[Note: the reasons why Polhill is here cited is not so much because of his comments directed at the Remonstrants, but because, 1) his rejection of the attempt by some to disconnect the sign from the thing signified in the voluntas signi; and 2) because of his challenge to the exegetical trajectory which sought disconnect Christ’s “wishing” here from the trinitarian will of God  (Beza, Turretin, et al): such that Christ merely as a compassionate human and minister of the Gospel sought the salvation of the citizens of Jerusalem.]

Polhill:

Having thus debated the manner of conversion, I proceed to the last thing proposed, viz.;

Query 3. Whether the will of God touching conversion be always accomplished therein? For answer whereunto, I must first lay down a distinction as a foundation. God may be said to will the conversion of men two ways; either by such a will as is effective, and determinative of the event, or by such a d as is only virtual, and ordinative of the means tending thereunto: both parts of this distinction are bottomed upon scripture…

…[W]herefore, in respect of that ordination, God may be truly said, by a kind of virtual and ordinative will, to will the turning and salvation of all men. This I shall explain,

1. With reference to those in the bosom of the Church.

2. With reference to those out of it.

1. God by a virtual or ordinative will doth will the turning and salvation of all men within the bosom of the church; for they have Jesus Christ set before their eyes, and what was the true end of Christ’s coming, but to turn every one from his iniquities, (Acts iii.26). They have the gospel preached unto them: there we have God spreading out his hands all the day, standing and knocking at the door of the heart, crying out with redoubled calls, “Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?” Wooing and beseeching men, be ye reconciled unto me; making his salvation bringing grace appear unto all men, even to the non-elect themselves; and causing the kingdom of God to come nigh unto men, even to such as for the rejection thereof have the dust of their city wiped off against them; and what is the meaning of all this, if God no way will their conversion? Take away God’s ordinative will, and then God (as to the non-elect) spreads out his hands of mercy that he may shut them: knocks, that he may be barred out; cries and beseeches, that he may not be heard; makes his grace appear and kingdom come nigh, that it may be rejected, and not received: all which is to evacuate scripture and put a lie upon the offers of grace. Neither will it salve the business, to say, there is a voluntas signi in all this; for what is voluntas signi, if it be not signum voluntatis? If it be only an outward sign or appearance, and there be no counterpane or prototype thereof, within the divine will, how is it a true sign? which way could it be breathed out from God’s heart? When God makes his great gospel supper, and says, Come, for all things are ready; he is not, he cannot be like him with the evil eye, who says, Eat and drink, but his heart is not with thee, (Prov.xxiii.6.7.) No, God’s heart goes along with every offer of grace; he never calls, but in a serious manner. And therefore, unbelieving and impenitent persons are in scripture said not only to reject the means, but “to receive the grace of God in vain,” (2 Cor. vi. 1); to “reject the counsel of God against themselves,” (Luke vii. 30), and to “make God a liar,” (1 John v. l0), as if he meant not really in the offers of his Son, Jesus Christ. When God threatened the Jews with his judgments, “they belied the Lord, and said, “it is not he,” (Jer. V. 12); and when God offers men grace in the gospel, they by their unbelief belie the Lord and say, “It is not he; it is but only the minister or outward I sign; God’s heart or mind is not in it.” Under such weighty words as these does the scripture set out the rejection of means. Because of God’s ordinative will. That God who will one day mock at the rejectors of his call, (Prov. i. 26), doth not now mock them in the grace of his call; the true end of his call is their conversion, and that that end is not attained, the only reason lies within themselves, in their own corrupt, unbelieving hearts. Moreover, it is worthy of our consideration, that those scriptures (which the Remonstrants urge, to prove that all the operations of grace, even those in the very elect who actually turn unto God, are resistible) do signally set forth this ordinative will of God. As first, they urge that, (Matt. xxiii. 37). “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! thou that kills the prophets and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.” Here, say they, is resistible grace. Very well; but what grace doth the text speak of. It speaks only of the grace afforded to those Jews which were never gathered or converted thereby, but not a title of the grace afforded to those Jews which were thereby actually gathered or converted; and how then can it prove that this latter grace (of which it speaks not at all) was resistible? If it prove this grace resistible, it can be upon no other ground but this only; That the grace afforded to the Jews which were not gathered, and the grace afforded to the Jews which were gathered, was one and the same; but how can that be made good? Can that text assert an equality of grace to both sorts of Jews, which speaks only of grace afforded to one of them, vis., to the ungathered ones? It is impossible. But if it be not the truth of the text, is there yet any truth in the thing? Had all the Jews equal grace with the Jews given to Christ, with the Jews drawn by the Father, with the Jews chosen out of the world? It is incredible. The Remonstrants allow, that God doth irresistibly enlighten the understanding, excite the affections, and infuse a posse convertere into the will; but was it thus with all the Jews? Were the blind leaders of the blind thus enlightened? Were the malicious scorners thus affected? Were those which could not believe, (John xii. 39), endued with a posse convertere? It cannot be. Wherefore, this text speaking only of the grace given to the ungathered Jews, proves not the grace given to the other Jews to be resistible, but it genuinely proves a will in God to gather them all under his wings of grace; I say, a will in God, for it cannot be interpreted of Christ’s human will; for the gathering willed was not only a gathering by Christ’s ministry, but by the mission of prophets before his incarnation, to which Christ’s human will could not extend, because not then in being: wherefore, this will is God’s ordinative will, imported in the ministry of Christ and the prophets, the proper end and tendency whereof was to gather them into the bosom of his grace. This Calvin, in his commentaries upon this place calls, mirum et incomparable amoris documentum: and withal adds, significat nunquam proponi nobis Dei verbum, quni ipse materna dulcedine gremium suum nobis aperiat. Again, they [the Remonstrants] urge that, (Isa. lxv. 2). “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people;” but this place speaks only of the grace afforded to the rebellion, and, therefore, it proves not that the grace afforded to the elect was resistible. Neither is it imaginable, that the same measure of grace is signified in this expansion of God’s hand, as in the revelation of his arm,” (Isa. liii. 1). The apostle quotes this place, (Rom. x. 21), yet withal asserts, “that there was a remnant where God attests the riches of his grace,” (Rom. xi. 5); not a remnant according to the better improvement of the same grace, but a remnant according to the election of grace; such as pure grace had reserved to itself, by those special operations which were not vouchsafed to the blinded ones,” (v. 7). “God’s stretching out his hands is all one with his call,” (Prov. i. 24); but all men are not called after the same rate as the called according to purpose: wherefore, this place proves not, that the workings of grace as to the elect are resistible; but that the offers of grace as to the non-elect are serious, God in the means really spreading out his arms of grace unto them. Again: they [the Remonstrants] urge that of our Savior, “These things I say, that you might be saved,” (John v. 34); which words were spoken to them, which “would not come to Christ,” (ver. 40); but that the Holy Spirit spoke as inwardly and powerfully to them, as to the elect who” hear and learn of the Father;” what chemistry can extract it out of this text? or from what other scripture can it be demonstrated? God” commands the light to shine out of darkness in some hearts,” (2 Cor. iv. 6); but doth he so in all? Whence then are those blinded ones? (ver. 4). If there be any such, where is the Remonstrants’ equality of grace? Where, when they say, that illumination is wrought irresistibly? These things cannot consist together. Wherefore our Savior’s words shew not forth the weakness or separableness of grace as to the elect, but the true end and scope of Christ’s preaching as to the non-elect; what he spoke to them was in order to their salvation. Again: they [the Remonstrants] urge that, “The pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him,” that is, of John, (Luke vii. 30). Here, say they, is their thesis in terminus: but this place is so far from proving that the internal grace vouchsafed to the elect is resistible, that from hence it cannot be proved that these rejecters had any workings of internal grace at all in them; for internal grace runs in the veins of ordinances, and the ordinance here spoken of was John’s baptism, and that these rejecters would not partake of at all; for so says the text, “They were not baptized of him,” and then which way should they come by internal grace? could they have it quite out of God’s way? No; surely there is little, or rather no reason, to imagine that these rejecters so far scorning God’s ordinance, as not so much as outwardly to be made partakers thereof, should yet have the workings of internal grace in them. But suppose they had some internal working, must it needs be the “baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire,” such intimate and powerful working as is in the elect? Not a title of this appears in the text: wherefore this place proves not I that the working of grace in the elect is resistible, but it signally shows forth the nature, of divine ordinances. Every ordinance is an ordinance from the will of God; it is an appointment dropped down from heaven; it is divinely destinated eis oikodomen, for edification and not for destruction; it is the place where God records his name; it is the way where God would be met withal; it is the oracle where God would be heard; it is a kind of tabernacle of witness, where God attests the riches of his grace. John’s baptism was not a mere external sign or shadow, but imported God’s ordinative counsel to bring men to repentance; it was eis matanoian, to repentance, as its proper end, (Matt. iii. 11). Gospel-preaching is not a mere sound or voice of words, but it importeth God’s ordinative counsel to turn men unto himself. Hence every true minister is said to stand. in God’s counsel, and for this very end, to turn them from the evil of their doings, (Jer, xxii..22). Every ordinance speaks an ordinative counsel for some spiritual end, a serious ordination for the good of souls. Oh! that every one would think so indeed, how surely would they find that God is in it of a truth; whosoever comes to an ordinance so thinking, justifies God’s institution and meets his benediction; but he who comes and thinks otherwise, doth, by that very thought, forsake the ordinance of his God; and reject his counsel, though not in so high and gross a manner as the Pharisees and lawyers did, who would not so much as outwardly partake of John’s baptism. Again: they urge that, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wid grapes,” (Isai. v. 4)? Here, say they, were omnia adhibita, not a tantillum gratiæ wanting; here seems to be the ultimus conatus, the utmost acting of grace, even equal to those operations of grace which were in the converts of the Jewish church, and that upon a double account; first, because God says, “What could be done more?” Secondly, because God had done so much, that he expected the grapes of holiness and obedience from them; and yet after all this, they brought forth wild grapes: hence the Remonstrants conclude, that conversion is wrought in a resistible way. I answer; those which will take the true measure of the grace set forth in this text, must first consider to whom this grace was afforded; it was to the Jewish church in common, even to every member thereof: this granted, as it cannot be denied, I proceed to answer, first as to that expression, “What could have been done more?” Either the meaning of it is, what could have been done more in a way of internal grace, or else it is what could have been done more in a way of external means; the first cannot be the meaning, that God could do no more in a wav of internal grace; if God had said so in that sense: the Jewish church might have aptly answered, Lord! could est thou not write the law in every heart? Could thou not make a new heart in every one of us? O how many unregenerate souls are there found in me! But if not that, Lord! could thou not, at least, have inwardly enlightened everyone? Could thou not have given him some inward dispositions to conversion? O how many ignorant souls are there, which call “evil good, and good evil, and put darkness for light, and light for darkness!” (Isa. v. 20.) These are not so much as inwardly enlightened. O! how many atheists are there which jeer and scoff at the threatenings of God, saying, “Let him hasten his work, that we may see it, let the counsel of the Holy One draw nigh, that we may know it.” (Ver. 9.) These are so far from any dispositions to conversion, that they scarcely have the sense of a Deity in them. Lord! thou, who did plant me a vineyard or visible church, could have planted saving graces in every heart; thou, who did gather out the stones of public annoyance out of me, could have took away the privy stone of hardness out of every heart; doubtless thou art Almighty, and therefore thou can do it; thou art true, and therefore thou wilt do it, if thou hast said it. Hence it appears that that expression, “What could have been done more?” relates not to internal grace, but external means: it is as if God had said, “O Israel! I have planted thee in a Canaan; I have set thee my only visible church in the world; I have manured thee by my prophets; I have betrusted thee with the lively Oracles of my law; I have fenced thee in with my waky providence and protection. What nation is there so great, who hath me so nigh unto them, who hath judgments and statutes so righteous? What national or church-privileges is there yet behind? What could have been done more for a church under the legal pedagogy and I before the Messiah’s coming in the flesh?” This I take to be the proper meaning of the words. Secondly, as to Gods expectation, neither does that imply that there were omnia adhibita; for when God came and sought fruit on the fig-tree, the seeking there was as much as the expecting here, and yet there were not omnia adhibita, no, not as to external means; for after his seeking, he dug about it and dunged it, that it might be fruitful, (Luke xiii. 6, 7, 8, g). Now, by all this it appears, that that parable of the vineyard proves, not that the internal grace afforded to those Jews which were thereby converted was resistible; but it proves that the proper end and tendency of the means afforded to the Jewish church, was that they might bring forth good fruits to God; and in respect of that ordination, God is said to expect those good fruits from them.

Edward Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 208-210. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; italics original; square bracket inserts and underlining mine.]

Gale:

(1.) Does Christ weep over the Sins and Ruins of impenitent Jerusalem? Hence then Infer, That Christ’s Affections are Relative: his sorrow stands in relation to the sinners miseries; as also his joy to the sinners good. All Christ’s Affections, while on earth, were very generous and public: he discovered little or nothing of private Interest and Passion: All his Affections, Actions, and Passions were relative. Yea, the whole of Christ as Mediator, is Relative: He espoused human Nature not for himself, but for sinners: He lived not for himself, but for his people: He died not for himself, but for sinners: Thus here he wept not for himself, but for Jerusalem.

(2.) This also discovers to us, The Heroic, and pure strain, or temperament of Christ’s Affections. Doth he, indeed, shed tears over Jerusalem, who is now meditating, how she may shed his blood: Has he so much pity and bleeding compassion for her, who hath so little pity and compassion for herself? Oh! what incomparable generous Affections are here? What an unparalleled sweet humor is there lodged in the heart of this great Emmanuel? Who could ever have imagined that human nature had been capable of such pure, and disinterested Affections, had we not so real an experiment thereof in this Sovereign Messiah?

(3.) Hence likewise we may collect, How really and cheerfully willing Christ is to save sinners. Certainly, he that makes such bitter Lamentation over the foreseen Ruins of Jerusalem, must needs have a very cordial, and unfeigned will and desire of her salvation. This we find expressed to the life, Matt. 23:37. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem–How oft would I have gathered thy children together, even as an hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?” What a pathetic expostulation is here, which carries in it notices of vehement Affections? Oh! how willing is Christ to give unto sinners the things that belong unto their peace? Yea, is he not more willing to bestow great things than small? Doth not his willingness to give, infinitely exceed the sinners willingness to receive? Is not Christ more glad to receive poor and weary souls, than they are to come unto him? May sinners come too soon to Christ, or before they are welcome? Has Christ set any bars or rails about his Throne of Grace? May not whoever will, come and drink freely, and deeply of this living fountain? Is not every thing about Christ mighty drawing, alluring, and inviting? How drawing and encouraging is his Gospel? What alluring and inviting Arguments are there in his blood and passion? Has not Christ removed all groundless cavils and objections, which foolish sinners are apt to make against coming to him for life? Doth not Jerusalem first break with him, before he breaks with her? And when that unhappy breach is made, doth not his weeping over her sufficiently argue, how fain he would be reconciled to her? how much it would please him to see her but cast half an eye towards him? how much his heart would leap within him, to behold her, in the Prodigal’s posture, returning towards him? Did Christ ever cease to make tenders of Grace to her, til she ceased to accept or desire the tenders of his Grace? Yea, is not Christ’s forwardness to give, beyond the Sinners forwardness to receive? Did Christ ever refuse to give, til sinners refused to ask what they wanted? Oh! how oft doth Christ’s kindness overcome the Sinners unkindness? Did he not frequently express great love and pity, when he had the greatest cause to express severe wrath? Oh! what infinite pleasure and satisfaction doth Christ take, in his gracious effusions and communications to sinners? Doth he not think himself sufficiently paid for what Grace he hath given forth, if he may but obtain the souls desires after more? How industrious is he in seeking sinners, when they have lost themselves? Oh! what a sad consideration is it, that Christ should be so boundless and large in his offers, and we so narrow in our receivings?

(4.) Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem instructs us further, What a dreadful sin it is to reject Christ, and all other concerns of our peace. Christ’s gracious invitations unto, long waitings for, and at least tears over Jerusalem, do greatly aggravate her impenitence, and unbelief towards him. For the lower Christ condescends to sinners, the nearer he comes to them, and the more importunate he is in the offers of his Grace; the greater is their sin in rejecting such gracious and sweet offers. What? doth Christ come unto his own; his own children, spouse, subjects, brethren, and friends? and will not his own receive him? Doth he so freely open his gracious heart to sinners, and will they shut their hearts against him? Is he so forward to give, and shall we be so backward to receive? Doth Christ offer such great things to sinners, and shall they prefer such poor toys before them? Yea, is Christ in himself so incomparably excellent, and will sinners yet so much disdain him, and so proudly shift themselves of him? Can there be a more heinous sin than this, to meet Christ’s bowels and pity with kicks, and contempt? Oh! study the weight of this sin.

(5.) This Lamentation of Christ over impenitent Jerusalem teaches us also, That man’s Ruin is from himself? If after all Christ’s gracious Invitations; all his unwearied forbearances; all his bitter and salt tears, Jerusalem will still persist in her rebellious contempt of his gracious offers, how inexcusable is her sin, and inevitable her ruin? What will prevail upon her, if Christ’s Tears, and Entreaties will not prevail? What can save her, if her Redeemers Grace and Mercy save her not? What is it that keeps Evangelic sinners from being saved? is it any defect in the Object, or its Revelation? is it mere simple Ignorance, or Impotence in the subject? No; but it is willful blindness and impotence: they shut their eyes and will not see; they bolt their hearts and will not open to Christ, who knocks at the door of the soul, by many gracious Invitations of his Gospel and Spirit. And do not such deservedly perish, who electively embrace their own ruin, and willfully reject the things that belong to their peace, Matt. 23:37? Surely this willful Impotence, or rather impotent willfulness evidently demonstrates, That impenitent sinners frame their own Hell.

(6.) Hence also infer, That the greater privileges, and marks of favor Christ doth confer on any People or Church, the more sorely doth he resent any unkindness from such. The resentment of a final unkindness, from such as have been obliged by special favors, is more afflictive, than greater unkindnesses from others. For Jerusalem, who lay under so many, and essential obligations, to reject Christ, and all his gracious tenders of mercy, Oh! how much doth this break his heart? What swords and spears to pierce through his soul is this? For Jerusalem, when she is made fat with Divine mercies, to kick against those bowels, whence her mercies flowed, how much doth this wound and grieve the heart of Christ?

Theophilus Gale, Christ’s Tears for Jerusalem’s Unbelief and Ruine (London: Printed for M. Widdowes at the Green Dragon in St. Pauls Church-Yard, 1679), 64–69. [Some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

[Credit to Tony for the find.]

Burkitt:

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you. Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Our Lord concludes this chapter with a pathetical lamentation over Jerusalem. His ingemination or doubling of the word, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” shows the vehemency of Christ’s affection towards them, and the sincerity of his desires for their salvation. Observe, 1. The great kindness and compassion of Christ to the Jews in general, and Jerusalem in particular, set forth by a lively metaphor and similitude; that of an hen gathering her chickens under her wings. As the hen doth tenderly cherish, and carefully hide and cover her young from the eye of the destroyer; so would Christ have shrouded and sheltered his people from all those birds of prey, and particularly from the Roman eagle, by which they were at last devoured. Again, as the hen continues her call to her young ones from morning to night, and holds out her wings for shelter to them all the day long; so did Christ wait for this people’s repentance and conversion for more than forty years after they had killed his prophets, and murdered himself, before they met with a final overthrow. Observe, 2. The amazing obstinacy and willfulness of this people, in rejecting this grace and favor, this kindness and condescension of the Lord Jesus Christ: “I would have gathered you, but ye would not.” Observe, 3. The fatal issue of this obstinacy. “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” “Is left;” that is, certainly and suddenly will be so. The present tense put for the paulo post futurum, it denotes both the certainty and nearness of this people’s ruin. Learn, 1. That the ruin and destruction of sinners is wholly chargeable upon themselves; that is, on their own willfulness and obstinacy: “I would have gathered you, says Christ, but ye would not.” Learn, 2. How deplorably and inexcusably they will perish, who perish by their own willfulness under the gospel. 3. That there is no desire like unto God’s desire of a people’s repentance; no longing like unto God’s longing for a people’s salvation “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee!” “When shall it once be!” Christ did very seriously desire the conversion of the Jews, who continued still in their impenitency and unbelief. And consequently they whom he so seriously desired to convert, might have been converted, but they would not be so: “I would have gathered you, but ye would not.”

William Burkitt, Expository Notes With Practical Observations on the New Testament (Philadelphia: Published by Thomas Wardle, 1835), 1:119-120. [Some spelling modernized, italics original, and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Binning:

1) These things I write unto you, little children.’ To enforce this the more sweetly, he uses this affectionate compilation, ‘little children; for in all things affection hath a mighty stroke, almost as much as reason. It is the most suitable way to prevail with the spirit of a man, to deal in love and tenderness with it; it insinuates more sweetly, and so can have less resistance, and therefore works more strongly. It is true, another way of terrors, threatenings, and reproofs, mingled with sharp and heavy words of challenges, may make a great deal of more noise, and yet it hath not such virtue to prevail with a rational soul. The Spirit of the Lord was not in the wind, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the still and calm voice which came to Elijah, 1 Kings xix. 11, 12. These suit not the gentle, dove-like disposition of the Spirit; and though they be fit to rend rocks in pieces, yet they cannot truly break hearts, and make them contrite. The sun will make a man sooner part with his cloak than the wind; such is the difference between the warm beams of affection, and the boisterous violence of passions or terror. Now, O that there were such a spirit in them who preach the gospel, such a fatherly affection, that with much pity and compassion they might call sinners from the ways of death! O there is no subject, in which a man may have more room for melting affections, nothing that will admit of such bowels of compassion as this,–the multitude of souls posting to destruction, and so blindfolded that they cannot see it! Here the fountain of tears might be opened to run abundantly. The Lord personates a tender-hearted father or husband often, ‘Oh, why will ye die? Ye have broken my heart with your whorish heart: O Jerusalem, how oft would I, but thou wouldst not!‘ When he, who is not subject to human passions, expresses himself thus, how much more cloth it become us poor creatures to have pity on our fellow-creatures? Should it not press out from us many groans, to see so many perishing, even beside salvation. I wish you would take it so, that the warning you to flee from the wrath to come, is the greatest act of favor and love that can be done to you. It becomes us to be solicitous about you, and declare unto you, that you will meet with destruction in those paths in which you walk; that these ways go down to the chambers of death. O that it might be done with so much feeling compassion of your misery, as the necessity of it requires! But, why do many of you take it so hard to be thus forewarned, and have your danger declared unto you? I guess at the reason of it. You are in a distemper as sick children distempered in a fever, who are not capable of discerning their parents’ tender affection, when it crosses their own inclinations and ways. Hugh Binning, “Fellowship with God,”in The Works of the Rev. Hugh Binning (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1992), Sermon 21, 332-333. [Some spelling modernized, underlining mine.]

2) Are these things so? Is this the law, and this the gospel? Do they daily sound in our ears, and what entertainment, I pray you, do they get from this generation? Indeed, Christ’s complaint hath place here, whereunto shall our generation be likened? For he hath lamented to us, and we have not mourned; he hath piped to us, and we have not danced. We will neither be made glad nor sad by these things. How long hath the word of the Lord been preached unto you, and whose heart trembled at it? Shall the lion roar, and the beasts of the field not be afraid? The lion hath roared often to us. God hath spoken often, who will not fear? And yet who doth fear? Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, in congregations every day, that terrible trumpet of Mount Sinai that proclaims war between God and men, and yet will not the people be afraid? Amos ii. 6, 8. Have not everyone of you heard your transgressions told you? Are ye not guilty of all the breaches of God’s holy law? Hath not the curse been pronounced against you for these, and yet who believes the report? Ye will not do so much as to sit down and examine your own guiltiness, till your mouth be stopped, and til ye put it in the dust before God’s justice. And when we speak of hell unto you, and of the curses of God passed upon all men, you bless yourselves in your own eyes, saying, peace, peace, even though ye walk in the imagination of your own hearts, add sin to sin, and ‘drunkenness to thirst,’ Dent. xxix. 20. N ow, when all this is told you, that many shall be condemned and few saved, and that God is righteous to execute judgment, and render vengeance on you, ye say within yourselves, For God’s sake, is all this true? But where is the mourning at his lamentations, when there is no feeling or believing them to be true? Your minds are not convinced of the law of God, and how shall your heart be moved? Christ Jesus laments unto you, as he wept over Jerusalem, ‘How often would I have gathered thee, and thou wouldst not!’ What means he? Certainly, he would have you to sympathize with your own condition. When he that is in himself blessed, and needs not us, is so affected with our misery, how should we sympathize with our own misery! God seems to be affected with it, though there be no shadow of turning in him. Yet he clothes his words with such affections, ‘Why will ye die?‘ ‘O that my people had hearkened unto me!‘ He sounds the proclamation before the stroke, if it be possible to move you to some sense of your condition, that concerns you most nearly. Yet who judges himself that he may not be judged? The ministers of the Lord, or Christians, may put to their ear, and hearken to men in their retiring places, but who repents in dust and ashes, and says, ‘What have I done? Jer. viii. 6. But every man goes on in his course without stop. The word ye hear on the Sabbath–day against your drunkenness, your oppressions, your covetousness, your formality, &c., it doth not lay any bands on you to keep you from these things. Long may we hearken to you in secret, ere we hear many of you mourn for these things, or turn from them. Where is he that is afraid of the wrath of God, though it be often denounced against him? Do not men sleep over their time, and dream of escaping from it? Every man hath a refuge of lies he trusts in, and wil not forsake his sins. Hugh Binning, “Several Sermons Upon the Most Important Subjects of Practical Religion,” Practical Sermons in The Works of the Rev. Hugh Binning (Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1992), Sermon 10, 597-598. [Some spelling modernized, underlining mine.]