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 labo