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, 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? And who does not know that where a religious teacher finds himself under the necessity of attacking a false orthodoxy, he will certainly be hunted, almost as a beast of prey, by the religious teachers of his day, whose authority, influence, and orthodoxy are thus assailed!

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 who 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, or which is the same thing, of entire obedience to the law of God. Now I would humbly inquire, of what use is it to point the Church to examples, so long as they do not know what is, and what is not implied in entire obedience to moral law? 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 obedience to the law of God? Now does not every body know that the Church and the ministry are in a great measure in the dark on this subject? Why then call for examples? No man can profess to render this obedience without being sure to be set at nought as a hypocrite and a selfdeceiver.

24. 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 joyful love to God and man, and indeed are the natural results of it.

25. Nor is it inconsistent with our living in human society

-with mingling in the scenes, and engaging in the affairs of this world, as some have supposed. 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.

26. 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 love. And entire obedience no more implies moroseness in this world than it does in heaven.

In all the discussions I have seen upon the subject of Christian holiness, writers seldom or never raise the distinct inquiry: What does obedience to the law of God 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 the law of God never required 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 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.

27. It does not imply that we always or ever aim at or intend to do our duty. That is, it does not imply that the intention always or ever terminates on duty as an ultimate end.

It is our duty to aim at or intend the highest well-being of God and the universe as an ultimate end, or for its own sake. This is the infinitely valuable end at which we are at all times to aim. It is our duty to aim at this. While we aim at this, we do our duty, but to aim at duty is not doing duty. To intend to do our duty is failing to do our duty. We do not, in this case, intend the thing which it is our duty to intend. Our duty is to intend the good of being. But to intend to do our duty, is only to intend to intend.

28. Nor does it imply that we always think at the time of

its being duty, or of our moral obligation to intend the good of being. This obligation is a first truth and is always and necessarily assumed by every moral agent, and this assumption or knowledge is a condition of his moral agency. But it is not at all essential to virtue or true obedience to the moral law that moral obligation should at all times be present to the thoughts and the object of attention. The thing that we are bound to intend is the highest good of God and of being in general. The good, the valuable, must be before the mind. This must be intended. We are under moral obligation to intend this. But we are not under moral obligation to intend moral obligation or to intend to fulfil moral obligation as an ultimate end. Our obligation is a first truth and necessarily assumed by us at all times, whether it is an object of attention or not, just as causality or liberty is.

29. Nor does it imply that the rightness or moral character of benevolence is at all times the object of the mind's attention. We may intend the glory of God and the good of our neighbor without at all times thinking of the moral character of this intention. But the intention is not the less virtuous on this account. The mind unconsciously but necessarily assumes the rightness of benevolence or of willing the good of being, just as it assumes other first truths, without being distinctly conscious of the assumption. First truths are those truths that are universally and necessarily known to every moral agent, and that are therefore always and necessarily assumed by him, whatever his theory may be. Among them, are the law of causality-the freedom of moral agents-the intrinsic value of happiness or blessedness-moral obligation to will it for or because of its intrinsic value-the infinite value of God's well-being and the moral obligation to will it on that account that to will the good of being is duty and to comply with moral obligation is right-that selfishness is wrong. These and many such like truths are among the class of first truths of reason. They are always and necessarily taken along with every moral agent at every moment of his moral agency. They live in his mind as intuitions or assumptions of his reason. He always and necessarily affirms their truth whether he thinks of them, that is, whether he is conscious of the assumption, or not. It is not therefore at all essential to obedience to the law of God that we should at all times have before our minds the virtuousness or moral character of benevolence.

30 Nor does obedience to the moral law imply that the law

itself should be at all times the object of thought or of the mind's attention. The law lies developed in the reason of every moral agent in the form of an idea. It is the idea of that choice or intention which every moral agent is bound to exercise. In other words, the law as a rule of duty is a subjective idea always and necessarily developed in the mind of every moral agent. This idea he always and necessarily takes along with him, and he is always and necessarily a law to himself. Nevertheless this law or idea is not always the object of the mind's attention and thought. A moral agent may exercise good will or love to God and man without at the time being conscious of thinking that this love is required of him by the moral law. Nay, if I am not mistaken, the benevolent mind generally exercises benevolence so spontaneously as not very much of the time so much as to think that this love to God is required of him. But this is not the less virtuous on this account. If the infinite value of God's well-being and of His infinite goodness constrain me to love Him with all my heart, can any one suppose that this is regarded by Him as the less virtuous because I did not wait to reflect that God commanded me to love him and that it was my duty to do so?

The thing upon which the intention must or ought to terminate is the good of being, and not the law that requires me to will it. When I will that end I will the right end, and thi willing is virtue, whether the law be so much as thought of or not. Should it be said that I may will that end for a wrong reason and therefore thus willing it is not virtue; that unless I will it because of my obligation and intend obedience to moral law or to God it is not virtue; I answer, that the objection involves an absurdity and a contradiction. I can not will the good of God and of being as an ultimate end, for a wrong reason. The reason of the choice and the end chosen are identical, so that if I will the good of being as an ultimate end; I will it for the right reason.

Again: to will the good of being, not for its intrinsic value, but because God commands it, and because I am under a moral obligation to will it, is not to will it as an ultimate end. It is willing the will of God or moral obligation as an ultimate end and not the good of being as an ultimate end. This willing would not be obedience to the moral law.

Again: It is absurd and a contradiction to say that I can love God, that is, will his good out of regard to his authority, rather than out of regard to the intrinsic value of his well

being. It is impossible to will God's good as an end out of re gard to his authority. This is to make his authority the end chosen, for the reason of a choice is identical with the end chosen. Therefore, to will anything for the reason that God requires it, is to will God's reqirement as an ultimate end. I can not, therefore, love God with any acceptable love primarily because He commands it. God never expected to induce His creatures to love Him or to will His good by commanding them to do so. "The law" says the apostle "was not made for a righteous man but for sinners." If it be asked then "wherefore serveth the law?" I answer,

(1.) That the obligation to will good to God exists antecedently to His requiring it.

(2.) He requires it because it is naturally obligatory.

(3.) It is impossible that He, being benevolent, should not will that we should be benevolent.

(4.) His expressed will is only the promulgation of the law of nature. It is rather declaratory than dictatorial.

(5.) It is a vindication or illustration of His righteousness. (6.) It sanctions and rewards love. It can not as a mere authority beget love, but it can encourage and reward it.

(7.) It can fix the attention on the end commanded and thus lead to a fuller understanding of the value of that end. In this way, it may convert the soul.

(8.) It can convince of sin in case of disobedience.

(9.) It holds before the mind the standard by which it is to judge itself and by which it is to be judged.

But let it be kept in constant remembrance that to aim at keeping the law as an ultimate end is not keeping it. It is a legal righteousness and not love.

31. Obedience to the moral law does not imply that the mind always or at any time intends the right for the sake of the right. This has been so fully shown in a former lecture that it need not be repeated here.

32. Nor does it imply that the benevolent mind always so much as thinks of the rightness of good willing. I surely may will the highest well-being of God and of men as an end or from a regard to its intrinsic value, and not at the time or at least at all times be conscious of having any reference to the rightness of this love. It is, however, none the less virtuous on this account. I behold the infinite value of the wellbeing of God and the infinite value of the immortal soul of my neighbor. My soul is fired with the view. I instantly consecrate my whole being to this end and perhaps do not so