What Saith the Scripture?
http://www.WhatSaithTheScripture.com/
Sanctification
by Charles Grandison Finney
President of Oberlin College
from "The
Oberlin Evangelist" Publication of Oberlin College
Lectures I - IX
January 1 - April 22, 1840
Public Domain Text
Reformatted by Katie Stewart
.
In discussing the subject of Sanctification, I design to pursue the following
order.
I. Define the meaning of the term sanctification.
II. What I understand by entire sanctification.
III. Notice the distinction between entire and permanent sanctification.
IV. Show what is not implied in entire sanctification.
V. What is implied in entire sanctification.
VI. Show that this state is attainable in this life.
VII. Answer some objections.
VIII. Show when it is attainable.
IX. How it is attainable.
LECTURE I.
January 1, 1840
SANCTIFICATION- No. 1
by the Rev. Charles G. Finney
Text.--1 Thess. 5:23-24: "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."
It will be seen at once, that this outline is sufficiently extensive to fill a large
volume, should I protract the discussion as I easily and perhaps profitably might.
And at best it will occupy several lectures. My design is to condense what I have
to say as much as possible, and yet preserve sufficient perspicuity. I shall endeavor
not to be tedious. And yet I hope to be understood, and to be able to "commend
myself to every man's conscience in the sight of God." I will now,
I. Define the term Sanctification.
Here let me remark, that a definition of terms in all discussions is of prime importance.
Especially is this true of this subject. I have observed that almost without an exception
those who have written on this subject dissenting from the views entertained here,
do so upon the ground that they understand and define the terms, Sanctification and
Christian Perfection, differently from what we do. Every one gives his own definition,
varying materially from each other and from what we understand by the terms. And
then they go on professedly opposing the doctrine as inculcated here. Now this is
not only utterly unfair, but palpably absurd. If I oppose a doctrine inculcated by
another man I am bound to oppose what he really holds. If I misrepresent his sentiments
"I fight as one that beateth the air." I have been amazed at the diversity
of definitions that have been given to the terms Christian Perfection, Sanctification,
&c.; and to witness the diversity of opinion as to what is, and what is not,
implied in these terms. One objects wholly to the use of the term Christian Perfection,
because in his estimation it implies this and that and the other thing, which I do
not suppose are at all implied in it. Another objects to our using the term Sanctification,
because that implies, according to his understanding of it, certain things that render
its use improper. Now it is no part of my design to dispute about the use of words.
I must however use some terms; and I ought to be allowed to use Bible language, in
its Scriptural sense as I understand it. And if I should sufficiently explain my
meaning and define the sense in which I use the terms, this ought to suffice. And
I beg that nothing more nor less may be understood by the language I use than I profess
to mean by it. Others may, if they please, use the same terms and give a different
definition of them. But I have a right to hope and expect if they feel called upon
to oppose what I say, that they will bear in mind my definition of the terms, and
not pretend, as some have done, to oppose my views while they have only differed
from me in their definition of the terms used, giving their own definition varying
materially and I might say infinitely from the sense in which I use the same terms,
and then arraying their arguments to prove that according to their definition of
it, Sanctification is not really attainable in this life when no one here or any
where else, that I ever heard of pretended that in their sense of the term, it ever
was or ever will be attainable in this life, and I might add, or in that which is
to come.
Sanctification is a term of frequent use in the Bible. Its simple and primary meaning
is a state of consecration to God. To sanctify is to set apart to a holy use-- to
consecrate a thing to the service of God. A state of sanctification is a state of
consecration or a being set apart to the service of God. This is plainly both the
Old and the New Testament use of the term.
II. What is entire Sanctification.
By entire sanctification, I understand the consecration of the whole being to God.
In other words it is that state of devotedness to God and his service, required by
the moral law. The law is perfect. It requires just what is right, all that is right,
and nothing more. Nothing more nor less can possibly be Perfection or entire Sanctification,
than obedience to the law. Obedience to the law of God in an infant, a man, an angel,
and in God himself, is perfection in each of them. And nothing can possibly be perfection
in any being short of this, nor can there possibly be any thing above it.
III. The distinction between entire and permanent Sanctification.
That a thing or a person may be for the time being wholly consecrated to God, and
afterwards desecrated or diverted from that service, is certain. That Adam and "the
angels who kept not their first estate" were entirely sanctified and yet not
permanently so is also certain.
By permanent sanctification, I understand then a state not only of entire but of
perpetual, unending consecration to God.
IV. What is not implied in entire Sanctification.
As the law of God is the standard and the only standard by which the question in
regard to what is not, and what is implied in entire Sanctification is to be decided,
it is of fundamental importance that we understand what is and what is not implied
in entire obedience to this law. It must be apparent to all that this inquiry is
of prime importance. And to settle this question is one of the main things to be
attended to in this discussion. The doctrine of the entire sanctification of believers
in this life can never be satisfactorily settled until it is understood. And it cannot
be understood until it is known what is and what is not implied in it. Our judgment
of our own state or of the state of others, can never be relied upon till these inquiries
are settled. Nothing is more clear than that in the present vague unsettled views
of the Church upon this question, no individual could set up a claim to having attained
this state without being a stumbling block to the Church. Christ was perfect, and
yet so erroneous were the notions of the Jews in regard to what constituted perfection
that they thought him possessed with a devil instead of being holy as he claimed
to be. It certainly is impossible that a person should profess this state without
being a stumbling block to himself and to others unless he and they clearly understand
what is not and what is implied in it. I will state then what is not implied in a
state of entire sanctification, as I understand the law of God. The law as epitomized
by Christ, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy
mind and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself," I understand to
lay down the whole duty of man to God and to his fellow creatures. Now the questions
are what is not, and what is implied in perfect obedience to this law? Vague notions
in regard to these questions seem to me to have been the origin of much error on
the subject of entire sanctification. To settle this question it is indispensable
that we have distinctly before our minds just rules of legal interpretation. I will
therefore lay down some first principles in regard to the interpretation of law,
in the light of which, I think we may safely proceed to settle these questions.
Rule 1. Whatever is inconsistent with natural justice is not and cannot be law.
Rule 2. Whatever is inconsistent with the nature and relations of moral beings, is
contrary to natural justice and therefore cannot be law.
Rule 3. That which requires more than man has natural ability to perform, is inconsistent
with his nature and relations and therefore is inconsistent with natural justice,
and of course is not law.
Rule 4. Law then must always be so understood and interpreted as to consist with
the nature of the subjects, and their relations to each other and the law-giver.
Any interpretation that makes the law to require more or less than is consistent
with the nature and relations of moral beings, is a virtual setting aside of law
or the same as to declare that it is not law. No authority in heaven or on earth
can make that law, or obligatory upon moral agents, which is inconsistent with their
nature and relations.
Rule 5. Law must always be so interpreted as to cover the whole ground of natural
right or justice. It must be so understood and explained as to require all that is
right in itself, and therefore immutably and unalterably right.
Rule 6. Law must be so interpreted as not to require any thing more than is consistent
with natural justice or with the nature and relations of moral beings.
Rule 7. Of course laws are never to be so interpreted as to imply the possession
of any attributes or strength and perfection of attributes which the subject does
not possess. Take for illustration the second commandment "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself." Now the simple meaning of this commandment seems to be
that we are to regard and treat every person and interest according to its relative
value. Now we are not to understand this commandment as expressly or impliedly requiring
us to know in all cases the exact relative value of every person and thing in the
universe; for this would imply the possession of the attribute of omniscience by
us. No mind short of an omniscient one can have this knowledge. The commandment then
must be so understood as only to require us to judge with candor of the relative
value of different interests, and treat them according to their value so far as we
understand it. I repeat the rule therefore. Laws are never to be so interpreted as
to imply the possession of any attribute or strength and perfection of attributes
which the subject does not possess.
Rule 8. Law is never to be so interpreted as to require that which is naturally impossible
on account of our circumstances. E.g.: The first commandment. "Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c." is not to be so interpreted as
to require us to make God the constant and sole object of attention, thought, and
affection, for this would not only be plainly impossible in our circumstance but
manifestly contrary to our duty.
Rule 9. Law is never to be so interpreted as to make one requirement inconsistent
with another; e.g.: if the first commandment be so interpreted that we are required
to make God the only object of thought, attention, and affection, then we cannot
obey the second commandment which requires us to love our neighbor. And if the first
commandment is to be so understood that every faculty and power is to be directed
solely and exclusively to the contemplation and love of God, then love to all other
beings is prohibited and the second commandment is set aside. I repeat the rule therefore.
Laws are not to be so interpreted as to conflict with each other.
Rule 10. A law requiring perpetual benevolence must be so construed as to consist
with and require all the appropriate and essential modifications of this principle
under every circumstance; such as justice, mercy, anger at sin and sinners, and a
special and complacent regard to those who are virtuous.
Rule 11. Law must be so interpreted as that its claims shall always be restricted
to the voluntary powers. To attempt to legislate over the involuntary powers would
be inconsistent with natural justice. You may as well attempt to legislate over the
beatings of the heart as over any involuntary mental actions.
Rule 12. In morals, actual knowledge is indispensable to obligation. The maxim, "ignorantia
legis non excusat"-- ignorance of the law excuses no one, applies in morals
to but a very limited extent. That actual knowledge is indispensable to moral obligation,
will appear,
(1.) From the following Scriptures:
James 4:17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to
him it is sin." Luke 12:47-48, "And that servant, which knew his lord's
will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten
with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall
be much required.; and to whom men have committed much, of them they will ask the
more." John 9:41, "Jesus said unto them, if ye were blind, ye should have
no sin; but now ye say, we see; therefore your sin remaineth." In the first
and second chapters of Romans, the Apostle reasons at large on this subject. He convicts
the heathen of sin, upon the ground that they violate their own conscience, and do
not live according to the light they have.
(2.) The principle is every where recognized in the Bible, that an increase of knowledge
increases obligation. This impliedly, but plainly recognizes the principle that knowledge
is indispensable to, and commensurate with obligation. In sins of ignorance, the
sin lies in the ignorance itself, but not in the neglect of what is unknown. A man
may be guilty of present or past neglect to ascertain the truth. Here his ignorance
is sin. The heathen are culpable for not living up to the light of nature; but are
under no obligation to embrace Christianity until they have the opportunity to do
so.
Rule 13. Moral laws are to be so interpreted as to be consistent with physical
laws. In other words, the application of the moral law to human beings, must recognize
man as he is, as both a physical and intellectual being; and must never be so interpreted
as that obedience to it would violate the laws of the physical constitution, and
prove the destruction of the body.
Rule 14. Law is to be so interpreted as to recognize all the attributes and circumstances
of both body and soul. In the application of the law of God to human beings, we are
to regard their powers and attributes as they really are, and not as they are not.
Rule 15. Law is to be so interpreted as to restrict its obligation to the actions,
and not to the nature, or constitution of moral beings. Law must not be understood
as extending its legislation to the nature, or requiring a man to possess certain
attributes, but as prescribing a rule of action. It is not the existence or possession
of certain attributes which the law requires, or that these attributes should be
in a certain state of perfection, but the right use of all these attributes as they
are, is what the law is to be interpreted as requiring.
Rule 16. It should be always understood that the obedience of the heart to any law,
implies and includes general faith, or confidence in the lawgiver. But no law should
be so construed as to require faith in what the intellect does not perceive. A man
may be under obligation to perceive what he does not; i.e.: it may be his duty to
inquire after, and ascertain the truth. But obligation to believe with the heart,
does not attach until the intellect obtains a perception of the things to be believed.
Now, in the light of these rules, let us proceed to inquire,
1. What is not, and,
2. What is implied in perfect obedience to the law of God, or in entire sanctification.
- 1. Entire sanctification does not imply any change in the substance of the soul
or body, for this the law does not require, and it would not be obligatory if it
did, because the requirement would be inconsistent with natural justice. Entire sanctification
is the entire consecration of the powers, as they are, to God. It does not imply
any change in them, but simply in the use of them.
- 2. It does not imply any annihilation of constitutional traits of character,
such as constitutional ardor or impetuosity. There is nothing certainly, in the law
of God that requires such constitutional traits to be annihilated, but simply that
they should be rightly directed in their exercise.
- 3. It does not imply the annihilation of any of the constitutional appetites,
or susceptibilities. It seems to be supposed by some, that the constitutional appetites
and susceptibilities, are in themselves sinful, and that a state of entire sanctification
would imply their entire annihilation. And I have often been astonished at the fact
that those who array themselves against the doctrine of entire sanctification in
this life, assume the sinfulness of the constitution of men. And I have not been
a little surprised to find that some persons who I had supposed were far enough from
embracing the doctrine of physical depravity, were, after all, resorting to this
assumption to set aside the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life. But let
us appeal to the law. Does the law any where, expressly or impliedly, condemn the
constitution of man, or require the annihilation of any thing that is properly a
part of the constitution itself? Does it require the annihilation of the appetite
for food, or is it satisfied merely with regulating its indulgence? In short, does
the law of God any where require any thing more than the consecration of all the
appetites and susceptibilities of the body and mind, to the service of God?
In conversing with a brother, upon this subject, not long since, he insisted that
a man might perpetually obey the law of God and be guilty of no actual transgression,
and yet not be entirely sanctified: for he insisted that there might be that in him
which would lay the foundation for his sinning at a future time. When questioned
in regard to what that something in him was, he replied, "that which first led
him to sin at the beginning of his moral existence." I answered that that which
first led him to sin, was his innocent constitution, just as it was the innocent
constitution of Adam, to which the temptation was addressed, that led him into sin.
Adam's innocent constitutional appetites, when excited by the presence of objects
fitted to excite them, were a sufficient temptation to lead him to consent to prohibited
indulgence, which constituted his sin. Now just so it certainly is with every human
being. This constitution, the substance of his body and soul, cannot certainly have
any moral character. But when these appetites which are essential to his nature and
have no moral character in themselves are excited, they lead to prohibited indulgence,
and in this way every human being is led into sin. Now if a man cannot be entirely
sanctified until that is annihilated which first occasioned his sin, it does not
appear that he ever can be entirely sanctified while he possesses either body or
soul. I insist upon it, therefore, that entire sanctification does not imply the
annihilation of any constitutional appetite or susceptibility, but only the entire
consecration of the whole constitution as it is, to the service of God.
- 4. Entire sanctification does not imply the annihilation of natural affection
or resentment. By this I mean that certain persons may be naturally pleasing to us.
Christ appears to have had a natural affection for John. By natural resentment I
mean, that , from the laws of our being, we must resent or feel opposed to injustice
or ill treatment. Not that a disposition to retaliate or revenge ourselves is consistent
with the law of God. But perfect obedience to the law of God, does not imply that
we should have no sense of injury or injustice, when we are abused. God has this,
and ought to have it, and so does every moral being. To love your neighbor as yourself
does not imply, that if he injure you, you feel no sense of the injury or injustice,
but that you love him and would do him good, notwithstanding his injurious treatment.
- 5. It does not imply any degree of unhealthy excitement of mind. Rule 13 lays
down the principal that moral law is to be so interpreted as to be consistent with
physical law. God's laws certainly do not clash with each other. And the moral law
cannot require such a state of constant mental excitement as will destroy the physical
constitution. It cannot require any more mental excitement and action than is consistent
with all the laws, attributes, and circumstances of both soul and body, as stated
in rule 14.
- 6. It does not imply that any organ or faculty is to be at all times exerted
to its full strength. This would soon exhaust and destroy any and every organ of
the body. Whatever may be true of the mind, when separated from the body, it is certain,
while it acts through a material organ, that a constant state of excitement is impossible.
When the mind is strongly excited, there is of necessity a great determination of
blood to the brain. A high degree of excitement cannot long continue, certainly,
without producing inflammation of the brain, and consequent insanity. And the law
of God does not require any degree of emotion, or mental excitement, that is inconsistent
with life and health. Our Lord Jesus Christ does not appear to have been in a state
of continual excitement. When he and his disciples had been in a great excitement
for a time, they would turn aside "and rest awhile."
Who, that has ever philosophized on this subject, does not know that the high
degree of excitement which is sometimes witnessed in revivals of religion, must necessarily
be short, or that the people must become deranged. It seems sometimes to be indispensable,
that a high degree of excitement should prevail for a time, to arrest public and
individual attention, and to draw people off from other pursuits, to attend to the
concerns of their souls. But if any suppose that this high degree of excitement is
either necessary, or desirable, or possible, to be long continued, they have not
well considered the matter. And here is one grand mistake of the Church. They have
supposed that the revival consists mostly in this state of excited emotion, rather
than in conformity of the human will to the will of God. Hence, when the reasons
for much excitement have ceased, and the public mind begins to grow more calm, they
begin immediately to say that the revival is on the decline; when, in fact, with
much less excited emotion, there may be vastly more real religion in the community.
Excitement is often important and indispensable. But the vigorous actings of the
will are infinitely more important. And this state of mind may exist in the absence
of highly excited emotions.
- 7. Nor does it imply that the same degree of emotion, volition, or intellectual
effort, is at all times required. All volitions do not need the same strength. They
cannot have equal strength, because they are not produced by equally powerful reasons.
Should a man put forth as strong a volition to pick up an apple, as to extinguish
the flames of a burning house? Should a mother, watching over her sleeping nursling,
when all is quiet and secure, put forth as powerful volitions, as might be required
to snatch it from the devouring flames? Now, suppose that she was equally devoted
to God in watching her sleeping babe, and in rescuing it from the jaws of death.
Her holiness would not consist in the fact that she exercised equally strong volitions,
in both cases; but, that in both cases, the volition was equal to the accomplishment
of the thing required to be done. So that persons may be entirely holy, and yet continually
varying in the strength of their affections, according to their circumstances-- the
state of their physical system-- and the business in which they are engaged.
All the powers of body and mind are to be held at the service and disposal of
God. Just so much of physical, intellectual, and moral energy are to be expended
in the performance of duty as the nature and the circumstances of the case require.
And nothing is further from the truth, than that the law of God requires a constant,
intense state of emotion and mental action on any and every subject alike.
- 8. Entire sanctification does not imply that God is to be at all times the direct
object of attention and affection. This is not only impossible in the nature of the
case, but would render it impossible for us to think of or love our neighbor or ourselves:
Rule 9.
Upon this subject in a former lecture, I used the following language. The law
of God requires the supreme love of the heart. By this is meant, that the mind's
supreme preference should be of God-- that God should be the great object of its
supreme love and delight. But this state of mind is perfectly consistent with our
engaging in any of the necessary business of life-- giving to that business that
attention-- and exercising about it all those affections and emotions which its nature
and importance demand.
If a man love God supremely, and engage in any business, for the promotion of his
glory, if his eye be single, his affections and conduct are entirely holy, when necessarily
engaged in the right transaction of his business, although for the time being, neither
his thought or affection are upon God.
Just as a man who is supremely devoted to his family may be acting consistently with
his supreme affection, and rendering them the most important and perfect service,
while he does not think of them at all. As I have endeavored to show, in my lecture
on the text, "Make to yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit," I consider
the moral heart to be the mind's supreme preference. As I there stated, the natural,
or fleshy heart, is the seat of animal life, and propels the blood through all the
physical system. Now there is a striking analogy between this and the moral heart.
And the analogy consists in this, that as the natural heart, by its pulsations diffuses
life through the physical system; so the moral heart, or the supreme governing preference
of the mind is that which gives life and character to man's moral actions; (e.g.,)
suppose that I am engaged in teaching Mathematics. In this, the supreme desire of
my mind is to glorify God, in this particular calling. Now in demonstrating some
of its intricate propositions, I am obliged, for hours together, to give the entire
attention of my mind to that object. Now, while my mind is thus intensely employed
in this particular business, it is impossible that I should have any thoughts directly
about God, or should exercise any direct affections, or emotions, or volitions towards
him. Yet if, in this particular calling, all selfishness is excluded, and my supreme
design is to glorify God, my mind is in a sanctified state, even though for the time
being, I do not think of God.
It should be understood, that while the supreme preference of the mind has such efficiency,
as to exclude all selfishness, and to call forth just that strength of volition,
thought, affection, and emotion, that is requisite to the right discharge of any
duty, to which the mind may be called, the heart is in a sanctified state. By a suitable
degree of thought, and feeling, to the right discharge of duty, I mean just that
intensity of thought, and energy of action, that the nature and importance of the
particular duty to which, for the time being, I am called, demand.
In this statement, I take it for granted, that the brain, together with all the circumstances
of the constitution are such, that the requisite amount of thought, feeling, &c.
are possible. If the physical constitution, be in such a state of exhaustion as to
be unable to put forth that amount of exertion which the nature of the subject might
otherwise demand, even in this case, the languid efforts, though far below the importance
of the subject, would be all that the law of God requires. Whoever, therefore supposes
that a state of entire sanctification, implies a state of entire abstraction of mind,
from every thing but God, labors under a grievous mistake. Such a state of mind is
as inconsistent with duty, as it is impossible, while we are in the flesh.
The fact is that the language and spirit of the law have been and generally are grossly
misunderstood, and interpreted to mean what they never did, or can mean consistently
with natural justice. Many a mind has been thrown open to the assaults of Satan,
and kept in a state of continual bondage and condemnation, because God was not, at
all times, the direct object of thought, affection, and emotion; and because the
mind was not kept in a state of most perfect tension, and excited to the utmost at
every moment.
- 9. Nor does it imply a state of continual calmness of mind. Christ was not in
a state of continual calmness. The deep peace of his mind was never broken up, but
the surface or emotions of his mind were often in a state of great excitement, and
at other times in a state of great calmness. And here let me refer to Christ, as
we have his history in the Bible, in illustration of the positions I have already
taken, e.g. Christ had all the constitutional appetites and susceptibilities of human
nature. Had it been otherwise, he could not have been "tempted in all points
like as we are;" nor could he have been tempted in any point as we are, any
further than he possessed a constitution similar to our own. Christ also manifested
natural affection for his mother, and for other friends. He also showed that he had
a sense of injury and injustice, and exercised a suitable resentment when he was
injured and persecuted. He was not always in a state of great excitement. He appears
to have had his seasons of excitement and of calm,-- of labor and rest,-- of joy
and sorrow, like other good men. Some persons have spoken of entire sanctification
as implying a state of uniform and universal calmness, and as if every kind and degree
of excited feeling, except as the feelings of love to God are excited, were inconsistent
with this state. But Christ often manifested a great degree of excitement when reproving
the enemies of God. In short his history would lead to the conclusion that his calmness
and excitement were various, according to the circumstances of the case. And although
he was sometimes so pointed and severe in his reproof, as to be accused of being
possessed of a devil, yet his emotions and feelings were only those that were called
for and suited to the occasions.
- 10. Nor does it imply a state of continual sweetness of mind without any indignation
or holy anger at sin or sinners. Anger at sin is only a modification of love. A feeling
of justice, or a desire to have the wicked punished for the benefit of the government,
is only another of the modifications of love. And such feelings are essential to
the existence of love, where the circumstances call for their existence. It is said
of Christ that he was angry. He often manifested anger and holy indignation. "God
is angry with the wicked every day." And holiness, or a state of sanctification,
instead of being inconsistent with, always implies the existence of anger, whenever
circumstances occur, which demand its exercise: Rule 10.
- 11. It does not imply a state of mind that is all compassion, and no feeling
of justice. Compassion is only one of the modifications of love. Justice, or a desire
for the execution of law, and the punishment of sin is another of its modifications.
God and Christ, and all holy beings, exercise all those affections and emotions that
constitute the different modifications of love, under every possible circumstance.
- 12. It does not imply that we should love or hate all men alike, irrespective
of their value, circumstances, and relations. One being may have a greater capacity
for happiness, and be of much more importance to the universe than another. Impartiality
and the law of love require us not to regard all beings and things alike; but all
beings and things according to their nature, relations and circumstances.
- 13. Nor does it imply a perfect knowledge of all our relations: rule 7. Now such
an interpretation of the law, as would make it necessary, in order to yield obedience,
for us to understand all our relations, would imply in us the possession of the attribute
of omniscience; for certainly there is not a thing in the universe to which we do
not sustain some relation. And a knowledge of all these relations, plainly implies
infinite knowledge. It is plain that the law of God cannot require any such thing
as this; and that entire sanctification or entire obedience to the law of God therefore
implies no such thing.
- 14. Nor does it imply perfect knowledge on any subject. Perfect knowledge on
any subject, implies a perfect knowledge of its nature, relations, bearings and tendencies.
Now as every single thing in the universe sustains some relation to and has some
bearing upon every other thing, there can be no such thing as perfect knowledge on
any one subject, that does not embrace universal or infinite knowledge.
- 15. Nor does it imply freedom from mistake on any subject whatever. It is maintained
by some that the grace of the gospel pledges to every man perfect knowledge, or at
least such knowledge as to exempt him from any mistake. I cannot stop here to debate
this question, but would merely say the law does not expressly or impliedly require
infallibility of judgment in us. It only requires us to make the best use of all
the light we have.
- 16. Nor does entire sanctification imply the knowledge of the exact relative
value of different interests. I have already said in illustrating rule 7, that the
second commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" does not
imply that we should, in every instance, understand exactly the relative value and
importance of every interest. This plainly cannot be required, unless it be assumed
that we are omniscient.
- 17. It does not imply the same degree of knowledge that we might have possessed,
had we always improved our time in its acquisition. The law cannot require us to
love God or man as well as we might have been able to love them, had we always improved
all our time in obtaining all the knowledge we could, in regard to their nature,
character, and interests. If this were implied in the requisition of the law, there
is not a saint on earth or in heaven that is or ever can be perfect. What is lost
in this respect is lost, and past neglect can never be so atoned for as that we shall
ever be able to make up in our acquisitions of knowledge, what we have lost. It will
no doubt be true to all eternity, that we shall have less knowledge than we might
have possessed, had we filled up all our time in its acquisition. We do not, cannot,
nor shall we ever be able to love God as well as we might have loved him, had we
always applied our minds to the acquisition of knowledge respecting him. And if entire
sanctification is to be understood as implying that we love God as much as we should,
had we all the knowledge we might have had, then I repeat it, there is not a saint
on earth or in heaven, nor ever will be, that is entirely sanctified.
- 18. It does not imply the same amount of service that we might have rendered,
had we never sinned. The law of God does not imply or suppose that our powers are
in a perfect state; that our strength of body or mind is what it would have been,
had we never sinned. But it simply requires us to use what strength we have. The
very wording of the law is proof conclusive, that it extends its demands only to
the full amount of what strength we have. And this is true of every moral being,
however great or small.
- 19. It does not require the same degree of love that we might have rendered,
but for our ignorance. We certainly know much less of God, and therefore are much
less capable of loving him, i.e. we are capable of loving him with a less amount,
and to a less degree than if we knew more of him, which we might have done but for
our sins. And as I have before said, this will be true to all eternity; for we can
never make amends by any future obedience, or diligence for this any more than for
other sins. And to all eternity, it will remain true, that we know less of God, and
love him less than we might and should have done, had we always done our duty. If
entire sanctification therefore, implies the same degree of love or service that
might have been rendered, had we always developed our powers by a perfect use of
them, then there is not a saint on earth or in heaven that is or ever will be in
that state. The most perfect development and improvement of our powers, must depend
upon the most perfect use of them. And every departure from their perfect use, is
a diminishing of their highest development, and a curtailing of their capabilities
to serve God in the highest and best manner. All sin then does just so much towards
crippling and curtailing the powers of body and mind, and rendering them, by just
so much, incapable of performing the service they might otherwise have rendered.
To this view of the subject it has been objected that Christ taught an opposite
doctrine, in the case of the woman who washed his feet with her tears, when he said,
"To whom much is forgiven, the same loveth much." But can it be that Christ
intended to be understood as teaching, that the more we sin the greater will be our
love and our ultimate virtue? If this be so I do not see why it does not follow that
the more sin in this life, the better, if so be that we are forgiven. If our virtue
is really to be improved by our sins, I see not why it would not be good economy
both for God and man, to sin as much as we can while in this world. Certainly Christ
meant to lay down no such principle as this. He undoubtedly meant to teach, that
a person who was truly sensible of the greatness of his sins, would exercise more
of the love of gratitude, than would be exercised by one who had a less affecting
sense of ill-desert.
- 20. Entire sanctification does not imply the same degree of faith that might
have been exercised but for our ignorance and past sin.
We cannot believe any thing about God of which we have no evidence or knowledge.
Our faith must therefore be limited by our intellectual perceptions of truth. The
heathen are not under obligation to believe in Christ, and thousands of other things
of which they have no knowledge. Perfection in a heathen would imply much less faith
than in a Christian. Perfection in an adult would imply much more and greater faith
than in an infant. And perfection in an angel would imply much greater faith than
in a man, just in proportion as he knows more of God than man. Let it be always understood
that entire sanctification never implies that which is naturally impossible. It is
certainly naturally impossible for us to believe that of which we have no knowledge.
Entire sanctification implies in this respect nothing more than the heart's faith
or confidence in all the truth that is perceived by the intellect.
- 21. Nor does it imply the conversion of all men in answer to our prayers. It
has been maintained by some that a state of entire sanctification implies the offering
of prevailing prayer for the conversion of all men. To this I reply,
- (1.) Then Christ was not sanctified; for he offered no such prayer.
- (2.) The law of God makes no such demand either expressly or impliedly.
- (3.) We have no right to believe that all men will be converted in answer to
our prayers, unless we have an express promise to that effect.
- (4.) As therefore there is no such promise, we are under no obligation to offer
such prayer. Nor does the non-conversion of the world, imply that there are no sanctified
saints in the world.
- 22. It does not imply the conversion of any one for whom there is not an express
or implied promise in the word of God. The fact that Judas was not converted in answer
to Christ's prayers, does not prove that Christ was not in a state of entire sanctification.
- 23. Nor does it imply that all those things which are expressly or impliedly
promised, will be granted in answer to our prayers, or in other words, that we should
pray in faith for them, if we are ignorant of the existence or application of those
promises. A state of perfect love implies the discharge of all known duty. And nothing
strictly speaking can be duty of which the mind has no knowledge. It cannot therefore
be our duty to believe a promise of which we are entirely ignorant, or the application
of which to any specific object we do not understand.
If there is sin in such a case as this, it lies in the ignorance itself. And here
no doubt, there often is sin, because there is present neglect to know the truth.
But it should always be understood that the sin lies in the ignorance, and not in
the neglect of that of which we have no knowledge. A state of sanctification is inconsistent
with any present neglect to know the truth; for such neglect is sin. But it is not
inconsistent with our failing to do that of which we have no knowledge. James says:
"He that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." "If
ye were blind," says Christ, "ye should have no sin, but because ye say
we see, therefore your sin remaineth."
- 24. Entire sanctification does not imply the impossibility of future sin. Entire
and permanent sanctification does imply the fact, that the sanctified soul will not
sin. But the only reason why he will not, is to be ascribed entirely to the sovereign
grace of God. Sanctification does not imply, as I have already said, any such change
in the nature of the subject, as to render it impossible or improbable that he will
again sin. Nay, I do not suppose there is a man upon earth, or perhaps in heaven,
who would not fall into sin but for the supporting grace of God.
- 25. It does not imply that watchfulness, and prayer, and effort, are no longer
needed. It is the height of absurdity to suppose that, either in this or any other
state of being, there will be no faith called for, or watchfulness against temptation.
Just so long as the susceptibilities of our soul exist, temptation in some sense
and to some extent must exist, in whatever world we are. Christ manifestly struggled
hard with temptation. He found watchfulness and the most powerful opposition to temptation,
indispensable to his perseverance in holiness. "Is the servant above his master,
or the disciple above his Lord?"
- 26. Nor does it imply that we are no longer dependent on the grace of Christ,
but the exact opposite is implied. A state of entire and permanent sanctification
implies the most constant and perfect dependence upon the grace and strength of an
indwelling Christ. It seems to have been supposed by some that entire sanctification
implies that something has been done which has so changed the nature of the sanctified
soul, that ever after he will persevere in holiness in his own strength. I suppose
this to be as far as possible from the truth, and that no change whatever has occurred
in the nature of the individual, but simply that he has learned to confide in Christ
at every step. He has so received Christ's strength as to lean constantly upon his
supporting grace.
- 27. Nor does it imply that the Christian warfare is ended. I understand the Christian
warfare to consist in the mind's conflict with temptation. This certainly will never
end in this life.
- 28. Nor does it imply that there is no more growth in grace. Many persons seem
to understand the command "grow in grace," as implying the gradual giving
up of sin. They suppose that when persons have done sinning, there is no more room
for growth in grace. Now it is said of Christ that he grew in grace, where the same
original word is used as in the command. "He increased in stature and in wisdom,
and in favor (kariti, grace) with God and man." If growth in grace implies the
gradual giving up of sin, then God has commanded men not to give up their sins at
once. They must give them up gradually. The truth is that growth in grace implies
the relinquishment of sin to begin with. To grow in grace is to grow in the favor
of God. And what would the Apostle have said, had he supposed that the requirement
to grow in grace, would have been understood by an orthodox Church to require only
the gradual relinquishment of their sins? I suppose that saints will continue to
grow in grace to all eternity, and in the knowledge of God. But this does not imply
that they are not entirely holy, when they enter heaven, or before.
- 29. Nor does it imply that others will recognize it to be real sanctification.
With the present views of the Church in regard to what is implied in entire sanctification,
it is impossible that a really sanctified soul should be acknowledged by the Church
as such. And with these views of the Church, there is no doubt but sanctified believers
would be set at nought, and denounced by the great mass of Christians as possessing
any other than a sanctified spirit.
It was insisted, and positively believed by the Jews, that Jesus Christ was possessed
of a wicked, instead of a holy spirit. Such were their notions of holiness, that
they no doubt supposed him to be actuated by any other than the Spirit of God. They
especially supposed so on account of his opposition to the current orthodoxy, and
the ungodliness of the religious teachers of the day. Now, who does not see that
when the Church is in a great measure conformed to the world, that a spirit of holiness
in any man, would certainly lead him to aim the sharpest rebukes at the spirit and
life of those in this state, whether in high or low places. And who does not see
that this would naturally result in his being accused of possessing a wicked spirit?
The most violent opposition that I have ever seen manifested to any persons in my
life, has been manifested by members of the Church, and even by some ministers of
the gospel, towards those whom I believe were among the most holy persons I ever
knew. I have been shocked, and wounded beyond expression, at the almost fiendish
opposition to such persons, that I have witnessed. I have several times of late observed
that writers in newspapers were calling for examples of Christian Perfection or entire
sanctification. Now I would humbly inquire, of what use it is to point the Church
to examples, so long as they do not know what is, and what is not implied in a state
of entire sanctification? I would ask, are the Church agreed among themselves in
regard to what constitutes this state? Are any considerable number of ministers agreed
among themselves as to what is implied in a state of entire sanctification? Now does
not everybody know that the Church and the ministry are in a great measure in the
dark upon this subject? Why then call for examples? No man can possess this state
without being sure to be set at nought as a hypocrite, and a self-deceiver.
- 30. It is not implied in this state that the sanctified soul will himself always
at the time be sure that his feelings and conduct are perfectly right. Cases may
occur in which he may be in doubt in regard to the rule of duty; and be at a loss,
without examination, reflection, and prayer, to know whether in a particular case
he has done and felt exactly right. If he were sure that he understood the exact
application of the law of God to that particular case, his consciousness would invariably
inform him whether or not he was conformed to that rule. But in any and every case
where he has not a clear apprehension of the rule, it may require time and thought,
and prayer, and diligent inquiry to satisfy his mind in regard to the exact moral
quality of any particular act or state of feeling; e.g. A man may feel himself exercised
with strong indignation in view of sin. And he may be brought into doubt whether
the indignation, in kind or degree, was not sinful. It may therefore require self-examination
and deep searching of heart to decide this question. That all indignation is not
sinful is certain. And that a certain kind and degree of indignation at sin is a
duty, is also certain. But our most holy exercises may lay us open to the assaults
of Satan. And he may so turn our accuser as for a time to render it difficult for
us to decide in regard to the real state of our hearts. And thus a sanctified soul
may be "in heaviness through manifold temptations."
- 31. Nor does it imply the same strength of holy affection that Adam may have
exercised before he fell, and his powers were debilitated by sin. It should never
be forgotten that the mind in this state of existence, is wholly dependent upon the
brain and physical system for its development. In Adam, and in any of his posterity,
any violation of the physical laws of the body, resulting in the debility and imperfection
of any organ or system of organs, must necessarily impair the vigor of the mind,
and prevent its developing itself as it otherwise might have done. It is therefore
entirely erroneous to say that mankind are or can be, in this state of existence,
perfect in as high a sense as they might have been had sin never entered the world,
and had there been no such thing as a violation of the laws of the physical constitution.
The law of God requires only the entire consecration of such powers as we have. As
these powers improve our obligation is enlarged, and will continue to be to all eternity.
For myself, I have very little doubt that the human constitution is capable of being
very nearly, if not entirely renovated or recovered from the evils of intemperance,
by a right understanding of, and an adherence to the laws of life and health. So
that after a few generations the human body would be nearly if not entirely restored
to its primitive physical perfection. If this is so, the time may come when obedience
to the law of God, will imply as great strength and constancy of affection as Adam
was capable of exercising before the fall. But if on the other hand, it be true that
any injury of the physical constitution can never be wholly repaired-- that the evils
of sin in respect to its effect upon the body, are, in some measure at least, to
descend with men to the end of time, then no such thing is implied in a state of
entire sanctification, as the same strength and permanency of holy affection in us
that Adam might have exercised before the fall.
- 32. Nor does it imply the formation of such holy habits as shall secure obedience.
Some have said that it was absurd to profess a state of entire sanctification, on
the ground that it implies not only obedience to the law of God, but such a formation
and perfection of holy habits as to render it certain that we shall never again sin.
And that a man can no more tell when he is entirely sanctified, than he can tell
how many holy acts it will take to form holy habits of such strength that he will
never again sin. To this I answer,
- (1.) The law of God has nothing to do with requiring this formation of holy habits.
It is satisfied with present obedience. It only demands at the present moment the
full devotion of all our powers to God. It never in any instance complains that we
have not formed such holy habits as to render it certain that we shall sin no more.
- (2.) If it be true that a man is never wholly sanctified until his holy habits
are so fixed as to render it certain that he will never sin again, then Adam was
not in a state of entire sanctification previously to the fall, nor were the angels
in this state before their fall.
- (3.) If this sentiment be true, there is not a saint nor an angel in heaven so
far as we can know, that can with the least propriety profess entire sanctification;
for how do they know that they have performed so many holy acts as to have created
such habits of holiness as to render it certain that they will never more sin?
- (4.) Entire sanctification does not consist in the formation of holy habits,
nor at all depend upon this. Both entire and permanent sanctification are based alone
upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ. And perseverance in holiness is to be ascribed
alone to the influence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, instead of being secured
by any habits of holiness which we have or ever shall form.
- 33. Nor does it imply exemption from sorrow or mental suffering.
It was not so with Christ. Nor is it inconsistent with our sorrowing for our own
past sins, and sorrowing that we have not now the health and vigor, and knowledge,
and love, that we might have had, if we had sinned less; or sorrow for those around
us-- sorrow in view of human sinfulness, or suffering. These are all consistent with
a state of entire sanctification, and indeed are the natural results of it.
- 34. Nor is it inconsistent with our living in human society-- with mingling in
the scenes, and engaging in the affairs of this world. Some have supposed that to
be holy we must withdraw from the world. Hence the absurd and ridiculous notions
of papists in retiring to monasteries, and convents-- in taking the veil, and as
they say, retiring to a life of devotion. Now I suppose this state of voluntary exclusion
from human society, to be utterly inconsistent with any degree of holiness, and a
manifest violation of the law of love to our neighbor.
- 35. Nor does it imply moroseness of temper and manners. Nothing is farther from
the truth than this. It is said of Xavier, than whom, perhaps, few holier men have
ever lived, that "he was so cheerful as often to be accused of being gay."
Cheerfulness is certainly the result of holy affections-- and sanctification no more
implies moroseness in this world than it does in heaven.
Before I proceed to the next head of my discourse, (having said these things,
and given these rules of interpretation so that you can apply the principle to many
things I have not time to notice) I wish to make the following remark.
In all the discussions I have seen upon this subject, while it seems to be admitted
that the law of God is the standard of perfection, yet in defining what constitutes
Christian perfection or entire sanctification, men entirely lose sight of this standard,
and seldom or never raise the distinct inquiry; what does obedience to this law imply,
and what does it not imply. Instead of bringing every thing to this test, they seem
to lose sight of it. On the one hand they bring in things that never were required
by the law of God of man in his present state. Thus they lay a stumbling block and
a snare for the saints, to keep them in perpetual bondage, supposing that this is
the way to keep them humble, to place the standard entirely above their reach. Or,
on the other hand, they really abrogate the law, so as to make it no longer binding.
Or they so fritter away what is really implied in it, as to leave nothing in its
requirements, but a kind of sickly, whimsical, inefficient sentimentalism, or perfectionism,
which in its manifestations and results, appears to me to be any thing else than
that which the law of God requires.
LECTURE II.
January 15, 1840
SANCTIFICATION- No. 2
by the Rev. Charles G. Finney
Text.--1 Thess. 5:23-24: "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."
I come now to show,
IV. What is implied in entire Sanctification.
Under this head, I shall refer to and repeat some things (as I have already done)
which I said a number of months since in my lectures on the law of God.
- 1. Love is the sum of all that is implied in entire Sanctification. But I may
and should be asked what is the kind of love implied? I shall consider the kind of
love to be exercised towards God.
- (1.) It is to be love of the heart, and not a mere emotion. By the heart I mean
the will. Emotions, or what are generally termed feelings, are always involuntary
states of mind, and no further than they are indirectly under the control of the
will, have they any moral character; i.e. they are not choices or volitions, and
of course do not govern the conduct. Love, in the form of an emotion, may exist in
opposition to the will; e.g. we may exercise emotions of love contrary to our conscience
and judgment, and in opposition to our will. Thus the sexes often exercise emotions
of love towards those to whom all the voluntary powers of their mind feel opposed,
and with whom they will not associate. It is true, that in most cases, the emotions
are with the will. But they are sometimes, nay often opposed to it.
Now, it is a voluntary state of mind that the law of God requires; i.e. it lays
its claims upon the will. The will controls the conduct. And it is, therefore, of
course, the love of the heart or will that God requires.
- (2.) Benevolence is one of the modifications of love which we are to exercise
towards God. Benevolence is good will. And certainly we are bound to exercise this
kind of love to God. It is a dictate of reason, of conscience, of common sense, and
of immutable justice, that we should exercise good and not ill-will to God. It matters
not whether he needs our good will or whether our good or ill-will can in any way
affect him-- the question does not respect his necessities, but deserts.
- (3.) Another modification of this love, is that of complacency or esteem. God's
character is infinitely good. We are therefore bound, not merely to love him, with
the love of benevolence; but to exercise the highest degree of complacency in his
character. To say that God is good and lovely is merely to say that he deserves to
be loved. If he deserves to be loved, on account of his goodness and love, then he
deserves to be loved in proportion to his goodness and loveliness. Our obligation,
therefore is infinitely great to exercise toward him the highest degree of the love
of complacency of which we are capable. These remarks are confirmed by the Bible,
by reason, by conscience and by common sense.
- (4.) Another modification of this love is that of gratitude. As every moral being
is constantly receiving favors from God, it is self-evident that love in the form
of gratitude is universally obligatory.
- (5.) Another peculiarity of this love which must, by no means, be overlooked,
is that it must be disinterested; i.e. that we should not love him for selfish reasons.
But that we should love him for what he is-- with benevolence; because his well-being
is an infinite good-- with complacency; because his character is infinitely excellent--
with the heart; because all virtue belongs to the heart. It is plain, that nothing
short of disinterested love is virtue. The Savior recognizes and settles this truth,
in Luke 6:32-34: "For if ye love them who love you, what thank have ye? for
sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to
you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them
of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners,
to receive as much again." These words epitomize the whole doctrine of the Bible
on this subject, and lay down the broad principle, that to love God, or any one else,
for selfish reasons, is not virtue.
- (6.) Another peculiarity of this love is that it must be in every instance supreme.
Any thing less than supreme love to God, must be idolatry. If any thing else is loved
more, that is our God.
I have been surprised to learn that some understand the term supreme in a comparative
sense, and not in a superlative sense. They suppose therefore that the law of God
requires more than supreme love. Webster's definition of supreme and supremely is
"in the highest degree," "to the utmost extent." I understand
the law to require as high a state of devotion to God, of love and actual service
as the powers of body and mind are capable of sustaining.
Observe, that God lays great stress upon the degree of love. So that the degree is
essential to the kind of love. If it be not supreme in degree it is wholly defective
and in no sense acceptable to God.
Now here the Apostle fully recognized the principle, that mere desire for the
good of others, which of course will satisfy itself with good words instead of good
deeds, is not virtue. If it were good willing, instead of good desiring, it would
produce corresponding actions; and unless it is good willing, there is no holiness
in it.
- (2.) Benevolence to men is a prime modification of holy love. This is included
in what I have said above, but needs to be expressly stated and explained. It is
a plain dictate of reason, of conscience, of common sense, and immutable justice,
that we should exercise good will towards our fellow men-- that we should will their
good, in proportion to its relative importance-- that we should rejoice in their
happiness, and endeavor to promote it, according to its relative value in the scale
of being.
- (3.) Complacency towards those that are virtuous is another modification of holy
love. I say towards those that are virtuous, because while we exercise benevolence
towards all, irrespective of their character, we have a right to exercise complacency
towards those only who are holy, To exercise complacency towards the wicked is to
be as wicked as they are. But to exercise complacency in those that are holy, is
to be ourselves holy.
- (4.) This love is to be in every instance equal. By equal I do not mean that
degree of love which selfish beings have for themselves; for this is supreme. There
is a grand distinction between self-love and selfishness. Self-love is that benevolence
to self or regard for our own interest, which its intrinsic importance demands. Selfishness
is the excess of self-love: i.e. it is supreme self-love-- it is making our own happiness
the supreme object of pursuit, because it is our own. And not attaching that importance
to other's interests, and the happiness of other beings, which their relative value
demands. A selfish mind is therefore in the exercise of the supreme love of self.
Now the law of God does not require or permit us to love our neighbor with this
degree of love, for that would be idolatry. But the command, "to love our neighbor
as ourselves," implies
- (a) That we should love ourselves less than supremely, and attach no more importance
to our own interests and happiness than their relative value demands-- so that the
first thing implied in this command is that we love ourselves less than supremely,
and that we love our neighbor with the same degree of love which it is lawful for
us to exercise towards ourselves.
- (b) Equal love does not imply that we should neglect our own appropriate concerns,
and attend to the affairs of others. God has appointed to every man a particular
sphere in which to act, and particular affairs to which he must attend. And this
business, whatever it is, must be transacted for God and not for ourselves. For a
man, therefore, to neglect his particular calling under the pretence of attending
to the business of others, is neither required or permitted by this law.
Nor are we to neglect our own families, and the nurture and education of our children,
and attend to that of others. "But if any provide not for his own, especially
for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
To these duties we are to attend for God. And no man or woman is required or permitted
to neglect the children God has given them, under the pretence of attending to the
families of others.
Nor does this law require or permit us to squander our possessions upon the intemperate,
and dissolute, and improvident. Not that the absolute necessities of such persons
are in no case to be relieved by us, but it is always to be done in such a manner
as not to encourage, but to rebuke their evil courses.
Nor does this law require or permit us to suffer others to live by sponging out of
our possessions, while they themselves are not engaged in promoting the good of men.
Nor does it require or permit us to lend money to speculators, or for speculating
purposes, or in any way to encourage selfishness.
- (c) But by equal love is meant, as I have said, the same love in kind and degree,
which it is lawful for us to exercise towards ourselves. It is lawful, nay, it is
our duty to exercise a suitable regard to our own happiness. This is benevolence
to self, or what is commonly called self-love. The same, both in kind and degree,
we are required to exercise to all our fellow men.
- (5.) Another feature of holy love is that it must be impartial; i.e. it must
extend to enemies as well as friends. Else it is selfish love, and comes under the
reprobation of the Savior, in the passage before quoted, Luke 6:32-34: "For
if ye love them who love you what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same,"
&c.
Now observe that this test must always be applied to the kind of love we exercise
to our fellow men, in order to understand its genuineness-- God's love is love to
enemies. It was for his enemies that he gave his Son. Our love must be the same in
kind-- it must extend to enemies, as well as friends. And if it does not, it is partial
and selfish.
- 2. Entire Sanctification implies, entire conformity of heart and life to all
the known will of God however it may be made known-- to both physical and moral law
so far as they are known.
- 3. It implies such a perfect confidence in him as to be willing that all events
should be at his sovereign disposal-- such a confidence as to preclude all carefulness
and undue anxiety about ourselves or our friends, our temporal or eternal interests,
the interests of the Church or of the world. Let me be understood. I am as far as
possible from supposing a state of entire Sanctification is inconsistent with the
greatest desire, and most earnest and prevailing wrestlings with God for blessings,
both spiritual and temporal upon ourselves and the world. But I suppose that a soul
in a state of entire conformity to the will of God, will never so distrust his providence
and grace as to be thrown into a state of feverish anxiety about any event. It will,
on all occasions, most sweetly acquiesce and rejoice in the will of God, in whatever
way that will is revealed.
- 4. Entire Sanctification implies a supreme disposition to glorify and serve God--
that this is the ruling principle of our life-- that we live for no lower or other
end than this-- that all other things that we desire are esteemed as a means to this
end-- that life and health, and food and raiment, and houses and furniture, and every
thing else that we possess are regarded by us as a means to this one great absorbing
end, the Glory of God.
- 5. It implies that the principle of love should have such energy as to control
every design and action directly or indirectly.
- 6. It implies an abiding sense of the presence of God. From what I have already
said, you will understand me of course not to mean that God is the direct object
of thought, attention and affection, but that there should be such a sense of his
presence at all times as to have an important bearing upon our whole lives. Every
one knows by his own experience, what it is to have a kind of sense of the presence
of a person, who is not at the time the direct object of our thoughts. A man in the
presence of an earthly prince, or of an august court, under the eye of a human judge,
would be continually awed, and restrained, and affected with a kind of sense of where
he was, and in whose presence, and under whose eye he was acting although his mind
might be so intensely employed in the transaction of business as not at all to make
the judge or prince the object of direct thought, attention, or affection. In this
sense, I suppose a sanctified soul will have an abiding sense, at all times and places,
of the presence of God. And when the mind is withdrawn from necessary pursuits, it
will naturally return to God, and be sensible of His presence in a vastly higher
sense than this. It will be so impressed, and melted, and affected, by His presence
as can never be expressed in words, but as a matter of experience is familiar to
all those who walk with God.
- 7. It does imply deep and uninterrupted communion with God. But here let me correct
a mistake into which, as I think, some have fallen. Many seem to recognize nothing
as communion with God expect that sweet peace and joy, and flowing, and glowing love
that the soul often experiences in seasons of communion. But God no doubt often has
seasons of intercourse and communion with the soul and with the sanctified soul,
in which he reminds it of past sins and follies. And in order to keep it in a sanctified
state he gives it such a view or its past history as to fill it with unutterable
shame, and self-abhorrence, and contempt. Now persons are apt to conceive of this
state of mind as a state of darkness, & to conceive of themselves as being under
the hidings of God's countenance, when in fact they are never perhaps more thoroughly
in the light than at such seasons. They are never perhaps nearer to God than on such
occasions. To be sure their thoughts are not occupied with those sweet and heavenly
visions that fill the mind with joy. Yet they are occupied with considerations of
no less importance and no less indispensable to continuing them in a state of holiness,
than those sweet truths which at other times so greatly rejoice them.
- 8. It implies a greater dread of offending God than of any other evil. This is
implied in supreme love. It is a contradiction to say that we love God supremely,
and yet do not dread offending Him so much as we dread some other evil. If we love
Him more than any earthly friend, we shall dread to offend Him more than that friend.
If we love Him more than we do ourselves, we should dread offending Him more than
we do that evil should befall ourselves. If he is dearer to us than our own souls
we should dread remaining in sin more than we should dread the loss of our souls.
- 9. It does imply the subjugation of all our appetites and passions to the will
of God. I have already said that the sin of Adam consisted in preferring the gratification
of his appetites to the will of God. This is the sin of all men. This is the substance
and the history of selfishness. Now entire obedience to the law of God does imply
that no appetite or susceptibility of body or mind shall be gratified in opposition
to the known will of God. But on the other hand, that "the whole body, soul
and spirit" shall be held in a state of entire consecration to God.
- 10. It implies the strictest employment of our time in the acquisition of knowledge,
and a consecration of what we already know to the service of God.
In my last lecture, I said that the legal maxim, "Ignorance of the law excuses
no one," is true in morals to but a limited extent, and that actual knowledge
is indispensable to obligation under the government of God. This I think was sufficiently
proven by a reference to scripture testimony. I also said that in sins of ignorance,
the sin consisted in the ignorance itself, and not in the non-performance of that
of which the mind has no knowledge.
Now to avoid mistake, it is important to remark here that ignorance of our duty is
always a sin where we possess the means and opportunities of information. In such
cases, the guilt of the ignorance is equal to all the default of which it is the
occasion. Strictly speaking the duty to do a thing does not and cannot attach until
the mind has a knowledge of that thing. Yet if the means of knowledge are within
reach of the mind, the guilt is just as great as all the default of which this ignorance
is the occasion. So that courts of law do not inflict injustice in holding all the
subjects of a government responsible for knowing the law, where the means of knowledge
are within their reach. Although they are not in form pronounced guilty for their
ignorance, & punished for the specific offence, but on the contrary are held
responsible for breaches of those laws of which they had no knowledge, yet in fact
no injustice is done them, as their ignorance in such cases really deserves the punishment
inflicted.
To this it may be objected that God, under the old dispensation treated sins of ignorance
as involving less guilt than sins committed against knowledge. To this I reply,
He did so. And the reason is very obvious. The people possessed but very limited
means of information. Copies of the law were very scarce and utterly inaccessible
to the great mass of the people. So that while He held them sufficiently responsible
to engage their memories to retain a knowledge of their duty and to search it out
with all diligence, yet it is plain that He held them responsible in a vastly lower
sense that He does those who have higher means of information. The responsibility
of the heathen was less than that of the Jews-- that of the Jews less than that of
Christians-- and that of Christians in the early ages of the Church, before the canon
of scripture was full and copies multiplied, much less than that of Christians at
the present day.
- 11. It implies the complete annihilation of selfishness under all its forms,
and a practical and hearty recognition of the rights and interests of our neighbor.
Let me point out in a few particulars what the law of God prohibits and what it requires
in these particulars, as stated in a former lecture.
- (1.) It prohibits all supreme self-love, or selfishness. The command, "love
thy neighbor as thyself," implies, not that we should love our neighbor supremely,
as selfish men love themselves; but that we should love ourselves, in the first place,
and pursue our happiness, only according to its real value, in the scale of being.
But I need not dwell upon this; as it will not probably be doubted, that this precept
prohibits supreme self-love.
- (2.) It prohibits all excessive self-love: (i.e.) every degree of love, that
is disproportioned to the relative value of our own happiness.
- (3.) It prohibits the laying any practical stress upon any interest, because
it is our own.
- (4.) It prohibits, of course, every degree of ill will, and all those feelings
that are necessarily connected with selfishness.
- (5.) It prohibits apathy and indifference, with regard to the well being of our
fellow men. But;
- (6.) It requires the practical recognition of the fact, that all men are brethren--
that God is the great Parent-- the great Father of the universe-- that all moral
agents, every where , are his children-- and that he is interested in the happiness
of every individual, according to its relative importance. He is no respecter of
persons. But so far as the love of Benevolence is concerned, He loves all moral beings,
in proportion to their capacity of receiving, and doing good. Now the law of God
evidently takes all this for granted; and that "God hath made of one blood all
nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth."
- (7.) It requires that every being, and interest should be regarded and treated,
by us, according to their relative value; (i.e.) that we should recognize God's relation
to the universe-- and our relation to each other-- and treat all men as our brethren--
as having an inalienable title to our good will, and kind offices-- as citizens of
the same government-- and members of the great family of God.
- (8.) It requires us to exercise as tender a regard to our neighbor's reputation,
interest, and well-being, in all respects, as to our own-- to be as unwilling to
mention his faults, as to have our own mentioned-- to hear him slandered as to be
slandered ourselves. In short, he is to be esteemed, by us, as our brother.
- (9.) It justly reprobates any violation of the great principle of equal love,
as rebellion against the whole universe. It is rebellion against God, because it
is a rejection of his authority-- and selfishness, under any form, is a setting up
of our own interests, in opposition to the interests of the universe of God.
- 12. Entire Sanctification implies a willingness to exercise self-denial, even
unto death, for the glory of God and good of man, did they require it. The Apostle
teaches us that "we ought to be willing to lay down our lives for the brethren,"
as Christ laid down his life.
LECTURE III.
January 29, 1840
SANCTIFICATION- No. 3
by the Rev. Charles G. Finney
Text.--1 Thess. 5:23-24: "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."
We have now arrived at a very important point in the discussion of this subject,
and I beg your patient attention. Having shown,
I. What I mean by the term sanctification;
2. What entire sanctification is;
3. The difference between entire and permanent sanctification;
4. What is not implied, and
5. What is implied in entire sanctification;
I am next, according to my plan to show,
VI. That entire sanctification is attainable in this life.
- 1. It is self-evident that entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground
of natural ability. To deny this is to deny that a man is able to do as well as he
can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity
of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. "Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength." Here then it is plain, that all the law demands,
is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire
sanctification consists in prefect obedience to the law of God, and as the law requires
nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is of course, forever
settled that a state of entire and permanent sanctification is attainable in this
life on the ground of natural ability.
- 2. The provisions of grace are such as to render its actual attainment in this
life, the object of reasonable pursuit. It is admitted that the entire and permanent
sanctification of the church is to be accomplished. It is also admitted that this
work is to be accomplished "through the sanctification of the Spirit and the
belief of the truth." It is also universally agreed that this work must be begun
here; and also that it must be completed before the soul can enter heaven. This then
is the inquiry, Is this state attainable as a matter of fact before death; and if
so when, in this life, may we expect to attain it? It is easy to see that this question
can be settled only by a reference to the word of God. And here it is of fundamental
importance that we understand the rules by which scripture declarations and promises
are to be interpreted. I have already given several rules in the light of which we
have endeavored to interpret the meaning of the law. I will now state several plain
common sense rules by which the promises are to be interpreted. The question in regard
to the rules of biblical interpretation is fundamental to all religious inquiry.
Until the church are agreed to interpret the scriptures in accordance with certain
fixed and undeniable principles, they can never be agreed in regard to what the Bible
teaches. I have often been amazed at the total disregard of all sober rules of biblical
interpretation. On the one hand the threatenings, and on the other the promises,
are either thrown away or made to mean something entirely different from that which
was intended by the Spirit of God. I have much to say on this subject, and design,
the Lord willing, to make the rules of biblical interpretation the subject of distinct
inquiry at another time. At present, I will only mention a few plain, common sense,
and self-evident rules for the interpretation of the promises. In the light of these,
we may be able to settle the inquiry before us, viz: whether the provisions of grace
are such as to render entire and permanent sanctification, in this life, an object
of reasonable pursuit.
- (1.) The language of a promise is to be interpreted by a reference to the known
character of him who promises, where this character is revealed and made known in
other ways than by the promise itself, e.g.
- (a) If the promisor is known to be of a very bountiful disposition, or the opposite
of this, these considerations should be taken into the account in interpreting the
language of his promise. If he is of a very bountiful disposition, he may be expected
to mean all that he seems to mean in the language of his promise, and a very liberal
construction should be put upon his language. But if his character is known to be
the opposite of bountifulness, and that whatever he promised would be given with
great reluctance, his language should be construed strictly.
- (b) His character for hyperbole and extravagance in the use of language should
be taken into the account in interpreting the promises. If it be well understood
that the promisor is in the habit of using extravagant language--to say much more
than he means, this circumstance should in all justice be taken into the account
in the interpretation of the language of his promises. But on the other hand, if
he be known to be an individual of great candor, and to use language with great circumspection
and propriety, we may freely understand him to mean what he says. His promise may
be in figurative language and not to be understood literally, but in this case even,
he must be understood to mean what the figure naturally and fully implies.
- (c) The fact should be taken into the account, whether the promise was made deliberately
or in circumstances of great but temporary excitement. If the promise was made deliberately,
it should be interpreted to mean what it says. But if it were made under great but
temporary excitement, much allowance is to be made for the state of mind, which led
to the use of such strong language.
- (2.) The relation of the parties to each other should be duly considered in the
interpretation of the language of a promise; e.g. the promise of a father to a son
admits of a more liberal and full construction than if the promise were made to a
stranger, as the father may be supposed to indulge a more liberal and bountiful disposition
towards a son than towards a person in whom he has no particular interest.
- (3.) The design of the promisor in relation to the necessities of the promisee
or person to whom the promise is made, should be taken into the account. If it be
manifest that the design of the promisor was to meet the necessities of the promisee,
then his promise must be so understood as to meet these necessities.
- (4.) If it be manifest that the design of the promisor was to meet the necessities
of the promisee, then the extent of these necessities should be taken into the account
in the interpretation of the promise.
- (5.) The interest of the promisor in the accomplishment of his design, or in
fully meeting and relieving the necessities of the promisee, should be taken into
the account. If there is the most satisfactory proof aside from that which is contained
in the promise itself, that the promisor feels the highest interest in the promisee,
and in fully meeting and relieving his necessities, then his promise must be understood
accordingly.
- (6.) If it is known that the promisor has exercised the greatest self-denial
and made the greatest sacrifice for the promisee, in order to render it proper or
possible for him to make and fulfill his promises, in relation to the relieving his
necessities, the state of mind implied in this conduct, should be fully recognized
in interpreting the language of the promise. It would be utterly unreasonable and
absurd in such a case to restrict and pare down the language of his promise so as
to make it fall entirely short of what might reasonably be expected of the promisor,
from those developments of his character, feelings, and designs, which were made
by the great self-denial he has exercised and the sacrifices he has made.
- (7.) The bearing of the promise upon the interests of the promisor should also
be taken into the account. It is a general and correct rule of interpretation, that
when the thing promised has an injurious bearing upon the interest of the promisor
and is something which he cannot well afford to do, and might therefore be supposed
to promise with reluctance, the language in such a case is to be strictly construed.
No more is to be understood by it than the strictest construction will demand.
- (8.) But if on the other hand the thing promised will not impoverish or in any
way be inimical to the interests of the promisor, no such construction is to be resorted
to.
- (9.) Where the thing promised is that which the promisor has the greatest delight
in doing or bestowing; and where he accounts it "more blessed to give than to
receive;" and where it is well known by other revelations of his character,
and by his own express and often repeated declarations, that he has the highest satisfaction
and finds his own happiness in bestowing favors upon the promisee, in this case the
most liberal construction should be put upon the promise, and he is to be understood
to mean all that he says.
- (10.) The resources and ability of the promisor to meet the necessities of the
promisee, without injury to himself, are to be considered. If a physician should
promise to restore a patient to perfect health, it might be unfair to understand
him as meaning all that he says. If he so far restored the patient as that he recovered
in a great measure from his disease, it might be reasonable to suppose that this
was all he really intended, as the known inability of a physician to restore an individual
to perfect health might reasonably modify our understanding of the language of his
promise. But when there can be no doubt as to the ability, resources, and willingness
of the physician to restore his patient to perfect health, then we are, in all reason
and justice, required to believe he means all that he says. If God should promise
to restore a man to perfect health who was diseased, there can be no doubt that his
promise should be understood to mean what its language imports.
- (11.) When commands and promises are given by one person to another, in the same
language, in both cases it is to be understood alike, unless there is some manifest
reason to the contrary.
- (12.) If neither the language, connection, nor circumstances, demand a diverse
interpretation, we are bound to understand the same language alike in both cases.
- (13.) I have said, we are to interpret the language of law so as to consist with
natural justice. I now say, that we are to interpret the language of the promises
so as to consist with the known greatness, resources, goodness, bountifulness, relations,
design, happiness, and glory of the promisor.
- (14.) If his bountifulness is equal to his justice, his promises of grace must
be understood to mean as much as the requirements of his justice.
- (15.) If he delights in giving as much as in receiving, his promises must mean
as much as the language of his requirements.
- (16.) If he is as merciful as he is just, his promises of mercy must be as liberally
construed as the requirements of his justice.
- (17.) If "he delighteth in mercy," if Himself says "judgment is
his strange work," and mercy is that in which he has peculiar satisfaction,
his promises of grace and mercy are to be construed even more liberally than the
command and threatenings of his justice. The language in this case is to be understood
as meaning quite as much as the same language would in any supposable circumstances.
- (18.) Another rule of interpreting and applying the promises which has been extensively
overlooked is this, the promises are all "yes and amen in Christ Jesus."
They are all founded upon and expressive of great and immutable principles of God's
government. God is no respecter of persons. He knows nothing of favoritism. But when
He makes a promise, He reveals a principle of universal application to all persons
in like circumstances. Therefore the promises are not restricted in their application
to the individual or individuals to whom they were first given, but may be claimed
by all persons in similar circumstances. And what God is at one time, He always is.
What He has promised at one time or to one person, he promises at all times to all
persons under similar circumstances. That this is a correct view of the subject is
manifest from the manner in which the New Testament writers understood and applied
the promises of the Old Testament. Let any person with a reference Bible read the
New Testament with a design to understand how its writers applied the promises of
the Old Testament, and he will see this principle brought out in all its fulness.
The promises made to Adam, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs, and to the inspired men
of every age, together with the promises made to the church, and indeed all the promises
of spiritual blessings,--it is true of them all, that what God has said and promised
once, He always says and promises, to all persons and at all times, and in all places,
where the circumstances are similar.
Having stated these rules, in the light of which we are to interpret the language
of the promises, I will say a few words in regard to when a promise becomes due,
and on what conditions we may realize its fulfillment. I have said some of the same
things in the last volume of the Evangelist. But I wish to repeat them in this connection,
and add something more.
- (1.) All the promises of sanctification in the Bible, from their very nature
necessarily imply the exercise of our own agency in receiving the thing promised.
As sanctification consists in the right exercise of our own agency, or in obedience
to the law of God, a promise of sanctification must necessarily be conditioned upon
the exercise of faith in the promise. And its fulfillment implies the exercise of
our own powers in receiving it.
- (2.) It consequently follows, that a promise of sanctification, to be of any
avail to us, must be due at some certain time, expressed or implied in the promise:
for if the fulfillment of the promise implies the exercise of our own agency, the
promise is a mere nullity to us, unless we are able to understand when it becomes
due, or at what time we are to expect and plead its fulfillment.
- (3.) A promise in the present tense is on demand. In other words, it is always
due, and its fulfillment may be plead and claimed by the promisee at any time.
- (4.) A promise due at a future specified time, is after that time on demand,
and may at any time thereafter be plead as a promise in the present tense.
- (5.) A great many of the Old Testament promises became due at the advent of Christ.
Since that time they are to be considered and used as promises in the present tense.
The Old Testament saints could not plead their fulfillment to them; because they
were either expressly or impliedly informed, that they were not to be fulfilled until
the coming of Christ. All that class of promises, therefore, that became due "in
the last days," "at the end of the world," i.e. the Jewish dispensation,
are to be regarded as now due or as promises in the present tense.
- (6.) Notwithstanding these promises are now due, yet they are expressly or impliedly
conditioned upon the exercise of faith, and the right use of the appropriate means
by us, to receive their fulfillment.
- (7.) When a promise is due, we may expect the fulfillment of it at once or gradually,
according to the nature of the blessing. The promise that the world shall be converted
in the latter day, does not imply that we are to expect the world to be converted
at any one moment of time; but that the Lord will commence it at once, and hasten
it in its time, according to the faith and efforts of the church. On the other hand,
when the blessing promised may in its nature be fulfilled at once, and when the nature
of the case makes it necessary that it should be, then its fulfillment may be expected
whenever we exercise faith.
- (8.) There is a plain distinction between promises of grace and of glory. Promises
of glory are of course not to be fulfilled until we arrive at heaven. Promises of
grace, unless there be some express or implied reason to the contrary, are to be
understood as applicable to this life.
- (9.) A promise also may be unconditional in one sense, and conditional in another;
e.g. promises made to the church as a body may be absolute and their fulfillment
be secure and certain, sooner or later, while their fulfillment to any generation
of the church or to any particular individuals of the church, may be and must be
conditioned upon their faith and the appropriate use of means. Thus the promise of
God that the church should possess the land of Canaan was absolute and unconditional
in such a sense as that the church, at some period, would and certainly must take
possession of that land. But the promise was conditional in the sense that the entering
into possession, by any generation, depended entirely upon their own faith and the
appropriate use of means. So the promise of the world's conversion, and the sanctification
of the church under the reign of Christ, is unconditional in the sense, that it is
certain that those events will at some time occur, but when they will occur--what
generation of individuals shall receive this blessing, is necessarily conditioned
upon their faith. This principle is plainly recognized by Paul in Heb. 4:6, 11: "Seeing
therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first
preached entered not in because of unbelief;" "Let us labor therefore to
enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."
I come now to consider the question directly, and wholly as a Bible question,
whether entire and permanent sanctification is in such a sense attainable in this
life as to make its attainment an object of rational pursuit.
Let me first, however, recall your attention to what this blessing is. Simple obedience
to the law of God is what I understand to be present, and its continuance to be permanent
sanctification. The law is and forever must be the only standard. Whatever departs
from this law on either side, must be false. Whatever requires more or less than
the law of God, I reject as having nothing to do with the question.
It will not be my design to examine a great number of scripture promises, but rather
to show that those which I do examine, fully sustain the position I have taken. One
is sufficient, if it be full and its application just, to settle this question forever.
I might occupy many lectures in the examination of the promises, for they are exceedingly
numerous, and full, and in point. But as I have already given several lectures on
the promises, my design is now to examine only a few of them, more critically than
I did before. This will enable you to apply the same principles to the examination
of the scripture promises generally.
- 1. I begin by referring you to the law of God, as given in Deut. 10:12: "And
now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy
God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul." Upon this passage I remark:
- (1.) It professedly sums up the whole duty of man to God--to fear and love Him
with all the heart, and all the soul.
- (2.) Although this is said of Israel, yet it is equally true of all men. It is
equally binding upon all, and is all that God requires of any man in regard to Himself.
- (3.) Obedience to this requirement is entire sanctification.
See Deut. 30:6: "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the
heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy
soul, that thou mayest live." Here we have a promise couched in the same language
as the command just quoted. Upon this passage I remark:
- (1.) It promises just what the law requires. It promises all that the first and
great commandment any where requires.
- (2.) Obedience to the first commandment always implies obedience to the second.
It is plainly impossible that we should "love God, whom we have not seen,"
and "not love our neighbor whom we have seen."
- (3.) This promise, on its very face, appears to mean just what the law means--to
promise just what the law requires.
- (4.) If the law requires a state of entire sanctification, or if that which the
law requires is a state of entire sanctification, then this is a promise of entire
sanctification.
- (5.) As the command is universally binding upon all and applicable to all, so
this promise is universally applicable to all who will lay hold upon it.
- (6.) Faith is an indispensable condition to the fulfillment of this promise.
It is entirely impossible that we should love God with all the heart, without confidence
in Him. God begets love in man, in no other way, than by so revealing Himself as
to inspire confidence,--that confidence which works by love. In Rules 10 and 11,
for the interpretation of the promises, it is said, that "where a command and
a promise are given in the same language, we are bound to interpret the language
alike in both cases, unless there be some manifest reason for a different interpretation."
Now here, there is no perceivable reason why we should not understand the language
of the promise as meaning as much as the language of the command. This promise appears
to have been designed to cover the whole ground of the requirement.
- (7.) Suppose the language in this promise to be used in a command, or suppose
that the form of this promise were changed into that of a command. Suppose God should
say as He does elsewhere, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
and with all thy soul;" who would doubt that God designed to require a state
of entire sanctification or consecration to Himself. How then are we to understand
it when used in the form of a promise? See Rules 14 and 15" "If his bountifulness
equal his justice, his promises of grace must be understood to mean as much as the
requirements of his justice." "If He delights in giving as much as in receiving,
his promises must mean as much as the language of his requirements."
- (8.) This promise is designed to be fulfilled in this life. The language and
connection imply this: I "will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed,
to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul."
- (9.) This promise as it respects the church, at some day, must be absolute and
certain. So that God will undoubtedly, at some period, beget this state of mind in
the church. But to what particular individuals and generation this promise will be
fulfilled must depend upon their faith in the promise.
- 2. See Jer. 31:31-34: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the
hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, although
I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord;) but this shall be the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put
my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God,
and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor,
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Upon this passage, I remark:
- (1.) It was to become due, or the time its fulfillment may be claimed and expected,
was at the advent of Christ. This is unequivocally settled in Heb. 8:8-12, where
this promise is quoted at length as being applicable to the gospel day.
- (2.) This is undeniably a promise of entire sanctification. It is a promise that
the "law shall be written in the heart." It means that the very temper
and spirit required by the law shall be begotten in the soul. Now if the law requires
entire sanctification or perfect holiness, this is certainly a promise of it; for
it is a promise of all that the law requires. To say that this is not a promise of
entire sanctification, is the same absurdity as to say, that perfect obedience to
the law is not entire sanctification; and this last is the same absurdity as to say
that something more is our duty than what the law requires; and this again is to
say that the law is imperfect and unjust.
- (3.) A permanent state of sanctification is plainly implied in this promise.
- (a) The reason for setting aside the first covenant was, that it was broken:
"Which my covenant they brake." One grand design of the New Covenant is,
that it shall not be broken, for then it will be no better than the first.
- (b) Permanency is implied in the fact, that it is to be engraven in the heart.
- (c) Permanency is plainly implied in the assertion, that God will remember their
sin no more. In Jer. 32:39, 40, where the same promise is in substance repeated,
you will find it expressly stated that the covenant is to be "everlasting;"
and that He will so "put his fear in their hearts that they shall not depart
from Him." Here permanency is as expressly promised as it can be.
- (d) Suppose the language of this promise to be thrown into the form of a command.
Suppose God to say, "Let my law be within your hearts, and let it be in your
inward parts, and let my fear be so within your hearts that you shall not depart
form me. Let your covenant with me be everlasting." If this language were found
in a command, would any man in his senses doubt that it meant perfect and permanent
sanctification? If not, by what rule of sober interpretation does he make it mean
any thing else when found in a promise? It appears to be the most profane trifling,
when such language is found in a promise, to make it mean less than it does when
found in a command. See Rule 17.
- (4.) This promise as it respects the Church, at some period of its history, is
unconditional, and its fulfillment certain. But in respect to any particular individuals
or generation of the church, its fulfillment is necessarily conditioned upon their
faith.
- (5.) The church, as a body, have certainly never received this new covenant.
Yet doubtless multitudes, in every age of the Christian dispensation, have received
it. And God will hasten the time when it shall be so fully accomplished, that there
shall be no need for one man to say to his brother, "Know ye the Lord, for all
shall know Him from the least to the greatest."
- (6.) It should be understood that this promise was made to the Christian church
and not all to the Jewish church. The saints, under the old dispensation, had no
reason to expect the fulfillment of this and kindred promises to themselves, because
their fulfillment was expressly deferred until the commencement of the Christian
dispensation.
- (7.) It has been said, that nothing more is promised than regeneration. But were
not the Old Testament saints regenerated? Yet it is expressly said that they received
not the promises. Heb. 11:13, 39, 40: "These all died in faith, not having received
the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced
them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "And
these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be
made perfect." Here we see that these promises were not received by the Old
Testament saints. Yet they were regenerated.
- (8.) It has also been said that the promise implied no more than the final perseverance
of the saints. But I would inquire, did not the Old Testament saints persevere? And
yet we have just seen, that the Old Testament saints did not receive these promises
in their fulfillment.
- 3. I will next examine the promise in Ezek. 36:25-27: "Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all
your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit
will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and
I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause
you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them." Upon
this I remark:
- (1.) It was written within nineteen years after that which we have just examined
in Jer. It plainly refers to the same time and is a promise of the same blessing.
- (2.) It seems to be admitted, nor can it be denied, that this is a promise of
entire sanctification. The language is very definite and full. "Then,"
referring to some future time when it should become due, "will I sprinkle clean
water upon you and ye shall be clean." Mark the first promise is, "ye shall
be clean." If to be "clean" does not mean entire sanctification, what
does it mean?
The second promise is, "from all your filthiness and from all your idols
will I cleanse you." If to be cleansed "from all filthiness and all idols,"
be not a state of entire sanctification, what is?
The third promise is, "a new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I
put within you; I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and will give
you a heart of flesh." If to have a "clean heart," a "new heart,"
a "heart of flesh," in opposition to a "heart of stone,"--be
not entire sanctification, what is?
The fourth promise is, "I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk
in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments to do them."
- (3.) Let us turn the language of these promises into that of command; and understand
God as saying, "Make you a clean heart, a new heart, and a new spirit; put away
all your iniquities, all your filthiness, and all your idols; walk in my statutes,
and keep my judgments, and do them." Now what man in the sober exercise of his
senses, would doubt whether God meant to require a state of entire sanctification
in such promises as these? The rules of legal interpretation, would demand that we
should so understand Him. Rule 5: "The interest of the promisor in the accomplishment
of His design or in fully meeting and relieving the necessities of the promisee,
should also be taken into the account. If there is the most satisfactory proof, aside
from that which is contained in the promise itself, that the promisor feels the highest
interest in the promisee, and in fully meeting and relieving his necessities, then
his promise must be understood accordingly."
If this is so, what is the fair and proper construction of this language when
found in a promise. I do not hesitate to say that to me it is amazing that any doubt
should be left on the mind of any man whether, in these promises, God means as much
as in his commands couched in the same language; e.g. Ezek. 18:30, 31: "Repent,
and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make
you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will you die, O house of Israel?"
Now that the language in the promise under consideration, should mean as much as
the language of this command, is demanded by every sober rule of interpretation.
And who ever dreamed, that when He required His people to put away all their iniquities,
He only meant that they should put away a part of their iniquities?
- (4.) This promise respects the church, and it cannot be pretended that it has
ever been fulfilled according to its proper import, in any past age of the church.
- (5.) As it regards the church, at a future period of its history, this promise
is absolute, in the sense that it certainly will be fulfilled.
- (6.) It was manifestly designed to apply to Christians under the new dispensation,
rather than to the Jews under the old dispensation. The sprinkling of clean water
and the outpouring of the Spirit, seem plainly to indicate that the promise belonged
more particularly to the Christian dispensation. It undeniably belongs to the same
class of promises with that in Jer. 31:31-34, Joel 2:28, and many others, that manifestly
look forward to the gospel day as the time when they shall become due. As these promises
have never been fulfilled, in their extent and meaning, their complete fulfillment
remains to be realized by the church as a body. And those individuals and that generation
will take possession of the blessing, who understand and believe and appropriate
them to their own case.
- 4. I will next examine the promise in the text, 1 Thess. 5:23, 24: "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." Upon this I remark:
- (1.) That according to Prof. Robinson's Lexicon, the language used here is the
strongest form of expressing perfect or entire sanctification.
- (2.) It is admitted, that this is a prayer for and a promise of entire sanctification.
- (3.) The very language shows, that both the prayer and the promise refer to this
life, as it is a prayer for the sanctification of the body as well as the soul; also
that they might be preserved, not after, but unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- (4.) This is a prayer of inspiration, to which is annexed an express promise
that God will do it.
- (5.) It is, from the necessity of the case, conditioned upon our faith, as sanctification
without faith is naturally impossible.
- (6.) Now if this promise, with those that have already been examined, do not
honestly, and fully, settle the question of the attainability of entire sanctification
in this life, it is difficult to understand how any thing can be settled by appeal
to scripture.
There are great multitudes of promises to the same import, to which I might refer
you, and which if examined in the light of the foregoing rules of interpretation,
would be seen to heap up demonstration upon demonstration, that this is a doctrine
of the Bible. Only examine them in the light of these plain, self evident principles,
and it seems to me, that they cannot fail to produce conviction.
I will not longer occupy your time in the examination of the promises, but in my
next will mention several other considerations in support of this doctrine.
LECTURE IV.
February 12, 1840
SANCTIFICATION- No. 4
by the Rev. Charles G. Finney
Text.--1 Thess. 5:23-24: "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."
Having examined a few of the promises in proof of the position, that a state of entire
sanctification is attainable in this life, I will now proceed to mention other considerations
in support of this doctrine.
- 5. Christ prayed for the entire sanctification of saints in this life. "I
pray not," He says, "that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but
that thou shouldest keep them from the evil of the world." He did not pray that
they should be kept from persecution or from natural death, but He manifestly prayed,
that they should be kept from sin. Suppose Christ had commanded them to keep themselves
from the evil of the world; what should we understand him to mean by such a command?
- 6. Christ has taught us to pray for entire sanctification in this life; "Thy
will be done on earth as it is done in heaven." Now, if there is entire sanctification
in heaven, Christ requires us to pray for it on earth. And is it probable that He
has taught us to pray for that which He knows never can be or will be granted?
- 7. The Apostles evidently expected Christians to attain this state in this life.--See
Col. 4:12: "Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you,
always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete
in all the will of God." Upon this passage I remark:
- (1.) It was the object of the efforts of Epaphras, and a thing which he expected
to effect, to be instrumental in causing those Christians to be "perfect and
complete in all the will of God."
- (2.) If this language does not describe a state of entire sanctification, I know
of none that would. If "to be perfect and complete in all the will of God,"
be not Christian perfection, what is?
- (3.) Paul knew that Epaphras was laboring to this end, and with this expectation;
and he informed the church of it in a manner that evidently showed his approbation
of the views and conduct of Epaphras.
- 8. That the Apostles expected Christians to attain this state is further manifest,
from 2 Cor. 7:1: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness, in the
fear of God."
Now does not the Apostle speak in this passage as if he really expected those
to whom he wrote "to perfect holiness in the fear of God?" Observe how
strong and full the language is, "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness
of the flesh and spirit." If "to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness
of the flesh and all filthiness of the spirit, and to perfect holiness," be
not entire sanctification, what is? That he expected this to take place in this life,
is evident from the fact, that he requires them to be cleansed from all filthiness
of the flesh as well as of the spirit.
- 9. All the intermediate steps can be taken. Therefore, the end can be reached.
There is certainly no point in our progress towards entire sanctification, where
it can be said, we can go no further. To this it has been objected, that though all
the intermediate steps can be taken, yet the goal can never be reached in this life,
just as five may be divided by three, ad infinitum, without exhausting the fraction.
Now this illustration deceives the mind that uses it, as it may the minds of those
who listen to it. It is true that you can never exhaust the fraction in dividing
five by three, for the plain reason that the division may be carried on, ad infinitum.
But in the case of entire sanctification, all the intermediate steps can be taken;
for there is an end, or state of entire sanctification; and that too, at a point
infinitely short of infinite.
- 10. That this state may be attained in this life, I argue from the fact that
provision is made against all the occasions of sin. Men sin only when they are tempted.
And it is expressly asserted that in every temptation provision is made for our escape.
Certainly if it is possible for us to escape without sin, under every temptation,
then a state of entire and permanent sanctification is attainable.
- 11. Full provision is made for overcoming the three great enemies of our souls;
the world, the flesh, and the devil.
- (1.) The world--"This is the victory that overcometh the world, even your
faith." "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that
Jesus is the Christ."
- (2.) The flesh--"If ye walk in the Spirit, ye shall not fulfill the lusts
of the flesh."
- (3.) Satan--"The shield of faith shall quench all the fiery darts of the
wicked." "And God shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly."
Now all sober rules of Biblical criticism require us to understand the passages
I have quoted, in the sense I have quoted them.
- 12. It is evident from the fact, expressly stated, that abundant means are provided
for the accomplishment of this end. Eph. 4:10-16: "He that descended is the
same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children tossed to
and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and
cunning craftiness, where by they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth
in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head even Christ: from
whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh
increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love." Upon this passage,
I remark:
- (1.) That what is here spoken of is plainly applicable only to this life. It
is in this life that the apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers exercise their
ministry. The means, therefore, are applicable, and so far as we know, only applicable
to this life.
- (2.) The Apostle here manifestly teaches that these means are designed, and adequate
to perfecting the whole Church as the body of Christ, "till we all come to the
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ." Now observe--
- (a.) These means are for the perfecting of the saints, till the whole Church,
as a perfect man, "has come to the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ." If this is not entire sanctification, what is? That this is to take
place in this world, is evident from what follows. For the Apostle adds, "that
we henceforth," (i.e. after arriving at this perfection,) "be no more tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men
and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
- (3.) It should be observed that this is a very strong passage in support of the
doctrine, inasmuch as it asserts that abundant means are provided for the sanctification
of the Church in this life. And as the whole includes all its parts, there must be
sufficient provision for the sanctification of each individual.
- (4.) If the work is ever to be effected, it is by these means. But these means
are used only in this life. Entire sanctification then must take place in this life.
- (5.) If this passage does not teach a state of entire sanctification, such a
state is no where mentioned in the Bible. And if believers are not here said to be
wholly sanctified by these means, and of course in this life, I know not that it
is any where taught that they shall be sanctified at all.
- (6.) But suppose this passage to be put in the language of a command, how should
we understand it? Suppose the saints commanded to be perfect, and to "grow up
to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," could any thing less
than entire sanctification be understood by such requisitions? Then by what rule
of sober criticism, I would inquire, can this language used in this connection, mean
any thing less than I have supposed it to mean?
- 13. God is able to perform this work in and for us. Eph. 3:14-19: " For
this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole
family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you according to the riches
of his glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth,
and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might
be filled with all the fulness of God." Upon this passage I remark:
- (1.) Paul evidently prays here for the entire sanctification of believers in
this life. It is implied in our being "rooted and grounded in love," and
being "filled with all the fulness of God," to be as perfect in our measure
and according to our capacity, as He is. If to be filled with the fulness of God,
does not imply a state of entire sanctification, what does?
- (2.) That Paul did not see any difficulty in the way of God's accomplishing this
work, is manifest from what he says in the 20th verse--"Now unto Him that is
able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the
power that worketh in us, &c."
- 14. The Bible no where represents death as the termination of sin in the saints,
which it could not fail to do, were it true that they cease not to sin until death.
It has been the custom of the Church, for a long time, to console individuals, in
view of death, by the consideration, that it would be the termination of all their
sin. And how almost universal has been the custom in consoling the friends of deceased
saints, to mention this as a most important fact, that now they had ceased from sin.
Now if death is the termination of sin in th