__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Title: Systematic Theology [1878]
\nCreator(s): Finney, Charles Grandison (1792-1875)
\nRights: Public Domain<\/p>\n
__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
LECTURES<\/p>\n
on<\/p>\n
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY;<\/p>\n
BY THE<\/p>\n
REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY<\/p>\n
LATE PRESIDENT OF OBERLIN COLLEGE AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
EDITED BY<\/p>\n
PRES. J. H. FAIRCHILD
\n__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Published by<\/p>\n
COLPORTER KEMP<\/p>\n
Whittier, Calif.<\/p>\n
This edition originally published in 1878 by E. J. Goodrich
\nRe-published in 1944 by Colporter Kemp<\/p>\n
Second Edition 1946
\n__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
NOTE BY THE EDITOR.<\/p>\n
Two editions of President Finney’s Lectures on Systematic Theology have
\nbeen published — the first in this country in 1846, the second in
\nEngland in 1851, — the English edition being somewhat more full than
\nits predecessor. Both editions have been exhausted, and the book has
\ndisappeared from the market.<\/p>\n
The present edition has been prepared from the English edition by a
\nprocess of condensation, omitting, to some extent, restatements or
\nrepetitions of the argument, paragraphs of a hortatory character, and
\nother parts not essential to the expression or elucidation of the
\ndoctrine.<\/p>\n
Aside from these omissions, no changes have been made. No liberties
\nhave been taken with the author’s style or thought. Every sentence is
\nhis own, and even in those parts where, in the judgment of the editor,
\nthe author’s views are not elaborated with perfect consistency, as in
\nthe presentation of sin as selfishness, and in the lectures on
\nsanctification, no attempt has been made to secure consistency, as
\nmight have been done by judicious omissions. The author was in the
\nhabit of thinking and speaking for himself while living, and no one can
\nundertake to speak for him now that he is dead.<\/p>\n
This condensed edition, it is believed, will not be less valuable, as
\nan exponent of Mr. Finney’s teaching, than the English edition, but
\neven more valuable. Unnecessary bulk in a volume is a hindrance and
\ndiscouragement to the reader. The topics will be found to be presented
\nwith all necessary fullness.<\/p>\n
J. H. F.<\/p>\n
OBERLIN COLLEGE, 1878.
\n__________________________________________________________________
\n__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
PREFACE.<\/p>\n
BY REV. GEORGE REDFORD, D.D.,<\/p>\n
EDITOR OF THE ENGLISH EDITION.<\/p>\n
THE Lectures of the Rev. Professor Finney, which are here given to the
\nBritish public, were first delivered to the class of theological
\nstudents at the Oberlin College, America, and subsequently published
\nthere. They were unknown in this country, except to a few of the
\nAuthor’s personal friends, until his arrival in England, about two
\nyears since. His name, however, was well known, and several of his
\nworks had been extensively read.<\/p>\n
The Editor having had the pleasure and honor of forming a personal
\nacquaintance with the Author soon after his arrival in this country,
\ndid not long remain ignorant of his Theological Lectures. After his
\nfirst hasty perusal of them, he ventured strongly to recommend their
\npublication, both for the sake of making the British churches better
\nacquainted with the Author’s doctrinal views, and also on account of
\nthe direct benefit which students, and other inquirers into the theory
\nof gospel doctrines, would be likely to derive from a work so
\nargumentative, and so unlike all the works on systematic and dogmatic
\ntheology known to the English schools. After due consultation and
\ndeliberation, the Author pressed upon the Editor the work of revision,
\nand placed the Lectures in his hands, with the request that he would
\nread them carefully, and suggest such alterations as he might deem
\ndesirable to adapt the work to the English reader; and then submit the
\nwhole to the Author’s adoption or rejection.<\/p>\n
This task the Editor undertook, and has performed in the best manner
\nhis time and ability would allow. The Author has carefully examined
\nevery part of his work again, and made such corrections and alterations
\nas to him seemed needful. The Editor has merely performed the part of a
\nfriend, in suggesting such improvements as might make the Author’s
\nmeaning better understood; but without interfering with that meaning,
\nand without intending to give it an unqualified approbation. In fact,
\nthe Lectures have been to a considerable extent re-written by the
\nAuthor, and in this edition proceed as strictly from his own pen, as in
\nthe American edition.<\/p>\n
The Editor, however, would not have ventured to recommend the
\npublication of these Lectures in this country, if he had not deemed
\nthem, as a whole, eminently deserving the attention and examination of
\nBritish theologians. When they first came into his hands, they struck
\nhim as so pleasingly unlike all the other systems of dogmatic theology
\nand moral philosophy it had ever been his lot to peruse, so thorough in
\ntheir grappling with difficulties, and often so successful in the
\nsolution of them; so skillfully adjusted to modern metaphysical
\nspeculations, and so comprehensive of what is valuable in them; so
\nmanifestly the production of a masculine intellect and independent
\nthinker, that he was not only pleased with the air of freshness and
\noriginality thrown over old themes of dry and elaborate discussion, but
\ngreatly benefited and instructed by some of the Author’s views of
\nimportant moral and theological questions. It may not be the same with
\nall the Author’s English readers; but assuredly few will rise from the
\nperusal of the whole work without confessing that, at least, they have
\nseen some points in a new and impressive light, have been constrained
\nto think more closely of the opinions they hold, and in other respects
\nhave been benefited by the perusal.<\/p>\n
As a contribution to theological science, in an age when vague
\nspeculation and philosophical theories are bewildering many among all
\ndenominations of Christians, this work will be considered by all
\ncompetent judges to be both valuable and seasonable. Upon several
\nimportant and difficult subjects the Author has thrown a clear and
\nvaluable light which will guide many a student through perplexities and
\ndifficulties which he had long sought unsuccessfully to explain. The
\nEditor frankly confesses, that when a student he would gladly have
\nbartered half the books in his library to have gained a single perusal
\nof these Lectures; and he cannot refrain from expressing the belief,
\nthat no young student of theology will ever regret the purchase or
\nperusal of Mr. Finney’s Lectures.<\/p>\n
One recommendation he begs respectfully to offer to all readers whether
\nold or young; it is this: suspend your judgment of the Author and his
\ntheology until you have gone completely through his work. On many
\nsubjects, at the outset of the discussion, startling propositions may
\nbe found which will clash with your settled opinions; but if you will
\ncalmly and patiently await the Author’s explanation, and observe how he
\nqualifies some strong or novel assertions, you will most probably find
\nin the issue, that you have less reason than you supposed to object to
\nhis statements.<\/p>\n
In many respects Mr. Finney’s theological and moral system will be
\nfound to differ both from the Calvinistic and Arminian. In fact, it is
\na system of his own, if not in its separate portions, yet in its
\nconstruction; and as a whole is at least unique and compact; a system
\nwhich the Author has wrought out for himself, with little other aid
\nthan what he has derived from the fount itself of heavenly truth, and
\nhis own clear and strong perception of the immutable moral principles
\nand laws by which the glorious Author of the universe governs all his
\nintellectual creatures.<\/p>\n
There is one circumstance that will recommend the volume, and ought to
\nrecommend it, to impartial inquirers who are not bound to the words of
\nany master save their Divine one; it is, that the Author in his youth
\nwas trained in none of the theological schools of his country, and had
\nimbibed, therefore, no educational preference for one system more than
\nanother. He had been disciplined to argumentation, logic, and the laws
\nof evidence, in a very different arena; and had advanced in the science
\nof the Law before he had felt the truth of Christianity, or thought of
\nstudying its doctrines. His views, therefore, will be found more
\ndeserving of attention and examination, from the fact of his mental
\nindependence in the formation of them.<\/p>\n
Should the work be read in a calm, devout, unprejudiced and liberal
\nspirit, there can be no doubt that the reader will derive both pleasure
\nand instruction. The earnestness, single-mindedness, deep piety, and
\neminent usefulness of the Author, both as a preacher and lecturer,
\njustly entitle this production of his pen to the candid and patient
\ninvestigation of English divines.<\/p>\n
Apart from the peculiarities which will be observed, and the critical
\nobjections to which some will deem his theology justly liable, there
\ncan be no doubt that many will find in it a treasure of inestimable
\nworth, a key to many perplexing enigmas, and a powerful reinforcement
\nof their faith in the Christian verities. With at least the hope that
\nsuch will be the effects of its publication in England, the Editor has
\ncheerfully contributed his humble aid, and now commits the work to the
\nblessing of Him by whose Word of Truth its real value must be finally
\ntested.<\/p>\n
G. R.<\/p>\n
Worcester, (Eng.) 1851.
\n__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR<\/p>\n
1. To a great extent, the truths of the blessed gospel have been hidden
\nunder a false philosophy. In my early inquiries on the subject of
\nreligion, I found myself wholly unable to understand either the oral or
\nwritten instructions of uninspired religious teachers. They seemed to
\nme to resolve all religion into states either of the intellect or of
\nthe sensibility, which my consciousness assured me were wholly passive
\nor involuntary. When I sought for definitions and explanations, I felt
\nassured that they did not well understand themselves. I was struck with
\nthe fact that they so seldom defined, even to themselves, their own
\npositions. Among the words of most frequent use, I could find scarcely
\na single term intelligibly defined. I inquired in what sense the terms
\n“regeneration,” “faith,” “repentance,” “love,” etc., were used, but
\ncould obtain no answer, at which it did not appear to me that both
\nreason and revelation revolted. The doctrines of a nature, sinful per
\nse, of a necessitated will, of inability, and of physical regeneration,
\nand physical Divine influence in regeneration, with their kindred and
\nresulting dogmas, embarrassed and even confounded me at every step. I
\noften said to myself, “If these things are really taught in the Bible,
\nI must be an infidel.” But the more I read my Bible, the more clearly I
\nsaw that these things were not found there upon any fair principles of
\ninterpretation, such as would be admitted in a court of justice. I
\ncould not but perceive that the true idea of moral government had no
\nplace in the theology of the church; and, on the contrary, that
\nunderlying the whole system were the assumptions that all government
\nwas physical, as opposed to moral, and that sin and holiness are rather
\nnatural attributes, than moral, voluntary acts.<\/p>\n
These errors were not stated in words, but I could not fail to see that
\nthey were assumed. The distinction between original and actual sin, and
\nthe utter absence of a distinction between physical and moral
\ndepravity, embarrassed me. Indeed, I was satisfied either that I must
\nbe an infidel, or that these were errors that had no place in the
\nBible. I was often warned against reasoning and leaning to my own
\nunderstanding. I found that the discriminating teachers of religion
\nwere driven to confess that they could not establish the logical
\nconsistency of their system, and that they were obliged to shut their
\neyes and believe, when revelation seemed to conflict with the
\naffirmations of reason. But this course I could not take. I found, or
\nthought I found, nearly all the doctrines of Christianity embarrassed
\nby the assumptions above named. But the Spirit of God conducted me
\nthrough the darkness, and delivered me from the labyrinth and fog of a
\nfalse philosophy, and set my feet upon the rock of truth, as I trust.
\nBut to this day I meet with those who seem to me to be in much
\nconfusion upon most of the practical doctrines of Christianity. They
\nwill admit, that sin and holiness must be voluntary, and yet speak of
\nregeneration as consisting in anything but a voluntary change, and of
\nDivine influence in regeneration, as anything but moral or persuasive.
\nThey seem not at all aware of what must follow from, and be implied in,
\nthe admission of the existence of moral government, and that sin and
\nholiness must be free and voluntary acts and states of mind. In this
\nwork I have endeavored to define the terms used by Christian divines,
\nand the doctrines of Christianity, as I understand them, and to push to
\ntheir logical consequences the cardinal admissions of the more recent
\nand standard theological writers. Especially do I urge, to their
\nlogical consequences, the two admissions that the will is free, and
\nthat sin and holiness are voluntary acts of mind. I will not presume
\nthat I have satisfied others upon the points I have discussed, but I
\nhave succeeded at least in satisfying myself. I regard the assertion,
\nthat the doctrines of theology cannot preserve a logical consistency
\nthroughout, as both dangerous and ridiculous.<\/p>\n
2. My principal design in publishing Systematic Theology at first, was
\nto furnish my pupils with a class or textbook, wherein many points and
\nquestions were discussed of great practical importance, but which have
\nnot, to my knowledge, been discussed in any system of theological
\ninstruction extant. I also hoped to benefit other studious and pious
\nminds.<\/p>\n
3. I have written for those who are willing to take the trouble of
\nthinking and of forming opinions of their own on theological questions.
\nIt has been no part of my aim to spare my pupils or any one else the
\ntrouble of intense thought. Had I desired to do so, the subjects
\ndiscussed would have rendered such an attempt abortive.<\/p>\n
4. There are many questions of great practical importance, and
\nquestions in which multitudes are taking a deep interest at present,
\nthat cannot be intelligently settled without instituting fundamental
\ninquiries involving the discussion of those questions that lie at the
\nfoundation of morality and religion.<\/p>\n
5. Most of the subjects of dispute among Christians at the present day
\nare founded in misconceptions upon the subjects discussed in the
\nvolume. If I have succeeded in settling the questions which I have
\ndiscussed, we shall see, that in a future volume most of the subjects
\nof disagreement among Christians at the present day can be
\nsatisfactorily adjusted with comparative ease.<\/p>\n
6. What I have said on “Moral Law” and on the “Foundation of Moral
\nObligation” is the key to the whole subject. Whoever masters and
\nunderstands these can readily understand all the rest. But he who will
\nnot possess himself of my meaning upon these subjects, will not
\nunderstand the rest.<\/p>\n
7. Let no one despair in commencing the book, nor stumble at the
\ndefinitions, thinking that he can never understand so abstruse a
\nsubject. Remember that what follows is an expansion and an explanation
\nby way of application, of what you find so condensed in the first pages
\nof the book. My brother, sister, friend — read, study, think, and read
\nagain. You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop
\nyour powers by study. God designed that religion should require
\nthought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of
\nthought. The Bible itself is written in a style so condensed as to
\nrequire much intense study. I do not pretend to so explain theology as
\nto dispense with the labor of thinking. I have no ability and no wish
\nto do so.<\/p>\n
8. If any of my brethren think to convince me of error, they must first
\nunderstand me, and show that they have read the book through, and that
\nthey understand it, and are candidly inquiring after truth and not
\n“striving for masteries.” If my brother is inquiring after truth, I
\nwill, by the grace of God, “hear with both ears, and then judge.” But I
\nwill not promise to attend to all that cavillers may say, nor to notice
\nwhat those impertinent talkers and writers may say or write who must
\nhave controversy. But to all honest inquirers after truth I would say,
\nHail, my brother! Let us be thorough. Truth shall do us good.<\/p>\n
9. It will be seen that the present volume contains only a part of a
\ncourse of Systematic Theology. Should the entire course ever appear
\nbefore the public, one volume will precede, and another succeed the
\npresent one. I published this volume first, because it contains all the
\npoints upon which I have been supposed to differ from the commonly
\nreceived views. As a teacher of theology, I thought it due to the
\nchurch and to the world, to give them my views upon those points upon
\nwhich I had been accused of departing from the common opinions of
\nChristians.<\/p>\n
10. I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views, and
\nhave ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is preposterous. None but
\nan omniscient mind can continue to maintain a precise identity of views
\nand opinions. Finite minds, unless they are asleep or stultified by
\nprejudice, must advance in knowledge. The discovery of new truth will
\nmodify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this
\nprocess with finite minds in any world. True Christian consistency does
\nnot consist in stereotyping our opinions and views, and in refusing to
\nmake any improvement lest we should be guilty of change, but it
\nconsists in holding our minds open to receive the rays of truth from
\nevery quarter and in changing our views and language and practice as
\noften and as fast, as we can obtain further information. I call this
\nChristian consistency, because this course alone accords with a
\nChristian profession. A Christian profession implies the profession of
\ncandor and of a disposition to know and obey all truth. It must follow,
\nthat Christian consistency implies continued investigation and change
\nof views and practice corresponding with increasing knowledge. No
\nChristian, therefore, and no theologian should be afraid to change his
\nviews, his language, or his practices in conformity with increasing
\nlight. The prevalence of such a fear would keep the world, at best, at
\na perpetual standstill, on all subjects of science, and consequently
\nall improvements would be precluded.<\/p>\n
Every uninspired attempt to frame for the church an authoritative
\nstandard of opinion which shall be regarded as an unquestionable
\nexposition of the word of God, is not only impious in itself, but it is
\nalso a tacit assumption of the fundamental dogma of Papacy. The
\nAssembly of Divines did more than to assume the necessity of a Pope to
\ngive law to the opinions of men; they assumed to create an immortal
\none, or rather to embalm their own creed, and preserve it as the Pope
\nof all generations; or it is more just to say, that those who have
\nadopted that confession of faith and catechism as an authoritative
\nstandard of doctrine, have absurdly adopted the most obnoxious
\nprinciple of Popery, and elevated their confession and catechism to the
\nPapal throne and into the place of the Holy Ghost. That the instrument
\nframed by that assembly should in the nineteenth century be recognized
\nas the standard of the church, or of an intelligent branch of it, is
\nnot only amazing, but I must say that it is most ridiculous. It is as
\nabsurd in theology as it would be in any other branch of science, and
\nas injurious and stultifying as it is absurd and ridiculous. It is
\nbetter to have a living than a dead Pope. If we must have an
\nauthoritative expounder of the word of God, let us have a living one,
\nso as not to preclude the hope of improvement. “A living dog is better
\nthan a dead lion;” so a living Pope is better than a dead and
\nstereotyped confession of faith, that holds all men bound to subscribe
\nto its unalterable dogmas and its unvarying terminology.<\/p>\n
11. I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all
\nevents, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most
\nthorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions
\nof any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation
\nI see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in
\nany one of them, I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light
\nshall demand. Should I refuse or fail to do this, I should need to
\nblush for my folly and inconsistency, for I say again, that true
\nChristian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and
\nsuch changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing
\nlight.<\/p>\n
On the strictly fundamental questions in theology, my views have not,
\nfor many years, undergone any change, except as I have clearer
\napprehensions of them than formerly, and should now state some of them,
\nperhaps, in some measure, differently from what I should then have
\ndone.<\/p>\n
THE AUTHOR
\n__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
CONTENTS.<\/p>\n
LECTURE I.<\/p>\n
MORAL GOVERNMENT.<\/p>\n
Definition of the term law. — Distinction between physical and moral
\nlaw. — The essential attributes of moral law. — Subjectivity. —
\nObjectivity. — Liberty, as opposed to necessity. — Fitness. —
\nUniversality. — Impartiality. — Practicability. — Independence. —
\nImmutability. — Unity. — Expediency. — Exclusiveness
\n1<\/p>\n
LECTURE II.<\/p>\n
MORAL GOVERNMENT — Continued.<\/p>\n
Definition of the term government. — Distinction between moral and
\nphysical government. — The fundamental reason of moral government. —
\nWhose right it is to govern. — What is implied in the right to govern.
\n— The limits of this right. — Moral obligation. — The conditions of
\nmoral obligation
\n6<\/p>\n
LECTURE III.<\/p>\n
MORAL OBLIGATION.<\/p>\n
Man a subject of moral obligation. — Extent of moral obligation 19<\/p>\n
LECTURE IV.<\/p>\n
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION.<\/p>\n
What is intended by the foundation of moral obligation. — Self-evident
\nprinciples. — That the sovereign will of God is not the foundation of
\nmoral obligation. — The theory of Paley. — The utilitarian philosophy
\n27<\/p>\n
LECTURE V.<\/p>\n
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION. FALSE THEORIES.<\/p>\n
Right as the foundation of obligation 38<\/p>\n
LECTURE VI.<\/p>\n
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION. FALSE THEORIES.<\/p>\n
The goodness or moral excellence of God as the foundation of obligation
\n49<\/p>\n
LECTURE VII.<\/p>\n
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION. FALSE THEORIES.<\/p>\n
Moral order as the foundation of obligation. — The nature and
\nrelations of moral beings as the true foundation of obligation. —
\nMoral obligation as founded in the idea of duty. — The complexity of
\nthe foundation of obligation. — Summing up
\n64<\/p>\n
LECTURE VIII.<\/p>\n
FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION. PRACTICAL BEARINGS OF THE DIFFERENT THEORIES.<\/p>\n
The theory that regards the sovereign will of God as the foundation of
\nmoral obligation. — The theory of the selfish school. — The natural
\nand necessary results of utilitarianism. — Practical bearings and
\ntendency of rightarianism. — The practical bearings of the true theory
\nof the foundation of obligation
\n80<\/p>\n
LECTURE IX.<\/p>\n
UNITY OF MORAL ACTION.<\/p>\n
What constitutes obedience to moral law. — Obedience cannot be
\npartial. — Possible suppositions. — Objections considered
\n95<\/p>\n
LECTURE X.<\/p>\n
OBEDIENCE ENTIRE.<\/p>\n
Nothing virtue but obedience to the law of God. — No rule of duty but
\nmoral law: Condition of justification
\n115<\/p>\n
LECTURE XI.<\/p>\n
OBEDIENCE TO THE MORAL LAW.<\/p>\n
What is not implied in entire obedience to the law of God 124<\/p>\n
LECTURE XII.<\/p>\n
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE.<\/p>\n
Certain facts revealed in consciousness. — Attributes of that love
\nwhich constitutes obedience to the law. — Voluntariness. — Liberty.
\n— Intelligence. — Virtuousness. — Disinterestedness. —
\nImpartiality. — Universality
\n135<\/p>\n
LECTURE XIII.<\/p>\n
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE — Continued.<\/p>\n
Efficiency. — Complacency. — Opposition to sin. — Compassion 145<\/p>\n
LECTURE XIV.<\/p>\n
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE — Continued.<\/p>\n
Mercy. — Justice. — Veracity 157<\/p>\n
LECTURE XV.<\/p>\n
ATTRIBUTES OF LOVE — Continued.<\/p>\n
Patience. — Meekness. — Self-denial. — Condescension. — Stability.
\n— Holiness, or Purity
\n166<\/p>\n
LECTURE XVI.<\/p>\n
DISOBEDIENCE TO MORAL LAW.<\/p>\n
What disobedience to moral law cannot consist in. — What disobedience
\nto moral law must consist in
\n180<\/p>\n
LECTURE XVII.<\/p>\n
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS.<\/p>\n
Voluntariness. — Liberty. — Intelligence. — Unreasonableness. —
\nInterestedness. — Partiality. — Efficiency. — Opposition to
\nbenevolence or to virtue. — Cruelty. — Injustice
\n183<\/p>\n
LECTURE XVIII.<\/p>\n
ATTRIBUTES OF SELFISHNESS — Continued.<\/p>\n
Falsehood, or lying. — Pride. — Intemperance. — Total moral
\ndepravity 196<\/p>\n
LECTURE XIX.<\/p>\n
SANCTIONS OF MORAL LAW.<\/p>\n
What constitutes the sanctions of law. — In what light sanctions are
\nto be regarded. — Duration of the penal sanctions of the law of God
\n208<\/p>\n
LECTURE XX.<\/p>\n
HUMAN GOVERNMENT.<\/p>\n
Me ultimate end of God in Creation. — Providential and moral
\ngovernments indispensable to the highest good of the universe. — Human
\ngovernments a necessity of human nature. — This necessity will
\ncontinue as long as human beings exist in this world. — Human
\ngovernments are plainly recognized in the Bible as a part of the moral
\ngovernment of God. — Objections answered. — The limits of the right
\nof government
\n214<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXI.<\/p>\n
HUMAN GOVERNMENT — Continued.<\/p>\n
No form of civil government universally obligatory. — Revolutions. —
\nIn what cases human legislation is valid, and in what cases it is null
\nand void. — The rights and duties of governments and subjects in
\nrelation to the execution of the penalties of law
\n222<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXII.<\/p>\n
MORAL DEPRAVITY.<\/p>\n
Definition. — Distinction between physical and moral depravity. —
\nMankind both physically and morally depraved. — Moral depravity of
\nmankind universal. — Moral depravity total
\n228<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXIII.<\/p>\n
MORAL DEPRAVITY — Continued.<\/p>\n
Proper method of accounting for moral depravity. — Dr. ‘Woods’ view of
\nphysical and moral depravity examined. — Standards of the Presbyterian
\nChurch examined 235<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXIV.<\/p>\n
MORAL DEPRAVITY — Continued.<\/p>\n
Further arguments in support of the position that human nature is in
\nitself sinful. — The proper method of accounting for moral depravity.
\n— Summary of the truth on this subject — Remarks 245<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXV.<\/p>\n
ATONEMENT.<\/p>\n
Established governmental principles. — The term atonement. —
\nAffirmations of reason upon the subject. — The fact of atonement. —
\nChrist’s obedience did not constitute the atonement. — The atonement
\nnot a commercial transaction. — The atonement a satisfaction of public
\njustice 258<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXVI.<\/p>\n
EXTENT OF ATONEMENT.<\/p>\n
For whose benefit the atonement was intended. — Objections answered
\n274<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXVII.<\/p>\n
REGENERATION.<\/p>\n
The common distinction between regeneration and conversion. — The
\nassigned reasons for this distinction. — Objections to this
\ndistinction. — What regeneration is. — The universal necessity of
\nregeneration. — Agencies employed in regeneration. —
\nInstrumentalities employed in the work. — The subject both passive and
\nactive. — What is implied in regeneration 282<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXVIII.<\/p>\n
REGENERATION — Continued.<\/p>\n
Different theories of regeneration examined. — The taste scheme. —
\nThe divine efficiency scheme. — The susceptibility scheme. — Theory
\nof a divine moral suasion. — Objections to this theory. — Remarks 291<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXIX.<\/p>\n
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION.<\/p>\n
Wherein saints and sinners may agree. — Remarks 300<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXX.<\/p>\n
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION — Continued.<\/p>\n
Wherein saints and sinners must differ 309<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXI.<\/p>\n
NATURAL ABILITY.<\/p>\n
The Edwardean notion of ability and of natural inability. — Natural
\nability identical with freedom or liberty of will. — The human will
\nfree. — Moral inability according to the Edwardean school. — This
\ndistinction between natural and moral inability nonsensical. —
\nFundamental error of the Edwardean school on the subject of ability. —
\nAnother scheme of inability 320<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXII.<\/p>\n
GRACIOUS ABILITY.<\/p>\n
What is intended by the term. — This doctrine absurd. — In what sense
\na gracious ability is possible 341<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXIII.<\/p>\n
THE NOTION OF INABILITY.<\/p>\n
Proper mode of accounting for it 353<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXIV.<\/p>\n
REPENTANCE AND IMPENITENCE.<\/p>\n
What repentance is not, and what it is. — What is implied in it. —
\nWhat impenitence is not. — What it is. — Some things that are implied
\nin it. — Some evidences of ft 364<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXV.<\/p>\n
FAITH AND UNBELIEF.<\/p>\n
What evangelical faith is not. — What it is. — What is implied in it.
\n— What unbelief is not. — What it is. — What is implied in it. —
\nConditions of both faith and unbelief. — The guilt of unbelief. —
\nConsequences of both faith and unbelief 373<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXVI.<\/p>\n
JUSTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
What justification is not.–What it is. — Conditions of justification.
\n— Foundation of justification 382<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXVII.<\/p>\n
SANCTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
Some points that have been settled. — Definition of terms. — The real
\nquestion. — Entire sanctification attainable in this life 402<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXVIII.<\/p>\n
SANCTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
Paul entirely sanctified 423<\/p>\n
LECTURE XXXIX.<\/p>\n
SANCTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
Conditions of its attainment. — Relations of Christ to the soul 433<\/p>\n
LECTURE XL.<\/p>\n
SANCTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
Objections answered 448<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLI.<\/p>\n
SANCTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
Objections continued 462<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLII.<\/p>\n
SANCTIFICATION.<\/p>\n
Remarks 472<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLIII.<\/p>\n
Election 481<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLIV.<\/p>\n
Reprobation 499<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLV.<\/p>\n
Divine Sovereignty 515<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLVI.<\/p>\n
Purposes of God 524<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLVII.<\/p>\n
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.<\/p>\n
The different kinds of certainty. — What is not intended by the
\nperseverance of the saints 544<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLVIII.<\/p>\n
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.<\/p>\n
The doctrine proved 554<\/p>\n
LECTURE XLIX.<\/p>\n
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.<\/p>\n
Further proof 563<\/p>\n
LECTURE L.<\/p>\n
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.<\/p>\n
Objections considered 585<\/p>\n
LECTURE LI.<\/p>\n
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.<\/p>\n
Further objections 605
\n__________________________________________________________________
\n__________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.<\/p>\n
LECTURE I.<\/p>\n
MORAL LAW.<\/p>\n
Law, in a sense of the term both sufficiently popular and scientific
\nfor my purpose, is A RULE OF ACTION. In its generic signification, it
\nis applicable to every kind of action, whether of matter or of
\nmind–whether intelligent or unintelligent–whether free or necessary
\naction.<\/p>\n
Physical law is a term that represents the order of sequence, in all
\nthe changes that occur under the law of necessity, whether in matter or
\nmind. I mean all changes whether of state or action, that do not
\nconsist in the states or actions of free will. Physical law is the law
\nof the material universe. It is also the law of mind, so far as its
\nstates and changes are involuntary. All mental states or actions, which
\nare not free and sovereign actions of will, must occur under, and be
\nsubject to, physical law. They cannot possibly be accounted for, except
\nas they are ascribed to the law of necessity or force.<\/p>\n
Moral law is a rule of moral action with sanctions. It is that rule to
\nwhich moral agents ought to conform all their voluntary actions, and is
\nenforced by sanctions equal to the value of the precept. It is the rule
\nfor the government of free and intelligent action, as opposed to
\nnecessary and unintelligent action. It is the law of liberty, as
\nopposed to the law of necessity–of motive and free choice, as opposed
\nto force of every kind. Moral law is primarily a rule for the direction
\nof the action of free will, and strictly of free will only. But
\nsecondarily, and less strictly, it is the rule for the regulation of
\nall those actions and states of mind and body, that follow the free
\nactions of will by a law of necessity. Thus, moral law controls
\ninvoluntary mental states and outward action only by securing
\nconformity of the actions of free will to its precept.<\/p>\n
The essential attributes of moral law, are,<\/p>\n
1. Subjectivity. It is, and must be, an idea of reason developed in the
\nmind of the subject. It is an idea, or conception, of that state of
\nwill, or course of action, which is obligatory upon a moral agent. No
\none can be a moral agent, or the subject of moral law, unless he has
\nthis idea developed; for this idea is identical with the law. It is the
\nlaw developed or revealed within himself; and thus he becomes “a law to
\nhimself,” his own reason affirming his obligation to conform to this
\nidea, or law.<\/p>\n
2. Objectivity. Moral law may be regarded as a rule of duty, prescribed
\nby the supreme Lawgiver, and external to self. When thus contemplated,
\nit is objective.<\/p>\n
3. Liberty, as opposed to necessity. The precept must lie developed in
\nthe reason, as a rule of duty–a law of moral obligation–a rule of
\nchoice, or of ultimate intention, declaring that which a moral agent
\nought to choose, will, intend. But it does not, must not, can not
\npossess the attribute of necessity in its relations to the actions of
\nfree will. It must not, cannot, possess an element or attribute of
\nforce, in any such sense as to render conformity of will to its precept
\nunavoidable. This would confound it with physical law.<\/p>\n
4. Fitness. It must be the law of nature, that is, its precept must
\nprescribe and require just those actions of the will which are suitable
\nto the nature and relations of moral beings, and nothing more nor less;
\nthat is, the intrinsic value of the well-being of God and of the
\nuniverse being given as the ground, and the nature and relations of
\nmoral beings as the condition of the obligation, the reason hereupon
\nnecessarily affirms the intrinsic propriety and fitness of choosing
\nthis good, and of consecrating the whole being to its promotion. This
\nis what is intended by the law of nature. It is the law or rule of
\naction imposed on us by God, in and by the nature which he has given
\nus.<\/p>\n
5. Universality. The conditions and circumstances being the same, it
\nrequires, and must require, of all moral agents, the same things, in
\nwhatever world they may be found.<\/p>\n
6. Impartiality. Moral law is no respecter of persons–knows no
\nprivileged classes. It demands one thing of all, without regard to
\nanything, except the fact that they are moral agents. By this it is not
\nintended that the same course of outward conduct is required of all;
\nbut the same state of heart in all–that all shall have one ultimate
\nintention–that all shall consecrate themselves to one end–that all
\nshall entirely conform, in heart and life, to their nature and
\nrelations.<\/p>\n
7. Practicability. That which the precept demands must be possible to
\nthe subject. That which demands a natural impossibility is not, and
\ncannot be, moral law. The true definition of law excludes the
\nsupposition that it can, under any circumstances, demand an absolute
\nimpossibility. Such a demand could not be in accordance with the nature
\nand relations of moral agents, and therefore practicability must always
\nbe an attribute of moral law. To talk of inability to obey moral law is
\nto talk nonsense.<\/p>\n
8. Independence. It is an eternal and necessary idea of the divine
\nreason. It is the eternal, self-existent rule of the divine conduct,
\nthe law which the intelligence of God prescribes to himself. Moral law,
\nas we shall see hereafter more fully, does not, and cannot originate in
\nthe will of God. It eternally existed in the divine reason. It is the
\nidea of that state of will which is obligatory upon God, upon condition
\nof his natural attributes, or, in other words, upon condition of his
\nnature. As a law, it is entirely independent of his will just as his
\nown existence is. It is obligatory also upon every moral agent,
\nentirely independent of the will of God. Their nature and relations
\nbeing given, and their intelligence being developed, moral law must be
\nobligatory upon them, and it lies not in the option of any being to
\nmake it otherwise. Their nature and relations being given, to pursue a
\ncourse of conduct suited to their nature and relations, is necessarily
\nand self-evidently obligatory, independent of the will of any being.<\/p>\n
9. Immutability. Moral law can never change, or be changed. It always
\nrequires of every moral agent a state of heart, and course of conduct,
\nprecisely suited to his nature and relations. Whatever his nature is,
\nhis capacity and relations are, entire conformity to just that nature,
\nthose capacities and relations, so far as he is able to understand
\nthem, is required at every moment, and nothing more nor less. If
\ncapacity is enlarged, the subject is not thereby rendered capable of
\nworks of supererogation–of doing more than the law demands; for the
\nlaw still, as always, requires the full consecration of his whole being
\nto the public interests. If by any means whatever, his ability is
\nabridged, moral law, always and necessarily consistent with itself,
\nstill requires that what is left–nothing more or less–shall be
\nconsecrated to the same end as before. Whatever demands more or less
\nthan entire, universal, and constant conformity of heart and life, to
\nthe nature, capacity and relations of moral agents, be they what they
\nmay, is not, and cannot be moral law. If therefore, the capacity is by
\nany means abridged, the subject does not thereby become incapable of
\nrendering full obedience; for the law still demands and urges, that the
\nheart and life shall be fully conformed to the present, existing
\nnature, capacity, and relations. Anything that requires more or less
\nthan this, cannot be moral law. Moral law invariably holds one
\nlanguage. It never changes its requirement. “Thou shalt love,” or be
\nperfectly benevolent, is its uniform and its only demand. This demand
\nit never varies, and never can vary. It is as immutable as God is, and
\nfor the same reason. To talk of letting down, or altering moral law, is
\nto talk absurdly. The thing is naturally impossible. No being has the
\nright or the power to do so. The supposition overlooks the very nature
\nof moral law. Moral law is not a statute, an enactment, that has its
\norigin or its foundation in the will of any being. It is the law of
\nnature, the law which the nature or constitution of every moral agent
\nimposes on himself and which God imposes upon us because it is entirely
\nsuited to our nature and relations, and is therefore naturally
\nobligatory upon us. It is the unalterable demand of the reason, that
\nthe whole being, whatever there is of it at any time, shall be entirely
\nconsecrated to the highest good of universal being, and for this reason
\nGod requires this of us, with all the weight of his authority.<\/p>\n
10. Unity. Moral law proposes but one ultimate end of pursuit to God,
\nand to all moral agents. All its requisitions, in their spirit, are
\nsummed up and expressed in one word, love or benevolence. This I only
\nannounce here. It will more fully appear hereafter. Moral law is a pure
\nand simple idea of the reason. It is the idea of perfect, universal,
\nand constant consecration of the whole being to the highest good of
\nbeing. Just this is, and nothing more nor less can be, moral law; for
\njust this, and nothing more nor less, is a state of heart and a course
\nof life exactly suited to the nature and relations of moral agents,
\nwhich is the only true definition of moral law.<\/p>\n
11. Expediency. That which is upon the whole most wise is expedient.
\nThat which is upon the whole expedient is demanded by moral law. True
\nexpediency and the spirit of moral law are always identical. Expediency
\nmay be inconsistent with the letter, but never with the spirit of moral
\nlaw. Law in the form of commandment is a revelation or declaration of
\nthat course which is expedient. It is expediency revealed, as in the
\ncase of the decalogue, and the same is true of every precept of the
\nBible, it reveals to us what is expedient. A revealed law or
\ncommandment is never to be set aside by our views of expediency. We may
\nknow with certainty that what is required is expedient. The command is
\nthe expressed judgment of God in the case, and reveals with unerring
\ncertainty the true path of expediency. When Paul says, “All things are
\nlawful unto me, but all things are not expedient,” we must not
\nunderstand him as meaning that all things in the absolute sense were
\nlawful to him, or that anything that was not expedient was lawful to
\nhim. But he doubtless intended, that many things were inexpedient that
\nare not expressly prohibited by the letter of the law,–that the spirit
\nof the law prohibited many things not expressly forbidden by the
\nletter. It should never be forgotten that that which is plainly
\ndemanded by the highest good of the universe is law. It is expedient.
\nIt is wise. The true spirit of the moral law does and must demand it.
\nSo, on the other hand, whatever is plainly inconsistent with the
\nhighest good of the universe is illegal, unwise, inexpedient, and must
\nbe prohibited by the spirit of moral law. But let the thought be
\nrepeated, that the Bible precepts always reveal that which is truly
\nexpedient, and in no case are we at liberty to set aside the spirit of
\nany commandment upon the supposition that expediency requires it. Some
\nhave denounced the doctrine of expediency altogether, as at all times
\ninconsistent with the law of right. These philosophers proceed upon the
\nassumption that the law of right and the law of benevolence are not
\nidentical but inconsistent with each other. This is a common but
\nfundamental mistake, which leads me to remark that–Law proposes the
\nhighest good of universal being as its end, and requires all moral
\nagents to consecrate themselves to the promotion of this end.
\nConsequently, expediency must be one of its attributes. That which is
\nupon the whole in the highest degree useful to the universe must be
\ndemanded by moral law. Moral law must, from its own nature, require
\njust that course of willing and acting that is upon the whole in the
\nhighest degree promotive of the public good,–in other words, that
\nwhich is upon the whole in the highest degree useful, and therefore
\nexpedient. It has been strangely and absurdly maintained that right
\nwould be obligatory if it necessarily tended to and resulted in
\nuniversal and perfect misery. Than which a more nonsensical affirmation
\nwas never made. The affirmation assumes that the law of right and of
\ngood-will are not only distinct, but may be antagonistic. It also
\nassumes that that can be law that is not suited to the nature and
\nrelations of moral agents. Certainly it will not be pretended that that
\ncourse of willing and acting that necessarily tends to, and results in,
\nuniversal misery, can be consistent with the nature and relations of
\nmoral agents. Nothing is or can be suited to their nature and
\nrelations, that is not upon the whole promotive of their highest
\nwell-being. Expediency and right are always and necessarily at one.
\nThey can never be inconsistent. That which is upon the whole most
\nexpedient is right, and that which is right is upon the whole
\nexpedient.<\/p>\n
12. Exclusiveness. Moral law is the only possible rule of moral
\nobligation. A distinction is usually made between moral, ceremonial,
\ncivil and positive laws. This distinction is in some respects
\nconvenient, but is liable to mislead, and to create an impression that
\nsomething can be obligatory, in other words can be law, that has not
\nthe attributes of moral law. Nothing can be law, in any proper sense of
\nthe term, that is not and would not be universally obligatory upon
\nmoral agents under the same circumstances. It is law because, and only
\nbecause, under all the circumstances of the case, the course prescribed
\nis fit, proper, suitable, to their natures, relations, and
\ncircumstances. There can be no other rule of action for moral agents
\nbut moral law, or the law of benevolence. Every other rule is
\nabsolutely excluded by the very nature of moral law. Surely there can
\nbe no law that is or can be obligatory upon moral agents but one suited
\nto, and founded in their nature, relations, and circumstances. This is
\nand must be the law of love or benevolence. This is the law of right,
\nand nothing else is or can be. Every thing else that claims to be law,
\nand to impose obligation upon moral agents, must be an imposition and
\n“a thing of nought.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
__________________________________________________________________ Title: Systematic Theology [1878] Creator(s): Finney, Charles Grandison (1792-1875) Rights: Public Domain __________________________________________________________________ LECTURES on SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY; BY THE REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY LATE PRESIDENT OF OBERLIN COLLEGE AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY EDITED BY PRES. J. H. FAIRCHILD __________________________________________________________________ Published by COLPORTER KEMP Whittier, Calif. This edition originally published in 1878 by E. J….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"twitterCardType":"","cardImageID":0,"cardImage":"","cardTitle":"","cardDesc":"","cardImageAlt":"","cardPlayer":"","cardPlayerWidth":0,"cardPlayerHeight":0,"cardPlayerStream":"","cardPlayerCodec":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5235\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/purposedriven.ca\/wiki\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}