratify those feelings in a prohibited manner. If our constitutional feelings were annihilated, our activity would cease. So that if anyone thinks that to be sanctified “wholly, body, soul, and spirit” (I Thess 5:23) implies the extinction of any appetite or feeling that is purely constitutional, he is deceived. A state of sanctification consists in subordinating all these appetites and feelings to God’s will, and not in annihilating them.

19. Some think that holiness implies an end to spiritual warfare.

If, by this, they mean a war with our selfishness, they are right. But if they mean that our war with the world, the flesh, and the devil will cease in this life, they are wrong.

20. Others think that holiness is inconsistent with growing in grace.

I believe that saints will continue to grow in grace throughout all eternity; and they will grow in the knowledge of God. But this does not imply that they are not entirely holy when they enter heaven, or before.

21. Some say that holiness is completely inconsistent with any sorrow, or mental suffering. Well, this was not true with Christ! Nor is holiness inconsistent with our sorrowing for our own past sins, and sorrowing that we don’t have the health, vigor, knowledge, and love that we might have had, if we had sinned less. Nor is holiness inconsistent with our sorrow for those around us, sorrow in view of human sinfulness, or suffering. All of these are consistent with a state of complete sanctification, and indeed are the natural results of it.

22. Some feel that holiness is inconsistent with our living in human society, with mingling in public and engaging in the affairs of this world. This idea is the foundation for the absurd and ridiculous notions of papists, who retire to monasteries and convents, in taking their vows, and, as they say, retiring to a life of devotion.

Now I believe this state of voluntary exclusion from human society is inconsistent with any degree of holiness, and a clear violation of the law of love to our neighbor.

23. Another error is the idea that everybody would recognize a state of holiness as holiness.

Now this is as far as possible from being true. The Jews believed and insisted that Jesus Christ was possessed by a wicked, instead of a holy spirit. Their ideas of holiness were so far off base that they believed that Jesus was motivated by a spirit other than the Spirit of God. They especially thought so because of His opposition to the current orthodoxy and the ungodliness of the religious teachers of their day. Now, who does not see, that when the Church is, in a great measure, conformed to the world that a spirit of holiness in any one, would certainly lead the Church to aim the sharpest rebukes at the spirit and life of those in this state, whether in high or in low places. And, who does not see that this would naturally result in others accusing that person of possessing a wicked spirit?

24. Some claim that a state of entire holiness implies a state where a person’s temper and manners are always gloomy.

Nothing is farther from the truth than this. It is said of Xavier, whom perhaps few holier men have ever lived, that “he was so cheerful as often to be accused of being lightheaded”. Cheerfulness is certainly the result of holy affections. And sanctification no more implies being gloomy in this world than it does in heaven.

25. Finally, it’s been said that entire holiness is inconsistent with any further dependence on Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Now this idea comes from some obscure notions that people have concerning entire sanctification. They seem to think, that in sanctification, the Holy Spirit changes their nature, so that they will remain holy without any further influence from the Spirit of Christ. However, a state of entire and permanent sanctification is nothing more than a state of entire and perpetual dependence on Christ and dependence on the Holy Spirit. Holiness is the state in which the person throws himself totally on the supporting grace of Christ.

REMARKS

1. From what I have said, you can see the error of those who believe that we are incompetent witnesses of our own sanctification.

It is true that our testimony may not satisfy other people. Still, it is true, that as far as we are regarded as honest men, our testimony should be as satisfactory on this, as on any other subject. It is a point on which we have the testimony of our own conscience, which is the highest kind of evidence. And we are just as competent to testify to our entire sanctification, as we are to testify that we have any religion at all.

But many object, saying that we could be deceived. True: but is this any good reason why a person should not be a competent witness to that which he has the testimony of his own conscience?

But some argue, that many claim they are sanctified, who are obviously deceived; therefore, it is a suspicious circumstance, not to say ridiculous, for a person to say that he or she is sanctified. Now this is the very reason used by Unitarians, against all spiritual religion. They say, that people may be, and many clearly are, deceived; and therefore it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that he is spiritually regenerated.

Again, some object, saying that it is dangerous to preach the doctrine of holiness, because it may lead to deception; that many may, and will think that they are sanctified, when they are not. As a result, they will puff up with pride, and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Now, who does not know that this is the same objection to insisting on spiritual religion in the first place? And this argument is just as forcible against our having any knowledge of our being regenerated, as against our knowing that we are entirely sanctified.

2. I said that religion is always a matter of consciousness. This must be true if religion consists in supreme love to God. If we are not aware of the supreme affection of our heart, then what are we aware of? And here let me warn you against an error. Don’ think that by this, I mean that every thought, every conscious decision, and every feeling has God as its direct object, and is an act of supreme conscious love to God. A man may be engaged in transacting some business for God, that may require, for the time being, his whole attention. In this state of mind, he can’t be conscious, all the time, that God is the direct object of his thought and affection, for this is not true. But he may, all the time, be conscious that he is doing this for God. And that it is the supreme preference of his mind for God that has engaged him in his present business.

3. True religion does not do away with the law of God, but true religion fulfills it.

As a result, Paul declares, (Rom. 8:4) “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”. (Romans 8:4)

Here, let me say that it is a strange infatuated dream, to think that people in a sanctified state are under no obligation to obey the moral law. If they are under no obligation to obey, then obedience is not virtue. And you cannot be more absurd and contradictory than to say that a person is completely holy, and yet under no obligation to obey the law. Do you know what law is? Law is a rule of action. Now, do you know what holiness is? Holiness is conforming to this rule of action. Holiness is conforming to law. Therefore, sin is simply a violation of the law? However, if the rule is abolished, then there is neither holiness, nor sin in anyone, any more than there is sin in animals.

It is true, that a person in a sanctified state does not obey the law because he is afraid of the penalty. Nor does he love God simply because God commands it; but grace gives Him such an acquaintance with God and Christ, that it produces the very spirit of the law, which is, perfect conformity of heart to the law. The very love that the law requires is thus produced in the mind. That is why the Apostle says, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

I would like to continue this subject in my next lecture, when I can show, in more detail, that the law of God can never be repealed or altered.