Spencer:

As a member of society, you delight to render even justice to everyone, in all your various intercourse–intercourse of trade–intercourse of science, of literature, of society, of religion. But you have more delight, as a good member of society, in being able to go beyond the mere measure of justice, and, even at some personal sacrifices, in doing something to dry up the streams of human misery; your kindness wipes away the orphan’s tear, and carries gladness to the heart beating such unequaled throbs under the weeds of the widow. In all these duties you may be equally perfect, but you are not equally happy. This illustrates what we mean by the peculiar preferences of God. His delight is in the exercise of his Mercy. He delights, indeed, in justice, holiness, faithfulness; and he has an infinite delight in them; that is, his delight accords with the infinity of his nature, and is perfect in relation to the importance of the attribute he exercises. But in Mercy he peculiarly delights. This is his own repeated testimony. He is not willing that any should perish. He affirms that he has no pleasure at all in the death of him that dies. All that he has seen fit to teach us in his Word, respecting his own infinite and holy feelings, gives preeminence to his Mercy. Mercy, indeed, has its methods–its way of wisdom–its rules: if it had not, it would lose its nature and become something else. The poet failed in that so much admired conception,

“A God all mercy is a God unjust.”

That is truth, but it is not all the truth–it is too feeble for the fact. Such a God would be something more than unjust; and the licentiousness of the attribute among a world of sinners would turn the mercy into unkindness itself. Still, the Divine Being has peculiar delight in the exercise of his Mercy. God loves to forgive sinners. He loves to save them. He loves to adopt them into his family. He loves to cheer them with his promises. And never did a saint on earth have so much delight in receiving the grace of God, as the infinitely gracious God has in bestowing it. Much as you may find in the Bible to teach the infinitude of all the attributes of the Deity, and their preciousness to him, you cannot fail to see the justice of the idea that he speaks in most singular style of his Mercy. The delight which he has in it, the singular and peculiar delight, demonstrates that kind of preeminence which we have affirmed belongs to it. It is Mercy that unfolds to us the heart of the God of heaven! It is Mercy which he most of all things delights to exercise. His glory, his infinite and eternal blessedness, stand in peculiar connection with this. Justice, judgment, the vengeance he takes upon the wicked, even he himself denominates his strange work (Isaiah, xxviii. 21). It is not what God likes. Mercy is more natural to him. It is more like God. Even when Mercy is refused–rejected –spurned; and judgment is compelled to act on the wicked, Mercy goes out upon the Mount of Olives to shed her tears over the devoted city! He wept over it: Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Ichabod Spencer, The Mercy of God, in Sermons of the Rev. Ichabod Spencer (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1855), 1:269-271. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Spencer:

God no Pleasure in the Death of the Wicked

(Shown From the Nature of Religion.)

As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death or the wicked.–Ezekiel xxxiii.11.

WE said, on a former occasion, when we addressed you from these words, that there were, with some people, three matters of difficulty in religion, against which this text is uttered:–

I. The Purposes of the Deity.

II. The Nature of Religion.

III. The Condition of Man.

From all these sources an unbeliever is sometimes accustomed to draw conclusions unfavorable to his salvation. The partial view he takes, as well as the erroneous opinions he entertains, is apt to sustain the misfortune of his conclusions. He beholds, in the purposes of the Deity, as he believes or half-believes, an insuperable obstacle to his salvation. In the Nature of Religion–that religion which the Bible teaches him is necessary to his salvation–he finds difficulties which he is unable, as he imagines, to overcome. The condition in which he finds himself, as a sinner, is made to plead his excuse for neglect of salvation, and speaks to him a comfortable solace, even while he continues in his sins. These are his difficulties–these the sources of his objection–these his errors.

To the first of these, the Purposes of God, we have already attended. The second, the Nature of Religion, occupies us in the present hour.

Those whose minds have surmounted one difficulty in religion often meet with another. Driven from one stronghold of error, we are apt to betake ourselves to another. Such creatures we are. One mistake is corrected, but we are not safe. One delusion is dispelled, but another delusion rises before us. Thus we are beset with hinderances. When we have learnt that the Purposes of the Deity do not infringe upon our liberty, and oblige us to be lost, the Nature of Religion comes up to lend to our mistake a lame apology.

Nor can we be surprised at these frequent difficulties, when we find them in our own mind, or in the minds of other people. What is there that is valuable, whose acquisition is not attended with some trouble? The riches you covet cost you many a day of laborious diligence, and many a weary pain. The learning you value has been acquired only by laborious study, careful attention, diligence, and self-denial. There is scarcely anything of value, whose acquisition is perfectly easy and unattended with difficulty. Difficulties will arise, either from the nature of the object sought, or the imperfection of the creature that seeks.

It is in the latter method that the difficulties of our salvation assail us. Our obstacles lie in our own nature–in that inherent wickedness which we love to foster, and are unwilling to eradicate.

But, if we are inclined, after all, to murmur that Religion–a thing so indispensable–is beset with so many difficulties, let us hush the murmur with two reflections –the one humbling to our pride, the other complimentary to our nature.

Read the rest of this entry »

Marshall:

Direction X.

That we may be prepared by the comforts of the Gospel to perform sincerely the duties of the Law, we must get some assurance of our salvation in that very faith whereby Christ himself is received into our hearts; therefore one must endeavor to believe on Christ confidently, persuading and assuring ourselves in the act of believing, that God freely gives to us an interest in Christ and his salvation according to his gracious promise.

Explication.

It is evident that these comforts of the gospel, that are necessary to an holy practice, cannot be truly received without some assurance of our interest in Christ and his salvation; for some of those comforts consist in a good persuasion of our reconciliation with God, and of our future heavenly happiness, and of strength both to will and to do what which is acceptable to God through Christ, as has been before shown: Hence it will clearly follow, that this assurance is very necessary to enable us for the practice of holiness, as those comforts that must go before the duties of the law in order of nature, as the cause goes before the effect, though not in any distance of time. My present work is to show, what this assurance is that is so necessary unto holiness, and which I have here asserted, that we must act in that very faith whereby we receive Christ himself into our hearts, even in justifying faith. This doctrine seems strange to many that profess themselves Protestants of late days, whereas it was formerly highly owned by the chief Protestants whom God made use of to restore the purity of the gospel, and to maintain it against the Papists for many years, they commonly taught that faith was a persuasion or confidence of our own salvation by Christ, and that we must be sure to apply Christ and his salvation to ourselves in believing. And this doctrine was one of the great engines whereby they prevailed to overthrow the Popish superstition, whereunto doubtfulness of salvation is one of the principal pillars. But many of the successors of those Protestants have deserted them, and left their writings to be shamefully insulted over by the Papists, and this innovation has been of longer standing among us than several other parts of our new divinity, and maintained by those hat profess to abhor that corrupt doctrine which the Papist have built upon such principles. Modern divines may think they stand upon the shoulders of their predecessors, whose labors they enjoy, and that they can see farther than they, as the school-men might have like thoughts of the ancient fathers; but for all this they may not be able to see so far, if the eyes of their predecessors were better enlightened by the Spirit of God to understand the mystery of the gospel, and why may we not judge that it is so in the present case? The eyes of men in these late years has been blinded in this point of assurance by many false imaginations. They think that because salvation is not promised to us absolutely, but upon condition of believing on Christ for it; therefore we must first believe directly on Christ for our salvation, and after that we must reflect our minds upon our faith, and examine it by several marks and signs, especially by the fruit of sincere obedience; and if upon this examination we find out certainly that it is true saving faith, then and not before we may believe assuredly that we in particular shall be saved. On this account they say that our salvation is by direct, and our assurance by the reflex¹ act of faith, and that many have true faith, and shall be saved that never have any assurance of their salvation as long as they live in this world, they find by Scripture and experience, that many precious saints of God are frequently troubled with doubts, whither they shall be saved, and whither their faith and obedience be sincere, so that they cannot see assurance in themselves. Therefore they conclude that assurance must not be accounted absolutely necessary to justifying faith and salvation, lest we should make the hearts of doubting saints sad and drive them to despair. They account that former Protestants were guilty of a manifest absurdity, in making assurance to be of the nature and definition of saving faith, because all that hear the gospel are bound to saving faith, and yet they are not bound absolutely to believe that they themselves shall be saved, for then many of them would be bound to believe that which is not declared in the gospel concerning them in particular, yea that which is a plain lie, because the gospel shows that many of those that are called are not chosen to salvation, and that perish forever, Mat. 20:16. No wonder if the appearance of so great an absurdity move many to imagine that saving faith is a trusting or resting on Christ as the only sufficient means of salvation without any assurance; or that it is a desiring and venturing to trust, or rely upon him in a mere state of suspense and uncertainty concerning our salvation, or with a probable opinion or conjectural hope of it at best.

Read the rest of this entry »

God No Pleasure in the Death of the Wicked.

(shown from the purposes of God.)

As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.–Ezekiel, xxxiii. 11.

IN these words, God affirms something about himself. It is no new idea to the minds of this congregation, that the character of God is the leading idea in religion. Scarcely any theme of instruction is more difficult than the regard of the Deity for a sinner. To give to the revolted subject of God’s righteous government a correct apprehension of the feelings with which his God regards him, is an attempt attended with peculiar embarrassments. These arise, not so much from the obscurity of the subject itself, as from the strong tendency to misapprehend it. There is something in the nature of the case which contributes a great obstacle to correct apprehension. When we speak of the Deity as righteous, and man as under his rule, there is something of accusation immediately conceived. Conscience goes to work. The hearer at once feels that there is a design to reprove him; and the consequence of this feeling is, he puts himself on the defense. And even if we avoid all accusing terms–if the Bible avoids them–if we do not say that man is unrighteous–if we take pains to avoid all methods of expression which bring his own character to mind, and strive to present the subject in such a manner that he may examine it without the excitements of prejudice, and as an unbiased spectator, we are not able, after all, to accomplish the designs–the failure always shows our deficiency of skill in persuasion, and should humble us as preachers. The truth is, if we present the subject in the abstract, it will not be received so by the hearer. If we do not bring him into the question, he will bring himself in; neither our art nor eloquence can avoid it. And he usually comes prepared to defend himself, in some manner or in some degree, from the imputation which his own consciousness has suggested. Guilt is suspicious: This is John the Baptist risen from the dead. We can not speak of those attributes of the Deity necessarily associated with his being reconciled to an offender, without awakening something of the self-love and pride, if not something of the prejudice of him who still needs reconciliation. The nature of the case, therefore, renders it hard to give the proper impression to such a one. The Deity will be regarded, by those who have never been taught by the Spirit, in some measure as an enemy; and in such a case, surely, it would be the height of human candor to examine his character and his offers with unprejudiced fairness.

We are far from believing that most men design to run into this abuse. However self-love or self-respect might lead them to plead their cause strongly if they were to speak upon it, we are far from supposing they soberly intend to be uncandid when only called upon to think. To deceive and willingly ruin themselves is a thing distant from their designs. No man is willing to deceive and destroy himself.

But men desire to avoid the present unhappiness which the truth might create. Their hearts are opposed to it. And for these reasons they hazard the unhappy consequences of the future. In this sense they are guilty of willing self-deception and its wretched results. For these reasons they are not apt to look impartially at the character of God.

But this matter is no less important than difficult. An error here is particularly unfortunate and hazardous. All our ideas of religion are intimately connected with the character of God. That character lays the foundation of all that man can hope, and of what man must be. And if we have a false notion of that character, we shall have false notions of religion; the God we worship will be an imaginary God; the homage we render will be agreeable to our misconceptions; our religion, begun in error, will end in wretchedness, and we ourselves shall become those of whom it is said, deceiving and being deceived.

Read the rest of this entry »