J      Opposition to sin is another attribute or characteristic of true love to God. 
     The very essence and nature of love implies this attribute.  Love is good willing, or willing the highest good of others as our goal.  Now, nothing in the universe is more destructive to good than sin.  Therefore, love is forever opposed to sin as that abominable thing which it hates.  It is absurd to think that love is not opposed to sin.  God is love.  Therefore, He must be the unalterable opponent of all sin in every form and degree.  However, there is an intellectual and emotional opposition to sin that is often mistaken for a willful opposition to sin.  Opposition to sin must come from our will; and on that ground alone, it becomes virtue.  But, opposition to sin also exists mentally and emotionally.  No one can seriously think about sin without disapproving of it.  This disapproval is often mistaken for an opposition of the heart.  When someone strongly disapproves of and denounces sin, there is naturally a corre­sponding feeling of opposition to sin.  There is an emotion of loathing, of hatred, and of abhorrence towards sin.  This is often mistaken for an opposition of the will, or heart.  We see this from the fact that even the most notorious sinners often demonstrate a strong indignation when they witness oppression, injustice, lying, and many other forms of sin.  This emotional and intellectual phenomenon is often mistaken for a virtuous opposition to sin, which is impossible unless a virtuous opposition to sin involves an act of our will.  But remember, that virtuous opposition to sin is a characteristic of love for God and mankind.  True opposition to sin cannot possibly coexist with any degree of sin in our heart.  That is, this opposition cannot coexist with a sinful choice.  Our will cannot be opposed to sin and commit sin at the same time.  It’s impossible.  That statement contradicts itself.  Opposition to sin in our mind or our emotions may exist.  Our mind may strongly disapprove of sin, and we may feel strongly opposed to certain forms of it, while at the same time our will may cling to self-indulgence in other forms.  This fact accounts for the common error that we can, at the same time, exercise a virtuous opposition to sin and still continue to commit sin.  Millions today are laboring under this fatal delusion.  There are times when people not only disapprove of sin in certain forms, but they also are strongly opposed to those sins.  Yet, they are also aware that they continue to commit some of those very same sins.  They therefore conclude that they have a principle of holiness in them as well as a principle of sin, and that they are partly holy and partly sinful at the same time.  The opposition of their intellect and feelings are mistaken for a holy opposition.  This opposition is just as common in hell, and even more common in hell than it is on earth for the reason that sin is more naked there than it is here. 
     How can both the mind and the emotions be opposed to the same sin that is being committed?  How can our mind choose to sin, when our intellect and emotions oppose it?  This phenomenon needs explanation.  Let us examine it. 
     I am a moral agent.  My mind naturally disapproves of sin.  My emotions naturally follow my mind and sympathize with it.  What my mind sees and judges affect my emotions.  I think about sin.  I naturally disapprove of sin, and condemn it.  This affects my emotions.  I loathe and abhor sin.  I nevertheless commit sin.  WHY? 
     The usual way people justify this phenomenon is by claiming that the will itself is depraved.  That is, the will is in a lapsed or corrupted state so that it perversely chooses sin for its own sake.  Although the mind disapproves of sin, and the emotions loath sin, yet because of the inherent depravity of the will, it stubbornly clings to sin and will continue to cling to sin until the will is renewed by the Holy Spirit and a holy bias or inclination is impressed upon the will itself.  
     This line of reasoning is a tremendous error.  In order to see the truth of this subject, we must ask ourselves, “What is sin”?  Just about everybody admits that selfishness is sin.  But very few seem to understand that selfishness is the whole of sin, and that every form of sin can be resolved into selfishness just as every form of virtue can be resolved into love.  Let us for now assume that selfishness is the whole of sin; I will prove this later.  What is selfishness?  Selfishness is choosing self‑gratification as an end.  It prefers our own gratification over the highest good of God and the universe.  Self‑gratification is the supreme goal of selfishness.  This choice is sinful.  That is, the result of this selfish choice is sin.  Now, we cannot choose sin for its own sake, or as a goal.  Whenever we choose something to gratify self, we don’t choose it because the choice is sinful but we choose it in spite of the fact that it is sinful.  Our choice does not fix on the sinfulness of that choice as our goal, but we focus on the gratification that we will receive when we make our sinful choice.  For example, stealing is sinful.  But our will, in stealing, does not focus on the sinfulness of stealing but on the gratification that we expect to receive from that stolen object.
     Drunkenness is sinful, but the drunk does not intend or choose the sinfulness of drinking for its own sake, or as a goal.  He does not choose strong drink because the choice itself is sinful, but he chooses strong drink in spite of the fact that it is sinful.  We choose gratification as our goal, not sin.  To choose gratification as our ultimate goal is sinful, but sin is not the object that we choose.  Our mother Eve ate the forbidden fruit, which was sinful.  But the thing that she chose or intended was not the sinfulness of eating, but the gratification that she expected from the fruit.  It is not true that we choose sin as an end all by itself.  Sin is only the result of selfishness.  Selfishness is the choice, not of sin as a goal, but of self‑gratification; and this choice of self‑gratification as a goal is sinful.  That is, the moral quality of the choice is sin.  To say that we can choose sin for its own sake is untrue and absurd.  Why, that’s saying that our choice can terminate on an element, quality, or attribute of itself.  It is the same thing as saying that the thing chosen is really an element of the choice itself. 
     But some may say that sinners are sometimes aware of choosing sin for its own sake, or because it is sin.  They say that sinners possess such a malicious state of mind that they love sin for its own sake; that they “roll sin as a sweet morsel under their tongue”; that “they eat up the sins of God’s people as they eat bread”; (Psalms 14:4)  In other words, sinners love their own sins and the sins of others just like they enjoy the food they eat, and they choose sin just like they choose their food; that they not only relish sin but they also have pleasure in others who also sin.  Now all this may be true, yet it does not disprove the position that I have taken, namely, that sin never is, and can never be chosen as an end all by itself.  People may seek and love sin as a means, but never as an end.  Choosing food will illustrate this.  We never choose food as an ultimate end.  We can never choose it as an ultimate end.  We always choose food as a means to an end.  We can choose food selfishly or unselfishly.  There are many reasons why we choose certain foods.  It may be because we want to gratify certain desires.  It may be because it is convenient at the time, or useful, or nutritious.  Gratification always is the reason why a selfish man eats and it may not be merely the present pleasure of eating, which he seeks.  Nevertheless, if he is selfish, he has his own gratification in view as his goal.  Perhaps, it isn’t so much a present, but a remote gratification that he has in view.  Thus, he may choose food to give him health and strength to pursue another gratification, perhaps acquiring wealth or something else that will gratify him. 
     Sometimes a sinner enters into a state of rebellion against God that is so frightful, that he takes pleasure in willing, and in doing, and saying things that are sinful just because they are sinful and displeasing to God and to holy beings.  But, even in this situation, he does not choose sin as an end but as a means of gratifying this malicious feeling.  He chooses self‑gratification as an end, not sin.  Sin is the means, and self‑gratification is the end. 
     Are we now prepared to understand how come both our mind and our emotions can often be opposed to sin, and yet our will still indulges in sin?  A drunk thinks about the moral character of drunkenness.  He instantly condemns the abomination.  His emotions sympathize with his mind.  He loathes the sinfulness of drinking strong drink, and hates himself because of it.  He is ashamed, and if it were possible, he would spit in his own face.  Now, in this state it would surely be absurd to think that he could choose the sin of drinking as an end, or for its own sake.  This wouldn’t make any sense.  But he chooses to continue drinking, not because it is sinful, but in spite of the fact that it is sinful.  For, even though he condemns the sin of drinking strong drink, and he emotion­ally hates the sinfulness of drinking, nevertheless his appetite for drink is so strong, that he returns to his bottle, not because it is sin, but because he seeks to gratify his appetite in spite of the sinfulness of it.  That’s how it happens in every situation where someone commits a sin in spite of the fact that he opposes that sin and hates it.  He hates the sin, but his desire for the thing is stronger, and when he chooses it, that choice is sinful.  The will in a selfish person yields to his emotional appetites, and the end he chooses is not the sinfulness of the act, but self‑gratification.  Those who believe, that their emotional opposition to sin is because of some holiness within them, are fatally deluded.  It is this kind of opposition to sin that often manifests itself among wicked men and leads them to take credit for goodness or virtue, not an atom of which they possess.  They will not believe that they are morally and totally depraved as long as they are aware that so much hostility to sin exists within them.  But they should understand that this opposition is not a willful opposition or they would not continue on sinning.  They must realize that this opposition comes from an involuntary state of mind and has no moral character whatsoever. 
     Remember, that a virtuous opposition to sin must always be an attribute of love.  It must always be a phenomenon of our will; and that it is naturally impossible that this willful opposition can exist while we are committing sin. 
     Since this opposition to sin is clearly implied in and is an essential attribute of true love to God, it follows that obedience to God’s law cannot be partial in the sense that we both love God and sin at the same time.  

K     Compassion for the miserable is also an attribute of pure love for God and our neighbor.  This is benevolence viewed in its relationship to misery and to guilt. 
     There is also a soulish compassion of the soul.  Compassion often exists in the form of an emotion.  But since this emotion is involuntary, it has no moral character all by itself.  The compassion which is a virtue, and which God requires from us, comes from our will, and is, of course, an attribute of love.  It is therefore impossible from its own nature, that compassion for the miserable should not be one of its attributes.  Willful compassion of misery is the choice or wish that misery might not exist.  Love wills that happiness should exist for its own sake.  It must therefore wish that misery might not exist.  This attribute of love consists in wishing the happiness of the miserable.  True love is willing the good or happiness of everything that exists.  A willful compassion is willing that the miserable should be happy. 
     Compassion of the soul is simply a feeling of pity in view of misery.  This is not virtue.  It is only an emotion, and as a result, it does not benefit its object.  It is the state of mind that James mentions when he says, “If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?”  (James 2:15, 16)  This kind of compassion often exists with selfishness.  But compassion of the heart cannot coexist with selfishness; for compassion of the heart consists in willing the happiness of the miserable for its own sake, which is impar­tial.  From its very nature, love must deny self to promote its end whenever it wisely can, that is, when the highest general good demands it.  Circumstances may exist that render it unwise to express this compassion by actually extending relief to the miserable.  Such circum­stances forbid that God should extend relief to the lost in hell.  But if it weren’t for their character and governmental relations, God’s compassion would no doubt make immediate efforts for their relief. 
     Many circumstances may exist in which, although compassion would likely quickly come to the relief of its object, we regard the misery that exists as the lesser of two evils, and therefore, the wisdom of love forbids compassion to put forth efforts to save its object.  However, it is very important to carefully distinguish between compassion as a mere feeling, and the compassion produced by the will.  Many, who feel quickly and deeply, often give themselves credit for being compassionate, while they seldom do much for the downtrodden and the miserable.  Their compassion is only a feeling.  Compassion says, “Be warmed and filled”, but does nothing to help them.  This particular attribute of love was very conspicuous in the life of Howard, Wilberforce, as well as many other Christian philanthropists. 
     Before I leave this attribute, I have to say that the feeling of compassion often influences our will.  When this happens, our mind is no less selfish in seeking to promote the relief and happiness of its object than it is in any other form of selfishness.  In such situations, self‑gratification is the end sought, and the relief of the suffering is only a means to that end.  Our pity is stirred, and our emotions are deeply pained and excited by the thought of misery.  This feeling influences our will, and we do something to relieve our painful emotion on one hand, and to gratify the desire to see the sufferer happy on the other hand.  This is only an imposing form of selfishness.  We often witness displays of this kind of self‑gratification.  The happiness of the miserable is not sought as a goal in this situation, but as a means to gratify our own feelings.  This is not a willful obedience to the law of love, but obedience to the impulse of feelings.  It is not a natural and intelligent compassion, but the kind of compassion that we often see mere animals exercise.  Animals will risk, and even lay down their lives to provide relief for one of their number or to a man who is in misery.  For them, this has no moral character.  Because animals have no reason, it is not a sin for them to obey their emotions.  In fact, this is a law of their existence.  They must obey their emotions.  For them, to seek their own gratification as a goal is not sin.  But man has a reason and he must obey his reason.  He should will and seek the relief and the happiness of the miserable, for its own sake, or for its own importance.  When he seeks to be compassionate for no better reason than to satisfy his feelings, he denies his humanity.  He is compassionate, not because of a regard for the sufferer, but to relieve his own pain and to gratify his own desires.  This is sin.  Many, therefore, who give themselves credit for love, are really only exercising this imposing form of selfishness.  They take credit for holiness when their holiness is only sin.  What is especially worthy to notice here is that these people appear to themselves and to everyone else to be quite virtuous, even though their own feelings lead them.  They are aware of feeling deeply, and of being sincere and earnest in obeying their feelings.  Everyone who knows them can also see that they feel deeply, and that their feelings leads them, not their mind.  Now, so great is the darkness of most people on this subject that they praise themselves and others in proportion to the depths of their feelings, rather than by their sober judgment. 
     But I must not leave this subject without saying that when compassion comes from our will, it will express itself emotionally.  A man with a compassionate heart will have compassionate feelings.  He will feel and he will act.  Nevertheless, his actions will not be the result of his feelings, but will be the result of his sober judgment.  Three groups of people believe that they are truly compassionate.  The first group of people exhibits a lot of compassion; but because their compassion does not influence their will, they do not do anything to help those who are suffering.  They are content with mere desires and tears.  They say, “Be ye warmed and clothed,” but they don’t give the relief that is needed.  The second group feels deeply, and gives in to their feelings.  Of course, they are active and energetic in relieving those who are suffering.  But, because feelings govern them instead of their reason, they are selfish.  Their compassion is only an imposing form of selfishness.  The third group feels deeply, but they are not governed by the blind impulses of feeling.  They take a rational view of the subject and act wisely and energetically.  They obey their reason.  Their feelings do not lead them; neither do they seek to satisfy their feelings.  This last group is the truly virtuous, and the happiest of the three.  Their feelings are even more gratified by how much less they aim at their own gratification.  They obey their mind, and therefore, they have the double satisfaction of the applause of their conscience while their feelings are also fully gratified when they see their compassionate desire accomplished.

L     Mercy is also an attribute of love. 
     Mercy is kind and compassionate treatment of an offender or someone under one’s power; not giving the guilty, what he deserves.
Mercy also expresses an emotion.  Mercy is often mistaken for compassion. 
     Mercy, when we willfully exercise it, is a disposition to pardon crime.  The nature of love even seeks the good of those who deserve evil when this we can do this wisely.  Love is “ready to forgive” (Psalms 86:5), ready to seek the good of those who are evil and unthankful, and ready to pardon when there is repentance.  It is good will viewed in its relationship to one, who deserves punishment.  But a soulish mercy is simply a desire for the pardon of one who deserves punishment.  It is only a feeling, a desire.  Of course, it is involuntary, and therefore it has no moral character all by itself. 
     Mercy will manifest itself in an effort to pardon unless the attribute of wisdom prevents mercy from pardoning.  It may be unwise to seek to pardon a guilty person.  In such a situation, because all the attributes of love must harmonize, no effort will be made to realize its end.  It was this attribute of love, modified and limited in its exercise by wisdom and justice, that energized in providing the means and opening the way for the pardon of our guilty race. 
     Since wisdom and justice are also attributes of love, mercy can never manifest itself by efforts to secure its end except in such a way that it does not set aside justice and wisdom.  We can never exercise one attribute of love at the expense of another, or in opposition to it.  The moral attributes of God are only attributes of love.  From the word love we learn that whatever love fixes on, is good.  And from the word itself, we also must conclude that the means to this end are also good; because it is absurd to believe that good would be chosen because it is good, and yet the person who makes this choice would use objectionable and harmful means to obtain this end.  You can’t will good for its own sake and then choose harmful means to accomplish this end.  The person who can fix upon the highest good of God and the universe as an end, can never consent to use efforts to accomplish this end that are inconsistent with it.  In other words, he will not use means that tend to prevent the highest good of others. 
     I said that mercy is the readiness of love to pardon the guilty.  But we can only be exercise mercy under conditions that are in harmony with the other attributes of love.  Mercy as a mere feeling would pardon without repentance or without condition; mercy would pardon without reference to public justice.  But viewed in connection with the other attributes of love, we learn that, although mercy is a real attribute of love, we cannot exercise mercy without fulfilling those conditions that will secure the consent of all the other attributes of love.  The doctrine and fact of the atonement beautifully teaches and illustrates this truth, as we will see later. 
     Indeed, without considering the various attributes of love, we will be confused concerning the character and government of God, the spirit and meaning of His law, the spirit and meaning of the gospel, our own spiritual state, and the development of characters around us.  Without being acquainted with all the attributes of love, we will find apparent discrepancies in the Bible, in the Divine administration, and in the manifestations of Christian character, both as they are revealed in the Bible and as exhibited in common life.  For example: Universalists have stumbled because of a lack of consideration of this subject!  God is love!  Well, without considering the attributes of this love, they conclude that if God is love, He cannot hate sin and sinners.  If He is merciful, He cannot punish sinners in hell, etc.  Unitarians have stumbled in the same way.  God is merciful; that is, He is disposed to pardon sin.  Well, then, why do we need an atonement?  If God is merciful, He can and will pardon upon repentance without any atonement.  But we may then ask, if He is merciful why not pardon without repentance?  If we only look at God’s mercy, that is, if we simply look at a disposition to pardon, then mercy by itself would not need to wait for repentance.  However, if repentance is, and must be, a condition to exercise mercy then shouldn’t there be other conditions that God needs to consider when He exercises mercy?  If wisdom and public justice are also attributes of love, and they condition the exercise of mercy, and they forbid that mercy should be exercised without repentance, why don’t they equally condition its exercise upon such a satisfaction of public justice that it would secure the same full and deep respect for the law, as executing its penalty would do?  In other words, if wisdom and justice are attributes of love, and conditions the exercise of mercy on repentance, why don’t they also condition the exercise of mercy on the fact of atonement?  Because mercy is an attribute of love, love will direct our mind to devise ways and means to render the exercise of mercy consistent with the other attributes of love.  Mercy will use our mind to devise means to secure the repentance of the sinner and to remove all the obstacles out of the way of the free and full exercise of mercy.  It will also secure that state of feeling that we call mercy, or compassion.  Hence, mercy will certainly secure efforts to procure the repentance and pardon of sinners.  It will secure a deep emotional yearning over sinners and secure energetic action to secure their repentance and pardon.  This attribute of love led the Father to give His only‑begotten and well‑beloved Son, and it led the Son to give Himself to die to secure the repentance and pardon of sinners.  Mercy leads the Holy Spirit to make many mighty efforts to secure the repentance of sinners.  Mercy also energizes the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and saints of every age, to secure the conversion of those lost in sin.  It is an amiable attribute.  All its sympathies are sweet, and tender, and as kind as heaven.  

M   Justice is an attribute of benevolence. 
     Justice can also come from our soul.  As an attribute of love, it is the opposite of mercy when viewed in its relationship to crime.  Justice consists in a disposition to treat every moral agent according to what he deserves.  In its relationship to crime, the criminal, and the public, justice consists in a tendency to punish according to the law.  Mercy would pardon for the public good, justice would punish for the public good. 
     Justice as an emotion is a feeling that the guilty deserves punishment.  Justice is a desire that the guilty person should be punished.  This is an involuntary feeling and has no moral character.  It is often strongly excited and is frequently the cause of mobs, violent demonstrations, and riots.  When it takes the control of the will, as it often does with sinners, it can lead to what is popularly called lynchings, riots, acts of terrorism, and many other methods of executing vengeance that are so appalling. 
     I have said that mere desire has no moral character.  But when the will is governed by the desire for justice, and yields itself up to seek to gratify that desire, this state of will is selfishness under one of its most horrible and frightful forms.  Under the providence of God, however, God can use this form of selfishness, like any other, for good, like earthquakes, tornadoes, pestilence, and war to purify the moral elements of society, and scourge away those immoral plagues that sometimes infest communities.  Even war itself is often an illustration of this. 
     Justice as an attribute of love is virtue, and it exhibits itself in executing the penalties of the law, and in supporting public order, and in various other ways for the good of humanity.  There are several forms of justice.  That is, we must view justice under various aspects, and in various relationships.  One of these is public justice.  Public justice is a regard for public interests and secures a due administration of law for the public good.  (Public justice is justice that pertains to the welfare or good of the general public and upholding the government of God)  It will, in no way, set aside executing the penalty unless something can be done to support the authority of the law and of the lawgiver.  Public justice also secures the due administration of rewards, and looks closely after all public interests, always insists that the greater interest shall prevail over the lesser; that private interests shall never set aside or prejudice a public interest of greater importance.  Mercy modifies the exercise of public justice.  Justice conditions the exercise of mercy, and mercy conditions the exercise of justice.  In order for mercy to be consistent with justice, it can only extend a pardon when repentance is rendered to the government.  So, we find that mercy conditions justice, and therefore justice cannot proceed to take vengeance when the highest good does not require it, when punishment can be done away with without public loss.  Thus, these attributes mutually limit each other’s exercise, and make the whole character of love perfect, symmetrical, and heavenly. 
     Justice is one of the sterner attributes of love; but it is indispensable to filling up the entire circle of moral perfections.  Although solemn and awful, and sometimes inexpressibly marvelous in its exercise, justice is nevertheless one of the glorious forms and manifestations of love.  Love without justice would be anything but morally lovely and perfect.  In fact, it couldn’t be love.  This attribute of love is easily seen in the character of God as revealed in His law, in His gospel, and, most impressively, by His providence.  We’ve witnessed it throughout the history of inspired men.  The Psalms abound with expressions of this attribute.  We find many prayers for the punishment of the wicked.  Samuel hewed Agag in pieces; and David’s writings are filled with expressions that show that this attribute was strongly developed in his mind; and the circumstances he was placed under often made it proper for him to express and manifest, in various ways, the spirit of justice.  Because of their lack of understanding, many have stumbled over such prayers, expressions, and manifesta­tions.  They believe that such exhibitions of justice are inconsistent with a right spirit.  “Oh,” they say, “how unevangelical!  How un‑Christ‑like!  How inconsistent with the sweet and heavenly spirit of Christ and of the gospel!”  But this is wrong.  The Spirit of the Living God dictated these prayers.  Such demonstrations of God’s justice are only the manifestations of one of the essential attributes of love.  Those sinners deserved to die.  It was for the greatest good that they became a public example.  The Spirit of inspiration knew this, and such prayers under such circumstances are only an expression of the mind and will of God.  They are truly the spirit of justice pronouncing sentence on the wicked.  However, these prayers and similar things found in the Bible do not vindicate the spirit of fanaticism and denunciation that so often takes shelter under them.  Fanatics may burn cities, lay waste countries and seek to justify themselves by an appeal to the destruction of the old world by flood or the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire and brimstone. 
     Retributive justice is another form of justice.  Retributive justice is concerned with the exact payment of a punishment or reward.  This consists in a disposition to visit the offender with the punishment that he deserves because it is fit and proper that a moral agent should be dealt with according to his deeds. 
     Another form of justice is commercial justice.  This consists in willing exact equivalents, and honesty in business and all secular transactions.  There are other forms of justice, but I have given you enough to illustrate some of the various areas that this attribute presides over. 
     Justice, although stern in its spirit and its manifestations, is nevertheless of prime importance in all governments, whether human or divine.  Indeed, without it government could not exist.  It is foolish for philosophers to belittle this attribute, and to do away with it altogether in the administration of government.  If they try the experiment, they will find, to their loss and confusion, that not one attribute of love can say to another, “I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12:21)  In short, let any one attribute of love be destroyed or overlooked and you have destroyed its perfection, its beauty, its harmony, its propriety, its glory.  You have in fact, destroyed love; it is no longer love, but a sickly, inefficient, and limping sentimentalism that has no God, no virtue, no beauty, nor form, nor comeliness in it that when we see it we should desire it. 
     Justice executes law.  It aims to secure commercial honesty.  It aims to secure public and private integrity and tranquility. 
     Justice says to violence, disorder, and injustice, “Peace, be still”, and there must be a great calm.  We see the evidence of justice in the thundering of Sinai, and in the agony of Calvary.  We hear it in the wail of a world when the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and when the windows of heaven opened, and the floods descended, and the population of the whole world was swallowed up.  We see it manifested in the descending torrent that swept over the cities of the plain; and lastly, we shall forever see its bright but awful and glorious displays in the dark and curling folds of that pillar of smoke of the torment of the damned that will ascend up before God forever and ever. 
     Many seem to be afraid even think about justice as an attribute of love.  Any manifesta­tion of justice among men causes them to recoil and shudder as if they saw a demon.  But let it have its place in the glorious circle of moral attributes; it must have, it will have, there can’t be any other way.  Whenever a family or state adopts any governmental policy that excludes exercising justice, it will fail. 
     Since justice is an attribute of love, it will prevent the punishment of the eternally unrepentant from diminishing the happiness of God and holy beings.  Holy beings will never delight in misery for its own sake; but they will take pleasure in seeing God administer justice.  So that when the smoke of the torment of the damned comes up in the sight of heaven, they will shout “Alleluia!  The Lord God Omnipotent reigns” (Rev. 19:6): “Just and righteous are Your ways, You King of saints!”  (Rev. 15:3) 
     Finally, I must insist that where true love is there must be exact commercial justice, or business honesty and integrity.  This is as certain as the existence of love.  The rendering of exact equivalents, or the intention to do so, must be a characteristic of a truly loving mind.  Impulsive or constitutional love may exist; false love may exist to some degree, and yet justice may not exist.  The impulse of feeling may carry someone away so that he may have the appearance of true love even while he is selfish in his business transactions, and he cheats a little in his commercial relationships.  This has been a wonder and an enigma to many, but the situation is simple.  The problem is, such a person is simply not just.  His love is only an imposing form of selfishness.  “He that has an ear to hear, let him hear” (Rev. 2:7)  His love results from feeling, and is not true love. 
     Where true love is, the golden rule will surely be observed: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matt. 7:12)  The justice that is motivated by love will conform to this rule.  True love is simply a state of the will.  It is willing justly.  It must therefore secure just conduct.  If our heart is just, our life will also be just. 
     This attribute of love will secure the one who possesses it against every degree of injustice.  The person who is filled with love for his neighbor cannot be unjust to his neighbor’s reputation, his person, his property, his soul, or his body.  In fact, he cannot be unjust, in any respect, to man or God.  Justice will and must secure confession and restitution, in every case of remembered wrong, as far as this is practical.  A truly religious man cannot be unjust.  He may indeed appear to be unjust to others; but he cannot be truly unselfish and be unjust at the same time.  If he appears to be unjust at any time, he is not and cannot be truly unjust if love for God and his neighbor fills him at the time.  The attributes of selfishness, as we will see later, are directly opposite to the attributes of love. 
     These two states of mind are as contrary as heaven and hell, and can no more coexist in the same mind, than a thing can be and not be at the same time.  I said that if a man is truly exercising true unselfish love but appears to be unjust in anything, he is only unjust in appearance, and not in fact.  I am speaking of someone who is truly in a benevolent state of mind at the time.  He may do something unjust by mistake, which he wouldn’t have done if he had seen things differently.  Justice and injustice belong to our intention.  No outward act can be either just or unjust all by itself.  It is just as absurd to say that a man, while exercising true unselfish love, can be unjust at the same time, as it is to say that he can intend justly and unjustly at the same time concerning the same thing.  That is a contradiction.  Remember, that true love is one thing, which is willing, for its own sake, the highest good of others and every known good according to its relative importance. 
     As a result, it is impossible that justice should not be an attribute of such a choice.  Justice consists in regarding and treating, everything fairly according to its nature.  To say that present love can contain any amount of present injustice is a contradiction.  A just man is a sanctified man, a perfect man in the sense that he is currently in a righteous and upright state. 

N    Truthfulness is another attribute of love. 
     Truthfulness, as an attribute of love, is that quality that adheres to truth.  In the very act of committing ones self to love God with all his heart, the person embraces truth, or the reality of things.  Then truthfulness must be one of the qualities of love.  Truthfulness occurs when the will conforms to the reality of things.  A truthful statement is a statement that is conformed to the reality of things.  Truth in action is an action that is conformed to the nature and relationships of things.  Truthfulness conforms to the reality of things.  Truthfulness is a willingness that is in alignment with the reality of things.  It is willing the right end by the right means.  It is willing what is important all by itself as an end and the relatively important as a means.  In short, it is the willing of everything according to the reality or facts in the situation. 
     Truthfulness, then, must be an attribute of love.  It is, like the other attributes, only love viewed in a certain relationship.  We cannot distinguish truthfulness from true love because it is not different from it but it is only a form of true love.  God created the universe in such a way that if He conducts and wills everything according to its nature and relationships, the highest possible good must result.  Truthfulness seeks the good as an end and truth as a means to secure that end.  Truthfulness wills the good, and truth will secure that good.  It wills truth in the end, and truth in the means. The end is truly important, and we choose it for that reason.  The means are truth, and truth is the only appropriate or possible means. 
     A truthful heart naturally produces a love of truth.  It is a feeling of pleasure that spontane­ously arises in the emotions of one whose heart is truthful, whenever he contemplates truth.  This feeling is not virtue; it is rather a part of the reward of having a truthful heart. 
     Truthfulness as a phenomenon of the will is also often called a love of the truth.  It is willing according to objective truth.  This is virtue, and it is an attribute of love. 
     Truthfulness, as an attribute of Divine love, is the condition of confidence in God as a moral governor.  Both the physical and moral laws of the universe are instances and illustrations of God’s truthfulness.  A moral agent naturally regards falsehood, or lying, with disapproval, disgust, and abhorrence.  He naturally approves of the truth with pleasure.  We naturally have pleasure when our mind dwells on objective truth.  We also have pleasure when we think about truthfulness, and we realize the idea of truth.  Truthfulness is morally beautiful.  We are naturally pleased with it when the necessary conditions are fulfilled.  This attribute of love secures it against every attempt to promote the ultimate good of others by means of lying.  True love can no more resort to lying as a means to promote good than it can contradict or deny itself.  We know that we can secure the highest ultimate good only by strictly adhering to truth.  We can’t be satisfied with anything else.  Indeed, if we believe that we can promote good by lying, then we must believe a contradiction.  It is just as absurd to believe that we can secure the highest good only by violating and setting aside the nature and relationships of things.  Since our mind affirms the relationship of truth to the highest ultimate good; our love of the truth can no more consent to lying, than it can consent to relinquish the highest good of others as our goal.  Therefore, every resort to lying, every pious fraud, is nothing more than a disguised but real instance of selfishness.  We cannot lie for God; that is, we cannot tell a sinful lie, thinking and intending to please God by our action.  We know that we cannot truly please God by resorting to lying. 
     There is a great difference between concealing or withholding the truth for the sake of love and willfully telling a lie.  Let’s say that an innocent, persecuted, and pursued man has taken shelter under my roof from someone who wants to pursue him to kill him.  His pursuer comes to my house and asks if he is inside.  I am under no obligation to tell him that he is in my house.  I may, and indeed, I should withhold the truth in this situation for the wretch has no right to know it.  The public and highest good demands that he should not know his victim is in my house.  He only wants to know it for selfish and murderous purposes.  But in this situation, I should not feel free to deliberately lie.  I don’t believe that this is conducive to the highest good.  The person might go away deceived or under the impression that his victim was not there.  But he cannot accuse me of telling him a lie.  He might have drawn his own conclusion from my refusing to give him the desired information.  But, even to secure my own life or the life of my friend, I am not free to tell a lie.  If some say that lying implies telling a lie for selfish purposes, and that therefore it is not lying to tell a lie for the sake of love, I reply that our nature is such that we can no more lie for the sake of love than we can commit a sin while we intend on doing good.  We regard lying as being inconsistent with the highest good of others.  We also regard sin as being inconsistent with the highest good of others.  We also regard holiness and truthfulness as the indispensable condition of the highest good of others.  The relationship between our will and our intellect forbids the mistaken idea that a willful lie can be the means of the highest good.  Universal truthfulness, then, will always character­ize a person who is truly filled with love.  As long as love fills him, he must be faithful and truthful.  To the best of our knowledge, we can depend on his statements with as much certainty as the statements of an angel.  Truthfulness is a necessary attribute of love in all beings.  No liar has, or can have, one particle of true virtue or true love in him.