Difference between revisions of "BEING IN DEBT"

Latest revision as of 12:05, 13 March 2015

July 31, 1839

Lecture XIII.
BEING IN DEBT

by the Rev. C. G. Finney
(1792-1875)

PublicDomain Text
Reformatted by Katie Stewart </p></td>

by Charles G. Finney

Rom. 13:8: "Owe no man anything."
In discussing this subject I design to show:
I. The meaning of the text.

II. That to be in debt is sin.

III. The duty of those who are in debt.

I. I am to show the meaning of the text.

The meaning of this text, like mostothers, is to be learned from a careful examination of the verses in itsconnection. The Apostle begins the chapter by enforcing the duty of obedienceto civil magistrates.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no powerbut of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore,resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shallreceive unto themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, butto the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good,and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God unto theefor good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not thesword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath uponhim that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must be subject not only for wrath, but alsofor conscience sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also, for they areGod's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."

They are the servants of God, employed for your benefit. You are therefore topay them tribute; i.e. give them the support which their circumstances require.

In the light of this and various other passages of scripture, I have oftenwondered how it was possible that any person could call in question the duty ofobeying civil magistrates. Or how they could call in question the right andduty of magistrates to inflict civil penalties, and even capital punishment,where the nature of the case demands it. Certainly this passage recognizestheir right and their duty "to execute wrath" upon transgressors, asthe servants and executioners of God's vengeance.

"Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due;custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that 1oveth another hath fulfilled thelaw. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shaltnot bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any othercommandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, viz: Thou shalt lovethy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore loveis the fulfilling of the law."

From this connection, it is evident that the Apostle designed to teach, thatwhenever we come to owe a man, we should immediately pay him. And not sufferany debt or obligation to rest upon us undercharged.

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." Here the Apostlerecognizes the truth that love is of perpetual obligation. And that thisobligation can never be so cancelled or discharged as to be no longer binding.He recognizes no other obligation except love with its natural fruits as being,in its own nature, of perpetual obligation.

In respect to this obligation, all that we can do is to fulfil it every moment,without the possibility of so fulfilling it, as to set aside the continuedobligation to love.

But we are to owe no man any thing else but love. We are to "render to alltheir dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, honour to whom honour."

I understand the text, then, simply to mean, let no obligation but that of lovewith its natural fruits, which is, from its very nature, a perpetualobligation, rest upon you undercharged.

I am aware that some modern critics maintain that this passage should have beenrendered indicatively. But such men as Doddridge and Henry,Barnes and Prof. Stuart,are of the opinion that its imperative rendering is correct. And all are agreedthat the doctrine of this text, as it stands, is plainly a doctrine of theBible.

Here the question arises, what is it to owe a man in the sense of this text? Ianswer,</p>

• 1. If you employ a labourer, and do not stipulate the time and terms of payment, it is taken for granted that he is to be paid when his work is done, and to have the money. If you hire him for a day, and nothing is said to the contrary, he cannot demand his pay till his day's work is done. Till then you owe him nothing. The same is true if you hire him for a week, or a month, or a year. When the time which he is to labour is stipulated, and nothing is said about the time and terms of payment, you owe him nothing, i.e. nothing is due till his time has expired. Then you owe him, and then you are bound to pay him, and pay him the money. But if the time was not specified which he was to labour, he may break off at any time, and demand pay for what he has done. Or if the time of payment was expressed or understood, whenever it arrives, you then owe him, and are bound to pay him agreeably to the understanding.
• 2. The same is true if you hire a horse, or any other piece of property. If you hire it for a specified time, and nothing is said of the conditions of payment, the understanding is that you are to pay when the time for which the property was hired has expired. It then becomes a debt. Then you are to pay, and pay the money. If there were any other understanding, fixing the time and terms of payment, you do not owe the man until the specified conditions are complied with.
• 3. The same is true if you purchase any piece of property. If nothing is stipulated to the contrary, the understanding is that you are to pay the cash, at the time you receive the property. At that time, and neither before nor after, you are expected to pay the purchase money.

We do not properly owe an individual until we are under an obligation topay him. Whenever he has a right to demand the pay, we have no right towithhold it.

There may be such a thing as contracting a prospective debt, giving yourobligation to become due at a certain time. But then you do not properly owe,because you are under no obligation to pay till it becomes due. But whenever itbecomes due you are bound immediately to pay it.
II. I am to show that it is a sin to be in debt.

• 1. Because it is a direct violation of the command of God. This text is just as binding as any command of the decalogue. And a violation of it is a setting aside the command of Jehovah, as much as to commit adultery or murder. It is not to be regarded merely as a piece of advice given by the Apostle, but as a direct, and positive, and authoritative command of God.
• 2. It is unjust to be in debt. If your creditor has a right to demand payment, you certainly have no right to withhold it. If it is due it is a contradiction to say that it is not unjust for you not to pay. It is a contradiction, both in terms, and in fact, to say that you owe a man, and at the same time are guilty of no injustice in refusing or neglecting to pay him. It is as much injustice as stealing, and involves the same principle. The sin of stealing consists in the appropriating to ourselves that which properly belongs to another. Therefore whenever you withhold from any man his due, you are guilty of as absolute an injustice, as if you stole his property.
• 3. It is sin, because it is falsehood. I have already shown that you do not properly owe a man till it becomes due. It becomes due when and because there is a promise on your part expressed or implied, that you will pay it at that time. Now you cannot violate this promise without being guilty of falsehood.
• 4. If what has just been said is true, it follows that men should meet their contracts, as they would avoid the grossest sin. They are bound to avoid being in debt--to meet and fulfil their engagements, as much as they are bound to avoid blasphemy, idolatry, murder or any other sin. And a man who does not pay his debts is no more to be accounted an honest man, than he who is guilty of any other heinous crime.
• 5. If a professor of religion is in debt, he is a moral delinquent, and should be accounted and treated as a subject of Church discipline.

OBJECTION.--It may be said, I cannot avoid being in debt. I answer tothis,

That if you cannot pay, you could have avoided contracting the debt, and werebound to do so.

Do you reply, I really needed the thing which I purchased?

I ask, were your necessities so great that you would have been justified, inyour estimation, in lying or stealing to supply them? If not, why have youresorted to fraud? The same authority that prohibits lying or stealing,prohibits your owing a man. Why, then, do you violate this commandment of God,any more than the other? Is it not because a corrupt public sentiment, hasrendered the violation of this commandment less disgraceful than to violatethese other commands of God? Why did you not resort to begging instead ofrunning in debt? Better far to beg than to run in debt. Begging is notprohibited by any command of God, but being in debt is prohibited. True, it isdisgraceful to beg. But a God-dishonouring public sentiment has rendered it farless so to be in debt. And does not this account for your shameless violationof this command of God?

Do you say again, I have been disappointed. I expected to have had the money; Imade the contract in good faith, and expected to meet it at the time. Butothers owe me and do not pay me, therefore I am unable to pay my debts. To thisI reply,

You should have contracted with that expressed condition. You should have madeknown your circumstances, and the ground of your expectation in regard to beingable to pay at the time appointed. In that case, if your creditor was willingto run the risk, of your being disappointed, the fault is not yours, as you havepracticed no injustice or deception. But if your contract was withoutcondition, you have taken upon yourself the risk of disappointment, and are notguiltless.

But here it may be said again, nearly the whole Church are in debt, and ifsubject to discipline, who shall cast the first stone? I reply,
(1) If it be true that the Church is so extensively in debt, no wonderthat the curse of God is upon her.

(2) Again, it may be true that a Church may be so generally involved in anygiven sin as to make that sin a difficult subject of discipline, because eachman knows that he himself is guilty, and must in his turn submit to the samediscipline. But when this is true of any Church, it is a shameless abominationfor the members of that Church to attempt to hide themselves under the admittedfact that nearly all the Church are involved in the guilt of it.
Now rest assured that when any sin becomes so prevalent that it cannot,and is not made, in that Church, a subject of discipline, God himself willsooner or later take up the rod, and find means to discipline, and thateffectually, such a Church.

III. I am to state the duty of those who are in debt.

• 1. They are bound to make any sacrifice of property or time, and indeed any sacrifice that it is possible for them to make, to pay their debts.

Here it may be asked again, does the law of love permit my creditor todemand a sacrifice of me? If he loves me as he does himself, why should herequire or even allow me to make a sacrifice of property to pay what I owe him?I reply:

• (1) If any one is to make asacrifice or suffer loss, it is the debtor and not the creditor. It willalmost certainly be some damage to him to be disappointed in notreceiving his due. It may so disarrange his affairs, and break in uponhis calculations as to occasion him great damage. Of this he is to be thejudge.
• (2) Your sacrifice may benecessary not only to prevent his loss, but to enable him, to meet hiscontracts, and thus prevent his sin. His confidence in your veracity mayhave led him to contract prospective debts, and by not paying him, younot only sin yourself, but cause him to sin.
• (3) The refusal of one tomake a sacrifice to pay his debts, may involve many others, in both lossand sin. A. owes B., B. owes C., and C. owes D., and so on in a longchain of mutual dependencies. Now if there be a failure in the first orany other link of this chain, all below it are involved in loss and sin.Now where shall this evil be arrested?

Suppose you hold the place of C. A.refuses to make a sacrifice to pay B., and B to pay you. Shall you sin becausethey do, and involve your creditor in loss and sin? No. Whatever others may do,you are bound to pay your debts. And unless your creditor voluntarily consentsto defer the time of payment, you are bound to pay him at any sacrifice.

• 2. Persons that are in debt should not contract new debts to pay old ones. It is the practice of some when they get involved, to keep up their credit, by borrowing of one to pay another. Their meeting and cancelling the last debt, depends altogether upon the presumption, that they shall be able to borrow the money of some body else. When they have borrowed of one they will keep him out of his pay as long as possible without losing their credit. And then, instead of making a sacrifice of property sufficient to discharge the obligation, they borrow from B to pay A, and from C to pay B, and thus, perhaps, disappoint and disoblige a dozen men by not paying them exactly at the time agreed, instead of at once stopping short, and parting with what they have, at any sacrifice, to pay the debt.

I do not say that a man should not in any case borrow of one man to payanother. But this I say, that as a general thing, such practices are highlyreprehensible. Still, if a debt becomes due, and you have not the money athand, but are certain that at a given time you shall have it, I do not supposeit wrong for you to borrow and pay this debt, with the understanding that youpay this borrowed money at the time specified. But to borrow money with noother prospect of an ultimate payment than that you can borrow again, and thuskeep up your credit from time to time, is wicked.

• 3. Those who are in debt have no right to give away the money which they owe. If you are in debt, the money in your hands belongs to your creditor, and not to you. You have no right, therefore, "to be generous till you are just." You have strictly no more right to give that money away than you have to steal money to give away.

But here it should be particularly understood what is and what is not tobe accounted as giving money away; e.g. it is not giving away your money to paythe current expenses of the congregation to which you are attached. Yourproportion of the current expenses of the congregation or Church to which youbelong is impliedly, if not expressly contracted by you. You cannot withhold itany more than the payment of any other debt.

The same may be said of the support of ministers and foreign missionaries, andall for whose support the faith of the Church is pledged. It seems to be acommon, but erroneous understanding of professors of religion, that what are moregenerally called their secular debts or obligations are binding, and are to bedischarged of course. But that their obligations, expressed or implied, toreligious institutions are not so absolutely binding; and of course they cangive nothing, as they express it, to these objects until their debts are paid.Now, beloved, you ought to know that to the support of the institutions ofreligion, you are pledged, both virtually and actually, by your profession, andthat these are your most sacred debts, and are thus to be considered anddischarged by you. I beseech of you not to consider the meeting and cancellingof such demands as these in the light of a gift,--as if you were making God apresent instead of discharging a solemn debt. I have been astonished to findthat the pecuniary embarrassments of the few past years have so far crippledthe movements of the great benevolent societies for want of funds; and thatMissionaries, for whose support the faith and honour of the Church werepledged, should be so far cut short of their necessary supplies, under thepretense that the Church must pay her secular debts before she could dischargeher high and sacred obligations to them, and the work in which they areengaged.

• 4.A person who is in debt has no right to purchase for himself or family things not absolutely essential for their subsistence. Things that might lawfully be purchased and used under other circumstances become unlawful when you are in debt.

A creditor has no right to deprive you of necessary food andindispensable raiment, or of your liberty. To do so would put it out of yourpower ever to pay. But you have no right to indulge in any thing more than thenecessaries of life, while your debts are unpaid. To do so is as unlawful as itwould be to steal to purchase unnecessary articles.
REMARKS.

1. From what has been said, it is plain that the whole credit system, if notabsolutely sinful, is nevertheless so highly dangerous that no Christian shouldembark in it.

Since the preaching of this sermon, this remark has been censured as a rashone. A rash remark! Let the present history and experience of the Church saywhether the credit system is not so highly dangerous that the man who willventure to embark in it is guilty of rashness and presumption. When hasreligion for centuries been so generally disgraced, as by the bankruptcy of itsprofessors within the last few years? And how many millions of money are nowdue from Church members to ungodly men that will never be paid? Rash! Why thisis the very plea of the Church, that they can do nothing for the support of thegospel, because they are so much in debt. Is there no danger of any man'sgetting in debt who attempts to trade upon a borrowed capital? Indeed it ishighly dangerous, as universal experience shows.

And what is the necessity, I pray, for Christians to embark in so dangerous anenterprise, and one that so highly jeopardizes the honor or religion? Is itbecause the necessities of life can be procured in no other way? Is it becausethe institutions of religion demand it? Religion sustains a greater lossthrough the debts and bankruptcies of Christians, than it ever gains by theirprosperity.

But the credit system, as it now prevails and has prevailed, is useless, andworse than useless; e.g. suppose the consumers of merchandise, instead ofanticipating their yearly crops and yearly income and running in debt with theexpectation of paying from these, were to take a little pains to reverse thisorder of things and be a year beforehand, paying down for what they purchase,and having the income of each year beforehand, so as to contract no debts. Inthis case the country merchants, giving no credit, but receiving ready pay,would be able to pay down on the purchase of their goods from the wholesale dealer--thewholesale dealer would pay down to the importer--the importer to themanufacturer--and the manufacturer to the producer.

Now any man can see that many millions a year would be saved to this country inthis way. The manufacturer could afford an article cheaper for ready pay--andso could the importer--and the wholesale dealer--and each one in his turn, downto the consumer. Every one could sell cheaper for ready pay, as no risk wouldbe run, and business could be done with much greater convenience and safety.Thus an entire rejection of the credit system, in its present form, and anadoption of the system of ready pay would afford to the consumer every articleso much cheaper as to save millions of dollars every year. And I do notapprehend that there is in reality any serious difficulty in so reversing thewhole order of business.

At another time I may more particularly examine the credit system in itsfoundation and various ramifications, and the nature and tendencies of theprevailing system of doing business on borrowed capital. But at present I canonly say, as I have said, that, waiving the question whether it is absolutelysinful in itself, it is too highly dangerous to be embarked in by those whofeel a tender solicitude for the honour and cause of Christ.

2. That if in any case the present payment of debts is impossible, your duty isto regard your indebtedness as a sin against God and your neighbour--to repent,and set yourself with all practicable self-denial, to pay as fast as you can.And unless you are laying yourself out to pay your debts, do not imagine thatyou repent either of your indebtedness or any other sin. For you areimpenitent, and a shameless hypocrite rather than a Christian, if you sufferyourself to be in debt, and are not making all practicable efforts to dojustice to your creditors.

3. If payment is possible, by any sacrifice of property on your part, sin isupon you, till you do pay. There is a wicked custom among men, and to aconsiderable amount in the Church, of putting property out of their hands, toavoid a sacrifice in the payment of their debts.

As an instance take the eIder whom I mentioned in a former lecture, whoconfessed to me that "he was avoiding the sacrifice of his property, inthe payment of his debts, by finesse of law."

4. The lax notions and practices of the world, and of the Church upon thissubject, are truly abominable. It has come to pass, that a man may not only beconsidered a respectable citizen, but a respectable member of the Church, whosuffers himself to be in debt--who has judgments and executions against him,and who resorts not only "to finesse of law to avoid the payment of hisdebts," but who practices the most palpable frauds against both God andman, by putting his property out of his hands to avoid meeting his justresponsibilities.

O shame, on the Church, and on these professors of religion. Some of them willeven go to an unconverted lawyer for advice in this iniquitous business, andlay open before his unconverted heart, their shameless iniquity. Alas, how manylawyers are thus led to call in question the whole truth of the Christianreligion; and over these dishonest professors, they stumble into hell. Anduntil the Church will rise up and wash her hands, and cleanse her garments fromthis iniquity, by banishing such persons from her communion, the cause of Christ will not cease to bleed at every pore.

5. Some persons take the ground, that not to meet their contracts and pay theirdebts when they become due, is not sinful, on account of the generalunderstanding of businessmen upon such subjects. To this I answer,
(1) There is no understanding among businessmen that debts are not to bepaid when they become due. Among that class of men the non-payment of a debt,always involves a disgrace, and a wrong, even in their own estimation.

(2) Let the public sentiment be what it might among businessmen, still the lawof God cannot be altered, and by this unchanging law it is a sin to be in debt.And as "sin is a disgrace to any people," it is both a sin and ashame to be in debt.
6. The rule laid down in this text is applicable, not only toindividuals, but to corporations, and nations, and all bodies of men assumingpecuniary responsibilities.

7. It is dishonest and dishonourable, to hire or purchase an article and saynothing about payment till afterwards.

8. The violation of this law, is working immense mischief in the Church, and inthe world. It is truly shocking to see to what an extent the Church is involvedin debt, and Church members are engaged in collecting debts of each other, byforce of law. The heart burnings, and bitterness that exist among Churchmembers on account of the non-payment of their debts to each other, are awfullygreat and alarming.

Besides all this, in what light does the Church appear before the world--as amass of money-makers, and speculators, and bankrupts--shuffling and managingthrough finesse of law, to avoid the payment of their debts?

I could relate facts within my own knowledge, and many of them too, that wouldcause the cheek of piety to blush. Alas, for the rage, and madness of aspeculating, moneymaking, fraudulent Church!

9. There is great reason to believe that many young men, in the course of theireducation, involve themselves in debts, that so far eat up their piety as torender them nearly useless all their days. I would sooner be twenty-five yearsin getting an education, and paying my way, than involve myself in debt to theEducation Society or in any other way.

How many young men there are, who are in debt to the Education Society, and whoare dealing very loosely with their consciences, on the subject of payment.Because the Education Society do not press them right up, they let the matterlie along from time to time--increase their expenditures, as their income mayincrease, instead of practicing self-denial, and honestly discharging theirobligations to the Society.

10. I cannot have confidence in the piety of any man, who is not conscientiousin the payment of his debts. I know some men who are in debt, and who spendtheir time and their property, in a manner wholly inconsistent with theircircumstances; and still make great pretensions to piety. They are active inprayer meetings--take a conspicuous place at the communion table--and even holda responsible office in the Church of Christ, and yet theyseem to have no conscience about paying their debts.

I believe it is right, and the duty of all churches and ministers to excludesuch persons from the communion of the Church. And were it generally done, itwould go far to wipe away the stains that have been brought by such personsupon the religion of Jesus Christ. I do not see whythey should be suffered to come to the communion table, any more thanwhoremongers, or murderers, or drunkards, or Sabbath breakers, orslave-holders.

11. There must be a great reformation in the Church upon this subject, beforethe business class of ungodly men will have much confidence in Religion. Thisreformation should begin immediately, and begin where it ought to begin, amongthe leading members of the Church of Christ. Ministers andChurch Judicatories should speak out upon the subject--should "cry aloudand spare not, but lift up their voice like a trumpet and show Israel histransgressions and the house of Jacobtheir sins."

And now beloved, are any of you in debt? Then sin is upon you. Rise up, andshow yourselves clean in this matter, I beseech you. Make every effort to meetand discharge your responsibilities. And beware that in attempting to pay yourdebts, you do not resort to means that are as highly reprehensible as to be indebt.

12. Let no one complain, and say that instead of preaching the gospel I amdiscussing mere business transactions. The truth is, that the gospel is toregulate the business transactions of the world. Religion is a practical thing.It does not consist in austerities, prayers, and masses, and monkishsuperstitions, as Papists vainly dream. If religion does not take hold of aman's business operations--if it does not reform his daily life and habits, ofwhat avail is it? Until in these respects your practice is right, you cannotexpect to enjoy the influences of the Holy Spirit. You cannot grow in holinessany further than you reform your practice.

The perceptive part of the gospel therefore, is to be spread out in all itsdetail before you. And when you find it "convinces you of sin," I begof you not to turn around, and say that this is preaching about business, andnot about religion. What is business but a part of religion? A man that doesnot consider it so in practice, has no religion at all.

And now, dearly beloved, instead of suffering your heart to rise up and resistwhat I have said, will you not as I have often requested, go down upon yourknees, and spread this whole subject before the Lord? Will you not inquirewherein you have erred, and sinned, and make haste to repent, and reform yourlives?
GLOSSARY
of easily misunderstood terms as defined by Mr. Finney himself.
Compiled by Katie Stewart

• Complacency, orEsteem: "Complacency, as a state of will or heart, is only benevolencemodified by the consideration or relation of right character in the object ofit. God, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints, in all ages, are as virtuousin their self-denying and untiring labours to save the wicked, as they are intheir complacent love to the saints." Systematic Theology(LECTURE VII). Also, "approbation of thecharacter of its object. Complacency is due only to the good and holy." Lectures to Professing Christians (LECTURE XII).
• DisinterestedBenevolence: "By disinterested benevolence I do not mean, that a person who isdisinterested feels no interest in his object of pursuit, but that he seeks thehappiness of others for its own sake, and not for the sake of its reaction onhimself, in promoting his own happiness. He chooses to do good because herejoices in the happiness of others, and desires their happiness for its ownsake. God is purely and disinterestedly benevolent. He does not make Hiscreatures happy for the sake of thereby promoting His own happiness, butbecause He loves their happiness and chooses it for its own sake. Not that Hedoes not feel happy in promoting the happiness of His creatures, but that Hedoes not do it for the sake of His own gratification." Lectures to Professing Christians (LECTURE I).
• Divine Sovereignty: "Thesovereignty of God consists in the independence of his will, in consulting hisown intelligence and discretion, in the selection of his end, and the means ofaccomplishing it. In other words, the sovereignty of God is nothing else thaninfinite benevolence directed by infinite knowledge." Systematic Theology (LECTURE LXXVI).
• Election: "That all ofAdam's race, who are or ever will be saved, were from eternity chosen by God toeternal salvation, through the sanctification of their hearts by faith inChrist. In other words, they are chosen to salvation by means ofsanctification. Their salvation is the end- their sanctification is a means.Both the end and the means are elected, appointed, chosen; the means as reallyas the end, and for the sake of the end." Systematic Theology (LECTURE LXXIV).
• Entire Sanctification:"Sanctification may be entire in two senses: (1.) In the sense of present,full obedience, or entire consecration to God; and, (2.) In the sense ofcontinued, abiding consecration or obedience to God. Entire sanctification,when the terms are used in this sense, consists in being established,confirmed, preserved, continued in a state of sanctification or of entireconsecration to God." Systematic Theology (LECTURE LVIII).
• Moral Agency: "Moral agencyis universally a condition of moral obligation. The attributes of moral agencyare intellect, sensibility, and free will." Systematic Theology (LECTURE III).
• Moral Depravity: "Moraldepravity is the depravity of free-will, not of the faculty itself, but of itsfree action. It consists in a violation of moral law. Depravity of the will, asa faculty, is, or would be, physical, and not moral depravity. It would bedepravity of substance, and not of free, responsible choice. Moral depravity isdepravity of choice. It is a choice at variance with moral law, moral right. Itis synonymous with sin or sinfulness. It is moral depravity, because itconsists in a violation of moral law, and because it has moral character." Systematic Theology (LECTURE XXXVIII).
• Human Reason: "the intuitivefaculty or function of the intellect... it is the faculty that intuits moralrelations and affirms moral obligation to act in conformity with perceivedmoral relations."Systematic Theology (LECTURE III).
• Retributive Justice: "Retributivejustice consists in treating every subject of government according to hischaracter. It respects the intrinsic merit or demerit of each individual, anddeals with him accordingly." Systematic Theology(LECTURE XXXIV).
• Total Depravity: "Moraldepravity of the unregenerate is without any mixture of moral goodness orvirtue, that while they remain unregenerate, they never in any instance, nor inany degree, exercise true love to God and to man." Systematic Theology (LECTURE XXXVIII).
• Unbelief: "the soul'swithholding confidence from truth and the God of truth. The heart's rejectionof evidence, and refusal to be influenced by it. The will in the attitude ofopposition to truth perceived, or evidence presented." Systematic Theology (LECTURE LV).