By PRESIDENT FINNEY.
Reported by The Editor.
"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth
your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination
in the sight of God." --Luke 16:15.
Christ had just spoken the parable of the
unjust steward, in which He presented the case of one who unjustly used the
property of others entrusted to him, for the purpose of laying them under
obligation to provide for himself after expulsion from his trust. Our Lord
represents this conduct of the steward as being wise in the sense of
forethoughtful and provident for self--a wisdom of the world, void of all
morality. He uses the case to illustrate and recommend the using of wealth
in such a way as to make friends for ourselves who at our death shall
welcome us into "everlasting habitations." Then going deeper, even to the
bottom principle that should control us in all our use of wealth, He lays it
down that no man can serve both God and Mammon. Rich and covetous men who
were serving Mammon need not suppose they could serve God too at the same
time. The service of the one is not to be reconciled with the service of the
other.
The covetous Pharisees heard all these
things, and they derided Him. As if they would say--"Indeed, you seem to be
very sanctimonious, to tell us that we do not serve God acceptably! When has
there ever been a tithe of mint that we did not pay?" Those Pharisees did
not admit his orthodoxy, by any means. They thought they could serve God and
mammon both. Let whoever would say they serve mammon, they knew they served
God also and they had nothing but scorn for those teachings that showed the
inconsistency and the absurdity of their worshipping two opposing gods and
serving two opposing masters.
Our Lord replied to them in the words of
our text--"Ye are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knoweth
your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination
in the sight of God."
In pursuing the subject thus presented, I
shall
Show how and why it is that men highly
esteem that which God abhors.
1. They have a different rule of judgment.
God judges by one rule; they by another. God's rule requires universal
benevolence; their rule is satisfied with an amount of selfishness, so be it
sufficiently refined to meet the times. God requires men to devote
themselves not to their own interest, but to his interest and those of his
great family. He sets up but one great end--the highest glory of his name
and kingdom. He asks them to become divinely patriotic, devoting themselves
to their Creator and to the good of his creatures.
The world adopts an entirely different
rule, allowing men to set up their own happiness as their end. It is curious
that some pretended philosophers have laid down the same rule--viz: that men
should pursue their own happiness, and only take care not to infringe on
others' happiness too much. Their doctrine allows men to pursue a selfish
course, only not in a way to infringe too palpably on others' rights and
interests.
But God's rule is, "Seek not thine own."
His law is explicit--"Thou shalt love (not thy self, but) the Lord thy God
with all thy heart." "Love is fulfilling of the law." "Charity (this same
love) seeketh not her own." This is characteristic of the love the law
requires--it does not seek its own. "Let no man seek his own, but every man
another's." (1Cor.10:24.) "Look not every man on his own things, but every
man on the things of others." "For all seek their own, and not the things
which are Jesus Christ's." Phil. 2:4, 21. To seek their own interest and not
Jesus Christ's, Paul regards an entire departure from the rule of true
Christianity.
God regards nothing as virtue except
devotion to the right ends. The right end is not one's own, but the general
good. Hence God's rule requires virtue, while man's rule at best only
restrains vice. All human governments are founded on this principle, as all
who study the subject know. They do not require benevolence, they only
restrain selfishness. In the foundation principles of our government, it is
affirmed that men have certain inalienable rights, one of which is the right
to pursue each his own happiness. This is affirmed to be an inalienable
right, and is always assumed to be right in itself, provided it does not
infringe on others' rights of happiness. But God's rule requires positive
benevolence and regards nothing else as virtue except devotion to the
highest good. Man's rule condemns nothing, provided man so restrains himself
as not to infringe on others' rights.
Moral character is as the end sought. It
cannot be predicated of muscular action, but must always turn on the end
which the mind has in view. Men always really assume and know this. They
know that the moral character is really as the end to which man devotes
himself. Hence God's law and man's law being as they are, to obey God's is
holiness; to obey only man's law is sin.
Men very inconsiderately judge themselves
and others, not by God's rule, but by man's. They do this to an extent truly
wonderful. Look into mens' real opinions and you will see this. Often
without being at all aware of it, men judge themselves, not by God's rule,
but by their own.
Here I must notice some of the evidences of
this, and furnish some illustrations.
Thus, for example, a mere negative morality
is highly esteemed by some men. If a man lives in a community and does no
harm, defrauds no man, does not cheat, or lie--does no palpable injury to
society; transacts his business in a way deemed highly honorable and
virtuous--this man stands in high repute according to the standard of the
world. But what does all this really amount to? The man is just taking care
of himself; that is all. His morality is wholly of this negative form. All
you can say of him is, He does no hurt. Yet this morality is often spoken of
in a manner which shows that the world highly esteem it. But does God highly
esteem it? Nay, but it is abomination in his sight.
Again, a religion which is merely negative
is often highly esteemed. Men of this religion are careful not to do wrong;
but what is doing wrong? It is thought no wrong to neglect the souls of
their neighbors. What do they deem wrong? Cheating, lying, stealing. These
and such like things, they will admit are wrong. But what are they doing?
Look round about you even here and see what men of this class are doing.
Many of them never try to save a soul. They are highly esteemed for their
inoffensive life; they do no wrong; but they do nothing to save a soul.
Their religion is a mere negation. Perhaps they would not cross a ferry on
the Sabbath; but never would they save a soul from death. They would let
their own clerks go to hell without one earnest effort to save them. Must
not such a religion be an abomination to God?
So, also, of a religion which at best
consists of forms and prayers and does not add to these the energies of
benevolent effort. Such a religion is all hollow. Is it serving God to do
nothing but ask favors for one's self?
Some keep up Sabbath duties, as they are
termed, and family prayer, but all their religion consists in keeping up
their forms of worship. If they add nothing to these, their religion is only
an abomination before God.
There are still other facts which show that
men loosely set up a false standard, which they highly esteem, but which God
abhors. For example, they will require true religion only of ministers; but
no real religion of any body else. All men agree in requiring that ministers
should be really pious. They judge them by the right rule. For example, they
require ministers to be benevolent. They must enter upon their profession
for the high object of doing good, and not for the mere sake of a
living--not for filthy lucre's sake, but for the sake of souls and from
disinterested love. Else they will have no confidence in a minister.
But turn this over and apply it to business
men. Do they judge themselves by this rule? Do they judge each other by this
rule? Before they will have Christian confidence in a merchant or a
mechanic, do they insist that these shall be as much above the greed for
gain as a minister should be--should be as willing to give up their time to
the sick as a minister--be as ready to forego a better salary for the sake
of doing more good, as they insist a minister should be? Who does not know
that they demand of business men no such conditions of Christian character
as those which they impose of gospel ministers? Let us see. If a man of
business does any service for you, he makes out his bill, and if need be, he
collects it. Now suppose I should go and visit a sick man to give him
spiritual counsel--should attend him from time to time for counsel and for
prayer, till he died, and then should attend his funeral; and having done
this service should make up my bill and send it in, and even collect
it;--would there not be some talk? People would say, What right has he to do
that? He ought to perform that service for the love of souls, and make no
charge for it. This applies to those ministers who are not under salary to
perform this service, of whom there are many. Let any one of these men go
and labor ever so much among the sick or at funerals, they must not take
pay. But let one of these ministers send his saw to be filed, and he must
pay for it. He may send it to that very man whose sick family he has visited
by day and by night, and whose dead he has buried, without charge, and "for
the love of souls;" but no such "love of souls" binds the mechanic in his
service. The truth is, they call that, religion, in a layman which they call
sin in a minister. That is the fact. I do not complain that men take pay for
labor, but that they do not apply the same principle to a minister.
Again, the business aims and practices of
business men are almost universally an abomination in the sight of God.
Almost all of these are based on the same principle as human governments
are, namely, that the only restraint imposed shall be, to prevent men from
being too selfish, allowing them to be just as selfish as they can be and
yet leave others an equal chance to be selfish too.
Shall we go into an enumeration of the
principles of business men respecting their objects, and modes of doing
business? What would it all amount to? Seeking their own ends; doing
something, not for others, but for self. Provided they do it in a way
regarded as honest and honorable among men, no further restriction shall be
imposed.
Take the Bible Society for an illustration.
This Institution is not a speculation, entered upon for the good of those
who print and publish. But the object aimed at is to furnish them as cheap
to the purchaser as possible, so as to put a Bible into the hands of every
human being at the lowest possible price. Now it is easy to see that any
other course and any different principle from this would be universally
condemned. If Bible societies should become merely a speculation they would
cease to be benevolent institutions at all, and to claim this character
would bring down on them the curses of men. But all business ought to be
done as benevolently as the making of Bibles; why not. If it be not, can it
be a benevolent business? and if not benevolent, how can it have the
approval of God? What is a benevolent business? The doing of the utmost
good--that which is undertaken for the one only end of doing good, and which
simply aims to do the utmost good possible. In just this sense, men should
be patriotic, benevolent, should have a single eye to God's glory in all
they do, whether they eat or drink or whatever they may do.
Yet where do you find the man who holds his
fellowmen practically to this rule as a condition of their being esteemed
Christians, viz: that in all their business, they should be as benevolent as
Bible societies are? What should we say of a Bible society which should
enter upon a manifest speculation and should get as much as they can for
their Bibles, instead of selling at the lowest living price? what would you
say of such a Bible society? You would say, "Horrible hypocrite!" I must say
the same of every Christian who does the same thing. Ungodly men do not
profess any Christian benevolence, so we will not charge this hypocrisy on
them, but we will try to get this light before their mind.
Now place a minister directly before your
own mind, and ask, Do you judge yourself as you judge him? Do you say of
yourself, I ought to do for others gratuitously all and whatever I require
him to do gratuitously? Do you judge yourself by the same rule by which you
judge him?
Apply this to all business men. No matter
what your business is whether high or low, small or great; filing saws, or
counting out bank bills; you call the Bible society benevolent; do you make
your business as much so and as truly so in your ends and aims? If not, why
not? What business have you to be less benevolent than those who print,
publish and sell Bibles?
Here is another thing which is highly
esteemed among men, yet is an abomination before God; viz: selfish ambition.
How often do you see this highly esteemed! I have been amazed to see how men
form judgments on this matter. Here is a young man who is a good student in
the sense of making great progress in his studies, (a thing the devil might
do,) yet for this only, such young men are often spoken of in the highest
terms. Provided they do well for themselves, nothing more seems to be asked
or expected in order to entitle them to high commendation.
So of professional men. I have in my mind's
eye the case of a lawyer who was greatly esteemed and caressed by his fellow
men; who was often spoken of well by Christians; but what was he? Nothing
but an ambitious young lawyer, doing every thing for ambition--ready at any
time to take the stump and canvass the whole country--for what? To get some
good for himself. Yet he is courted by Christian families! Why? Because he
is doing well for himself! See Daniel Webster. How lauded, I had almost said
canonized! Perhaps he will be yet. Certainly the same spirit we now see
would canonize him if this were a Catholic country. But what has he done? He
has just played the part of an ambitious lawyer and an ambitious statesman;
that is all. He has sought great things for himself; and having said that,
you have said all. Yet how have men lauded Daniel Webster! When I came to
Syracuse, I saw a vast procession. What, said I, is there a funeral here?
Who is dead? Daniel Webster. But, said I, he has been dead a long time. Yes,
but they are playing up funeral because he was a great man. What was Daniel
Webster? Not a Christian, not a benevolent man; every body knows this. And
what have Christians to do in lauding and canonizing a merely selfish
ambition? they may esteem it highly, yet let them know, God abhors it as
utterly as they admire it.
The world's entire morality and that of a
large portion of the church are only a spurious benevolence. You see a
family very much united and you say, How they love one another! So they do;
but they may be very exclusive. They may exclude themselves and shut off
their sympathies almost entirely from all other families, and they may
consequently exclude themselves from doing good in the world. The same kind
of a morality may be seen in towns and in nations. This makes up the entire
morality of the world.
Many have what they call humanity, without
any piety; and this is often highly esteemed among men. They pretend to love
men, but yet after all do not honor God, nor even aim at it. And in their
love of men, they fall below some animals. I doubt whether many men, not
pious, would do what I knew a dog to do. His master wanted to kill him, and
for this purpose took him out into the river in a boat and tied a stone
about his neck. In the struggle to throw dog and stone overboard together,
the boat upset; the man was in the river; the dog, by extra effort, released
himself from his weight, and seizing his master by the collar, swam with him
to land. Few men would have had humanity enough--without piety--to have done
this. Indeed men without piety are not often half so kind to each other as
animals are. Men are more degraded and more depraved. Animals will make
greater sacrifices for each other than the human race do. Go and ask a
whaleman what he sees among the whales when they suffer themselves to be
murdered to protect a school of their young. Yet many mothers think they do
most meritorious things because they take care of their children.
But men, as compared with animals, ought to
act from higher motives than they. If they do not, they act wickedly.
Knowing more--having the knowledge of God and of the dying Savior as their
example and rule, they have higher responsibilities than animals can have.
Men often make a great virtue of their
abolitionism though it be only of the infidel stamp. But perhaps there is no
virtue in this, a whit higher than a mere animal might have. Whoever
understands the subject of slavery and is a good man at heart will certainly
be an abolitionist. But a man may be an abolitionist without the least
virtue. There may not be the least regard for God in his abolitionism, nor
even any honest regard to human well-being. He may stand on a principle
which would make him a slaveholder himself, if his circumstances favored it.
Such men certainly do act on slaveholding principles. They develop
principles and adopt practices which show that if they had the power, they
would enslave the race. They will not believe that a man can be a
colonizationist and yet be a good man. I am no colonizationist, but I know
good men who are.-- Some men not only lord it over the bodies of their
fellow men, but over their minds and souls--their opinions and
consciences--which is much worse oppression and tyranny than simply to
enslave the body.
Often there is a bitter and an acrimonious
spirit--not by any means the spirit of Christ; for while Christ no doubt
condemns the slaveholder, he does not hate him. This biting hatred of
evil-doers is only malevolence after all; and though men may ever so highly
esteem it, God abominates it.
On the other hand, many call that, piety,
which has no humanity in it. Whip up their slaves to get money to give to
the Bible Society! Touch up the gang; put on the cat o'nine tails; the agent
is coming along for money for the Bible Society! Here is piety (so called)
without humanity. I abhor a piety which has no humanity with it and in it,
as deeply as I condemn its converse--humanity without piety. God loves both
piety and humanity. How greatly then must He abhor either when unnaturally
divorced from the other!
All those so called religious efforts which
men make, having only self for their end, are an abomination to God.
There is a wealthy man who consents to give
two hundred dollars towards building a splendid church. He thinks this is a
very benevolent offering, and it may be highly esteemed among men. But
before God approves of it He will look into the motives of the giver; and so
may we, if we please. The man we find owns a good deal of real estate in the
village which he expects will rise in value on the very day that shall see
the church building determined on, enough to put back into his pocket two or
three fold what he pays out. Besides this he has other motives. He thinks of
the increased respectability of having a fine house and himself the best
seat in it. And yet further, he has some interest in having good morals
sustained in the village, for vice is troublesome to rich men and withal
somewhat dangerous. And then he has an indefinable sort of expectation that
this new church and his handsome donation to build it will somehow improve
his prospects for heaven. In as much as these are rather dim at best, the
improvement, though indefinite, is decidedly an object. Now if you scan
these motives, you will see that from first to last they are altogether
selfish. Of course they are an abomination in God's sight.
The motives for getting a popular minister
are often of the same sort. The object is not to get a man sent of God, to
labor for God and with God, and one with whom the people may labor and pray
for souls and for God's kingdom. But the object being something else than
this is an abomination before God.
The highest forms of the world's morality
are only abominations in God's sight. The world has what it calls good
husbands, good wives, good children; but what sort of goodness is this? The
husband loves his wife and seeks to please her. She also loves and seeks to
please him. But do either of them love or seek to please God in these
relations? By no means. Nothing can be farther from their thoughts. They
never go beyond the narrow circle of self. Take all these human relations in
their best earthly form, and you will find they never rise above the
morality of the lower animals. They fondle and caress each other, and seem
to take some interest in the care of their children.. So do your domestic
fowls, not less, and perhaps even more. Often these fowls in your poultry
yard go beyond the world's morality in these qualities which the world calls
good.
Should not human beings have vastly higher
ends than these? Can God deem their highly esteemed qualities any other than
an abomination if in fact they are even below the level of the domestic
animals?
An unsanctified education comes into the
same category. A good education is indeed a great good; but if not
sanctified, it is all the more odious to God. Yes, let me tell you, if not
improved for God, it is only the more odious to him in proportion as you get
light on the subject of duty, and sin against that light the more. Those
very acquisitions which will give you higher esteem among men will if
unsanctified make your character more utterly odious before God. You are a
polished writer and a beautiful speaker. You stand at the head of the
College in these important respects. Your friends look forward with hopeful
interest to the time when you will be heard of on the floor of Senates,
moving them to admiration by your eloquence. But alas, you have no piety!
When we ask, how does God look upon such talents, unsanctified, we are
compelled to answer--only as an abomination. This eloquent young student is
only the more odious to God by reason of all his unsanctified powers. The
very things which give you the more honor among men will make you only the
scoff of hell. The spirits of the nether pit will meet you as they did the
fallen monarch of Babylon, tauntingly saying--"What, are you here? You who
could shake kingdoms by your eloquence, are you brought down to the sides of
the pit? You who might have been an angel of light--you who lived in
Oberlin; you, a selfish doomed sinner--away and be out of our company! We
have nobody here so guilty and so deeply damned as you!"
So of all unsanctified talents, beauty,
education, accomplishments; all, if unsanctified, are an abomination in the
sight of God. All of those things which might make you more useful in the
sight of God, are if misused, only the greater abomination in his sight.
So a legal religion, with which you serve
God only because you must. You go to church, yet not in love to God or to
his worship, but from regard to your reputation, to your hope, or your
conscience. Must not such a religion be of all things, most abominable to
God?
REMARKS
The world have mainly lost the true idea of
religion. This is too obvious from all I have said to need more
illustration.
The same is true to a great extent of the
church.-- Professed Christians judge themselves falsely because they judge
by a false standard.
One of the most common and fatal mistakes
is to employ a merely negative standard. Here are men complaining of a want
of conviction. Why don't they take the right standard and judge themselves
by that? Suppose you had let a house burn down and made no effort to save
it; what would you think of the guilt of stupidity and laziness there? Two
women and five children are burnt to ashes in the conflagrations; why did
not you give the alarm when you saw the fire getting hold? Why did not you
rush into the building and drag out the unconscious inmates? Oh you felt
stupid that morning--just as people talk of being "stupid" in religion!
Well, you hope not to be judged very hard, since you did not set the house
on fire; you only let it alone; all you did was to do nothing! That is all
many persons plead as to their religious duties. They do nothing to pluck
sinners out of the fire, and they seem to think this is a very estimable
religion! Was this the religion of Jesus Christ or of Paul? Is it the
religion of real benevolence? or of common sense?
You see how many persons who have a
Christian hope indulge it on merely negative grounds. Often I ask persons
how they are getting along in religion. They answer, pretty well; and yet
they are doing nothing that is really religious. They are making no effort
to save souls--are doing nothing to serve God. What are they doing! O they
keep up the forms of prayer! Suppose you should employ a servant and pay him
off each week, yet he does nothing all the long day but pray to you!
Religion is very intelligible and is easily
understood. It is a warfare. What is a warrior's service? He devotes himself
to the service of his country. If need be he lays down his life on her
altar. He is expected to do this.
So a man is to lay down his life on God's
altar, to be used in life or death, as God may please, in his service.
The things most highly esteemed among men
are often the very things God most abhors. Take for example, the legalist's
religion. The more he is bound in conscience and enslaved, by so much the
more, usually, does his esteem as a Christian rise.
The more earnestly he growns under his
bondage to sin--the more truly he has to say--
"Reason I hear, her counsels weigh,
And all her words approve;
Yet still I find it hard to obey
And harder yet to love,"
by so much the more, does the world esteem
and God abhor, his religion. The good man, they say--he was all his
life-time subject to bondage! He was in doubts and fears all his life? But
why did he not come by faith into that liberty with which Christ makes his
people free?
A morality, based on the most refined
selfishness, stands in the highest esteem among men. So good a man of the
world, they say--almost a saint; yet God must hold him in utter abomination.
The good Christian in the world's esteem is
never abrupt, never aggressive, yet he is greatly admired. He has a selfish
devotion to pleasing men, than which nothing is more admired. I heard of a
minister who had not an enemy in the world. He was said to be most like
Christ among all the men they knew. I thought it strange that a man so like
Christ should have no enemies, for Christ,--more like himself than any other
man can be--had a great many enemies and very better enemies too. Indeed it
is said, "If any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, he shall suffer
persecution." But when I came to learn the facts of the case I understood
the man. He never allowed himself to preach anything that could displease
even Universalists. In fact he had two universalists in his Session. In the
number of his session were some Calvinists also, and he must by no means
displease them. His preaching was indeed a model of its kind. His motto
was--Please the people--nothing but please the people. In the midst of a
revival, he would leave the meetings and go to a party; why? To please the
people.
Now this may be highly esteemed among men;
but does not God abhor it?
It is a light thing to be judged of man's
judgment and all the lighter since they are so prone to judge by a false
standard. What is it to me that men condemn me if God only approve? The
longer I live, the less I think of human opinions on the great question of
right and wrong as God sees them. They will judge both themselves and others
falsely. Even the church sometimes condemns and excommunicates her best men.
I have known cases and could name them, in which I am confident they have
done this very thing. They have cut men off from their communion, and now
every body sees that the men excommunicated were the best men of the Church.
It is a blessed thought that the only thing
we need to care for is to please God. The only enquiry we need make is--What
will God think of it? We have only one mind to please; and that the Great
Mind of the universe. Let this be our single aim and we shall not fail to
please him. But if we do not aim at this, all we can do is only an
abomination in his sight.