aa 3 & ene Se eee Sedan uadebol SS Ec ineere ae Se read ‘sess seen eee She he Bales te apeked op zohs RG a Spee = ers ata ade Sess EES: OE 9 ero Fue hipaa 94: ani if halege on, of God Soi KN Mee Oy EB ee 19 me LOL [ aS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD BY ARTHUR W. PINK. AUTHOR OF “The Redeemer’s Return” “The Divine Inspiration of the Bible” ‘Satan and His Gospel” etc., etc. BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT SWENGEL, PA. a t ‘ *% & bs re ae, tree oe >< fax, ae wi: yh > ay’. s A lh - erred ang 2 5 % aie | +” Be PaO aU ee ace rl) eh ae Se - \, = 4 7 ine ¥ s ritLe.- P F Co - ad Page ” Ss FN artsy fs A "4 « c 4 P K COPYRIGHT 1918 | BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT SWENGEL, PA. » ; rs Pi eI] or ; *, ve J * ¢¢ . FE i ‘ , ‘ F) ‘ ( b t ' 4 | ; : : mae Pa c , rY Z 4 f i ares Bose | ae a y ‘ set ce sais 4 ff ° be ee : '€- CHAP. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Foreword to the First Edition .. Kean (ter oratis Set Ale Foreword to the Second Edition ..........s...0. PI TOCUCEIOD dn eee eae Pa tte ad die, Shoe eae Le . The Sovereignty of God Defined ................ . The Sovereignty of God in Creation ............. . The Sovereignty of God in Administration ...... . The Sovereignty of God in Salvation ............ . The Sovereignty of God in Reprobation ..... AWE . The Sovereignty of God in Operation ............ _ God’s Sovereignty and the Human Will .......... _ God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility .... Wod sEpOovercionty wand brayeri... ooo. bealns ss 4s Our Attitude toward God’s Sovereignty ......... Cul leseanOueD JeCLOUSG. wey earn eens Sore WaliecOL Liiss OCtrING: & WA sth ee Gee te CTICIUSIOTI ON Os scone eae eer hen reap anh 7 y asc od 3:16 Pe are ye Cea eee a Bh ete te ee er algal Silly FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https ://archive.org/details/sovereigntyofgod00pink_O FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION. examine anew in the light of God’s Word some of gees. the profoundest questions which can engage the human mind. Others have grappled with these mighty prob- lems in days gone by and from their labors we are the gain- ers. While making no claim for originality the writer, never- theless, has endeavored to examine and deal with his sub- ject from an entirely independent viewpoint. We have studied diligently the writings of such men as Augustine and Acquinas, Calvin and Melancthon, Jonathan Edwards and Ralph Erskine, Andrew Fuller and Robert Haldane.* And sad it is to think that these eminent and honored names are almost entirely unknown to the present generation. Though, of course, we do not endorse all their conclusions, yet we gladly acknowledge our deep indebtedness to their works. We have purposely refrained from quoting freely from these deeply taught theologians, because we desired that the faith of our readers should stand not in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. For this reason we have quoted freely from the Scriptures and have sought to fur- nish proof-texts for every statement we have advanced. It would be foolish for us to expect that this work will meet with general approval. The trend of modern theology —if theology it can be called—is ever toward the deification of the creature rather than the glorification of the Creator, and the leaven of present-day Rationalism is rapidly perme- qe the following pages an attempt has been made to *Among those who have dealt most helpfully with the subject of God’s Sovereignty in recent years we mention Drs. Rice, J. B. Moody, and Bishop, from whose writings we have also received instruction. 8 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD ating the whole of Christendom. The malevolent effects of Darwinianism are more far reaching than most are aware. Many of those among our religious leaders who are still regarded as orthodox would, we fear, be found to be very heterodox if they were weighed in the balances of the Sanc- tuary. Even those who are clear, intellectually, upon pro- phetic and dispensational truth, are rarely sound in doctrine. Few, very few, today, really believe in the complete ruin and total depravity of man. Those who speak of man’s “free will,” and insist upon his inherent power to either accept or reject the Saviour, do but voice their ignorance of the real condition of Adam’s fallen children. And if there are few who believe that, so far as he is concerned, the condition of the sinner is entirely hopeless, there are fewer still who really believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God. In addition to the widespread effects of unscriptural teach- ing, we also have to reckon with the deplorable super ficial- ity of the present generation. To announce that a certain book is a treatise on doctrine is quite sufficient to prejudice against it the great bulk of church-members and most of our preachers as well. The craving today is for something light and spicy, and few have patience, still less desire, to examine carefully that which would make a demand both upon their hearts and their mental powers. We remember, also, how that it is becoming increasingly difficult in these strenuous days for those who are desirous of studying the - deeper things of God to find the time which such study re- quires. Yet, it is still true that “Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” and in spite of the discouraging features referred to, we believe there is even now a godly remnant who will take pleasure in giving this little work a careful considera- tion, and such will, we trust, find in it “(Meat in due season.” We do not forget the words of one long since passed away, namely, that “Denunciation is the last resort of a de- FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION 9 feated opponent.” To dismiss this book with the contemptu- ous epithet—‘‘Hyper—Calvanism”! will not be worthy of notice. - For controversy we have no taste, and we shall not accept any challenge to enter the lists against those who might desire to debate the truths discussed in these pages. So far as our personal reputation is concerned, that we leave our Lord to take care of, and unto Him we would now commit this volume and whatever fruit it may bear, praying Him to use it for the enlightening of His own dear people (insofar as it is in accord with His Holy Word) and to pardon the writer for and preserve the reader from the injurious effects of any false teaching that may have crept into it. If the joy and comfort which have come to the au- thor while penning these pages are shared by those who may scan them, then we shall be devoutly thankful to the One whose grace alone enables us to discern spiritual things. June 1918. ARTHUR W. PINK. FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION. ~ FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION. It is now two years since the first edition of this work was presented to the Christian public. Its reception has been far more favorable than the author had expected. Many have notified him of the help and blessing received from a perusal of his attempts to expound what is admittedly a difficult subject. For every word of appreciation we return hearty thanks to Him in Whose light we alone “‘see light.” A few have condemned the book in unqualified terms, and these we commend to God and to the Word of His grace, remember- ing that it is written, “a man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven” (John 3:27). Others have sent us friendly criticisms and these have been weighed carefully, and we trust that, in consequence, this revised edition will be unto those who are members of the household of faith more profitable than the former one. One word of explanation seems to be called for.. A num- ber of respected brethren in Christ feel that our treatment of the Sovereignty of God was too extreme and one-sided. It has been pointed cut that a fundamental requirement in ex- pounding the Word of God is the need of preserving the bal- ance of Truth. With this we are in hearty accord. Two things are beyond dispute: God is sovereign, and man is a responsible creature. But in this book we are treating of the Sovereignty of God, and while the responsibility of man 1s readily owned, yet, we do not pause on every page to insist on it; instead, we have sought to stress that side of the Truth which in these days is almost universally neglected. Prob- ably 95 per cent. of the religious literature of the day is de- voted to a setting forth of the duties and obligations of men. 14 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD The fact is that those who undertake to expound the Re- sponsibility of man are the very ones who have Jost ‘the bal- ance of Truth’ by ignoring, very largely, the Sovereignty of God. It is perfectly right to insist on the responsibility of man, but what of God?—has He no claims, no rights! A hundred such works as this are needed, ten thousand ser- mons would have to be preached throughout the land on this subject, if the ‘balance of Truth’ is to be regained. The ‘balance of Truth’ has been lost, lost through a dispropor- tionate emphasis being thrown on the human side, to the minimizing, if not the exclusion, of the Divine side. We grant that this book is one-sided, for it only pretends to deal with one side of the Truth, and that is, the neglected side, the Divine side. Furthermore, the question might be raised ; Which is the more to be deplored—an over emphasizing of the human side and an insufficient emphasis on the Divine side, or, an over emphasizing of the Divine side and an insufh- cient emphasis on the human side? Surely, if we err at all it is on the right side. Surely, there is far more danger of making too much of man and too little of God, than there is of making too much of God and too little of man. Yea, the question might well be asked, Can we press God’s claims too far? Can we be too extreme in insisting upon the absolute- ness and universality of the Sovereignty of God? It is with profound thankfulness to God that, after a further two years diligent study of Holy Writ, with the earnest desire to discover what almighty God has been pleased to reveal to His children on this subject, we are able to testify that we see no reason for making any retractions from what we wrote before, and while we have re-arranged the material of this work, the substance and doctrine of it remains unchanged. May the One Who condescended to bless the first edition of this work be pleased to own even more widely this revision. - ArtTHuR W. PINK, Ig2!. SWENGEL, Pa. INTRODUCTION. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.’ Acts: 17 212; ee won a INTRODUCTION. amination of the teaching of Holy Scripture con- y NSS cerning God’s relationship to our earth. Today, everything appears to be out of joint. Thrones are creak- ing and tottering, ancient dynasties are being over- turned, democracies are revolting, civilization is a demon- strated failure, half of Christendom was but recently locked together in a death grapple, and now that the titanic conflict is over, instead of having made the world safe for democracy, we are discovering that democracy is very unsafe for the world. Unrest, discontent, and lawlessness are rife every- where, and none can say how soon another great war will be set in motion. Statesmen are perplexed and staggered. Men’s hearts are “failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth” (Luke 21:26). Many are declaring that Christianity is a failure, and despair is settling on many faces. Not a few of the Lord’s own people are bewildered, and their faith is being severely tried. And what of God? Does He see and hear? Is He impotent or indifferent? A number of those who are regarded as leaders of Christian thought are telling us that God could not help the coming of the late awful War and that He was unable to bring about its termination. It was said, and said openly, that conditions were beyond God’s control. But what saith the Scriptures? What saith the Scriptures? Ere we consider the direct reply to this query, let it be said that, the Scriptures pre- dicted just what we now see and hear. The prophecy of Jude is in course of fulfillment. It would lead us too far FC) sina world-conditions call loudly for a re-ex- 18 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD astray from our present inquiry to fully amplify this as- sertion but what we have particularly in mind is a sen- tence in verse 8—“Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion and speak evil of dignities.” Yes, they “speak evil” of the Supreme Dignity, the “Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.” Ours is peculiarly an age of irreverence, and as the consequence, the spirit of lawlessness which brooks no restraint and which is desirous of casting off everything which interferes with the free course of self-will is rapidly engulfing the earth like some giant tidal wave. The members of the rising generation are the most flagrant offenders, and in the decay and disappearing of parental authority we have the certain precursor of the abolition of civic authority. Therefore, in view of the growing disrespect for human law and the refusal to “render honor to whom honor is due,” we need not be sur- prised that the recognition of the majesty, the authority, the sovereignty of the Almighty Law-giver should recede more and more into the background and that the masses have less and less patience with those who insist upon them.. And conditions will not improve; instead, the more sure Word of Prophecy makes known to us that they will grow worse and worse, until they culminate in the manifestation and reign of the Man of Sin—the “Lawless One’—who shall openly challenge and defy God Himself. Nor do we expect to be able to stem the tide—it has already risen much too high for that. All we can now hope to do is warn our fellow saints against the spirit of the age and seek to counteract its baneful influence upon them. It is in view of what we have briefly referred to above that we say, Present-day conditions call loudly for a new examination and new presentation of God’s omnipotency, God’s sufficiency, God’s sovereignty. From every pulpit in the land it needs to be thundered forth that God still INTRODUCTION 19 lives, that God still observes, that God still reigns. Faith is now in the crucible, it ts being tested by fire, and there is no fixed and sufficient resting-place for the heart and mind but in the Throne of God. What is needed now, as never before, is a full, positive, constructive setting forth of the Godhood of God. Drastic diseases call for drastic remedies. People are weary of platitudes and mere gen- eralizations—the call is for something definite and spe- cific. Soothing-syrup may serve for peevish children, but an iron tonic is better suited for adults, and we know of nothing which is better calculated to infuse spiritual vigor into our frames than a scriptural apprehension of the full character of God. It is written, “The people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits” (Dan. 11:32). Without a doubt a world crisis is at hand, and every- where men are alarmed. But God is not! He is never taken by surprise. It is no un-expected emergency which now confronts Him, for He is the One who “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will’ (Eph. 1:11). Hence, though the world is panic-stricken, the word to the believer is, “Fear not’! “All things” are subject to His immediate control: “all things” are moving in accord with His eternal purpose, and therefore, “all things” are “working together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.” It must be so, for “of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things’ (Rom. 11:36). Yet how little is this realised today even by the people of God! Ours is an age of practical atheism when men would shut God out from His own creation. In the material world every- thing is ordered by the “laws of Nature,” and in the human realm man’s “free will” is supreme, until, at best, Deity is nothing more than a far distant Spectator. It is true that man has a will, but so also has God. It is true that man is endowed with power, but God is all-powerful. It is true that, 20 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD speaking generally, the material world is regulated by law, but behind that law is the law-Giver and law-Administrator. Man is but the creature. God is the Creator, and endless ages before man first saw the light “the mighty God” (Isa. 9:6) existed, and ere the world was founded, made His plans; and being infinite in power and man only finite, His pur- pose and plan cannot be withstood or thwarted by the crea- tures of His own hands. We readily acknowledge that life is a profound problem and that we are surrounded by mystery on every side; but we are not like the beasts of the field—ignorant of their origin, and unconscious of what is before them. No: “We have also a more sure Word of Prophecy” of which it is said ye do well that ye ‘“‘take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts” (2 Pet. 1:19). And it is to this Word of Prophecy we indeed do well to “take heed,” to that Word which had not its origin in the mind of man but in the Mind of God, for, “the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake moved by the Holy Spirit.” We say again, it is to this “Word” we do well to take heed. As we turn to this Word and are instructed thereout, we discover a fundamental principle which must be applied to every problem: Instead of beginning with man and his world and working back to God, we must begin with God and work down to man—“In the beginning God”! Apply this principle to the present situation. Begin with the world as it is today and try and work back to God, and everything will seem to show that God has no connection with the world at all. But begin with God and work down to the world and light, much light, is cast on the problem. Because God is holy His anger burns against sin; because God is righteous His judgments fall upon those who rebel against Him; because God is faithful the solemn INTRODUCTION 21 threatenings of His Word are fulfilled, because God is omnipotent none can successfully resist Him, still less over- throw His counsel; and because God is omniscient no prob- lem can master Him and no difficulty baffle His wisdom. It is just because God is who He is and what He is that we are now beholding on earth what we do—the beginning of His outpoured judgments: in view of His inflexible justice and immaculate holiness we could not expect any- thing other than what is now spread before our eyes. Here is the fundamental difference between the man of faith and the man of unbelief. The unbeliever is “of the world,” judges everything by worldly standards, views life from the standpoint of time and sense, and weighs every- thing in the balances of his own carnal making. But the man of faith brings im God, looks at everything from His standpoint, estimates values by spiritual standards, and views life in the light of eternity. Doing this, he receives whatever comes as from the hand of God. Doing this, his heart is calm in the midst of the storm. Doing this, he rejoices in hope of the glory of God. ° In these opening paragraphs we have indicated the lines of thought followed out in this book. Our first postulate is that because God 1s God He does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases; that His great concern is the accomplishment of His own pleasure and the promotion of His own glory; that He is the Supreme Being, and there- fore Sovereign of the universe. Starting with this postulate we have contemplated the erercise of God’s Sovereignty, first in Creation, second in Governmental Administration over the works of His hands, third in the Salvation of His own elect, fourth in the Reprobation of the wicked, and fifth in Operation upon and within men. Next we have viewed the Sovereignty of God as it relates to the human Will in particular and human Responsibility in general, and 22 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD have sought to show what is the only becoming attitude for the creature to take in view of the majesty of the Creator. A separate chapter has been devoted to a consideration of some of the difficulties which are involved and to answering the questions which are likely to be raised in the minds of our readers, while one chapter has been devoted to a more careful yet brief examination of God’s Sovereignty in rela- tion to Prayer, and another chapter takes up God’s Sover- eignty in relation to Service. Finally, we have sought to show that the Sovereignty of God is a truth revealed to us in Scripture for the comfort of our hearts, the strengthening of our souls, and the blessing of our lives. A due apprehen- sion of God’s Sovereignty promotes the spirit of worship, provides an incentive to practical godliness, and inspires zeal in service. It is deeply humbling to the human heart, but in proportion to the degree that it brings man into the dust before his Maker, to that extent is God glorified. We are well aware that what we have written is in open opposition to much of the teaching that is current both in religious literature and in the representative pulpits of the land. We freely grant that the postulate of God’s Sovereignty with all its corollaries is at direct variance with the opinions and thoughts of the natural man, but the truth is, we are quite unable to think upon these matters: we are incompe- tent for forming a proper estimate of God’s character and ways, and it is because of this that God has given us a revela- tion of His mind, and in that revelation He plainly de- clares “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is. 55:8,9). In view of this Scripture it is only to be expected that much of the contents of the Bible conflicts with the sentiments of the carnal mind which is at enmity against God. Our ap- INTRODUCTION 23 peal then is not to popular beliefs of the day, nor to the creeds of the churches, but to the Law and Testimony of Jehovah. All that we ask is for an impartial and attentive examination of what we have written, and that, made prayer- fully in the light of the Lamp of Truth. May the reader heed the Divine admonition to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). CHAPTER ONE. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY DEFINED. _“Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as Head above all.” I Chron. 29:11. l. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED. HE Sovereignty of God is an expression that once Gy was generally understood. It was a phrase com- “ monly used in religious literature. It was a theme frequently expounded in the pulpit. It was a truth which brought comfort to many hearts and gave virility and sta- bility to Christian character. But, today, to make mention of God’s Sovereignty is, in many quarters, to speak in an unknown tongue. Were we to announce from the average pulpit that the subject of our discourse would be the Sov- ereignty of God it would sound very much as though we had borrowed a phrase from one of the dead languages. Alas! that it should be so. Alas! that the doctrine which is the key to history, the interpreter of Providence, the warp and woof of Scripture, and the foundation of Christian the- ology, should be so sadly neglected and so little understood. The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the Supremacy of God, the Kingship of God, the Godhood of God. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High doing according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purposes, or resist His will (Ps. 115:3). To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is “The Governor among the nations” (Ps. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the 28 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the “Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible. How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which pre- vails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blas- phemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popu- lar mind is the creation of a maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence.* To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ, when, as a matter of common observation it is apparent that the great majority of our fellow-men are dying in sin and passing into a hopeless eternity, is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dis-satisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is “trying His best” to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being. *Not long since an evangelical (?) preacher of nation-wide reputa- tion visited the town in which we then were, and during the course of his address kept repeating “Poor God! Poor God!” Surely it is this “preacher” who needs to be pitied. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 29 To declare that the Creator’s original plan has been frus- trated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam’s fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain” (Ps. 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which if followed to its logical terminus is to arrive at blank atheism. The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe, which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i.e., that He may mould that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no - obligation to give an account of.His matters to any. Sovereignty characterises the whole Being of God. He is sovereign in all His attributes. He is sovereign in the exercise of His power. His power is exercised as He wills, when He wills, where He wills. This fact is evidenced on— every page of Scripture. For a long season that power appears to lie dormant and then it is put forth in irresistible 30 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD might. Pharaoh dared to hinder Israel from going forth to worship Jehovah in the wilderness—what happened? God exercised His power, His people were delivered and their cruel task-masters slain. But a little later, the Amalekites dared to attack these same Israelites in the wilderness, and what happened? Did God put forth His power on this occasion and display His hand as He did at the Red Sea? Were these enemies of His people promptly overthrown and destroyed? No, on the contrary, the Lord swore that He would “have war with Amalek from generation to genera- tion” (Ex. 17:16). Again, when Israel entered the land of Canaan, God’s power was signally displayed. The city of Jer- icho barred their progress—what happened? Israel did not draw a bow nor strike a blow: the Lord stretched forth His hand and the walls fell down flat. But the miracle was never repeated! No other city fell after this manner. Every other city had to be captured by the sword! Many other instances might be adduced illustrating the sovereign exercise of God’s power. Take one other example. God put forth His power and David was delivered from Goliath, the giant; the mouths of the lions were closed and Daniel escaped unhurt; the three Hebrew children were cast into the burning fiery furnace and came forth unharmed and unscorched. But God's power did not always interpose . for the deliverance of His people, for we read: “And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins ; being destitute, afflicted, tormented” (Heb. 11:36, 37). But why? Why were not these men of faith delivered like the others? Or, why were not the others suffered to be killed like these? Why should God’s power interpose and rescue some and not the others? THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 31 God is sovereign in the delegation of His power to others. Why did God endow Methuselah with a vitality which en- abled him to outlive all his contemporaries? Why did God impart to Samson a physical strength which no other human has ever possessed? Again; it is written, “But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God: for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth” (Deut. 8:18), but God does not be- stow this power on all alike. Why not? Why has He given such power to men like Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller? The answer to all of these questions, is, Because God is Sovereign, and being Sovereign He does as He pleases. God is sovereign in the exercise of His mercy. Neces- sarily so, for mercy is directed by the will of Him that showeth mercy. Mercy is not a right to which man is en- titled. Mercy is that adorable attribute of God by which He pities and relieves the wretched. But under the right- eous government of God no one is wretched who does not deserve tobe so. The objects of mercy, then, are those who are miserable, and all misery is the result of sin, hence the miserable are deserving of punishment not mercy, To speak of deserving mercy is a contradiction of terms. God bestows His mercies on whom He pleases and with- holds them as seemeth good unto Himself. A remarkable illustration of this fact is seen in the manner that God re- sponded to the prayers of two men offered under very simi- lar circumstances. Sentence of death was passed upon Moses for one act of disobedience, and he besought the Lord for a reprieve. But was his desire gratified? No he told Israel, “The Lord is wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and the Lord said unto me, Let it suffice thee” (Deut. 3:26). Now mark the second case:—‘“In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou 32 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD shalt die, and not live. Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying, I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before Thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in Thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, J have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years” (2 Kings 20:1-6). Both of these men had the sentence of death in themselves and both prayed earnestly unto the Lord’for a reprieve: the one wrote: “The Lord would not hear me,” and died, but to the other it was said, “I have heard thy prayer” and his life was spared. What an illustration and exemplification , of the truth expressed in Rom. 9:15!—‘For He saith to ~ Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” The sovereign exercise of God’s mercy—pity shown to the wretched—was displayed when Jehovah became flesh and tabernacled among men. Take one illustration. Dur- ing one of the Feasts of the Jews, the Lord Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He came to the Pool of Bethesda where lay “a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, with- ered, waiting for the moving of the water.” Among this “Great multitude” there was “a certain man which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.” What happened? ‘When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole? The impotent man answered Him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 33 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked” (John 5:3-9). Why was this one man singled out from all the others? We are not told that he cried “Lord, have mercy on me.” There is not a word in the narrative which intimates that this man possessed any quali- fications which entitled him to receive special favor. Here then was a case of the sovereign exercise of Divine mercy, for it was just as easy for Christ to heal the whole of that “great multitude” as this one “certain man.’ But He did not. He put forth His power and relieved the wretchedness of this one particular sufferer, and for some reason known only to Himself, He declined to do the same for the others. Again we say, what an illustration and exemplification of Rom. 9:15 !—“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have com- passion.” God is sovereign in the exercise of His love. Ah! that is a hard saying, who then can receive it? It is written, “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven” (John 3:27). When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that: He loves whom He chooses. God does not love everybody*; if He did, He would love the Devil. Why does not God love the Devil? Because there is nothing in him to love; because there is nothing in him to attract the heart of God. Nor is there anything to attract God’s love in any of the fallen sons of Adam, for all of them are, by nature, “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). If then there is nothing in any member of the human race to attract God’s love, and if, notwithstand- ing, He does love some, then it necessarily follows that the cause of His love must be found in Himself, which is only *John 3:16 will be examined on page 253. 34 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD another way of saying that the exercise of God’s love to- wards the fallen sons of men is according to His own good pleasure.* In the final analysis, the exercise of God’s love must be traced back to His sovereignty, or, otherwise, He would love by rule, and if He loved by rule, then is He under a. law of love, and if He is under a Jaw of love then is He not supreme, but is Himself ruled by law. “But,” it may be asked, “Surely you do not deny that God loves the entire human family?” We reply, it is written, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:13). If then God loved Jacob and hated Esau and that, before they were born or had done either good or evil, then the reason for His love was not in them, but in Himself. That the exercise of God’s love is according to His own sovereign pleasure is also clear from the language of Eph. I :3-5, where we read, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him. Jn love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will.’ It was “in love” that God the Father predestined His chosen ones unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, ““according”—according to what? Accord- ing to some excellency He discovered in them? No. What then? According to what He foresaw they would become? No; mark carefully the inspired answer—‘According to the good pleasure of Hts will.’ *We are not unmindful of the fact that in the last century men invented the distinction between God’s love of complacency and His love of compassion, but this 1s an invention pure and simple. Scrip- ture terms the latter God’s “pity” (see Matt. 18:33), and also “He is kind unto the unthankful and the evil” (Luke 6:35) ! THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 35 God is sovereign in the exercise of His grace. his of necessity, for grace is favor shown to the un-deserving, yea, to the Hell-deserving. Grace is the antithesis of justice. Justice demands the impartial enforcement of law. Justice requires that each shall receive his legitimate due, neither more nor less. Justice bestows no favors and is no respecter of persons. Justice, as such, shows no pity and knows no mercy. But after justice has been fully satished, grace flows forth. Divine grace is not exercised at the expense of justice, but “grace reigns through righteousness” (Rom. 5:21) and if grace “reigns” then is grace sovereign. Grace has been defined as the unmerited favor of God ;* and if unmerited then none can claim it as their inalienable right. If grace is unearned and undeserved, then none are entitled to it. If grace is a gift then none can demand it. Therefore as salvation is by grace, the free gift of God, then He bestows it on whom He pleases. Because salvation is by grace, the very chief of sinners is not beyond the reach of Divine mercy. Because salvation is by grace, boasting is excluded and God gets all the glory. The sovereign exercise of grace is illustrated on nearly every page of Scripture. The Gentiles are left to walk in their own ways while Israel becomes the covenant people of Jehovah. Ishmael the firstborn is cast out unblest, while Isaac the son of his parents’ old age is made the child of promise. Esau the generous-hearted and forgiving-spirited is denied the blessing, though he sought it carefully with *An esteemed friend who kindly read through this book in its manuscript form, and to whom we are indebted for a number of excellent suggestions, has pointed out, that grace is something more than “unmerited favor.” To feed a tramp who calls on me is “anmerited favor,” but it is scarcely grace. But suppose that after robbing me I should feed this starving tramp—that would be “grace.” Grace, then, is favor shown where there is positive de-merit in the one receiving it. 36 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD tears, while the worm Jacob receives the inheritance and is fashioned into a vessel of honor. So in the New Testament. Divine truth is hidden from the wise and prudent, but is revealed to babes. The Pharisees and Sadducees are left to go their own way, while publicans and harlots are drawn by the cords of love. In a remarkable manner Divine grace was exercised at the time of the Saviour’s birth. The incarnation of God’s Son was one of the greatest events in the history of the universe and yet its actual occurrence was not made known to all mankind, instead, it was specially revealed to the Bethlehem shepherds and wise men of the East. And this was pro- phetic and indicative of the entire course of this dispensation, for even today Christ is not made known to all. It would have been an easy matter for God to have sent a company of angels to every nation and announced the birth of His Son. But He did not. God could have readily attracted the attention of all mankind to the “star ;’ but He did not. Why? Because God is sovereign and dispenses His favors as He pleases. Note particularly the two classes to whom the birth of the Saviour was made known, namely, the most unlikely classes—illiterate shepherds, and heathen from a far country. No angel stood before the Sanhedrin and an- nounced the advent of Israel’s Messiah! No “star” ap- peared unto the scribes and lawyers as they, in their pride and self-righteousness, searched the Scriptures! They searched diligently to find out where He should be born, and yet it was not made known to them when He was actually come. What a display of Divine sovereignty—the illiterate shepherds singled out for peculiar honor, and the learned and eminent passed by! And why was the birth of the Saviour revealed to these foreigners and not to those in whose midst He was born? See in this a wonderful fore- shadowing of God’s dealings with our race throughout the THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD DEFINED 37 entire Christian dispensation—sovereign in the exercise of His grace, bestowing His favors on whom He pleases, often on the most unlikely and unworthy.* *It has been pointed out to us that God’s sovereignty was signally displayed in His choice of the place where His Son was born. Not to Greece or Italy did the Lord of Glory come, but to the insignificant land of Palestine! Not in Jerusalem—the royal city—was Imman- uel born, but in Bethlehem, which was “little among the thousands (of towns and villages) in Judah” (Micah 5:2)! And it was in despised Nazareth that He grew up!! Truly, God’s ways are not ours. CHAPTER TWO. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN CREATION. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.” REVa Aci. = ie Pe ata ich. * 2. , ‘ « ~” , ae ‘ So ¥ 4 ‘ : i ba é D ’ a ~~ + . ' x ey | f 4 ) he | ‘ ‘ ‘ Ls > on : . wy eo ‘ at < ’ cA wm i ji f - ' vad rope AK jo gt eT ase "y ‘ “ ) ny ‘ ‘ f 4 s ’ *. [l. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN CREATION. FEBS note shown that Sovereignty characterises the whole Being of God, let us now observe how it marks yew G all His ways and dealings. In the great expanse of eternity which stretches behind Genesis 1:1 the universe was unborn and creation existed only in the mind of the great Creator. In His sovereign majesty God dwelt all alone. We refer to that far distant period before the heavens and the earth were created. There were then no angels to sing God’s praises, no creatures to oc- cupy His notice, no rebels to be brought into subjection. The great God was all alone amid the awful silence of His own vast universe. But even at that time, if time it could be called, God was sovereign. He might create or not create according to His own good pleasure. He might create this way or that way; He might create one world or one million worlds and who was there to resist His will? He might call into existence a million different creatures and place them on absolute equality, endowing them with the same faculties and placing them in the same environment; or, He might create a million creatures each differing from the others and possessing nothing in common save their creature- hood, and who was there to challenge His right? If He so pleased, He might call into existence a world so immense that its dimensions were utterly beyond finite computation ; and were He so disposed He might create an organism so small that nothing but the most powerful microscope could reveal its existence to human eyes. It was His sovereign right to create, on the one hand, the exalted seraphim to burn around His throne, and on the other hand, the tiny insect 42 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD which dies the same hour that it is born. If the mighty God chose to have one vast gradation in His universe from loftiest seraph to creeping reptile, from revolving worlds to floating atom, from macrocosm to microcosm, instead of making everything uniform, who was there to question His sovereign pleasure? Behold then the exercise of Divine sovereignty long before man ever saw the light. With whom took God counsel in the creation and disposition of His creatures. See the birds as they fly through the air, the beasts as they roam the earth, the fishes as they swim in the sea, and then ask, Who was it that made them to differ? Was it not their Creator who sovereignly assigned their various locations and adaptations to them! Turn your eye to the heavens and observe the mysteries of Divine sovereignty which there confront the thoughtful beholder. “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory” (1 Cor. 15:41), but why should they? Why should the sun be more glorious than all the other planets? Why should there be stars of the first magnitude and others of the tenth? Why such amazing inequalities? Why should some of the heavenly bodies be more favorably placed than others in their relation to the sun? And why should there be ‘shooting stars,’ falling stars, “wandering stars” (Jude 13), ina word, ruined stars? And the only possible answer is, “For Thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). Come now to our own planet. Why should two thirds of its surface be covered with water, and why should so much of its remaining third be unfit for human cultivation or habitation? Why should there be vast stretches of marshes, deserts and ice-fields? Why should one country be so inferior, topographically, from another? Why should THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN CREATION 43 one be fertile, and another almost barren? Why should one be rich in minerals and another own none? Why should the climate of one be congenial and healthy, and another uncongenial and unhealthy? Why should one abound in rivers and lakes, and another be almost devoid of them? Why should one be constantly troubled with earthquakes and another be almost entirely free from them? Why? Because thus it pleased the Creator and Upholder of all things. Consider the angelic hosts. Surely we shall find uni- formity here. But no; here, as elsewhere, the same sov- ereign pleasure of the Creator is displayed. Some are higher in rank than others; some are more powerful than others; some are nearer to God than others. Scripture reveals a definite and well defined gradation in the angelic orders. From arch-angel, past seraphim and cherubim, we come to “principalities and powers” (Eph. 3:10), and from princi- palities and powers to “rulers” (Eph. 6:12), and then to the angels themselves, and even among them we read of “the elect angels” (1 Tim. 5:21). Again we ask, Why this in- equality, this difference in rank and order. And all we can say is “Our God is in the heavens, He hath done whatso- ever He hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). Look at the animal kingdom and note the wondrous variety. What comparison is possible between the lion and the lamb, the bear and the kid, the elephant and the mouse? Some, like the horse and the dog, are gifted with great intelligence ; while others, like sheep and swine, are almost devoid of it. Why? Some are designed to be beasts of burden, while others enjoy a life of freedom. But why should the mule and the donkey be shackled to a life of drudgery, while the lion and tiger are allowed to roam the jungle at their pleasure? Some are fit for food, others 44 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD unfit; some are beautiful, others ugly; some are endowed with great strength, others are quite helpless; some are fleet of foot, others can scarcely crawl—contrast the hare and the tortoise; some are of use to man, others appear to be quite valueless ; some live for centuries, others a few months at most; some are tame, others fierce. But why all these variations and differences? What is true of the animals is equally true of the birds and fishes. But consider now the vegetable kingdom. Why should roses have thorhs, and lilies grow without them? Why should one flower emit a fragrant aroma and another have none? Why should one tree bear fruit which is whole- some and another that which is poisonous? Why should one vegetable be capable of enduring frost and another wither under it? Why should one apple tree be loaded with fruit, and another tree of the same age and in the same orchard be almost barren? Why should one plant flower a dozen times in a year and another bear blossoms but once a century ? Truly “whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in the earth, in the seas, and all deep places” (Ps. 135:0). If then we see the Sovereignty of God displayed through- out all creation why should it be thought a strange thing if we behold it operating in the midst of the human family? Why should it be thought strange if to one God is pleased to give five talents and to another only one? Why should it be thought strange if one is born with a robust constitution and another of the same parents is frail and sickly? Why should it be thought strange if Abel is cut off in his prime, while Cain is suffered to live on for many years? Why should it be thought strange that some should be born black and others white; some be born idiots and others with high intellectual endowments; some be born constitutionally lethargic and others full of energy; some be born with a temperament that is selfish, fiery, egotistical, others who are naturally self-sac- THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 1N CREATION 45 rificing, submissive and meek? Why should it be thought strange if some are qualified by nature to lead and rule, while others are only fitted to follow and serve? Heredity and environment cannot account for all these variations and inequalities. No; it is God who maketh one to differ from another. Why should He? “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight” must be our reply. Learn then this basic truth, that the Creator is absolute Sovereign, executing His own will, performing His own pleasure, and considering nought but His own glory. “The Lord hath made all things FOR HIMSELF” (Prov. 16:4). ~ Ls" TE Pele Raa EER By THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION. “The Lord hath prepared His Throne in the heavens; and His Kingdom ruleth over all.” Psalnie10310: Ill. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION. ~— ~~ SR IRST, a word concerning the need for God to govern t the material world. Suppose the opposite for a mo- es ment. For the sake of argument, let us say that God created the world, designed and fixed certain laws (which men term “the laws of Nature’), and that He then with- drew, leaving the world to its fortune and the out-working of these laws. In such a case, we should have a world over which there was no intelligent, presiding Governor, a world controlled by nothing more than impersonal laws—a concept worthy of gross Materialism and blank Atheism. But, I say, suppose it for a moment; and in the light of such a suppo- sition, weigh well the following question :—What guaranty have we that some day ere long the world will not be de- stroyed? A very superficial observation of ‘the laws of Nature’ reveals the fact that they are not uniform in their working. The proof of this is seen in the fact that no two seasons are alike. If then Nature’s laws are irregular in their operations, what guaranty have we against some dread- ful catastrophe striking our earth? “The wind bloweth where it listeth’ (pleaseth), which means that man can neither harness nor control it. Sometimes the wind blows with great fury, and it might be that it should suddenly gather in volume and velocity until it became a hurricane earth-wide in its range. If there is nothing more than the laws of Nature regulating the wind, then, perhaps tomorrow, there may come a terrific tornado and sweep everything from the surface of the earth. What assurance have we against sucha calamity? Again; of late years we have heard and read much about clouds bursting and flooding whole dis- 50 THE SOVEREIGN'TY OF GOD tricts, working fearful havoc in the destruction of both property and life. Man is helpless before them, for science can devise no means to prevent clouds bursting. Then how do we know that these bursting-clouds will not be multiplied indefinitely and the whole earth be deluged by their down- pour? This would be nothing new: why should not the Flood of Noah’s day be repeated? And what of earthquakes? Every few years, some island or some great city is swept out of existence by one of them—and what can man do? Where is the guaranty that-ere long a mammoth earthquake will not destroy the whole world? Science tells us of great subterranean fires burning beneath the comparatively thin crust of our earth, how do we know but what these fires will not suddenly burst forth and consume our entire globe? Surely every reader now sees the point we are seeking to make. Deny that God is governing matter, deny that He is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3) and all sense of security 1s gone! Let us pursue a similar course of reasoning in connection with the human race. Is God governing this world of ours? Is He shaping the destinies of nations, controlling the course of empires, determining the limits of dynasties? Has He prescribed the limits of evil-doers, saying, Thus far shalt thou go and no further? Let us suppose the opposite for a moment. Let us assume that God has delivered over the helm into the hand of His creatures and see where such a supposition leads us. For the sake of argument we will say that every man enters this world endowed with a will that is absolutely free, and that it is impossible to compel or even coerce him without destroying His freedom. Let us say that every man possesses a knowledge of right and wrong, that he has the power to choose between them, and that he is left en- tirely free to make his own choice and go his own way. Then what? Then it follows that man is sovereign for he does as he THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 51 pleases and is the architect of his own fortune. But in such a case we can have no assurance that ere long every man will reject the good and choose the evil. In such a case we have no guaranty against the entire human race committing moral suicide. Let all Divine restraints be removed and man be left absolutely free, and all ethical distinctions would immediate- ly disappear, the spirit of barbarism would prevail univer- sally, and pandemonium would reign supreme. Why not? If one nation deposes its rulers and repudiates its constitu- tion what is there to prevent all nations from doing the same? If little more than a century ago the streets of Paris ran with the blood of rioters, what assurance have we that before the present century closes every city throughout the world will not witness a similar sight? What is there to hinder earth- wide lawlessness and universal anarchy? Thus we have sought to show the need, the imperative need, for God to occupy the Throne, take the government upon His shoulder, and control the activities and destinies of His creatures. Having shown, in brief, the imperative need for God to reign over our world, let us now observe the fact that God does rifle, actually rule, and that His government extends to and is exercised over all things and all creatures. And, 1. GOD GOVERNS INANIMATE MATTER, That God governs inanimate matter, that inanimate matter performs His bidding and fulfils His decrees, is clearly shown on the very frontispiece of Divine revelation. God said, Let there be light, and we read, “There was light.’ God said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear,” and “at was so.” And again, “God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and tt was so.” 52 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD As the Psalmist declares, “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.” What is stated in Genesis one is afterwards illustrated all through the Bible. After the creation of Adam, sixteen cen- turies went by before ever a shower of rain fell upon the earth, for before Noah “there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Gen. 2:6). - But, when the iniquities of the antediluvians had come to the full, then God said, “And, behold, J, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die;” and in fulfillment of this we read, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights” (Gen. 6:17 and 7:11, 12). Witness God’s absolute (and sovereign) control of inani- mate matter in connection with the plagues upon Egypt. At his bidding the light was turned into darkness and rivers into blood, hail fell and death came down upon the godless land of the Nile until even its haughty monarch was compelled to cry out for deliverance. Note particularly how the inspired record here emphasizes God’s absolute control over the ele- ments—‘‘And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt. So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field. Only in the land of Goshen, where the children of Israel were, was there no hail” THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 353 (Ex. 9:23-26). The same distinction was observed in con- nection with the ninth plague: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt. And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings’ (Ex. 10:21-23). The above examples are by no means isolated cases. At God’s decree fire and brimstone descended from heaven and the cities of the Plain were destroyed, and a fertile valley was converted into a loathsome sea of death. At His bidding the waters of the Red Sea parted asunder so that the Israelites passed over dry shod, and at His word they rolled back again and destroyed the Egyptians who were pursuing them. A word from Him, and the earth opened her mouth and Korah and his rebellious company were swallowed up. The furnace of Nebuchadnezzar was heated seven times beyond its nor- mal temperature and into it three of God’s children were cast, but the fire did not so much as scorch their clothes, though it slew the men who cast them into it. What a demonstration of the Creator’s governmental con- trol over the elements was furnished when He became flesh and tabernacled among men! Behold Him asleep in the boat. A storm arises. The winds roar and the waves are lashed into fury. The disciples who are with Him, fearful lest their little craft should founder, awake their Master, saying, “Carest Thou not that we perish?” And then we read, “And He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” (Mark 4:39). Mark again, the sea, at the will of its Crea- tor, bore Him up upon its waves; at a word from Him the fig-tree withered ; at His touch disease fled instantly. 54 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD The heavenly bodies are also ruled by their Maker and per- form His sovereign pleasure. Take two illustrations. At God’s bidding the sun went back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz to help the weak faith of Hezekiah. In New Testa- ment times God caused a star to herald the incarnation of His Son—the star which appeared unto the wise men of the East. This star, we are told, “went before them till it came and stood over where the young Child was” (Matt. 2:9). What a declaration is this—“He sendeth forth His com- mandment upon earth: His word runneth very swiftly. He giveth snow like wool: He scattereth the hoar frost like ashes. He casteth forth His ice like morsels: who can stand before His cold? He sendeth out His word, and melteth them: He causeth His wind to blow, and the waters flow” (Ps. 147:15-18). The mutations of the elements are be- neath God’s sovereign control. It is God who withholds the rain, and it is God who gives the rain when He wills, where He wills, as He wills, and on whom He wills. Weather Bureaus may attempt to give forecasts of the weather, but how frequently God mocks their calculations? Sun ‘spots,’ the varying activities of the planets, the appearing and dis- appearing of comets (to which abnormal weather is some- times attributed), atmospheric disturbances, are merely sec- ondary causes, for behind them all is God Himself. Let His Word speak once more: “And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the har- vest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereon it rained not withered. So two or three cities wandered unto one city, to drink water; but they were not satisfied: yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith the Lord. I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gar- dens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye EEE EE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION = 55 not returned unto Me, saith the Lord. I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto Me, saith the Lord” (Amos 4:7-10). Truly, then, God governs inanimate matter. Earth and air, fire and water, hail and snow, stormy winds and angry seas, all perform the word of His power and fulfil His sov- ereign pleasure. 2. GOD GOVERNS IRRATIONAL CREATURES. What a striking illustration of God’s government over the animal kingdom is found in Gen. 2:19! “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air: and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Should it be said that this occured in Eden and took place before the fall of Adam and the consequent curse which was inflicted on every creature, then our next reference fully meets the ob- jection: God’s control of the beasts was again openly dis- played at the flood. Mark how God caused to “come unto”’ Noah every specie of living creature “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, of every creeping thing after his kind : two of every sort shall come unto thee’ (Gen. 6:19, 20) —all were beneath God’s sovereign control. The lion of the jungle, the elephant of the forest, the bear of the polar re- gions; the ferocious panther, the untameable wolf, the fierce tiger, the high-soaring eagle and the creeping crocodile—see them all in their native fierceness, and yet, quietly submit- 56 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD ting to the will of their Creator, and coming two by two into the ark! Above, we referred to the plagues sent upon Egypt as illustrating God’s control of inanimate matter; let us now turn to them again to see how they demonstrate His per- fect rulership over irrational creatures. At His word the river brought forth frogs abundantly, and these frogs en- tered the palace of Pharaoh and the houses of his serv- ants and, contrary to their natural instincts, they en- tered the beds, the ovens and the kneadingtroughs (Ex. 8:13). Swarms of flies invaded the land of Egypt, but there were no flies in the land of Goshen! (Ex. 8:22). Next, the cattle were stricken, and we read, “Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very griev- ous murrain. And the Lord shall sever between the cat- tle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall noth- ing die of all that is the children’s of Israel. And the Lord appointed a set time, saying, Tomorrow the Lord shall do this thing in the land. And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one” (Ex. 9:3-6). In like manner God sent clouds of locusts to plague Pharaoh and his land, appointing the time of their visitation, determining the course and assigning the limits of their depredations. Angels are not the only ones who do God’s bidding. The brute beasts equally perform His pleasure. The sa- cred ark, the ark of the covenant, is in the country of the Philistines. How is it to be brought back to its home land? Mark the servants of God’s choice and how com- pletely they were beneath His control: “And the Phi- listines called for the priests and the diviners saying, What THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION — 57 shall we do to the ark of the Lord? tell us wherewith we shall send it to his place. And they said. ... Now there- fore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them: And take the ark of the Lord, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return Him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof, and send it away that it may go. And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, then He hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not His hand that smote us; it was a chance that happened to us.” And what hap- pened? How striking the sequel! “And the kine took the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh, and went along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left’ (1 Sam. 6). Equal- ly striking is the case of Elijah: “And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, Get thee hence, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.” (1 Kings 17: 2-4). The natural instinct of these birds of prey was held in subjection and instead of consuming the food them- selves, they carried it to Jehovah’s servant in his solitary retreat. Is further proof required, then it is ready to hand. God causes a dumb ass to rebuke the prophet’s madness. He sends forth two she-bears from the woods to devour forty and two of Elijah’s tormentors. In fulfillment of His word, He causes the dogs to lick up the blood of the wick- ed Jezebel. He seals the mouths of Babylon’s lions when Daniel is cast into the den, though, later, He causes them to devour the prophet’s accusers. He prepares a great fish to swallow the disobedient Jonah and then, when His or- 58 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD dained hour struck, compelled it to vomit him forth on dry land. At His bidding a fish carries a coin to Peter for tribute money, and in order to fulfil His word He makes the cock to crow twice after Peter’s denial. Thus we see that God reigns over irrational creatures: beasts of the field, birds of the air, fishes of the sea, all perform His sovereign bidding. 3: GOD GOVERNS THE CHILDREN OF MEN. We fully appreciate the fact that this is the most dif- ficult part of our subject, and accordingly it will be dealt with at greater length in the pages that follow; but at pres- ent we consider the fact of God’s government over men in general, before we attempt to deal with the problem in de- tail. Two alternatives confront us and between them we are obliged to choose: either God governs, or He is governed; either God rules, or He is ruled; either God has His way, or men have theirs. And is our choice between these al- ternatives hard to make? Shall we say that in man we behold a creature so unruly that he is beyond God’s con- trol? Shall we say that sin has alienated the sinner so far from the thrice Holy One that he is outside the pale of His jurisdiction? Or, shall we say that man has been endowed with moral responsibility and therefore God must leave him entirely free, at least during the period of his probation? Does it necessarily follow because the natural man is an outlaw against heaven, a rebel against the Divine government, that God is unable to fulfil His purpose through him? We mean, not merely that He may overrule the effects of the actions of evil-doers, nor that He will yet bring the wicked to stand before His judgment-bar so that sentence of ptunishment may be passed upon them—all Christians believe these things— — a —— o THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 59 but, we mean, that every action of the most lawless of His subjects is entirely beneath His control, yea that the actor is, though unknown to himself, carrying out the secret de- crees of the Most High. Was it not thus with Judas? and is it possible to select a more extreme case? If then the arch-rebel was performing the counsel of God is it any greater tax upon our faith to believe the same of all reb- els? Our present object is not philosophic inquiry nor meta- physical causistry, but to ascertain the teaching of Scrip- ture upon this profound theme. To the law and the testimony, for there only can we learn of the Divine gov- ernment—its character, its design, its modus operandi, its scope. What then has it pleased God to reveal to us in His blessed Word concerning His rule over the works of His hands, and particularly, over the one who originally was made in His own image and likeness? “In Him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). What a sweeping assertion is this! These words, be it noted, were addressed, not to one of the churches of God, not to a company of saints who had reached an ex- alted plane of spirituality, but to a heathen audience, to those who worshipped “the unknown God” and who “mocked” when they heard of the resurrection of, the. dead. And yet, to the Athenian philosophers, to the Epi- cureans and Stoicks, the apostle Paul did not hesitate to affrm that they lived and moved and had their being in God, which signified not only that they owed their ex- istence and preservation to the One who made the world and all things therein, but also that their very actions were encompassed and therefore controlled by the Lord of heaven and earth. “The disposings (margin) of the heart, and the answer of the tongue is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:1). Mark that 60 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD the above declaration is of general application—it is of “man,” not simply of believers, that this is predicated. “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps” (Prov. 16:9). If the Lord directs the steps of a man, is it not proof that he is being controlled or gov- erned by God? Again; “There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand” (Prov. 19:21). Can this mean anything less than that, no matter what man may desire and plan, it is the will of his Maker which is executed? As an illustra- tion take the “Rich Fool.” The “devices” of his heart are made known to us—“And he thought within him- self, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there I will bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” Such were the “devices” of his heart, nevertheless it was “the counsel of the Lord” that stood. The “I will’s”’ of the ’ rich man came to nought, for “God said unto him, Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee” (Luke 5 “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Pro. 21:1). What could be more explicit? Out of the heart are “the issues of life’ (Pro. 4:23), for as a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Pro. 23:7). If then the heart is in the hand of the Lord, and if “He turneth it whithersoever He will,’ then is it not clear that men, yea, governors and rulers, and so all men, are completely beneath the governmental control of the Almighty! No limitations must be placed upon the above declara- tions. To insist that some men, at least, do thwart God’s THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION 61 will and overturn His counsels is to repudiate other scrip- tures equally explicit. Weigh well the following: “But He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth’ (Job 23:13). “The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:11). “There is no wis- dom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord” (Pro. 21:30). “For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Is. 14:27). ‘“Remem- ber the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else! I am God, and there is none like Me, declar- ing the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure’ (Is. 46:9, 10). There is no ambiguity in these passages. They affirm in the most unequivocal and unqualified terms that it is impos- sible to bring to naught the purpose of Jehovah. We read the Scriptures in vain if we fail to discover that the actions of men, evil men as well as good, are governed by the Lord God. Nimrod and his fellows determined to erect the tower of Babel, but ere their task was accomplished God frustrated their plans. God called Abraham “alone” (Is. 51:2), but his kinsfolk accompanied him as he left Ur of the Chaldees. Was then the will of the Lord defeated? Nay, verily. Mark the sequel. Terah died before Canaan was reached (Gen. 11:31), and though Lot accompanied his uncle into the land of promise, he soon separated from him and settled down in Sodom. Jacob was the child to whom the inheritance was promised, and though Isaac sought to reverse Jehovah’s decree and bestow the blessing upon Esau, his efforts came to naught. Esau again swore vengeance upon Jacob, but when next they met they wept for joy instead of fighting in hate. The brethren of Joseph 62 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD determined his destruction, but their evil counsels were over- thrown. Pharaoh refused to let Israel carry out the instruc- tions of Jehovah and perished in the Red Sea for his pains. Balak hired Balaam to curse the Israelites, but God com- pelled him to bless them. Haman erected a gallows for Mordecai but was hanged upon it himself. Jonah resisted the revealed will of God, but what became of his efforts? Mark, too, the sovereignty which God displayed in His dealings with men! Moses who was slow of speech, and not Aaron his elder brother who was not slow of speech, was the one chosen to be His ambassador in demanding from Egypt’s monarch the release of His oppressed people. Moses again, though greatly beloved utters one hasty word and was excluded from Canaan; whereas Elijah, passion- ately murmurs and suffers but a mild rebuke and was after- wards taken to heaven without seeing death. Uzzah merely touched the ark and was instantly slain, whereas the Phil- istines carried it off in insulting triumph and suffered no immediate harm. Displays of grace which would have brought a doomed Sodom to repentance, failed to move an highly privileged Capernaum. Mighty works which would have subdued Tyre and Sidon left the upbraided cities of Galilee under the curse of a rejected Gospel. If they would have saved the former, why were they not wrought there? If they proved ineffectual to deliver the latter then why perform them? What exhibitions are these of the sover- eign will of the Most High! 4. GOD GOVERNS ANGELS: BOTH GOOD AND EVIL ANGELS. The angels are God’s servants, His messengers, His char- iots. They ever hearken to the word of His mouth and do His commands. “And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and He repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ADMINISTRATION ~ 63 that destroyed, It is enough, Stay now thine hand... . And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put his sword again into the sheath thereof” (1 Chron. 21:15, 27). Many other scriptures might be cited to show that the angels are in subjection to the will of their Creator and perform His bidding—‘“‘And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent His angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod” (Acts 12:11). “And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to shew unto His servants the things which must shortly be done” (Rev. 22:6). So it will be when our Lord returns: “The Son of Man shall send forth His angels and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (Matt. 13:41). Again, we read, “He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. Aca). The same is true of evil spirits: they, too, fulfil God’s sovereign decrees. An evil spirit is sent by God to stir up rebellion in the camp of Abimelech: “Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem, which aided him in the killing of his brethren” (Judges 9:23). Another evil spirit He sent to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets—‘“Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee” (1 Kings 22:23). And yet another was sent by the Lord to trouble Saul—“But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him” (1 Sam. 16:14). So, too, in the New Testament: a whole legion of the demons go not out of their victim until the Lord gave them permission to enter the herd of swine. It is clear from Scripture, then, that the angels, good and 64 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD evil, are under God’s control, and willingly or unwillingly carry out God’s purpose. Yea, SATAN himself is abso- lutely subject to God’s control. When arraigned in Eden, he listened to the awful sentence, but answered not a word. He was unable to touch Job until God granted him leave. So, too, he had to gain our Lord’s consent before he could “sift”? Peter. When Christ commanded him to depart—“‘Get thee hence, Satan’”—we read, “Then the Devil leaveth Him” (Matt. 4:11). And, in the end, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which has been prepared for him and his angels. The Lord God omnipotent reigneth. His government is exercised over inanimate matter, over the brute beasts, over the children of men, over angels good and evil, and over Satan himself. No revolving world, no shining of star, no storm, no creature moves, no actions of men, no errands of angels, no deeds of Devil—nothing in all the vast universe can come to pass otherwise than God has eternally pur- posed. Here is a foundation for faith. Here is a resting place for the intellect. Here is an anchor for the soul, both sure and steadfast. It is not blind fate, unbridled evil, man or Devil, but the Lord Almighty who is ruling the world, ruling it according to His own good pleasure and for His own eternal glory. “Ten thousand ages ere the skies Were into motion brought; All the long years and worlds to come, Stood present to His thought: There’s not a sparrow nor a worm, But’s found in His decrees, He raises monarchs to their thrones And sinks as He may please.” CHAPTER FOUR. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN SALVATION. “O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out.” Romans II :33. at ‘ ine i he ‘ * 4 if Ln Y he SL ae Re, Sts i - ‘ ~~ / Nim" . ~ . 4 - aw E> x 4 j : <4 j . , ‘ . i] i —~\% — ae oe ae a “a4 te) ae ei VW) t . , ’ , - . ge ’ 5 ’ 1 pn ae 2 % 2 4 " ae wt * ¥ r rs a - od il = a A * ’ > ae ‘ ” -, \ _ fe “a % = ~ x am 5 J * * " ; ‘ - ‘ ne ag’ 2 + ; a ry r ~~ - a j t Al 4 ‘ i ~ ~ - wt wa 1 - - y . jonel 5 . S rs r p . A = i) ~ ‘ + igs ‘ = - oy J c 1 . < « a n he a4 a —— . ‘ > P es " C j . ’ . ; ’ . ; So, —— - P Ce ‘ 2 f ' ‘ Z Peas . j ¢ : - : a J ee PP Ae J at " ~ * oe 5 gee aa - od o Pw . sey ; : : > , : 5 ’ at AN ME ies oer pe a . 4 <-> ‘ “ r ‘ io { & ¥ ve - . wr, 2 # ae , = 7 ; . S gi ‘ Spe J . , os % > y\ ' 2 _ v 4 hee es . we ~ a - i Po ae ¢ 4 “f wae "i 7 ‘ 4 = A — i i / 2 . ~< ean ~ Ss ee a - * ~ ae > , 2 a a t ts e. ‘ . : = - te ed ‘ - r ¥ ’ e . ie - - te. Seal « ' - ~~ * > ¢ i > ~ om ‘3 . ne < = ’ ; ’ . = > - t : r : ‘ s f . “ “ < : : J be > 4 : : = ms , ¥ . : . ; mm , . - x . ‘ s o ie ‘ u ‘ y a ‘ - “i . wy . a ‘ * A . ~_ > i o - “a yo _ ‘7 3 ~ ~ > > . ; . t . . a ‘ oe w) ‘ = - ‘ ‘ t . ~ vf ‘oer, wl ~ a +t is ~ he 7 = - > . ¢ te - “a . - - om * - * - vi * * x > = J ’ + 1 - . . *. “4 r 2 - « ‘ \ ‘ { ~~ ~*~ ~ : sd ¥ Oe ail ’ ; ; o ~ ™ 4 ’ , - a ~ j ‘s “ - "4 " 2 . - : ats 4 4 c ; V. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION. God the Father in Salvation we examined seven pas- geeea Sages which represent Him as making a choice from among the children of men and predestinating certain ones to be conformed to the image of His Son. The thoughtful reader will naturally ask, And what of those who were not “ordained to eternal life?’ The answer which is usually re- turned to this question, even by those who profess to believe what the Scriptures teach concerning God’s Sovereignty, is, that God passes by the non-elect, leaves them alone to go their own way, and in the end casts them into the Lake of Fire because they refuse His way, and rejected the Saviour of His providing. But this is only a part of the truth: the other part—that which is most offensive to the carnal mind —is either ignored or denied. In view of the awful solemnity of the subject here before us, in view of the fact that today almost all—even those who profess to be Calvinists—reject and repudiate this doctrine, and in view of the liklihood that this is one of the points in our book which is calculated to raise the most contro- versy, we feel that an extended enquiry into this aspect of God’s Truth is demanded. That this branch of the subject of God’s Sovereignty is profoundly mysterious we freely allow, yet, that is no reason why we should reject it. The trouble is that, nowadays, there are so many who receive the testimony of God only so far as they can satisfactorily account for all the reasons and grounds of His conduct, which means they will accept nothing but that which can be measured in the petty scales of their own limited capacities. Wl fi the last chapter when treating of the Sovereignty of 108 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Stating it in its baldest form the point now to be con- sidered is, Has God fore-ordained certain ones to damna- tion? That many will be eternally damned is clear from Scripture, that each one will be judged according to his works and reap as he has sown, and that in consequence his “damnation is just” (Rom. 3:8), is equally sure, and that God decreed that the none-elect should choose the course they follow we now undertake to prove. Writing to the saints at Thessalonica the apostle declares “For God hath not appointed us to wrath:” this statement is utterly pointless if God has not “appointed” any to wrath. To say that God hath not appointed us to wrath implies there are some He has appointed to wrath, and if it were not that our minds were blinded by prejudice we.could not fail to see this clearly. Now all will acknowledge that from the foundation of the world God cértainly fore-knew and fore-saw who would and who would not accept Christ as their Saviour, therefore in giving being and birth to those He knew would reject Christ He necessarily created them unto damnation. All that can be said in reply to this is, No, while God did foreknow these ones would reject Christ yet He did not decree that they should, neither did He do anything to make them reject Christ. But this is a begging of the real question at issue. God had a definite reason why He created men, a specific pur- pose why He created this and that individual, and in view of the eternal destination of His creatures He purposed either that this one should spend eternity in Heaven or that this one should spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. If then He fore- saw that in creating a certain person that person would de- spise and reject the Saviour, yet knowing this beforehand He, nevertheless, brought that person into existence, then it is clear He designed and ordained that that person should be eternally lost. Again; faith is God’s gift, and the purpose THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 109 to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Without faith there is no salvation—“He that be- lieveth not shall be damned”—hence if there were some of Adam’s descendants to whom He purposed not to give faith it must be because He ordained that they should be damned. Above we have stated the Doctrine of Reprobation in its baldest form and at this point it is necessary to make a few remarks so as to safeguard it against false conclusions. The way in which this truth is presented in Scripture is not mere- ly that God created men either to damn or save them, but that He created them for His own glory—“The Lord hath made all things for Himself’—and glorified in man He will be, if not in one way, then in another. In the salvation of the elect it is His grace which will be magnified ; in the damna- tion of the non-elect it is His justice which will be exempli- fied. Again; it is not that God made man wicked in order to damn him: “God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions” (Ecc. 7:29). God has not created sinful beings in order to damn them, for God is not to be charged with the sin of His creatures, The responsi- bility and criminality is man’s. Yet, as intimated above, God did create Adam knowing that he would fall, and that in consequence his posterity would enter this world as sin- ners, and that the majority of them would prefer sin to holiness ; so that God created the human race fore-seeing that the greater part of it would be lost, hence that He jore- ordained the eternal damnation of these ones is a conclusion from which there is no escape. In the Westminister Confession it is said, “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably fore-ordain whatsoever comes to pass”. The late F. W. Grant—a most careful and cau- tious student and writer—commenting on these words said: “It is perfectly, divinely true, that God hath ordained for His $10 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD own glory whatsoever comes to pass.” Now if these state- ments are true, is not the doctrine of Reprobation established by them? What, in human history, is the one thing which does come to pass every day? What, but that men and wom- en die, pass out of this world into a hopeless eternity, an eternity of suffering and woe. If then God has fore-or- dained whatsoever comes to pass then He must have decreed that vast numbers of human beings should pass out of this world unsaved to suffer eternally in the Lake of Fire. Ad- mitting the general premise, is not the specific conclusion inevitable? In the body of our book we have shown that the word “know” and its cognates when applied to God in the Scrip- tures have reference not to His prescience but to His knowl- edge of approbation. For example, when we read in Rom. 11:2 “God hath not cast away His people whom He fore- knew” (Israel) the word “fore-knew” must signify His peo- ple whom He had chosen to be the objects of His love (See Deut. 7:7,8). In view then of this meaning of the word, consider Matt. 7:23. In the day of judgment the Lord will say to many “I never knew you.” It is not that He says “I know you not”, but “I never knew you’’—you were never the objects of My approbation. Contrast with this “I know My sheep, and am known of Mine” (John 10:14) ee sheep, His elect, He does “know”, but the reprobate, the non- elect, He “knows” not—no, not even before the foundation of the world did He know them—He “NEVER” knew them. But we shall turn now from incidental references to Repro- bation and consider the one passage where the doctrine is ex- pounded at length. It is a general principle in God’s Word to reserve the treatment of any important topic for one principal examina- tion. For example, there are many passages in the New Testament which make mention of Justification by Faith, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 111 but in Romans 4 the doctrine is treated of at length once for all. Again; there are repeated references to our Lord’s coming again for His people, but only in I Thess. 4 do we find this entered into fully. Likewise, there are interspersed throughout the Word frequent mentionings of the Final Judgment—the judgment of the wicked—but only in Rev. 20 have we a detailed description of it. So it is with the Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty in its application both to the elect and the reprobate: many are the passages which make mention of these, but only once is the whole subject entered into at length; that passage is found in Rom. 9, and to it we now turn. It would be beside our present purpose to attempt a de- tailed exposition of the entire chapter: the portion we shall now examine is that which is germane to our immediate theme. The whole chapter is concerned with the Sovereignty of God. Beginning with God’s sovereign dealings with Is- rael, the apostle shows that the principles which govern His ways with them operate also in His disposition of the entire human race. V 7. “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall Thy seed be called.” God’s sovereignty was thus displayed in His passing by Ish- mael and his descendants and calling Isaac and his seed. Both Ishmael and Isaac were sons of Abraham, but one was taken and the other left. Vv 10-13. “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had concewved by one, even by our father Isaac, (For the chil- dren being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is writ- ten, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’. God’s sovereignty is here seen in connection with the sons of 112 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Isaac—Jacob is loved, Esau is hated. The question is then raised “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?” The apostle here anticipates the usual objection of the carnal mind. Does not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil imply that there is injustice in God? It is particularly to be noted that the ob- _ jection which the apostle here meets fires the meaning of the language employed in the previous verses! The force of the objection is, Is it just for God to love one who has done no good, and to hate one who has done no evil? If the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” are to be ex- plained away in the manner so many now do, then such an objection as the apostle here meets would be quite’ irrele- vant. How then does the apostle dispose of the objection? Attempts have often been made by Arminian theologians and their disciples to show that the reference here in Romans 9 :10-13 has respect only to national and temporal blessings, and that spiritual blessing, salvation, is not here in view. Such a subterfuge has frequently been exposed, but for the benefit of those of our readers who have not access to it we quote from the work of one who has conclusively proven how baseless this theory ts: “The point then to be proved is that Paul speaks of Jacob’s election not only to temporal blessings, but also to salvation. “The first proof is, that the whole tenor and strain of the apostle’s argument in Romans has chief reference to the justification and salvation of individual sinners. Conse- quently, to divert his discourse concerning election, which is a constituent element of that argument, into another direc- tion, is to wrench it from its track. “The second proof is, that in the immedidte context Paul treats of the promise made by God to Abraham’s children, and he shows that Jacob was constituted an heir of that THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 113 promise by Divine election. To say this illustrious promise guaranteed, exclusively or even chiefly, temporal blessings, is to eviscerate the Scriptures of their meaning. Paul’s argument concerning the promise in Galatians as well as in Romans would be contradicted. The promise concerned spiritual and saving blessings. To take any other view is to strip the Old Testament of its evangelical element and re- duce the New Testament of it to absurdity. Jacob, there- fore, was elected to share in the promise of salvation; that is, aS a promised salvation is not an earned salvation he was elected to salvation. “The third proof is, that the apostle expressly distinguish- es between the natural and the spiritual seed of Abraham. It is only the latter, argues he, who are the children of God. In immediate connection with this he introduces the cases of Jacob and Esau as illustrative of that distinction. Both were the carnal descendants of Abraham, but only Jacob, of the two, was one of his spiritual children, and therefore one of the children of God. How was he constituted such? Not by natural descent, but by God’s election of him irre- spectively of his works. Jacob’s election was therefore to adoption into God’s family, and, as God never loses any of -His adopted children, to eternal life’ (J. L. Girardeau, Columbia Theological Seminary, S. C.) Vv 15,16. “God forbid: For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have com- passion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy”. The meaning of these words is very sim- ple. God cannot deal unjustly. But He can and does be- stow His favors on whom He pleases, for He is sovereign, saying, “I will have mercy on whom J will have mercy”. The question asked in v 14 would not have been raised unless Paul had wished himself to be understood as teaching 114 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD that God chose and loved Jacob and rejected and hated Esan for no assignable reason outside of His own will. Hence, when it is said God loved Jacob for no good in him and hated Esau for no evil in him, man’s carnal mind concludes an injustice has been done. Mark carefully, then, the ground on which the apostle here rests his dental that there is un- righteousness with God. He offers no apology for his doc- trine, nor does he attempt any defense for God! Instead, he appeals to the testimony of God to Moses. These words of Jehovah to Moses set forth precisely the same truth as that which the apostle had expressed above in connection with Jacob and Esau. The connection and argument are obvious. It is not unjust when God exercises His sovereignty for He expressly claims this very right. Jehovah’s words to Moses were a formal declaration of a divine prerogative. If then God affirms His right to exercise His sovereignty it cannot be wrong for Him to do so, seeing there is no unrighteousness in God. V 17. “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared through- out all the earth.’ These words refer us back to vs 13 and 14. In v 13 God’s love to Jacob and His hatred to Esau are declared. Inv. 14 it is asked “Is there unrighteousness with God?” and here in v 17 the apostle continues his reply to the objection. We cannot do better now than quote from Calvin’s comments upon this verse. “There are here two things to be considered,—the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden counsel of God,—and then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God. As many interpreters, striv- ing to modify this passage, pervert it, we must first observe, that for the word ‘I have raised thee up’, or stirred up, in the Hebrew is, ‘I have appointed’, by which it appears, that God, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 115 designing to show that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent Him to deliver His people, not only affirms that his fury had been foreseen by Him, and that He had prepared means for restraining it, but that He had also thus designed- ly ordained it and indeed for this end,—that He might ex- hibit a more illustrious evidence of His own power.” It will be observed that Calvin gives as the force of the Hebrew word which Paul renders ‘For this purpose have I raised thee up’—“I have appointed”. As this is the word on which the doctrine and argument of the verse turns we would further point out that in making this quotation from Ex. 9 :16 the apostle significantly departs from the Septuagint—the version then in common use and from which he most fre- quently quotes—and substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the Septuagint: instead of “On this account thou hast been preserved”, he gives “For this very end have I raised thee up”! But we must now consider in more detail the case of Pharaoh which sums up in concrete example the great con- troversy between man and his Maker. “For now I will stretch out My hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power; and that My name may be de- clared throughout all the earth” (Exodus 9:15,16). Upon these words we offer the following comments: First, we know from Exodus 14 and 15 that Pharaoh was - “cut off”, that he was cut off by God, that he was cut off in the very midst of his wickedness, that he was cut off not by sickness nor by the infirmities which are incident to old age, nor by what men term an accident, but cut off by the 1mmedt- ate hand of God in judgment. Second, it is clear that God raised up Pharaoh for this very end—to “cut him off,” which in the language of the 116 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD New Testament means “destroyed.’’ God never does any- thing without a previous design. In giving him being, in preserving him through infancy and childhood, in raising him to the throne of Egypt, God had one end in view. That such was God’s purpose is clear from His words to Moses before he went down to Egypt to demand of Pharaoh that Jehovah’s people should be allowed to go a three days’ jour- ney into the wilderness to worship Him—‘And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go” (Exodus 4:21). But not only so, God’s design and purpose was declared long before this. Four hundred years previously God had said to Abraham ‘Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs’, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge’ (Gen. 15:13, 14). From these words it is evident (a nation and its king being looked at as one in the O. T.) that God’s purpose was formed long be- fore He gave Pharaoh being. Third, an examination of God’s dealings with Pharaoh makes it clear that Egypt’s king was indeed a “vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.” Placed on Egypt’s throne, with the reigns of government in his hands, he sat as head of the nation which occupied the first rank among the peoples of the world. There was no other monarch on earth able to control or dictate to Pharaoh. To such a dizzy height did God raise this reprobate, and such a course was a natural and necessary step to prepare him for his final fate, for it is a Divine axiom that “pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Further,—and this is deeply im- portant to note and highly significant—God removed from Pharaoh the one outward restraint which was calculated to THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 117 act as a check upon him. The bestowing upon Pharaoh of the unlimited powers of a king was setting him above all legal in- fluence and control. But besides this God removed Moses from his presence and kingdom. Had Moses, who not only was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but also had been reared in Pharaoh’s household, been suffered to remain in close proximity to the throne, there can be no doubt but that his example and influence had been a powerful check upon the king’s wickedness and tyranny. This, though not the only cause, was plainly one reason why God sent Moses into Midian, for it was during his absence that Egypt’s inhuman king framed his most cruel edicts. God designed by removing this restraint to give Pharaoh full opportunity to fill up the full measure of his sins and ripen himself for his fully-deserved but predestined ruin. Fourth, God “hardened” his heart as He declared He would (Ex. 4:21). This is in full accord with the declara- tions of Holy Scripture—“The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord’ (Prov. 16:1); “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water, He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Prov. 21:1). Like all other kings, Pharaoh’s heart was in the hand of the Lord; and God had both the right and the power to turn it whithersoever He pleased. And it pleased Him to turn it against all good. God determined to hinder Pharaoh from granting his request through Moses to let Israel go, until He had fully prepared him for his final overthrow, and because nothing short of this would fully fit him, God hardened his heart. Finally, it is worthy of careful consideration to note how the vindication of God in His dealings with Pharaoh has been fully attested. Most remarkable it is to discover that we have Pharaoh’s own testimony in favor of God and against himself! In Exodus 9:15 and 16 we learn how God 118 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD had told Pharaoh for what purpose He had raised him up, and in verse 27 of the same chapter we are told that Pharaoh said, “I have sinned this time: the Lord 1s righteous, and | and my people are wicked.” Mark that this was said by Pharaoh after he knew that God had raised him up in order to “cut him off”, after his severe judgments had been sent upon him, after he had hardened his own heart. By this time Pharaoh was fairly ripened for judgment and fully prepared to decide whether God had injured him or whether he had sought to injure God; and he fully acknowledges that he had “sinned” and that God was “righteous”. Again; we have the witness of Moses who was fully acquainted with God’s conduct toward Pharaoh. He had heard at the be- ginning what was God’s design in connection with Pharaoh, he had witnessed God’s dealings with him; he had observed his “long-sufferance” toward this vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and at last he had beheld him cut off in Divine judgment at the Red Sea. How then is Moses imprest? Does he raise the cry of injustice? Does he dare to charge God with unrighteousness? Far from it. Instead, he says “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders!” (Exodus 15:11). Was Moses moved by a vindictive spirit as he saw Israel’s arch-enemy “cut off” by the waters of the Red Sea? Surely not. But to remove forever all doubt upon this score, it remains to be pointed out how that saints in heaven, after they have witnessed the sore judgments of God, join in singing “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb saying, Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty ; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Nations” (Rev. 15:3). Here then is the climax, and the full and final vindication of God’s dealings with Pharaoh. Saints in heaven join in singing the Song of Moses, in which THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION § 119 that servant of God celebrated Jehovah’s praise in over- throwing Pharaoh and his hosts, declaring that in so acting God was not unrighteous but just and true. We must be- lieve, therefore, that the Judge of all the earth did right in creating and destroying this vessel of wrath, Pharaoh. The case of Pharaoh establishes the principle and illus- trates the doctrine of Reprobation. If God actually rep- robated Pharaoh we may justly conclude that He reprobates all others whom He did not predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son. This inference the apostle Paul manifestly draws from the fate of Pharaoh, for in Romans g, after referring to God’s purpose in raising up Pharaoh, he continues, “therefore’. The case of Pharaoh is intro- duced to prove the doctrine of Reprobation as the counter- part of the doctrine of Election. In conclusion, we would say that in forming Pharaoh God displayed neither justice nor injustice, but only His bare sovereignty. As the potter is sovereign in forming vessels, so God is sovereign in forming moral agents. V 18. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth’. The “therefore” announces the general conclusion which the apostle draws from all he had said in the three preceding verses in denying that God was unrighteous in loving Jacob and hating Esau, and specifically it applies the principle exemplified in God’s dealings with Pharaoh. It traces everything back to the sov- ereign will of the Creator. He loves one and hates another, He exercises mercy toward some and hardens others, with- out reference to anything save His own sovereign pleasure. That which is most repellant to the carnal mind in the above verse is the reference to hardening—‘Whom He will He hardeneth’’—and it is just here that so many commenta- tors and expositors have adulterated the truth. The most 120 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD common view is that the apostle is speaking of nothing more than judicial hardening, i.e., a forsaking by God because these subjects of His displeasure had first rejected His truth and forsaken Him. Those who contend for this interpreta- tion appeal to such scriptures as Romé 1 :19-26—“God gave them up’, that is (see context) those who “knew God” yet glorified Him not as God (v 21). Appeal is also made to 2 Thess. 2:10-12. But it is to be noted that the word “harden” does not occur in.either of these passages. But further. We submit that Rom. 9:18 has no reference what- ever to judicial “hardening”. The apostle is not there speak- ing of those who had already turned their backs on God’s truth, but instead, he is dealing with God’s Sovereignty, God’s sovereignty as seen not only in showing mercy to whom He wills, but also in hardening whom He pleases. The exact words are “Whom He will’—not “all who have rejected His truth’—‘“He hardeneth”, and this coming im- mediately after the mention of Pharaoh clearly fixes their meaning. The case of Pharaoh is clear enough, though man by his glosses has done his best to hide the truth. In Exodus we read both of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. But which is mentioned first? Ex. 4:21 tells us “And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go”. Before Moses goes down into Egypt at all, God declares that He will harden the heart of its monarch. But man invariably reverses God’s order: Pharaoh hard- ened his heart because God had first hardened it, and not vice versa as we are asked to believe by men. As this reference to God’s hardening whom He wills is so much misunderstood today, we would examine it all the more carefully. We have already pointed out that the verse THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 121 in which this is mentioned (18) opens with the word ‘“‘There- fore” thus connecting it with and drawing a conclusion from what precedes. In v 13 the apostle had said God had loved Jacob and hated Esau, and that for nothing in themselves personally. This declaration drew forth the question, Is there unrighteousness with God? and it is this question the apostle is still answering when he affirms, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth”. Hence we insist that to regard the word “harden” as signifying judicial obduration would be alto- gether trrelevant to the point under discussion. The apostle is treating of God’s Sovereignty as displayed in His dealings with His creatures. He shows that there is nothing in them which causes Him to act as He does, for in the case of Jacob and Esau their destiny was decided before they were born and before they had done any good or evil. Therefore, to say that the apostle’s words “Whom He will He hardeneth” signify He hardens those who have rejected His truth would be to find a cause in the creature for the basis of His actions instead of tracing them back to His own sovereign will! Moreover: that “hardening” in Rom. 9:18 does not refer to judicial obduration is further evidenced from the fact that understood thus the evident antithesis of the verse would be destroyed. The hardening is contrasted with the showing mercy. “Hardening” here must signify to treat with sever- ity. 1.e., in withholding favors and inflicting deserved pun- ishments. A parallel antithesis is found in Rom. 11:22 where God’s goodness and severity are contrasted—“ Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God”. “Whom He wills He treats kindly—by having mercy on them which do not deserve it; and ‘whom He wills He treats severely’ ; not unjustly, but severely, in comparison with those He treats kindly; He treats them severely, in not bestowing on them mercy and in punishing them when and how He pleases.” 122 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (J. Brown, D. D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church—1857). V 18. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth’. This affirmation of God’s sovereign “hardening” of sinners’ hearts—in con- tradistinction from judicial hardening—is not alone. Mark the language of John 12:37-40, “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? There- fore they could not believe (why?), because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts (why? Because they had refused to believe on Christ ? This is the popular belief, but mark the answer of Scripture) that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” Now, reader, it is just a question as to whether or not you will be- lieve what God has revealed in His Word. It is not a mat- ter of prolonged searching or profound study, but a child- like spirit which is needed in order to understand this doc- trine. V 19 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” Is not this the very objection which is urged today? The force of the apostle’s questions here seem to be this: Since everything is dependent on God’s will, which is irreversible, and since this will of God, according to which He can do everything as sovereign—since He can have mercy on whom He wills to have mercy, and can refuse mercy and inflict punishment on whom He chooses to do so—why does He not will to have mercy on all, so as to make them obedient, and thus put finding of fault out of court? Now it should be particularly noted that the apostle does not repudiate the ground on THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 123 which the objection rests. He does not say God does not find fault. Nor does he say, Men may resist His will. Furthermore ; he does not explain away the objection by say- ing: You have altogether misapprehended my meaning when I said ‘Whom He wills He treats kindly, and whom He wills He treats severely’. But he says, first, this is an objection you have no right to make; and then, This is an objection you have no reason to make (vide Dr. Brown). The objection was utterly inadmissible, for it was a replying against God. It was to complain about, argue against what God had done! V 19 “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?’ The language which the apostle here puts into the mouth of the objector is so plain and pointed that misunderstanding ought to be impossible. Why doth He yet find fault? Now, reader, what can these words mean? Formulate your own reply before considering ours. Can the force of the apostle’s ques- tion be any other than this: If it is true that God has “mercy” on whom He wills, and also “hardens” whom He wills, then what becomes of human responsibility? In such a case men are nothing better than puppets, and if this be true then it would be unjust for God to “find fault” with His helpless creatures. Mark the word “then’—Thou wilt say then unto me—he states the (false) inference or conclusion which the objector draws from what the apostle had been saying. And mark, my reader, the apostle readily saw the doctrine he had formulated would raise this very objection, and unless what we have written throughout this book provokes, in some at least, (all whose carnal minds are not subdued by divine grace) the same objection, then it must be either because we have not presented the doctrine which is set forth in Rom. 9, or else because human nature has changed since the apostle’s day. Consider now the remainder of the verse (19). The apostle repeats the same objection in a slightly different form 124 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD —repeats it so that his meaning may not be misunderstood— namely, “For who hath resisted His will?” It is clear then that the subject under immediate discussion relates to God’s ‘will’, i.e., His sovereign ways, which confirms what we have said above upon vs 17 and 18 where we contended that it is not judicial hardening which is in view (that 1s, hard- ening because of previous rejection of the truth) but sov- ereign “hardening”, that is, “hardening” for no other rea- son than that which inheres in the sovereign will of God. And hence the question ‘““Who hath resisted His will?’ What then does the apostle say in reply to these objections? V 20 “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest agamst God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 1t, Why hast thou made me thus?” The apostle, then, did not say the objection was pointless and groundless, instead, he rebukes the objector for his impiety. He reminds him that he is merely a “man”, a creature, and that as such it is most unseemly and impertinent for him to “reply (argue, or rea- son against) God”. Furthermore, he reminds him that he is nothing more than a “thing formed”, and therefore, it is madness and blasphemy to rise up against the Former Him- self. Ere leaving this verse it should be pointed out that its closing words “Why hast thou made me thus” help us to de- termine, unmistakably, the precise subject under discussion. In the light of the immediate context what can be the force of the “thus”? What, but as in the case of Esau, why hast thou made me an object of “hatred”? What, but as in the case of Pharaoh, Why hast thou made me simply to “harden” me? What other meaning can fairly be assigned to it? It is highly important to keep clearly before us that the apostle’s object throughout this passage is to treat of God’s Sovereignty in dealing with, on the one hand, those whom He loves—vessels unto honour and vessels of mercy, and also, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 125 on the other hand, with those whom He “hates” and “hard- ens’’—vessels unto dishonour and vessels of wrath. Vv 21-23 “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long- suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.” In these verses the apostle furnishes a ful] and final reply to the objections raised in v 19. First, he asks, “Hath not the potter power over the clay?” etc. It is to be noted the word here translated “power” is a different one in the Greek from the one rendered “power” in v 22 where it can only sig- nify His might, but here in v 21 the “power” spoken of must refer to the Creator’s rights or sovereign prerogatives, that this is so appears from the fact that the same Greek word is employed in John 1 :12—“‘As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God”—which, as is — well known, means the right or privilege to become the sons of God. The R. V. employs “right” both in John 1:12 and Rom. 9 :21. V 21 “Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?” That the “potter” here is God Himself is cer- tain from the previous verse where the apostle asks ‘““‘Who art thou that repliest against God?” and then, speaking: in the terms of the figure he was about to use, continues, ‘Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it” etc. Some there are who would rob these words of their force by argu- ing that while the human potter makes certain vessels to be used for less honorable purposes than others, neverthe- less, they are designed to fill some useful place. But the apostle does not here say, Hath not the potter power over the 126 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto an honor- able use and another to a less honorable use, but he speaks of some “vessels” being made “unto dishonour”. It is true, of course, that God’s wisdom will yet be fully vindicated, inasmuch as the destruction of the reprobate will promote His glory—in what way the next verse tells us. Ere passing to the next verse let us summarize the teach- ing of this and the two previous ones. In v 19 two questions are asked, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” To those ques- tions a threefold answer is returned. First, in v 20 the apos- tle denies the creature the right to sit in judgment upon the ways of the Creator—“Nay but, O man who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?” The apos- tle insists that the rectitude of God’s will must not be ques- tioned. Whatever He does must be right. Second, in v 21 the apostle declares that the Creator has the right to dispose of His creatures as He sees fit—‘““Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” It should be carefully noted that the word for “power” here is excousia—an entire- ly different word from the one translated “power” in the fol- lowing verse (“to make known His power’) where it is dunaton. In the words “Hath not the Potter power over the clay?” it must be God’s power justly exercised, which is in view—the exercise of God’s rights consistently with His justice,—because the mere assertion of His omnipotency would be no such answer as God would return to the ques- tions asked in v 19. Third, in vv 22, 23, the apostle gives the reasons why God proceeds differently with one of His crea- tures from another: on the one hand, it is to “shew His wrath” and to “make His power known”; on the other hand, it is to “make known the riches of His glory.” THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 127 “Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour ?” Certainly God has the right to do this because He is the Creator. Does He exercise this right? Yes, as vs 13 and 17 clearly show us—‘For this same purpose have I] raised thee (Pharaoh) up”. V 22 “What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction’. Here the apostle tells us in the second place, why God acts thus, i.e., differ- ently with different ones—having mercy on some and hard- ening others, making one vessel “unto honour” and another “unto dishonour”. Observe, that here in v 22 the apostle first mentions “vessels of wrath” before he refers in v 23 to the “vessels of mercy”. Why is this? The answer to this question is of first importance: we reply, Because it is the “vessels of wrath” who are the subjects in view before the objector in v 19. Two reasons are given why God makes some “‘vessels unto dishonour”: first, to “shew His wrath”, and secondly “to make His power known”’—both of which were exemplified in the case of Pharaoh. One point in the above verse requires separate consider- ation—‘Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction”. The usual explanation which is given of these words is that the vessels of wrath fit themselves to destruction, that is, fit themselves by virtue of their wickedness, and it is argued that as there is no need for God to “fit them to destruction”, because they are already fitted by their own depravity, and that this must be the real meaning of this expression. Now if by “destruc- tion” we understand punishment, it is perfectly true that the non-elect do “fit themselves” for every one will be judged “according to his works”; and further, we freely grant that subjectively the non-elect do fit themselves for destruction. But the point to be decided is, Is this what the apostle is here 128 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD referring to? And, without hesitation, we reply it is not. Go back to vs 11-13: did Esau fit himself to be an object of God’s hatred, or was he not such before he was born? Again ; did Pharaoh fit himself for destruction, or did not God hard- en his heart before the plagues were sent upon Egypt? Rom. 9:22 is clearly a continuation in thought of v 21, and v 21 is part of the apostle’s reply to the questions raised in v 20: therefore, to fairly follow out the figure, it must be God Himself who “fits” unto destruction the vessels of wrath. Should it be asked how God does this, the answer, necessarily, is, objectively,—He fits the non-elect unto de- struction by His fore-ordinating decrees. Should it be asked why God does this, the answer must be, To promote His own glory. “The sum of the apostle’s answer here is, that the grand object of God, both in the election and the reproba- tion of men, is that which is paramount to all things else in the creation of men, namely, His own glory” (Rob’t. Haldane). V 23 “And that He might make known the riches of Hts glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.’ The only point in this verse which demands at- tention is the fact that the “vessels of mercy” are here said to be “afore prepared unto glory”. Many have pointed out that the previous verse does not say the vessels of wrath were afore prepared unto destruction, and from this omis- sion they have concluded that we must understand the refer- ence there to the non-elect fitting themselves in time, rather than God ordaining them for destruction from all eternity. But this conclusion by no means follows. We need to look back to v 21 and note the figure which is there employed. “Clay” is inanimate matter, corrupt, decomposed, and there- fore a fit substance to represent fallen humanity. As then the apostle is contemplating God’s sovereign dealings with humanity in view of the fall, He does not say the vessels of THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 129 wrath were afore prepared unto destruction, for the obvious and sufficient reason that it was not until after the fall that they became (in themselves) what is here symbolised by the ‘clay’. All that is necessary to refute the erroneous conclu- sion referred to above is to point out that what is said of the vessels of wrath is not that they are fit for destruction (which is the word that would have been used if the reference had been to them fitting themselves by their own wickedness) but fitted to destruction, which, in the light of the whole context, must mean a sovereign ordination to destruction by the Crea- tor. We quote here the pointed words of Calvin on this pass- age—*There are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction; there are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. Though in the second clause the apostle asserts more express- ly, that it is God who prepared the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction, there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate gave up or cast themselves into destruction, but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot”. With this we are in hearty accord. Rom. 9:22 does not say the vessels of wrath fitted themselves, nor does it say they are fit for destruction, instead, it declares they are “fitted to destruction” and the context shows plainly it is God who thus “fits” them objectively by His eternal decrees. Though Romans 9 contains the fullest setting forth of the doctrine of Reprobation, there are other passages which refer to it, one or two of which we will now look at, briefly— | “A Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient: where- unto also they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:8). In certain cir- 130 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD cles it is customary to dismiss this Scripture by saying that “Gt refers to a class, not persons, who are ‘appointed ;’ that is, to all unbelievers of this character.” How this helps the cause of those who reject the doctrine of ‘Reprobation’ we fail to see, for a “class” is made up of individuals, and the individuals who comprise the class spoken of in 1 Pet. 2:8 are said to be “appointed” to stumble at the Word and be disobedient. The “whereunto” manifestly looks back to the stumbling at the Word and the disobedience. The word “ap- pointed” here (tithemi) is the same as in 1 Thess. 5 :9—‘‘For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Why say that God has “not ap- pointed us to wrath” if He has not appointed any to wrath”? We quote now from the commentary of Archbishop Leigh- ton (1748) on this passage, and none who have read his most valuable work on First Peter are likely to accuse him of Hyper-Calvinism—‘“ ‘Whereunto also they were appoint- ed. This the apostle adds, for the further satisfaction of believers on this point, how it is that so many rejected Christ, and stumble at Him; telling them plainly, that the secret purpose of God is accomplished im this: God having deter- mined to glorify His justice on impenitent sinners, as He shows His rich mercy in them that believe. This is certain, that the thoughts of God are all not less just in themselves, than deep and unsoundable by us. His justice appears clear, in that man’s destruction is always the fruit of his own sin. But: to give causes of God’s decrees without (outside of) Himself, is neither agreeable with the primitive being of the nature of God, nor with the doctrine of the Scriptures. This is sure, that God is not bound to give us further account of these things, and we are bound not to ask it. Let these two words, as Augustine says, answer all, ‘Who art thou O man?’ and ‘O, the depth’ (Rom. 9:20; 11:33).” The pity is that this and other excellent commentaries written one and two THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION © 1381 hundred years ago are not in circulation today at least as widely as many others written nearer our own times and which, though penned by those claiming to have received much more light than those who went before them, are, nev- ertheless, far inferior in spiritual discernment, lucidity and scholarship.* “But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption” (2 Pet. 2:12). Here, again, every effort is made to escape the plain teaching of this solemn passage. We are told that it is the “brute beasts” who are “made to be taken and destroyed” and not the persons here likened to them. All that is needed to refute such sophistry is to inquire wherein lies the point of analogy between the “these” (men) and the “brute beasts”? What is the force of the “as’—but “these as brute beasts’? Clearly, it is that “these”? men as brute beasts, are the ones who like animals are “made to be taken and destroyed”: the closing words confirming this by re- iterating the same sentiment—‘and shall utterly perish in their own corruption.” “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny- ing the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). *Bishop Leighton’s commentary on First Peter is yet to be found, occasionally, in second-hand book stores, and we warmly recommend it to all who may be fortunate enough to find a copy. Philip Dodd- ridge (the hymn writer of blessed memory) wrote in his Preface to this work :—‘“There is a spirit in archbishop Leighton I never met with in any human writings; nor can I read many lines in them with- out being moved. Indeed, it would be difficult for me to say where, but in the Sacred Oracles, I have ever found such heart-affecting les- sons of simplicity and humility, candor and benevolence, exalted _pi- ety, without the least tincture of enthusiasm, and an entire mortifica- tion to every earthly interest.” 132 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Attempts have been made to escape the obvious force of this verse by substituting a different translation of the Greek for that given in the King James Version. The revised ver- sion reads, “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this con- demnation” and in the margin we have “set forth” as the alternative for “written.” The assumption is that Jude is here referring to the Old Testament Scriptures which an- nounced beforehand the condemnation of these “certain men.” Now what is required here is not so much a pro- found knowledge of Greek as an acquaintance with the gen- eral tenor of Scripture. The point to be determined is not whether “prographo”’ signifies “written of beforehand” but what does the Old Testament teach concerning these “cer- tain men” of Jude 4. The answers to one or two simple ques- tions will enable every reader to decide for himself—even though he knows not a single word of Greek. To what does the apostle refer when he says “there are certain men crept in unawares’? Into what had they “crept’? Can there be any doubt as to the right answer? Was it not into the Chris- tian Assemblies? And where in the Old Testament is there anything “written” about “certain men” creeping into Chris- tian Assemblies? Where indeed! No; the translation giv- en by the revisers is absolutely untenable if it be examined in the light of the Word itself, and the fact that an alternative rendering is given in the margin is proof that it failed to satisfy many of the revisers themselves. The truth is that the marginal rendering of “set forth’ is a much more accurate rendering of the Greek than is “written of beforehand.” The Englishman’s Greek New Testament “Interlinear Literal Translation,” which has few equals and perhaps no supe- riors, renders the first part of Jude 4 as follows: “For came in stealthily certain men, they who of old have been marked out to this sentence.” Who was it that “marked out” these THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 133 certain men to this condemnatory sentence?) Who but God Himself! There is then no good reason at all for departing from the reading of the King James version—‘For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old or- dained to this condemnation.” It is only unbelief which would evade its plain force. Summing up the teaching of these four passages, we learn that God makes some vessels “unto dishonor” and by His eternal decree fits, objectively, these vessels of wrath “to destruction” in order that He might make known His power, just as He raised up Pharaoh for the same purpose; that these same individuals are “appointed” to stumble at His Word, as were the Jews of Christ’s day (John 12:40) ; that they are, like brute beasts, “made to be taken and destroyed,” just as Judas was; that they were before of old “ordained to this condemnation.” And in the face of these passages we affirm what is now—when men will not endure sound doc- trine—almost universally denied, namely, that the Word of God plainly teaches both Predestination and Reprobation, or to use the words of Calvin “Eternal election includes God’s predestination of some to salvation and others to destruc- tion.” We must now consider a number of passages which are often quoted with the purpose of showing that God has not fitted certain vessels to destruction or ordained certain men to condemnation. First, we cite Ezek. 33:11, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” The first thing to be remarked about this passage is that it must be read in the light of its con- text. If we note its setting it will be seen that these words cannot be extended to all mankind but have reference to the nation of Israel in a by-gone day. The previous verse to 134 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD the one quoted reads, “Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our trans- gressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?” The ones whom Ezekiel was called upon to address were fearful lest all hope of Divine mercy was in vain. They had been carried into captivity and were thoroughly dejected. God’s displeasure rested up- on them both for their own sins and for the sins of their fathers. But Ezekiel is sent to assure them that all hope was not in vain, that God was ready to deal with them in mercy, and that if they would turn from their evil way they should live and not die—even though they had committed innumer- able offences against God, yet an offer of mercy was still extended to them. In a word then, the prophet was sent to Israel to inspire the penitent with hopes of pardon. Ere turning from this passage we cannot do better than quote Calvin’s excellent comments upon it: “Let us observe, there- fore, the design of the prophet in saying that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked; it is to assure the pious | of God’s readiness to pardon them immediately on their repentance, and to shew the impious the aggravation of their sin in rejecting such great compassion and kindness of God. Repentance, therefore, will always be met by Divine mercy ; but on whom repentance is bestowed, we are clearly taught by Ezekiel himself, as well as by all the prophets and apos- Leda Matt. 25:41 is often quoted to show that God has not fitted certain vessels to destruction—‘“Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels.” This is, in fact, one of the principal verses relied upon to dis- prove the doctrine of Reprobation. But we submit that the emphatic word here is not “for” but “Devil.” This verse (see context) sets forth the severity of the judgment which awaits the lost. In other words, the above scripture ex- THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 135 presses the awfulness of the everlasting fire rather than the subjects of it—if the fire be “prepared for the Devil and his angels” then how intolerable it will be! If the place of eternal torment into which the damned shall be cast is the same as that in which God’s arch-enemy will suffer, how dreadful must that place be. Again: if God has chosen only certain ones to salvation, why are we told that God “now commandeth all men every- where to repent” (Acts 17:30) ? That God commandeth “all men” to repent is but the enforcing of His righteous claims as the moral Governor of the world. How could He do less, seeing that all men everywhere have sinned against Him? Furthermore; that God commandeth all men everywhere to repent argues the universality of creature responsibility. But this scripture does not declare that it is God’s pleasure to “give repentance” (Acts 5:31) to all men everywhere. That the apostle Paul did not believe God gave repentance to eve- ry soul is clear from his words in 2 Tim. 2:25—“In meek- ‘ness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God per- adventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” Again; we are asked, If God has “ordained” only certain ones unto eternal life, then why do we read that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4)? In reply we would say, In Scrip- ture God’s “will” sometimes expresses that which He ap- proves, at others, that which He purposes. God approves of all sinners turning to Him, and turns away none who do, but He has not purposed the salvation of every sinner; if He had, then His purpose would be effected, for “what His soul desireth, even that He doeth” (Job 23:13). Again; we are asked, Does not Scripture declare, again and again, that God is no “respecter of persons’? We an- swer, it certainly does, and God’s electing grace proves it. 136 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD The seven sons of Jesse, though older and physically su- perior to David, are passed by, while the young shepherd boy is exalted to Israel’s throne. The scribes and lawyers pass tn-noticed, and ignorant fishermen are chosen to be the apos- tles of the Lamb. Divine truth is hidden from the wise and prudent and is revealed to babes instead. The great ma- jority of the wise and noble are ignored, while the weak, the base, the despised, are called and saved. Harlots and pub- licans are sweetly compelled to come in to the gospel feast, while self-righteous Pharisees are suffered to perish in their immaculate morality. Truly, God is “no respecter” of per- sons or He would not have saved me. Another passage which is often brought forward to re- fute the teaching that God has predestined only certain ones to salvation is 2 Pet. 3:9—‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness ; but is longsuffer- ing to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” A very few words are all that is required to show there is nothing in this verse which con- flicts with what we have said above. All that is needed is to pay careful attention to the antecedents of the pronouns. Not willing that any should perish—any of whom? Clearly, of the “usward.” And who are they? The ones referred to as “beloved” in the opening verse of the chapter to whom the apostle says he addresses “this second epistle.” If we turn back to his first epistle and note to whom it is addressed we discover the remote and original antecedent of the “any,” “usward” and “beloved.” The first epistle of Peter is ad- dressed to the “strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Gala- tia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” and these are declared to be “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Fa- ther” (1 Pet. 1:1,2). God then is not willing that “any” of His “elect’ should perish. It is on their account that God has exercised such longsufferance toward the world which is THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 137 guilty of the death of His Son. It is because God is not willing that any of His “elect” should perish that He has delayed so long the fulfillment of His “promise’—i. e., to send back His Son. Christ will not return until the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, that is, until the Church which is His body is complete, and that will not be until the last of God’s elect have been gathered in. That the Doctrine of Reprobation is a “hard saying” to the carnal mind is readily acknowledged—yet, is it any “hard- er” than that of eternal punishment? That it is clearly re- vealed in Scripture we have sought to demonstrate, and it is not for us to pick and choose from the truths revealed in God’s Word. Let those who are inclined to receive those doctrines which commend themselves to their judgment and who reject those which they cannot fully understand, re- member those scathing words of our Lord’s, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken”’ (Luke 24:25) : Fools because slow of heart; slow of heart, not dull of head. Once more we would avail ourself of the language of Cal- vin: “But, as I have hitherto only recited such things as are delivered without any obscurity or ambiguity in the Scrip- tures, let persons who hesitate not to brand with ignominy those Oracles of heaven, beware what kind of opposition they make. For, if they pretend ignorance, with a desire to be commended for their modesty, what greater instance of pride can be conceived, than to oppose one little word to the authority of God! as, ‘It appears otherwise to me,’ or ‘I would rather not meddle with this subject.’ But if they openly censure, what will they gain by their puny attempts against heaven? Their petulance, indeed, is no novelty; for im all ages there have been impious and profane men, who have virulently opposed this doctrine. But they shall feel the truth of what the Spirit long ago declared by the mouth 138 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD of David, that God ‘is clear when He judgeth’ (Psa. 51 mt & David obliquely hints at the madness of men who display such excessive presumption amidst their insignificance, as not only to dispute against God, but to arrogate to themselves the power of condemning Him. In the meantime, he briefly suggests, that God is unaffected by all the blasphemies which they discharge against heaven, but that He dissipates the mists of calumny, and illustriously displays His righteous- ness; our faith, also, being founded on the Divine Word, and therefore, superior to all the world, from its exaltation looks down with contempt upon those mists” (John Calvin). In closing this chapter we propose to quote from the writ- ings of some of the standard theologians since the days of the Reformation, not that we would buttress our own state- ments by an appeal to human authority however venerable or ancient, but in order to show that what we have advanced in these pages is no novelty of the twentieth century, no here- sy of the ‘latter days’ but, instead, a doctrine which has been definitely formulated and commonly taught by many of the most pious and scholarly students of Holy Writ. “Predestination we call the decree of God, by which He has determined in Himself, what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny: but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, there- fore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to death”—from John Calvin’s “Institutes” (1536 A. D.) Book III, Chapter XXI entitled “Eternal Election, or God’s Predestination of Some to Salvation and of Others to Destruction.” We ask our readers to mark well the above language. A perusal of it should show that what the present writer has advanced in this chapter is not “Hyper-Calvinism” but real Calvinism, pure and simple. Our purpose in making THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 139 this remark is to show that those who, not acquainted with Calvin’s writings, in their ignorance condemn as ultra-Cal- vinism that which is simply a reiteration of what Calvin him- self taught—a reiteration because that prince of theologians as well as his humble debtor have both found this doctrine in the Word of God itself. The “Larger Westminister Catechism” (1688 )—adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church—de- clares “God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of His mere love, for the praise of His glorious grace, to be man- ifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to His sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of His own will (whereby He extend- eth or withholdeth favor as He pleases), hath passed by, and fore-ordained the rest to dishonour and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of His justice”, Arch-bishop Ussher, the celebrated chronologist, asked, “Did God, before He made man, determine to save some and reject others? Yes, surely, before they had done either good or evil, God in His eternal counsel set them apart.” In his exposition of John’s Gospel (1647) John Trapp— C. H. Spurgeon’s favorite among the Puritans—commenting upon John 10:26 (“But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep’) said “Reprobates cannot believe, yea they can- not but resist the external offers of God’s grace.” “It doth sometimes imply one that is designed by God's decree to death and damnation; as, in John 17:12, Judas is called a son of perdition; that is, one who is ordained by God to perdition” (Thos. Goodwin, D. D. 1650). In his exposition of Jude 4, Thos. Manton (one of Crom- well’s chaplains) says, This “is an eternal decree. God’s internal acts are the same with His essence, and therefore before all time, as believers are elected before all worlds, 140 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (Eph. 1:4) so are sinners reprobated ; they are both in time and order before ever the creature was. Election and Rep- robation are not a thing of yesterday, and subsequent to the acts of the creature, but from all eternity. There 1s a decree and preordination, not only a naked foresight, of them that perish. Some Lutherans say that Predestination is proper only to the elect, but as to the Reprobate there is only a pre- science or naked foreknowledge: no foreordination, lest they should make God the author of the creature's sin and ruin. But these men fear where no fear is; the Scriptures show that the greatest evil that ever was, did not only fall under the foreknowledge, but also the determinate counsel of God (Acts 2:23); it was not only foreknown, but unchangeably ordained and determined” (Thos. Manton’s works, 1660— Vol. 5, page 128). “Yet farther, to evidence that this purpose of God or in- tention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there 1s ex- press mention of another sort of men who are not thus chosen but who lie under the purpose of God as to a con- trary lot and condition—'The Lord hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil’ (Prov. 16:4). They are persons ‘whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of Life’ (Rev. 13:8); ‘being of old or- dained to condemnation’ (Jude 4); being as ‘natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed’ (2 Pet. 2 ‘12 ). ee therefore the apostle distinguishing hath divided all men into those who are ‘appointed to wrath,’ and those who are appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ’ ” (John Owen, 1665 A. D. Vol. 12, page 555). Commenting upon Rom. 9:22, “What if God willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de- struction”, Jonathan Edwards (Vol. 4, p. 300—1743 A.D.) says, “How awful doth the majesty of God appear in the THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 141 dreadfulness of His anger! This we may learn to be one end of the damnation of the wicked.” “The date of this decree is as ancient as eternity itself. Wicked men were ‘before of old ordained to this condemna- tion’ (Jude 4). If men were chosen from the beginning, that is from all eternity, to salvation, then those not chosen, or not ordained to eternal life, were foreordained as surely to condemnation. Indeed, there can be no new decree, ap- pointment, or purpose, made by God in time. If the decree of election is from eternity, that of rejection must be so too; since the one cannot be without the other’’—John Gill—pred- ecessor of C. H. Spurgeon. In his commentary on Romans—than which, in our judg- ment, there is no superior—Robert Haldane (1814) wfote, “It may be asked why God hated him (Esau) before he sinned personally; and human wisdom has proved its folly, by endeavoring to soften the word hated into something less than hated: but the man who submits like a little child to the Word of God, will find no difficulty in seeing in what sense Esau was worthy of the hatred of God before he was born. He sinned in Adam, and therefore was properly an object of God’s hatred as well as fallen Adam. There is no other view which will ever account for this language and His treatment Oia satint en 2): By many this has been explained, Esau have I loved less. But Esau was not the object of any de- gree of the divine love, and the word hate never signifies to love less. It might as well be said, that the phrase, Jacob have I loved does not signify that God really loved Jacob, but that to love here signifies only to hate less, and that all that is meant by the expression is that God hated Jacob less than He hated Esau. Esau was justly the object of hatred before he was born, because he was viewed in Adam as a sinner. Jacob was justly the object of God’s love before he was born because he was viewed in Christ as righteous.” 142 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Commenting on Rom. 9 :17—‘‘For this purpose have I raised thee up’—Mr. Haldane says, ‘Here is the destination of Pharaoh to his destruction”. Thomas Chalmers in his “Lectures on Romans” (1819- 1823) writes, “This doctrine of predestination ought never to be a stumbling-block in the way of your entertaining the overtures of the Gospel. Leave it to God Himself to har- monize these everlasting decrees, by which He has distin- guished between the elect and the reprobate, with His present declarations of good will to-one and to all of the human fam- lyase Said Moses Stuart of the Theological Seminary, Andover, in his commentary on Romans (1832), “Those who con- tend against this sentiment contend against what is every day exhibited before their eyes. Why was this man born white and that one black? Why is this child born and nurtured in the bosom of a pious family, and that one in the midst of robbers and murderers? The children had done neither ‘good or evil’, when their lot was decided. This no one can deny. Then, in the next place, is not their eternal condition con- nected with their means of grace, their pious nurture, their present condition and associations in life? And whe-placed them in their present condition? All nature, as well as the Bible, proclaims this doctrine of divine sovereignty.” Said Dr. J. Brown, Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church (1857), “Has not God the power and right, out of the aggregate body of human beings who are to exist in all ages, to fix the everlasting destiny of individuals—to appoint some to everlasting happiness, and others to everlasting misery? We apprehend that an affirma- tive answer to both of these questions is the true one’. “Fitted to destruction” (Rom. 9:22). After declaring this phrase admits of two interpretations, Dr. Hodge—perhaps the best known and most widely read commentator on Ro- THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN REPROBATION 143 mans—says, “The other interpretation assumes that the reference is to God and that the Greek word for ‘fitted’ has its full participle force; prepared (by God): for destruc- tion.” This, says Dr. Hodge, “Is adopted not only by the majority of Augustinians, but also by many Lutherans”, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowl- edge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things : to whom be glory forever, Amen” (Rom. 11 :33-36).* *“Of Him”—His will is the origin of all existence; “through” or “by Him”’—He is the Creator and Controller Olfall an tomrimpea— everything promotes His glory in their final end. x CHAPTER SIX: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION. “For of Him, and thro’ Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” Romans 11:36. 5 y VI. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION Rp AS God fore-ordained everything that comes to { ) pass? Has he decreed that what is was to have been? xeaG In the final analysis this is only another way of ask- ing, is God now governing the world and everyone and every- thing in it? If God is governing the world then is He gov- erning it according to a definite purpose, or aimlessly and at random? If He is governing it according to some purpose then when was that purpose made? Is God continually chang- ing His purpose and making a new one every day, or was His purpose formed from the beginning? Are God’s actions, like ours, regulated by the change of circumstances, or are they the outcome of His eternal purpose? If God formed a purpose before man was created then is that purpose going to be executed according to His original designs and is He now working toward that end? What saith the Scriptures ? They declare God is One “who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11). Few who read this book are likely to call into question the statement that God knows and foreknows all things, but perhaps many would hesitate to go further than this. Yet is it not self-evident that if God foreknows all things He has also fore-ordained all things? Is it not clear that God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be? God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of events, rather are events the effects of His eternal purpose. When God has decreed a thing shall be He knows it will be. In the nature of things there cannot be anything known as what shall be, unless it is certain to be, and there is nothing certain to be unless God has ordained it shall be. Take the 148 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Crucifixion as an illustration. On this point the teaching of Scripture is as clear as a sunbeam. Christ as the Lamb whose blood was to be shed was “‘‘foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20). Having then “ordained” the slaying of the Lamb God knew He would be “led to the slaughter” and therefore made it known ac- cordingly through Isaiah the prophet. The Lord Jesus was not “delivered” up by God fore-knowing it before it took place, but by His fixed counsel and fore-ordination (Acts 2:23). Fore-knowledge of future events then is founded upon God’s decrees, hence if God foreknows everything that is to be it is because He has determined in Himself from all eternity everything which will be—‘Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15: 18), which shows that God has a plan, that God did not begin His work at random or without a knowledge of how His plan would succeed. God created all things. This truth no one, who bows to the testimony of Holy Writ, will question, nor would any such be prepared to argue that the work of creation was an accidental work. God first formed the purpose to create and then put forth the creative act in fulfilment ot that purpose. All real Christians will readily adopt the words of the Psalmist and say, “O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all.” Will any who endorse what we have just said deny that God purposed to govern the world which He created? Surely the creation of the world was not the end of God’s purpose concerning it. Surely He did not determine simply to create the world and -place man in it and then leave both to their fortunes. It must be apparent that God has some great end or ends in view, worthy of His infinite perfections and that He is now governing the world so as to accomplish these ends—“The THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 149 counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations” (Ps. 33:11). “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Is. 46:9, 10). Many other passages might be adduced to show that God has many purposes concerning this world and concerning man, and that all these purposes will most surely be realized. It is only when they are thus regarded that we can intelli- gently appreciate the prophecies of Scripture. In prophecy the Mighty God has condescended to take us into the secret chamber of His eternal counsels and make known to us what He has purposed to do in the future. The hundreds of prophecies which are found in the Old and New Testaments are not so much predictions of what will come to pass, as they are revelations to us of what God has purposed SHALL come to pass. Do we know from prophecy that this present age, like all preceding ones, is to end with a full demonstration of man’s failure; do we know that there is to be a universal turning away from the truth, a general apostasy ; do we know that the Anti-christ is to be manifested and that he will succeed in deceiving the whole world; do we know that Anti-christ’s career will be cut short and an end made of man’s miserable attempts to govern himself by the return of God’s Son to the earth to take the government upon His shoulder; do we know that for a thousand years the earth will be rid of Satan’s presence and that during this time the Lord Jesus will reign as Prince of Peace and King of Righteousness ; then it is all because these and a hundred other things are included among God’s eternal decrees, now made known to us in the sure Word of Prophecy, and be- 150 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD cause it is infallibly certain that all God has purposed “must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1:1). What then was the great purpose for which this world and the human race were created? The answer of Scripture is “The Lord hath made all things for Himself” (Pro. 16:4). And again, “Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11). The great end of creation was the manifestation of God’s glory. The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handiwork, but it was by man originally made in His own image and likeness that God designed chiefly to manifest His glory. But how was the great Creator to be glorified by man? Before his creation God foresaw the fall of Adam and the consequent ruin of his race, therefore He could not have designed that man should glorify Him by continuing in a state of innocency. Accordingly, we are taught that Christ was “fore-ordained before the foundation of the world” to be the Saviour of fallen men. The re- demption of sinners by Christ was no mere after-thought of God : it was no expediency to meet an unlooked for calamity. No; it was a Divine pro-vision, and therefore when man fell he found mercy walking hand in hand with justice. From all eternity God designed that our world should be the stage on which He would display His manifold grace and wisdom in the redemption of lost sinners: “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heaven- ly places might be known by the Church the manifold wis- dom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He pur- posed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11). For the accomplishment of this glorious design God has governed the world from the beginning and will continue it to the end. It has been well said, ““We can never understand the provi- dence of God over our world, unless we regard it as a com- plicated machine having ten thousand parts, directed in all THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 151 its Operations to one glorious end—the display of the mani- fold wisdom of God in the salvation of the Church,” i. e., the “called out” ones. Everything else down here is sub- ordinated to this central purpose. It was the apprehension of this basic truth that the apostle, moved by the Holy Spir- it, was led to write, “Wherefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2 10). What we would now contemplate is the operation of God’s sovereign- ty in the government of this world. In regard to the operation of God’s government over the material world little needs now be said. In previous chap- ters we have shown that inanimate matter and all irrational creatures are absolutely subject to their Creator’s pleasure. While we freely admit that the material world appears to be governed by laws that are stable and more or less uniform in their operations, yet Scripture, history, and observation compel us to recognise the fact that God suspends these laws and acts apart from them whenever it pleaseth Him to do so. In sending His blessings or judgments upon His crea- tures He may cause the sun itself to stand still and the stars in their courses to fight for His people (Judges 5:20); He may send or withhold “the early and the latter rains” ac- cording to the dictates of His own infinite wisdom ; He may smite with plague or bless with health: in short, being God, being absolute Sovereign, He is bound and tied by no laws of Nature but governs the material world as seemeth Him best. But what of God’s government of the human family? What does Scripture reveal in regard to the modus oper- andi of the operations of His governmental administration over mankind? To what extent and by what influences does God control the sons of men? We shall divide our answer to this question into two parts and consider first God’s 152 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD method of dealing with the righteous, His elect, and then His method of dealing with the wicked. Gop’s Metruop oF DEALING WITH THE RIGHTEOUS: 1 God exerts upon His own elect a quickening influence or power. By nature they are spiritually dead, dead in trespasses and sins, and their first need is spiritual life for “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). In the new birth God brings us from death unto life (John 5:24). He imparts to us His own nature (2 Pet. 1:4). He delivers us from the power of darkness and translates us into the kingdom of His dear Son (Col. 1:13). Now, manifestly we could not do this ourselves for we were “without strength” (Rom. 5:6), henée it is written, “we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2510). . In the new birth we are made partakers of the Divine nature: a principle, a “seed,” a life, is communicated to us which is “born of the Spirit” and therefore “is spirit,” is born ‘of the Holy Spirit and therefore is holy. Apart from this Divine and holy nature which is imparted to us at the new birth it is utterly impossible for any man to generate a spiritual impulse, form a spiritual concept, think a spiritual thought, understand spiritual things, still less engage in spiritual works. “Without holiness no man shall see the Lord,” but the natural man has no desire for holiness and the provision that God has made he does not want. Will then a man pray for, seek for, strive after, that which he dislikes? Surely not. If then a man does “follow after” that which by nature he cordially dislikes, if he does now love the One he. once hated, it is because a miraculous change has taken place within him; a power outside of him- self has operated upon him, a nature entirely different from THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 153 his old one has been imparted to him, and hence it is written, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away, behold all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Such an one as we have just described has passed from death unto life, has been turned from dark- ness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God (Acts 26:18). Inno other way can the great change be accounted for. The new birth is very, very much more than simply shedding a few tears due to a temporary remorse over sin. It is far more than changing our course of life, the leaving off of bad habits and the substituting of good ones. It is something different from the mere cherishing and practising of noble ideals. It goes infinitely deeper than coming for- ward to take some popular evangelist by the hand, signing a pledge card, or “joining the church.” The new birth is no mere turning over a new leaf, but is the inception and _ Teception of a new life. It is no mere reformation but a complete transformation. In short, the new birth is a mir- acle, the result of the supernatural Operation of God. It is radical, revolutionary, lasting. , Here then is the first thing, in time, which God does in His own elect. He lays hold of those who are spiritually dead and quickens them into newness of life. He takes up one who was shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin and conforms him to the image of His Son. He seizes a cap- tive of the Devil and makes him a member of the house- hold of faith. He picks up a beggar and makes him joint- heir with Christ. He comes to one who is full of enmity against Him and gives him a new heart that is full of love for Him. He stoops to one who by nature is a rebel and works in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure. By His irresistible power He transforms a sinner into a 154 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD saint, an enemy into a friend, a child of the Devil into a child of God. Surely then we are moved to say, “When all Thy mercies O my God My wondering soul surveys, Transported with the view I’m lost In wonder, love and praise.” 2 God exerts upon His own elect an energising influence or power. The apostle prayed to God for the Ephesian saints that the eyes of their understanding might be enlightened in order that, among other things, they might know “what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who be- lieve’ (Eph. 1:18), and that they might be “strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man” (3:16). It is thus that the children of God are enabled to fight the good fight of faith and battle with the adverse forces which con- stantly war against them. In themselves they have no strength: they are but “sheep” and sheep are one of the most defenceless animals there is; but the promise is sure—“He giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no might He increaseth strength” (Is. 40:29). It is this energising power that God exerts upon and with- in the righteous which enables them to serve Him ac- ceptably. Said the prophet of old, “But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord” (Micah 3:8). And said our Lord to His apostles, “Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you” (Acts 1:8), and thus it proved, for of these same men we read subsequently, “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrec- tion of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (Acts 4:33). So it was, too, with the apostle Paul, “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 155 power” (1 Cor. 2:4). But the scope of this power is not confined to service for we read in 2 Pet. 1 :3, “According as His Divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, thro’ the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue.’ Hence it is that the various graces of the Christian character “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, tem- perance” are ascribed directly to God Himself, being denom- inated “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. Cea 3 God exerts upon His own elect a directing influence or power. Of old He led His people across the wilderness and di- rected their steps by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, and today He still directs His saints, though now from within rather than from without. “For this God ts our God for ever and ever: He will be our Guide even unto death” (Ps. 48:14), but He “guides” us by working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. That He does so guide us is clear from the words of the apostle in Eph. 2:10—‘For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before or- dained that we should walk in them”. Thus all ground for boasting is removed, and God gets all the glory, for with - the prophet we have to say, “Lord, Thou wilt ordain peace for us: for Thou also hast wrought all our works in us” (Is. 26:12). How true then that “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps’ (Pro. 16:9)! 4 God exerts upon His own elect a preserving influence or power. Many are the scriptures which set forth this blessed truth. “He preserveth the souls of His saints ; He delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked” (Ps. 97:10). “For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not His saints; they are 156 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off” (Ps. 37:28). “The Lord preserveth all them that love Him: but all the wicked will He destroy” (Ps. 145:20). It is needless to multiply texts or to raise an argument at this point respecting the believer’s responsibility and faithfulness —we can no more “persevere” without God preserving us than we can breathe when God ceases to give us breath; we are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5). It re- mains for us now to consider. Gop’s MEetTHop oF DEALING WITH THE WICKED: In contemplating God’s governmental dealings with the non-elect we find that He exerts upon them a fourfold in- fluence cr power. We adopt the clear-cut divisions sug- gested by Dr. Rice: 1 God exerts upon the wicked a restraining influence by which they are prevented from doing what they are natu- rally inclined to do. A striking example of this is seen in Abimelech King of Gerar. Abraham came down to Gerar and fearful lest he might be slain on account of his wife he instructed her to pose as his sister. Regarding her as an unmarried woman Abimelech sent and took Sarah unto himself, and then we learn how God put forth His power to protect her honor— “And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for J also withheld thee from sinning against Me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her’ (Gen. 20:6). Had not God interposed Abime- lech would have grievously wronged Sarah, but the Lord restrained him and allowed him not to carry out the inten- tions of his heart. A similar instance is found in connection with Joseph and his brethren’s treatment of him. Owing to Jacob’s parti- THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 157 ality for Joseph, his brethren “hated him,” and when they thought they had him in their power “they conspired against him to slay him” (Gen. 37:18). But God did not allow them to carry out their evil designs. First He moved Reuben to deliver him out of their hands, and next he caused Judah to suggest that Joseph should be sold to the passing Ishmael- ites who carried him down into Egypt. That it was God who thus restrained them is clear from the words of Joseph himself when some years later he made known himself to his brethren: said he, “So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God” (Gen. 45:8)! The restraining influence which God exerts upon the wicked was strikingly exemplified in the person of Balaam the prophet hired by Balak to curse the Israelites. One cannot read the inspired narrative without discovering that, left to himself, Balaam had readily and certainly accepted the offer of Balak. How evidently God restrained the im- pulses of his heart is seen from his own acknowledgment— “How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied? Behold I have received commandment to bless: and He hath blessed ; and I cannot reverse it” (Num. 23:8, 20). Not only does God exert a restraining influence upon wicked individuals but He does so upon whole peoples as well. A remarkable illustration of this is found in Pox 34: 24—"‘For I will-cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year.” Three times every male Israelite, at the command of God, left his home and inheritance and jour- neyed to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Lord, and in the above scripture we learn that He promised them that while they were at Jerusalem He would guard their unpro- 158 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD tected homes by restraining the covetous designs and desires of their heathen neighbors. 2 God exerts upon the wicked a softening influence dis- posing them contrary to their natural inclinations to do that which will promote His cause. Above we referred to Joseph’s history as an illustration of God exerting a restraining influence upon the wicked, let us note now his experiences in Egypt as exemplifying our assertion that God also exerts a softening influence upon the unrighteous. We are told that while he was in the house of Potiphar “The Lord was with Joseph, and his master saw the Lord was with him,” and in consequence, “Joseph found favor in his sight and he made him over-seer over his house” (Gen. 39:3, 4). Later, when Joseph was unjust- ly cast into prison, we are told, “But the Lord was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison” (Gen. 39:21), and in con- sequence the prison-keeper shewed him much kindness and honor. Finally, after his release from prison, we learn from Acts 7:10 that the Lord “gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.” An equally striking evidence of God’s power to melt the hearts of His enemies was seen in Pharaoh’s daughter’s treatment of the infant Moses. The incident is well known. Pharaoh had issued an edict commanding the destruction of every male child of the Israelites. A certain Levite had a son born to him who for three months was kept hidden by his mother. No longer able to conceal the infant Moses, she placed him in an ark of bulrushes, and laid him by the river’s brink. The ark was discovered by none less than the king’s daughter who had come down to the river to bathe, but instead of heeding her father’s wicked decree and cast- ing the child into the river, we are told that “she had com- THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 159 passion on him” (Ex. 2:6)! Accordingly, the young life was spared and later Moses became the adopted son of this princess! God has access to the hearts of all men and He softens or hardens them according to His sovereign purpose. The pro- fane Esau swore vengeance upon his brother for the decep- tion which he had practiced upon his father, yet when next he met Jacob instead of slaying him we are told that Esau “fell on his neck and kissed him” (Gen. 32:4)! Ahab, the weak and wicked consort of Jezebel, was highly enraged against Elijah the prophet at whose word the heavens had been shut up for three years and a half: so angry was he against the one whom he regarded as his enemy that we are told he searched for him in every nation and kingdom and when he could not be found “he took an oath” (1 Kings 18:10). Yet, when they met, instead of killing the prophet Ahab meekly obeyed Elijah’s behest and “sent unto all the children of Israel and gathered the prophets together unto Mount Carmel” (vs. 20). Again; Esther the poor Jewess is about to enter the presence chamber of the august Medo- Persian monarch which, said she, “is not according to the law” (Est. 4:16). She went in expecting to “perish,” but we are told “She obtained favor in his sight and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter” (5 2). Yet again; the boy Daniel is a captive in a foreign court. The king “appoint- ed” a daily provision of meat and drink for Daniel and his fellows. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the allotted portion and accordingly made known his purpose to his master, the prince of the eunuchs. What happened? His master was a heathen, and “feared” the king. Did he turn then upon Daniel and angrily demand that his orders be promptly carried out? No; for we read, “Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs” (Dan. 1 79)! 160 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Pro. 21:1). A remarkable illustration of this is seen in Cyrus the heathen king of Persia. God’s people were in captivity ; but the pre- dicted end of their captivity was almost reached. Meanwhile the Temple at Jerusalem lay in ruins, and, as we have said, the Jews were in bondage in a distant land. What hope was there then that the Lord’s house would be re-built? Mark now what God did, ‘Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that He made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah” (Ezra 1:1, 2). Cy- rus, be it remembered, was a pagan, and as secular history bears witness, a very wicked man, yet the Lord moved him to issue this edict that His Word through Jeremiah seventy years before might be fulfilled. A similar and further illustra- tion is found in Ezra 7:27 where we find Ezra returning thanks for what God had caused King Artaxerxes to do in completing and beautifying the house which Cyrus had com- manded to be erected—“Blessed be the Lord God of our fa- thers which hath put such a thing as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem” Giizrae7227,). 3 God exerts upon the wicked a directing influence so that good is made to result from their intended evil. Once more we revert to the history of Joseph as a case in point. In selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites his brethren were actuated by cruel and heartless motives. Their object was to make away with him, and the passing of these travelling traders furnished an easy way out for them. To them the THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 161 act was nothing more than the enslaving of a noble youth for the sake of gain. But now observe how God was secretly working and over-ruling their wicked actions. Providence so ordered it that these Ishmaelites passed by just in time to prevent Joseph being murdered, for his brethren had already taken counsel together to put him to death. Further ; these Ishmaelites were journeying to Egypt which was the very country to which God had purposed to send Joseph and He ordained they should purchase Joseph just when they did. That the hand of God was in this incident, that it was some- thing more than a fortunate co-incidence, is clear from the words of Joseph to his brethren at a later date, ““God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a greater deliverance” (Gen. 45 eda Another equally striking illustration of God directing the wicked is found in Isaiah 10 :5-7—“O Assyrian, the rod of Mine anger, and the staff in their hand is Mine indignation. [ will send him against a hypocritical nation, and against the people of My wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.” Assyria’s king had determined to be a world-conqueror, to “cut off nations not a few.” But God directed and controlled his military lust and ambition and caused -him to confine his attention to the conquering of the insignificant nation of Israel. Such a task was not in the proud king’s heart—“‘he meant it not so”—but God gave him this charge and he could do nothing but fulfill it. The supreme example of the controlling, directing influ- ence, which God exerts upon the wicked is the Cross of Christ with all its attending circumstances. If ever the su- perintending providence of God was witnessed it was there. From all eternity God had predestined every detail of that 162 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD event of all events. Nothing was left to chance or the caprice of man. God had decreed when and where and how His blessed Son was to die. Much of what He had purposed concerning the Crucifixion had been made known through the Old Testament prophets, and in the accurate and literal ful- fillment of these prophecies we have clear proof, full demon- stration, of the controlling and directing influence which God exerts upon the wicked. Not a thing occurred except as God has ordained, and all that He had ordained took place exactly as He purposed. Had it been decreed (and made known in Scripture) that the Saviour should be betrayed by one of His own disciples—by His ‘‘familiar friend’”—see Ps. 41:9 and compare Matt. 26:50—then the apostle Judas is the one who sold Him. Had it been decreed that the betrayer should receive for his awful perfidy thirty pieces of silver, then are the chief priests moved to offer him this very sum. Had it been decreed that this betrayal sum should be put to a particular use, namely, purchase the potter’s field, then the hand of God directs Judas to return the money to the chief priests and so guided their “counsel” (Matt. 27:7) that they did this very thing. Had it been decreed that there should be those who bore “false witness” against our Lord (Ps. 35:11), then accordingly such were raised up. Had it been decreed that the Lord of glory should be “spat upon and scourged” (Is. 50:6), then there were not found wanting those who were vile enough to do so. Had it been decreed that the Saviour should be ‘numbered with the trangressors,” then unknown to himself, Pilate, directed by God, gave orders for His crucifixion along with two thieves. Had it been decreed that vinegar and gall should be given Him to drink while He hung upon the Cross, then this decree of God was executed to the very letter. Had it been decreed that the heartless soldiers should gamble for His garments, then sure enough they did this very thing. Had it been decreed that not a THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 163 bone of Him should be broken (Ps. 34 :20), then the con- trolling hand of God which suffered the Roman soldier to break the legs of the thieves, prevented him from doing the same with our Lord. Ah! there were not enough soldiers in all the Roman legions, there were not sufficient demons in all the hierarchies of Satan, to break one bone in the body of Christ. And why? Because the Almighty Sovereign had de- creed that not a bone should be broken. Do we need to ex- tend this paragraph any farther? Does not the accurate and literal fulfillment of all that Scripture had predicted in connection with the Crucifixion demonstrate beyond all con- troversy that an Almighty power was directing and superin- tending everything that was done on that Day of days? 4 God also hardens the hearts of wicked men and blinds their minds. “God hardens men’s hearts? God blinds men’s minds? Yes, so Scripture represents Him. In developing this theme of the Sovereignty of God in Operation we recognise that we have now reached its most solemn aspect of all, and that here especially, we need to keep very close indeed to the words of Holy Writ. God forbid that we should go one fraction fur- ther than His Word goes; but may He give us grace to go as far as His Word goes. It is true that secret things belong unto the Lord, but it is also true that those things which are revealed in Scripture belong unto us and to our children. “He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal subtly with His servants” (Ps. 105:25). The reference here is to the sojourn of the descendants of Jacob in the land of Egypt when, after the death of the Pharaoh who had welcomed the old patriarch and his family, there “arose up a new king who knew not Joseph ;” and in his days the children of Israel had “increased greatly” so that they outnumbered the Egyptians, Then it was that God “turned their heart to hate His people.” The consequence of the Egyptians’ “hatred” is well 164 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD known: they brought them into cruel bondage and placed them under merciless taskmasters, until their lot became un- endurable. Helpless and wretched the Israelites cried unto Jehovah, and in response He appointed Moses to be their de- liverer. God revealed Himself unto His chosen servant, gave him a number of miraculous signs which he was to ex- hibit at the Egyptian court, and then bade him go to Pharaoh and demand that the Israelites should be allowed to go a three days’ journey into the wilderness that they might wor- ship the Lord. But before Moses started out on his journey God warned him concerning Pharaoh “J will harden lis heart that he shall not let the people go” (Ex. 4:21). If it be asked, Why did God harden Pharaoh’s heart ? the answer furnished by Scripture itself is, In order that God might show forth His power in him (Rom. 9:17); in other words, it was so that the Lord might demonstrate that it was just as easy for Him to overthrow this haughty and powerful monarch as it was for Him to crush a worm. If it should be pressed further, Why did God select such a method of displaying His power? then the answer must be, that being Sovereign God reserves to Himself the right to act as He pleases. Not only are we told that God hardened the heart of Pha- raoh so that he would not let the Israelites go, but after God had plagued his land so severely that he reluctantly gave a qualified permission, and after that the first-born of all the Egyptians had been slain and Israel had actually left the land of bondage, God told Moses, “And I, behold, “Z will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get Me honor upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten Me honor upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen” (Ex. 14:17, 18). The same thing happened subsequently in connection with Sihon king of Heshbon through whose territory Israel THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN OPERATION 165 had to pass on their way to the Promised Land. When re- viewing their history, Moses teld the people, “But Sihon king of Heshon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into thy hand” (Deut. 2:30) ! So it was also after that Israel had entered Canaan. We read, “There was not a city that made peace with the chil- dren of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord com- manded Moses” (Josh. 11:19, 20). From other scriptures we learn why God purposed to “destroy utterly” the Ca- naanites—it was because of their awful wickedness and cor- ruption. Nor is the revelation of this solemn truth confined to the Old Testament. In John 12:37-40 we read, “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that (in order that) the saying of Isaiah the proph- et might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath be- lieved our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hard- ened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” It needs to be carefully noted here that these whose eyes God “blinded” and whose heart He “hardened were men who had deliberately scorned the Light and rejected the testimony of God’s own Son. Similarly we read in 2 Thess. 2:11, 12, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” The fulfillment 166 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD of this scripture is yet future. What God did unto the Jews of old He is yet going to do unto Christendom. Just as the Jews of Christ’s day despised His testimony, and in conse- quence, were “blinded,” so a guilty Christendom which has rejected the Truth shall yet have sent them from God a “strong delusion” that they may believe a lie. Is God really governing the world? Is He exercising rule over the human family? What is the modus operandi of His governmental administration over mankind? To what ex- tent and by what means does He control the sons of men? How does God exercise an influence upon the wicked, seeing their hearts are at enmity against Him? These are some of the questions we have sought to answer from Scripture in the previous sections of this chapter. Upon His own elect God exerts a quickening, an energising, a directing, and a pre- serving power. Upon the wicked God exerts a restraining, softening, directing, and hardening and blinding power ac- cording to the dictates of His own infinite wisdom and unto the outworking of His own eternal purpose. God's decrees are being executed. What He has ordained is being accom- plished. Man’s wickedness is bounded. The limits of evil- doing and of evil-doers has been Divinely defined and cannot be exceeded. Though many are in ignorance of it, all men, good and bad, are under the jurisdiction of and are absolute- ly subject to the administration of the Supreme Sovereign.— “Aljeluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” (Rev. 19 :6)—reigneth over all. GHAPTER SEVEN, GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE HUMAN WILL. “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” Phils 13% Vil. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND THE HUMAN WILL. mp GUAT is the human Will? Is it a self-determining ((; [ agent, or is it, in turn, determined by something else? ww 3 Is it sovereign or servant? Is the will superior to every other faculty of our being so that it governs them, or is it moved by their impulses and subject to their pleasure? Does the will rule the mind, or does the mind control the will? Is the will free to do as it pleases or is it under the necessity of rendering obedience to something outside of it- self? “Does the will stand apart from the other great facul- ties or powers of the soul, a man within a man, who can re- verse the man and fly against the man and split him into seg- ments, as a glass snake breaks in pieces? Or, is the will con- nected with the other faculties, as the tail of the serpent is with his body, and that again with his head, so that where the head goes, the whole creature goes, and, as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he? First thought, then heart (desire or aver- sion), and then act. Is it this way, the dog wags the tail? Or, is it the will, the tail, wags the dog? Is the will the first and chief thing in the man, or is it the last thing—to be kept subordinate, and in its place beneath the other faculties? and, is the true philosophy of moral action and its process that of Gen. 3:6: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food” (sense-perception, intelligence), “and a tree to be desired” (affections), “she took and ate thereof” (the will).” (G. S. Bishop). These are questions of more than academical interest. They are of practical importance. We believe that we do not go too far when we affirm that the 170 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD answer returned to these questions is a fundamental test of doctrinal soundness.” 1. THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN WILL. What is the Will? We answer, the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessa- rily implies the refusal of one thing and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present to the mind before there can be any choice. In every act of the will there is a preference—the desiring of one thing rath- er than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between two or more alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice; something which determines the decision. Hence the will cannot be sovereign because it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative, because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that some- thing must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations, is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself, hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute “freedom” of it. Acts of the will cannot come to pass of themselves—to say they can is to postulate an uncaused effect. Ex nihilo nihil fit— nothing cannot produce something. *Since writing the above we have read an article by the late J. N. Darby entitled, “Man’s so-called freewill,” that opens with these words: “This re-appearance of the doctrine of freewill serves to support that of the pretension of the natural man to be not irremedi- ably fallen, for this is what such doctrine tends to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all persons in whom this convic- tion is based on gross external sins, believe more or less in freewill.” THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 171 In all ages, however, there have been those who contended for the absolute freedom or sovereignty of the human will. Men will argue that the will possesses a self-determining power. They say, for example, I can turn my eyes up or down, the mind is quite indifferent which I do, the will must decide. But this is a contradiction in terms. This case sup- poses that I choose one thing in preference to another while I am in a state of complete indifference. Manifestly, both cannot be true. But it may be replied, the mind was quite indifferent until it came to have a preference. Exactly ; and at that time the will was quiescent, too. But the moment in- difference vanished, choice was made, and the fact that indif- ference gave place to preference overthrows the argument that the will is capable of choosing between two equal things. As we have said, choice implies the acceptance of one alter- native and the rejection of the other or others. That which determines the will is that which causes it to choose. If the will is determined, then there must be a de- terminer. What is it that determines the will? We reply, the strongest motive power which is brought to bear upon it. What this motive power is varies in different cases. With one it may be the logic of reason, with another the voice of conscience, with another the impulse of the emotions, with another the whisper of the Tempter, with another the power of the Holy Spirit ; whichever of these presents the strongest motive power and exerts the greatest influence upon the indi- vidual himself is that which impels the will to act. In other words, the action of the will is determined by that condition of mind (which in turn is influenced by the world, the flesh, and the Devil, as well as by God) which has the greatest de- gree of tendency to excite volition. To illustrate what we have just said let us analyze a simple example— On a certain Lord’s day afternoon a friend of ours was suffering from a severe headache. He was anxious to visit 172 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD the sick, but feared that if he did so his own condition would grow worse, and as the consequence be unable to attend the preaching of the Gospel that evening. Two alter- natives confronted him: to visit the sick that afternoon and risk being sick himself, or, to take a rest that afternoon (and visit the sick the next day) and probably arise refreshed and fit for the evening service. Now what was it that decided our friend in choosing between these two alternatives? The will? Not at all. True, that in the end, the will made a choice, but the will itself was moved to make the choice. In the above case certain considerations presented strong motives for selecting either alternative ; these motives were balanced the one against the other by the individual himself, i. e., his heart and mind, and the one alternative being supported by stronger motives than the other, decision was formed ac- cordingly, and then the will acted. On the one side, our friend felt impelled by a sense of duty to visit the sick; he was moved with compassion to do so, and thus a strong mo- tive was presented to his mind or judgment. On the other hand, his judgment reminded him that he was feeling far from well himself, that he badly needed a rest, that if he visited the sick his own condition would probably be made worse, and in such case he would be prevented from attend- ing the preaching of the Gospel that night; furthermore he knew that on the morrow, the Lord willing, he could visit the sick, and this being so he concluded he ought to rest that afternoon. Here then were two sets of alternatives pre- sented to our Christian brother: on the one side was a sense of duty plus his own sympathy, on the other side was a sense of his own need plus a real concern for God’s glory, for he felt that he ought to attend the preaching of the Gospel that night. The latter prevailed. Spiritual considerations out- weighed his sense of duty. Having formed his decision the will acted accordingly, and he retired to rest. An analysis THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 173 of the above case shows that the mind or reasoning faculty was directed by spiritual considerations, and the mind regu- lated and controlled the will. FElence we say that if the will is controlled it is neither sovereign nor free, but is the serv- ant of the mind. It is only as we see the real nature of freedom and mark that the will is subject to the motives brought to bear upon it that we are able to discern there is no conflict between two statements of Holy Writ which concern our blessed Lord. In Matt. 4:1 we read, “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil”, but in Mark I:12, 13 we are told, “And immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness. And He was there in the wilder- ness forty days, tempted of Satan”. It is utterly impossible to harmonize these two statements by the Arminian conception of the will. But really there is no difficulty. That Christ was “driven” implies it was by a forcible motive or powerful im- pulse, such as was not to be resisted or refused; that He was “led” denotes His freedom in going. Putting the two together we learn, that He was driven with a voluntary con- descension thereto. So, there is the liberty of man’s will and the victorious efficacy of God’s grace united together: a sinner may be “drawn” and yet “come” to Christ—the “drawing” presenting to him the irresistible motive, the “coming” signifying the response of his will—as Christ was “driven” and “led” by the Spirit into the wilderness. Human philosophy insists that it is the will which governs the man, but the Word of God teaches that it is the heart which is the dominating center of our being. Many scrip- tures might be quoted in substantiation of this. “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” etc. (Mark 7:21). Here our Lord traces these sinful acts back 174 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD to their source, and declares that their fountain is the “heart’’ and not the will! Again; “This people draweth nigh unto Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matt. 15:8). If further proof were required we might call atten- tion to the fact that the word “heart” is found in the Bible more than three times oftener than is the word “will,” even though nearly half of the references to the latter refer to God’s will. When we call attention to the fact that it is the heart and not the will which governs the man, we are not merely striv- ing about words but insisting on a distinction that is of vital importance. Here is an individual before whom two alterna- tives are placed; which will he choose? We answer, the one which is most agreeable to himself, i.e., his “heart’’—the in- nermost core of his being. Before the sinner is set a life of virtue and piety, and a life of sinful indulgence; which will he follow? The latter. Why? Because this is his choice. But does that prove the will is sovereign? Not at all. Go back from effect to cause. Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it—and he does prefer it, all arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, though of course he does not enjoy the effects of such a course. And why does he prefer it? Because his heart is sinful. The same alternatives, in like manner, confront the Christian, and he chooses and strives after a life of piety and virtue. Why? Because God has given him a new heart or na- ture. Hence we say it is not the will which makes the sinner impervious to all appeals to “forsake his way,” but his cor- rupt and evil heart. He will not come to Christ because he does not want to, and he does not want to because his heart hates Him and loves sin. In defining the will we have said above, that “the will is the faculty of choice, the immediate cause of all action.” We say the immediate cause, for the will is not the primary cause THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 175 of any action any more than the hand is. Just as the hand is controlled by the muscles and nerves of the arm, and the arm by the brain, so the will is the servant of the mind and the mind, in turn, is affected by various influences and mo- tives which are brought to bear upon it. But, it may be asked, Does not Scripture make its appeal to man’s will? Is it not written, “And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17) ? And did not our Lord say, “ye will not come to Me that ye might have life” (John 5:40)? We answer ; the appeal of Scripture is not always made to man’s “will”; other of his faculties are also addressed. For ex- ample: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “Hear and your soul shall live.” “Look unto Me and be ye saved.” “Be- heve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” “Come now and let us reason together,” etc., etc. 2 THE BONDAGE oF THE HUMAN WILL. In any treatise that proposes to deal with the human will, its nature and functions, respect should be had to the will in three different men, namely, unfallen Adam, the sinner, and the Lord Jesus Christ. In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of imnocency, but not in a state of holiness as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from “the Man Christ hestis3: But with the sinner it is far otherwise. The sinner is born with a will that is not in a condition of moral equipoise, be- cause in him there is a heart that is “deceitful above all things and desperately wicked,” and this gives him a bias toward evil. So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus 176 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Christ could not sin because He was “the Holy One of God.” Before He was born into this world it was said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Speaking reverently then, we say, that the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because, side by side with His sinless, holy, per- fect humanity, was His eternal Deity. Now in contradistinc- tion from the will of the Lord Jesus which was biased toward good, and Adam’s will which, before his fall, was in a condition of moral equipoise—capable of turning toward either good or evil—the sinner’s will is biased toward evil and therefore is free in one directon only, namely, in the di- rection of evil. The sinner’s will is enslaved because it is in _ bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart. In what does the sinner’s freedom consist? This question is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The sinner is ‘free’ in the sense of being unforced from without. God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not free to do either good or evil because an evil heart within is ever inclining him toward sin. Let us illustrate what we have in mind. I hold in my hand a book. I release it; what hap- pens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards; always downwards. Why ? Because, answering the law of gravity, its own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire that book to occupy a position three feet higher; then what? I must lift it; a power outside of that book must raise it. Such is the rela- tionship which fallen man sustains toward God. Whilst Divine power upholds him, he is preserved from plunging still deeper into sin; let that power be withdrawn, and he falls—his own weight (of sin) drags him down. God does THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 177 not push him down anymore than I did that book. Let all Divine restraint be removed and every man is capable of be- coming, would become, a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How then is the sinner to move heavenwards? By an act of his own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner is free, but free in one direction only—free to fall, free to sin. As the Word expresses it: “For when ye were the serv- ants of sin, ye were free from righteousness” (Rom. 6:20). The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases (except as he is restrained by God), but his pleasure is to sin. In the opening paragraph of this chapter we insisted that a proper conception of the nature and function of the will is of practical importance, nay, that it constitutes a funda- mental test of theological orthodoxy or doctrinal sound- ness. We wish to amplify this statement and attempt to demonstrate its accuracy. The freedom or bondage of the will was the dividing line between Augustinianism and Pela- gianism, and in more recent times between Calvinism and Arminianism. Reduced to simple terms, this means, that the difference involved was the affirmation or denial of the total depravity of man. In taking the affirmative we shall now consider, 3 THE IMpoTENCY OF THE HuMAN WILL. Does it lie within the province of man’s will to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour? Granted that the Gospel is preached to the sinner, that the Holy Spirit con- victs him of his lost condition, does it, in the final analysis, lie within the power of his own will to resist or to yield himself up to God? The answer to this question defines our concep- tion of human depravity. That man is a fallen creature all professing Christians will allow, but what many of them 178 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD mean by “fallen” is often difficult to determine. The general impression seems to be that man is now mortal, that he is no longer in the condition in which he left the hands of his Crea- tor, that he is liable to disease, that he inherits evil tenden- cies; but, that if he employs his powers to the best of his ability, somehow he will be happy at last. O, how far short of the sad truth! Infirmities, sickness, even corporeal death, are but trifles in comparison with the moral and spiritual effects of the Fall! It is only by consulting the Holy Scrip- tures that we are able to obtain some conception of the ex- tent of that terrible calamity. When we say that man is totally depraved, we mean that the entrance of sin into the human constitution has affected every part and faculty of man’s being. Total depravity means that man is, in spirit and soul and body, the slave of sin and the captive of the Devil—walking “according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2). This statement ought not to need arguing: it is a common fact of human ex- perience. Man is unable to realize his own aspirations and materialize his own ideals. He cannot do the things that he would. There is a moral inability which paralyzes him. This is proof positive that he is no free man, but instead, the slave of sin and Satan. ‘Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts (desires) of your father ye will do” (John 8:44). Sin is more than an act or a series of acts; it is a state or condition: it is that which lies behind and produces the acts. Sin has penetrated and permeated the whole of man’s make- up. It has blinded the understanding, corrupted the heart, and alienated the mind from God. And the will has not escaped. The will is under the dominion of sin and Satan. Therefore, the will is not free. In short, the affections love as they do and the will chooses as it does because of the state of the heart, and because the heart is deceitful above all THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 179 things and desperately wicked “There is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11). We repeat our question; Does it lie within the power of the sinner’s will to yield himself up to God? Let us attempt an answer by asking several others: Can water (of itself) rise above its own level? Can a clean thing come out of an unclean? Can the will reverse the whole tendency and strain of human nature? Can that which is under the dominion of sin originate that which is pure and holy? Manifestly not. If ever the will of a fallen and depraved creature is to move Godwards, a Divine power must be brought to bear upon it which will overcome the influences of sin that pull in a counter direction. This is only another way of saying, “No . man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me, draw him” (John 6:44). In other words, God’s people must be made willing in the day of His power (Ps. 110:3). As said Mr. Darby, “If Christ came to save that which is lost, free will has no place. Not that God prevents men from re- ceiving Christ—far from it. But even when God uses all possible inducements, all that is capable of exerting influence in the heart of man, it only serves to show that man will have none of it, that so corrupt is his heart, and so decided his will not to submit to God (however much it may be the devil who encourages him to sin) that nothing can induce him to receive the Lord, and to give up sin. If by the words, ‘free- dom of man,’ they mean that no one forces him to reject the Lord, this liberty fully exists. But if it is said that, on ac- count of the dominion of sin, of which he is the slave, and that voluntarily, he cannot escape from his condition, and make choice of the good—even while acknowledging it to be good, and approving of it—then he has no liberty whatever (italics ours). He is not subject to the law, neither indeed can be; hence, they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” The will is not sovereign; it is servant, because influenced 180 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD and controlled by the other faculties of man’s being. The sinner is not a free agent because he is the slave of sin—this was Clearly implied in our Lord’s words, “If the Son shall therefore make you free, ye shall be free indeed’ (John 8:36). Man is a rational being and as such responsible and accountable to God, but to affirm that he is a free moral agent is to deny that he 1s totally depraved—i. e., depraved in will as in everything else. Because man’s will is governed by his mind and heart, and because these have been vitiated and corrupted by sin, then it follows that if ever man is to turn or move in a Godward direction God Himself must work in him “both to will and to do of His good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:13). Man’s boasted freedom is in truth “the bondage of corruption” ; he “serves divers lusts and pleasures.” Said a deeply taught servant of God, “Man is impotent as to his will. He has no will favorable to God. I believe in free will; but then it is a wll only free to act according to nature (italics ours). A dove has no will to eat carrion; a raven no will to eat the clean food of the dove. Put the nature of the dove into the raven and it will eat the food of the dove. Satan could have no will for holiness. We speak it with rev- erence, God could have no will for evil. The sinner in his sinful nature could never have a will according to God. For this he must be born again” (J. Denham Smith). This is just what we have contended for throughout this chapter— the will 1s regulated by the nature. Now in conclusion let us anticipate and dispose of the usual and inevitable objection—Why preach the Gospel if man 1s powerless to respond? Why bid the sinner come to Christ if sin has so enslaved him that he has no power in himself to come? Reply:—We do not preach the Gospel because we believe that men are free moral agents and there- fore capable of receiving Christ, but we preach it because we are commanded to do so (Mark 16:15), and though to THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND THE HUMAN WILL 181 them that perish it is foolishness, yet “unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). “The foolish- ness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1) and a dead man is utterly incapable of willing anything, hence it is that “they that are in the flesh (the unregenerate) cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). To fleshly wisdom it appears the height of folly to preach the Gospel to those that are dead, and therefore beyond the reach of doing anything themselves. Yes, but God’s ways are different from ours. It pleases God “by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). Man may deem it folly to prophesy to “dead bones’ and to say unto them, “O, ye dry bones, hear the Word of the Lord” (Ezek. 37:4). Ah! but then it is the Word of the Lord, and the words He speaks “they are spirit, and they are life’ (John 6:63). Wise men standing by the grave of Lazarus might pronounce it an evidence of insanity when the Lord addressed a dead man with the words, “Lazarus, Come forth.” Ah! but He who thus spake was and is Himself the Resurrection and the Life, and at His word even the dead live. We go forth to preach the Gospel, then, not because we believe that sinners have within themselves the power to receive the Saviour it proclaims, but because the Gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. 2 CLEA Cae ea Els ie GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Romans 14:12. , y an a _ ¢ fe, ) t on ts ay é : ’ «ei t t ‘ x * : ‘ fi / ' = % : er aes ~ 3 < ay = - ' ‘ - - ‘ é , ae i : . j . i ‘ ’ ‘ 5 > % P y n , ‘ / 4. . 4 i f i ‘ bs ! é d's +e : es ' a ‘ ‘ ' iy® , ' ¢ ’ + ae J S — ve Vil. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. much debated and difficult question of the human will. yes, We have shown that the will of the natural man is neither sovereign nor free but, instead, a servant and slave. We have argued that a right conception of the sinner’s will— its servitude—is essential to a just estimate of his depravity and ruin. The utter corruption and degradation of human nature is something which man hates to acknowledge and which he will hotly and insistently deny until he is ‘taught of God.’ Much, very much, of the unsound doctrine which we now hear on every hand is the direct and logical outcome of man’s repudiation of God’s exprest estimate of human de- pravity. Men are claiming that they are “increased with goods, and have need of nothing,” and know not that they are “wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). They prate about the ‘Ascent of Man’ and deny his Fall. They put darkness for light and light for darkness. They boast of the ‘free moral agency’ of man when, in fact, he is in bondage to sin and enslaved by Satan— “taken captive by him at his will’ (2 Tim. 2:26). But if the natural man is not a ‘free moral agent’ does it also follow that he is not accountable? ‘Free moral agency’ is an expression of human invention and, as we have said before, to talk of the freedom of the natural man is to flatly repudiate his spiritual ruin. Nowhere does Scripture speak of the freedom or moral ability of the sinner, on the contrary, it insists on his moral and spiritual mability. re: our last chapter we considered at some length the 186 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our sub- ject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of God’s Sovereignty with Man’s Responsibility is the gordian knot of theology. The main difficulty encountered is to define the relation- ship between God’s Sovereignty and man’s Responsibility. Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying its existence. A certain class of theologians in their anxiety to maintain Man’s Responsibility have magnified it beyond all due proportions until God’s Sovereignty has been lost sight of, and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the Sovereign- ty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the boun- den duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scrip- tures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibil- ity. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all the mystery (and this is said with reserve), it does throw much light upon the problem, and it seems to us more hon- oring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scrip- tures for the completer solution of the difficulty, and even though others have thus far searched in vain, that ought only to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the last century which were hidden from earlier students. Who then dare affirm that there is not much yet to be learned respecting our present.inquiry ! As we have said above our chief difficulty is to determine the meeting-point of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsi- bility. To many it has seemed that for God to assert His GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 187 sovereignty, for Him to put forth His power and exert a direct influence upon man, for Him to do anything more than warn or invite, would be to interfere with man’s free- dom, destroy his responsibility, and reduce him to a machine. It is sad indeed to find one like the late Dr, Pier- son—whose writings are generally so scriptural and helpful —saying, “It is a tremendous thought that even God Him- self cannot control my moral frame, or constrain my moral choice. He cannot prevent me defying and denying Him, and would not exercise His power in such directions if He could, and could not if He would” (A Spiritual Clinique). It is sadder still to discover that many other respected and loved brethren are giving expression to the same sentiments. Sad, because directly at variance with the Holy Scriptures. It is our desire to face honestly the difficulties involved and to examine them carefully in what light God has been pleased to grant us. The chief difficulties might be expressed thus: first, How is it possible for God to so bring His power upon men that they are prevented from doing what they de- sire to do and impelled to do other things they do not desire to do, and yet to preserve their responsibility? Second, How can the sinner be held responsible for the doing of what he is unable to do? And how can he be justly condemned for not domg what he could not do? Third, How is it possible for God to decree that men shall commit certain sins, hold them responsible in the committal of them, and adjudge them guilty because they committed them? Fourth, How can the sinner be held responsible to receive Christ, and be damned for rejecting Him, when God had foreordained him to condemnation? We shall now deal with these several problems in the above order. 188 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD I. How Is Ir PossisLe For Gop To So Brine Hts POWER to BEAR upon Men THat TuHey ARE PREVENTED FROM Dornc Wuat TuHey Desire To Do, anv IM- PELLED to Do OrnerR Tuincs THEY Do Nor DESIRE to Do, AND YET TO PRESERVE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY ? It would seem that if God put forth His power and ex- erted a direct influence upon men that their freedom would be interfered with. It looks as if God did anything more than warn and invite men that their responsibility would be infringed upon. We are told that God must not coerce man, still less, compel him, or otherwise he would be reduced to a machine. This sounds very plausible; it appears to be good philosophy, and based upon sound reasoning; it has been al- most universally accepted as an axiom in ethics; neverthe- less, it is refuted by Scripture! Let us turn first to Gen. 20:6—“And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the in- tegrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against Me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.” It is argued, almost universally, that God must not interfere with man’s liberty, that he must not coerce or compel him, lest he be reduced to a machine. But the above scripture proves, unmistakably proves, that it is mot impossible for God to exert His power upon man without destroying his responsibility. Here is a case where God did exert His power, restrict man’s freedom, and prevent him from doing that which he otherwise would have done. Ere turning from this scripture let us note how it throws light upon the case of the first man. Would-be philosophers, who sought to be wise above that which was written, have argued that God could not have prevented Adam’s fall with- out reducing him to a mere automaton. They tell us, con- stantly, that God must not coerce or compel His creatures, otherwise He would destroy their accountability. But the GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 189 answer to all such philosophisings is that Scripture records a number of instances where we are expressly told God did prevent certain of His creatures from sinning against Him- self and also against His people, in view of which all men’s reasonings are utterly worthless. If God could “withhold” Abimelech from sinning against Him then why was He un- able to do the same with Adam? Should someone ask, Then why did not God do so? we might return the question by asking, Why did not God “withhold” Satan from falling? or, Why did not God “withhold” the Kaiser from starting the recent War? The usual reply is, as we have said, God could not without interfering with man’s “freedom” and re- ducing him to a machine. But the case of Abimelech proves conclusively that such a reply is untenable and erroneous— we might add wicked and blasphemous, for who are we to limit the Most High! How dare any finite creature take it upon him to say what the Almighty can and cannot do? Should we be pressed further as to why God refused to exer- cise His power and prevent Adam’s fall, we should say, Be- cause Adam’s fall better served His own wise and blessed purpose—among other things, it provided an opportunity to demonstrate that where sin had abounded grace could much more abound. But we might ask further; Why did God place in the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, when He foresaw that man would disobey His prohibi- tion and eat of it; for mark, it was God and not Satan who made that tree. Should someone respond, Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by “Author”? Plainly it was God’s will that sin Should enter this world, otherwise it would not have en- tered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed. But we leave now the origin of sin, insisting once more, however, that God 190 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD could have “withheld” Adam from sinning without destroy- ing his responsibility. The case of Abimelech does not stand alone. Another il- lustration of the same principle is seen in the history of Balaam already noticed in the last chapter, but concerning which a further word is in place. Balak the Moabite sent for this heathen prophet to “curse” Israel. A handsome reward was offered for his services, and a careful reading of Num- bers 22—24 will show that Balaam was willing, yea, anxious, to accept Balak’s offer and thus sin against God and His people. But Divine power “withheld” him. Mark his own admission, “And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak” (Num. 22:38). Again, after Balak had remonstrated with Balaam, we read, “He answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which the Lord hath put in my mouth? . . Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and He hath blessed ; and I cannot reverse it” (23:12, 20). Sure- ly these verses show us God’s power, and Balaam’s power- lessness: man’s will frustrated, and God’s will performed. But was Balaam’s “freedom” or responsibility destroyed? Certainly not, as we shall yet-seek to show. One more illustration: “And the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat’ (2 Chron. 17:10). The implication here is clear. Had not the “fear of the Lord” fallen upon these kingdoms they would have made war upon Judah. God’s restraining power alone prevented them. Had their own will been allowed to act “war” would have been the consequence. Thus we see that Scripture teaches that God “withholds” nations as well as individuals, and that when it pleaseth Him to do so He interposes and prevents war. Compare further Gen. 35:5. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 191 The question which now demands our consideration is, How is it possible for God to “withhold” men from sin- ning and yet not to interfere with their liberty and responsi- bility—a question which so many say is incapable of solu- tion in our present finite condition. This question causes us to ask, In what does moral “freedom,” real moral freedom, consist? We answer, it is the being delivered from the BONDAGE of sin. The more any soul is emancipated from the thraldom of sin, the more does he enter into a state of freedom—“TIf the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36). In the above instances God “withheld” Abimelech, Balaam, and the heathen kingdoms from sinning, and therefore we affirm that He did not in any- wise interfere with their real freedom. The nearer a soul approximates to sinlessness, the nearer does he approach to God’s holiness. Scripture tells us that God “cannot lie,” and that He “cannot be tempted,” but is He any the less free because He cannot do that which is evil? Surely not. Then is it not evident that the more man is raised up to God, and the more he is “withheld” from sinning, the greater his real freedom is! | A pertinent example setting forth the meeting-place of God’s Sovereignty and man’s Responsibility as it relates to the question of moral freedom is found in connection with the giving to us of the Holy Scriptures. In the com- munication of His Word God was pleased to employ hu- man instruments, and in the using of them He did not re- duce them to mere mechanical amanuenses: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private in- terpretation (Greek: of its own origination). For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet. 1:20, 21). Here we have man’s responsibility and God’s sover- eignty placed in juxtaposition. These holy men were “moved 192 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (Greek : “borne along”) by the Holy Spirit, yet was not their moral responsibility disturbed nor their “freedom” impaired. God enlightened their minds, enkindled their hearts, revealed to them His truth, and so controlled them that error on their part was by Him made impossible as they communicated His mind and will to men. ‘But what was it that might have, cvould have, caused error, had not God controlled as He did the instruments which He employed? The answer is SIN, the sin which was in them. But as we have seen, the holding in check of sin, the preventing of the exercise of the carnal mind in these “holy men,” was not a destroying of their “freedom,” rather was it the inducting of them into real freedom. | A final word should be added here concerning the nature of true liberty. There are three chief things concerning which men in general greatly err: misery and happiness, folly and wisdom, bondage and liberty. The world counts none miser- able but the afflicted, and none happy but the prosperous, be- cause they judge by the present ease of the flesh. Again; the world is pleased with a false show of wisdom (which is “foolishness” with God), neglecting that which makes wise unto salvation. Avs to liberty, men would be at their own disposal, and live as they please. They suppose the only true liberty is to be at the command and under the control of none above themselves, and live according to their heart’s desire. But this is a thraldom and bondage of the worst kind. True liberty is not the power to live as we please, but to live as we ought! Hence, the only One Who has ever trod this earth since Adam’s fall that has enjoyed perfect freedom was the Man Christ Jesus, the Holy Servant of God, Whose meat it ever was to do the will of the Father. We now turn to consider the question GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 193 Il. How Can THE SINNER BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DoiInc oF WHat He Is UNABLE To Do? Anp How Can HE BE Justty CoNDEMNED For Not DOING Wuat He COULD Nort Do? As a creature the natural man is responsible to love, obey, and serve God; as a sinner he is responsible to repent and believe the Gospel. But at the outset we are confronted with the fact that the natural man is unable to love and serve God, and that the sinner, of himself, cannot repent and believe. First, let us prove what we have just said. We begin by quoting and considering John 6:44, “No man can come to Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw him”. The heart of the natural man (every man) is so “desperately wicked” that if he is left to himself he will never ‘come to Christ.’ This statement would not be questioned if the full force of the words Coming to Christ was properly appre-— hended. We shall therefore digress a little at this point to define and consider what is implied and involved in the words “No man can come to Me’—cf. John 5:40, “Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life.” For the sinner to come to Christ that he might have life, is for him to realize the awful danger of his situation; is for him to see that the sword of Divine justice is suspended over his head; is to awaken to the fact that there is but a step be- twixt him and death, and that after death is the “judg- ment ;” and in consequence of this discovery, is for him to be in real earnest to escape, and in such earnestness that he shall flee from the wrath to come, cry unto God for mercy, and agonize to enter in at the “strait gate.” To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to feel and acknowledge that he is utterly destitute of any claim upon God’s favor; is to see himself as ‘without strength,’ lost and undone; is to admit that he is deserving of nothing but eternal death, thus taking side with God against himself ; is 194 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD for him to cast himself into the dust before God, and humbly sue for Divine mercy. To come to Christ for life is for the sinner to abandon his own righteousness and be ready to be made the righteous- ness of God in Christ; is to disown his own wisdom and be guided by His; it is to repudiate his own will and be ruled by His; it is to unreservedly receive the Lord Jesus as his Saviour and Lord, as his All in all. Such, in part and in brief, is what is implied and involved in Coming to Christ. But is the sinner willing to take such an attitude before God? No; for in the first place, he does not realize the danger of his situation and in consequence is not in real earnest after his escape; instead, men are for the most part at ease and apart from the operations of the Holy Spirit whenever they are disturbed by the alarms of con- science or the dispensations of providence they flee to any other refuge but Christ. In the second place, they will not acknowledge that all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags but, like the Pharisee, will thank God they are not as the Publican. And in the third place, they are not ready to re- ceive Christ as their Saviour and Lord for they are unwil- ling to part with their idols: they had rather hazard their soul’s eternal welfare than give them up. Hence we say that, left to himself, the natural man is so depraved at heart that he cannot come to Christ. The words of our Lord quoted above by no means stand alone. Quite a number of Scriptures set forth the moral and spiritual imability of the natural man. In Joshua 24:19 we read, “And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord: for He is a holy God.” To the Pharisees Christ said, “Why do ye not understand My speech? Even because ye cannot hear My word” (John 8:43). And again: “The car- nal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 195 law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7,8). But now the question returns, How can God hold responsi- ble the sinner for failing to do what he is unable to do? This necessitates a careful definition of terms. Just what is meant by “unable” and “cannot”? Now let it be clearly understood that when we speak of the sinner’s inability we do not mean that if men desired to come to Christ they lack the necessary power to carry out their desire. No; the fact is that the sinner’s inability or absence of power is itself due to lack of willingness to come to Christ, and this lack of willingness is the fruit of a de- praved heart. It is of first importance that we distinguish between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. For example, we read, “But Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age” (1 Kgs. 14:4) ; and again, “The men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not: for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them” (Jonah 1:13). In both of these passages the words “could not” refer to natural inability. But when we read, “And when his brethren saw that their father loved him (Joseph) more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him” (Gen. 37:4), it is clearly moral inability that is in view. They did not lack the natural abil- ity to “speak peaceably unto him” for they were not dumb. Why then was it that they “could not speak peaceably unto him”? The answer is given in the same verse: it was be- cause “they hated him.” Again; in 2 Pet. 2:14 we read of a certain class of wicked men “having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin.” Here again it is moral inability that is in view. Why is it that these men “cannot cease from sin’? The answer is, Because their eyes were full of adultery. So of Rom. 8:8—“They that are in the flesh cannot please God”: here it is spiritual inability. Why 196 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD is it that the natural man “cannot please God”? Because he is “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18). No man can choose that from which his heart is averse—“O genera- tion of vipers how can ye, being evil, speak good things ?” (Matt. 12:34). “No man can come to Me, except the Fa- ther which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6:44). Here again it is moral and spiritual inability which is before us. Why is it the sinner cannot come to Christ unless he is “drawn”? The answer is, Because his wicked heart loves sin and hates Christ. We trust we have made ‘it clear that the Scriptures dis- tinguish sharply between natural inability and moral and spiritual inability. Surely all can see the difference between the blindness of Bartimeus who was ardently desirous of receiving his sight, and the Pharisees, whose eyes were closed “lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted” (Matt. 13:15). But should it be said, The natural man could come to Christ if he wished to do so, we answer, Ah! but in that IF lies the hinge of the whole matter. The Inability of the sinner consists of the want of moral power to wish and will so as to actually per- form. | What we have contended for above is of first importance. Upon the distinction between the sinner’s natural Ability and moral and spiritual Inability rests his Responsibility. The depravity of the human heart does not destroy man’s ac- countability to God; so far from this being the case the very moral Inability of the sinner only serves to increase his guilt. This is easily proven by a reference to the scriptures cited above. We read that Joseph’s brethren “could not speak peaceably unto him,” and why? It was because they “hated” him. But was this moral inability of theirs any excuse? Surely not: in this very moral inability consisted GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 197 the greatness of their sin. So of those concerning whom it is said, “They cannot cease from sin” (2 Pet. 2:14), and why? Because “their eyes were full of adultery,” but that only made their case worse. It was a real fact that they could not cease from sin, yet this did not excuse them—it only made their sin the greater. Should some sinner here object, I cannot help being born into this world with a depraved heart and therefore I am not responsible for my moral and spiritual inability which accrue from it, the reply would be, Responsibility and Culpability lie in the indulgence of the depraved propensities, the free indulgence, for God does not force any to sin. Men might pity me, but they certainly would not excuse me if I gave vent to a fiery temper and then sought to extenuate my- self on the ground of having inherited that temper from my parents. Their own common sense is sufficient to guide their judgment in such a case as this. They would argue I was responsible to restrain my temper. Why then cavil against this same principle in the case supposed above? “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou wicked servant” surely applies here! What would the reader say to a man who had robbed him and who later argued in defence “I cannot help being a thief, that is my nature’? Surely the reply would be, Then the peniten- tiary is the proper place for that man. What then shall be said to the one who argues that he cannot help fol- lowing the bent of his sinful heart? Surely, that the Lake of Fire is where such an one must go. Did ever murder- er plead that he hated his victim so much that he could not go near him without slaying him. Would not that only magnify the enormity of his crime! Then what of tlie one who loves sin so much that he is “at enmity against God”! The fact of man’s Responsibility is almost universally 198 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD acknowledged. It is inherent in man’s moral nature. It is not only taught in Scripture but witnessed to by the natur- al conscience. The basis or ground of human responsibil- ity is human ability. What is implied by this general term ability must now be defined. Perhaps a concrete example — will be more easily grasped by the average reader than an abstract argument. Suppose a man owed me $100 and could fa plenty of money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet plead- ed that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an hon- est heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No; I would reply: the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest prin- ciple. It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability.* Now in like manner the sinner while altogether lacking in moral and spiritual ability does, nevertheless, possess nat- ural ability, and this it is which renders him accountable un- to God. Men have the same natural faculties to love God with as they have to hate Him with, the same hearts to be- lieve with which they disbelieve, and it is their failure to love and believe which constitutes their guilt. An idiot or an in- fant is not personally responsible to God because Jacking in natural ability. But the normal man who is endowed with rationality, who is gifted with a conscience that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, who 1s able to weigh eternal issues IS a responsible being, and it is be- *The terms of this example are suggested by an illustration used by the late Andrew Fuller. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 199 cause he does possess these very faculties that he will yet have to “give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). We say again that the above distinction between the natur- al ability and the moral and spiritual inability of the sinner is of prime importance. By nature he possesses natural ability but Jacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsi- bility because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former. Let me illustrate again. Here are two men guilty of theft: the first is an idiot, the second per- fectly sane but the offspring of criminal parents. No just judge would sentence the former; but every right-minded judge would the latter. Even though the second of these thieves possessed a vitiated moral nature inherited from criminal parents that would not excuse him providing he was a normal rational being. Here then is the ground of human accountability—the possession of rationality plus the gift of conscience. It is because the sinner is endowed with these natural faculties that he is a responsible creature; because he does not use his natural powers for God’s glory constitutes his guilt. How can it remain consistent with His mercy that God should require the debt of obedience from him that is not able to pay? In addition to what has been said above, it should be pointed out that God has not lost His right, even though man has lost his power. The creature’s impotence does not cancel his obligation. A drunken servant is a serv- ant still, and it is contrary to all sound reasoning to argue that his master loses his rights through his servant’s default. Moreover, it is of first importance that we should ever bear in mind that God contracted with us in Adam, who was our federal head and representative, and in him God gave us a power which we lost through our first parent’s fall; but 200 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD though our power be gone, nevertheless, God may justly de- mand His due of obedience and of service. We turn now to ponder III. How Is Ir Possist—e ror Gop to DECREE Tuart Men SHOULD Commit Certain Sins, Hotp THEM RESPONSIBLE In THE CoMMITTAL OF THEM, AND AD JUDGE THEM GuILTY BEcUSE THEY COMMITTED THEM? Let us now consider the extreme case of Judas. We hold that it is clear from Scripture that God decreed from all eternity that Judas should betray the Lord Jesus. If anyone should challenge this statement we refer him to the prophecy of Zechariah through whom God declared that His Son should be sold for “Thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12). As we have said in earlier pages, in prophecy God makes known what will be and in making known what will be He is but revealing to us what He has ordained shall be. That Judas was the one through whom the prophecy of Zech- ariah was fulfilled needs not to be argued. But now the question we have to face is, Was Judas a responsible agent in fulfilling this decree of God? We reply that he was. Re- sponsibility attaches mainly to the motive and intention of the one committing the act. This is recognised on every hand. Human law distinguishes between a blow inflicted by accident (without evil design) and a blow delivered with ‘malice aforethought. Apply then this same principle to the case of Judas. What was the design of his heart when he bargained with the priests? Manifestly he had no conscious desire to fulfil any decree of God, though unknown to him- self he was actually doing so. On the contrary, his inten- tion was evil only, and therefore, though God had decreed and directed his act, nevertheless, his own evil intention rendered him justly guilty as he afterwards acknowledged nimself—“TI have betrayed innocent blood.” It was the same GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 201 with the Crucifixion of Christ. Scripture plainly declares that He was “delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23), and that though “the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered to- gether against the Lord, and against His Christ” yet, not- withstanding, it was but “for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:26, 28) ; which verses teach very much more than a bare permission by God, declaring as they do that the Crucifixion and all its details had been decreed by God. Yet, nevertheless, it was by “wicked hands,” not merely “human hands” that our Lord was “crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). “Wicked” because the intention of His crucifiers was only evil. But it might be objected that if God had decreed that Judas should betray Christ, and that the Jews and Gentiles should crucify Him, they could not do otherwise, and there- fore, they were not responsible for their intentions. The answer is, Ged had decreed that they should perform the acts they did, but in the actual perpetration of these deeds they were justly guilty, because their own purposes in the doing of them was evil only. Let it be emphatically said that God does not produce the sinful dispositions of any of His creatures, though He does restrain and direct them to the accomplishing of His own purposes. Hence He is neither the Author nor the Approver of sin. This distinction was expressed thus by Augustine: “That men sin proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that action, is from the power of God who divideth the darkness accord- ing to His pleasure.” Thus it is written, “A man’s heart de- viseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps’ (Pro. 16:9). What we would here insist upon is that God’s decrees are not the necessitating cause of the sins of men but the foredeter- mined and prescribed boundings and directings of men’s sin- ful acts. In connection with the betrayal of Christ, God did 202 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD not decree that He should be sold by one of His creatures and then take up a good man, instill an evil desire into his . heart and thus force him to perform the terrible deed in order to execute His decree. No; not so do the Scriptures represent it. Instead, God decreed the act and selected the one who was to perform the act, but He did not make him evil in order that he should perform the deed; on the con- trary, the betrayer was a “devil” at the time the Lord Jesus chose him as one of the twelve (John 6:70), and in the exercise and manifestation of his own devilry God simply directed his actions, actions which were perfectly agreeable to his own vile heart and performed with the most wicked in- tentions. Vhus it was with the Crucifixion. IV. How Can THE SINNER BE HELpD RESPONSIBLE TO RE- CEIVE CHRIST, AND Be DAMNED For ReEjJecTING Him, WHEN Gop FoROoRDAINED Him TO CONDEMNATION ? Really, this question has been covered in what has been said under the other queries, but for the benefit of those who are exercised upon this point we give it a separate, though brief, examination. In considering the above difficulty the following points should be carefully weighed: In the first place, no sinner, while he is in this world, knows for certain, nor can he know, that he is a “vessel of wrath fitted to destruction”. This belongs to the hidden counsels of God to which he has not access. God’s secret will is no business of his; God’s revealed will (in the Word) is the _ standard of human responsibility.* And God’s revealed will is plain. Each sinner is among those whom God now “com- mandeth to repent” (Acts 17:30). Each sinner who hears the Gospel is “commanded” to believe (1 John 3:23). And all who do truly repent and believe are saved. Therefore, is every sinner responsible to repent and believe. *See Appendix I. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 203 In the second place, it is the duty of every sinner to search the Scriptures which “are able to make wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15). It is the sinner’s “duty” because the Son of God has commanded him to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). If he searches them with a heart that is seeking after God, then does he put himself in the way where God is ac- customed to meet with sinners. Upon this point the Puritan Manton has written very helpfully. “I cannot say to every one that ploweth, infallibly, that he shall have a good crop; but this I can say to him, It is God’s use to bless the diligent and provident. I cannot say to every one that desireth posterity, Marry, and you shall have chil- dren ; I cannot say infallibly to him that goeth forth to battle for his country’s good that he shall have victory and success; but Ican say, as Joab, (1 Chron. 19:13) ‘Be of good courage, and let us behave ourselves valiantly for our people and the cities of our God, and let the Lord do what is good in His sight’. I cannot say infallibly you shall have grace; but I can say to every one, Let him use the means, and leave the success of his labor and his own salvation to the will and good pleasure of God. I cannot say this infallibly, for there is no obligation upon God. And still this work is made the fruit of God’s will and mere arbitrary dispensation—‘Of His own will begat He us by the Word of Truth’ (James r: 18). Let us do what God hath commanded, and let God do what He will. And I need not say so; for the whole world in all their actings are and should be guided by this principle, Let us do our duty, and refer the success to God, Whose or- dinary practice it is to meet with the creature that seeketh after Him; yea, He is with us already; this earnest im- portunity in the use of means proceeding from the earnest impression of His grace. And therefore, since He is before- hand with us, and hath not showed any backwardness to our good, we have no reason to despair of His goodness and 204 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD mercy, but rather to hope for the best” (Vol. XXI, page ZED). God has been pleased to give to men the Holy Scriptures which “testify” of the Saviour, and make known the way of salvation. Every sinner has the same natural faculties for the reading of the Bible as he has for the reading of the news- paper; and if he is illiterate or blind so that he is unable to read, he has the same mouth with which to ask a friend to read the Bible to him, as he has to enquire concerning other matters. If, then, God has given to men His Word, and in that Word has made known the way of salvation, and if men are commanded to search those Scriptures which are able to make them wise unto salvation, and they refuse to do so, then is 1t plain that they are justly censureable, that their blood lies on their own heads, and that God can righteously cast them into the Lake of Fire. In the third place, should it be objected, Admitting all you have said above, Is it not still a fact that each of the non- elect is unable to repent and believe? The reply is, Yes. Of every sinner it is a fact that, of himself, he cannot come to Christ. And from God’s side the “cannot” is absolute. But we are now dealing with the responsibility of the sinner (the sinner foreordained to condemnation, though he knows it not), and from the human side the inability of the sinner is a moral one, as previously pointed out. Moreover, it needs to be borne in mind that in addition to the moral inability of the sinner there is a voluntary inability, too. The sinner must be regarded not only as impotent to do good, but as de- lighting in evil. From the human side, then, the “cannot” is a will not, it is a voluntary impotence. Man’s impotence lies in his obstinancy. Hence, is everyone left “without excuse”’. And hence, is God “clear” when He judgeth (Psa. 51:4), and righteous in damning all who “Jove darkness rather than light’. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY 205 A brief word now concerning the extent of human re- sponsibility. It is obvious that the measure of human responsibil- ity varies in different cases and is greater or less with particular individuals. The standard of measurement was given in the Saviour’s words, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required” (Luke 12:48). Sure- ly God did not require as much from those living in Old Testament times as He does from those who have been born during the Christian dispensation. Surely God will not require as much from those who lived during the ‘dark ages, when the Scriptures were accessible to but a few, as He will from those of this generation when practically -every family in the land own a copy of His Word for themselves. In the same way, God will not demand from the heathen what He will from those in christendom. The heathen will not perish because they have not believed in Christ, but be- cause they failed to live up to the light which they did have— the testimony of God in nature and conscience. To sum up. The fact of man’s responsibility rests upon his natural ability, is witnessed to by conscience, and is in- sisted on throughout the Scriptures. The ground of man’s responsibility is that he is a rational creature capable of weighing eternal issues, and that he possesses a written Rev- elation from God in which his relationship with and duty to- ward his Creator is plainly defined. The measure of re- sponsibility varies in different individuals but is determined by the degree of light each has enjoyed from God. The problem of human responsibility receives at least a partial solution in the Holy Scriptures, and it is our solemn obliga- tion as well as privilege to search them prayerfully and carefully for further light, looking to the Holy Spirit to guide us “into all] truth.” It is written, “The meek will He guide in judgment: and the meek will He teach His way” (Ps. 25:9). oe hd —«.# COAR TERN TNE: GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER. IX. GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER. S>~J HROUGHOUT this book it has been our chief aim to (5) ) exalt the Creator and abase the creature. The well- WS nigh universal tendency, now, is to magnify man and dishonor and degrade God. On every hand it will be found that when spiritual things are under discussion the human side and element is pressed and stressed, and the Divine side, if not altogether ignored, is relegated to the background. This holds true of very much of the modern teaching about prayer. In the great majority of the books written and in the sermons preached upon prayer, the human element fills the scene al- most entirely: it is the conditions which we must meet, the promises we must “claim”, the things we must do, in order to get our requests granted; and God’s claims, God’s rights, God’s glory are disregarded. As a fair sample of what is being given out today we sub- join a brief editorial which appeared recently in one of the leading religious weeklies entitled “Prayer, or Fate 2” “God in His sovereignty has ordained that human des- tinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man. This is at the heart of the truth that prayer changes things, meaning that God changes things when men pray. Some one has strikingly expressed it this way: ‘There are certain things that will happen in a man’s life whether he prays or not. There are other things that will happen if he prays, and will not happen if he does not pray’. A Christian worker was impressed by these sentences as he entered a business office, and he prayed that the Lord would open the way to speak to some one about Christ, reflecting that things would be changed because he prayed. 210 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Then his mind turned to other things and the prayer was forgotten. The opportunity came to speak to the business man on whom he was calling, but he did not grasp it, and was on his way out when he remembered his prayer of a half hour before, and God’s answer. He promptly re- turned and had a talk with the business man, who, though a church-member, had never in his life been asked wheth- er he was saved. Let us give ourselves to prayer, and open the way for God to change things. Let us beware lest we become virtual fatalists by failing to exercise our God-given wills in praying”. The above illustrates what is now being taught on the subject of prayer, and the deplorable thing is that scarcely a voice is lifted in protest. To say that “human destinies may be changed and moulded by the will of man” is rank infi- delity—that is the only proper term for it. Should any one challenge this classification we would ask them whether they can find an infidel anywhere who would dissent from such a statement, and we are confident that such an one could not be found. To say that “God has ordained that human desti- nies may be changed and moulded by the will of man” is ab- solutely untrue. “Human destiny” is settled not by “the will of man,” but by the will of God. That which determines human destiny is whether or not a man has been born again, for it is written, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”. And as to whose will, whether God’s or man’s, is responsible for the new birth is settled, unequiv- ocally, by John 1 :13—“‘Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD”. To say that “human destiny” may be changed by the will of man, is to make the creature’s will supreme, and that is, virtually, to dethrone God. But what saith the Scriptures? Let the Book answer: “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 211 maketh poor, and maketh rich: He bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory” (1 Sam. 2:6-8). Turning back to the Editorial here under review, we are next told, “This is at the heart of the truth that prayer chang- es things, meaning that God changes things when men pray.” Almost everywhere we go today one comes across a motto- card bearing the inscription “Prayer Changes Things”. As to what these words are designed to signify is evident from the current literature on prayer—we are to persuade God to change His purpose. Concerning this we shall have more to say below. Again, the Editor tells us, “Some one has strikingly ex- pressed it this way: “There are certain things that will hap- pen in a man’s life whether he prays or not. There are other things that will happen if he prays, and will not happen if he does not pray’.” That things happen whether a man prays or not is exemplified daily in the lives of the unregenerate, most of whom never pray at all. That ‘other things will happen if he prays’ is in need of qualification. If a believer prays in faith and asks for those things which are according to God’s will he will most certainly obtain that for which he has asked. Again, that other things will happen if he prays, is also true in respect to the subjective benefits derived from prayer: God will become more real to him and His promises more precious. That other things ‘will not happen if he does not pray’ is true so far as his own life is concerned—a prayer- less life means a life lived out of communion with God and all that is involved by this. But to affirm that God will not and cannot bring to pass His eternal purpose unless we pray, is utterly erroneous, for the same God who has decreed the end has also decreed that His end shall be reached through His appointed means, and one of these is prayer. The God 212 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD who has determined to grant a blessing, also gives a spirit of supplication which first seeks the blessing. The example cited in the above Editorial of the Christian Worker and the business man is a very unhappy one to say the least, for according to the terms of the illustration the Christian Worker’s prayer was not answered by God at all, inasmuch as, apparently, the way was not opened to speak to the business man about his soul. But on leaving the office and recalling his prayer the Christian Worker (per- haps in the energy of the flesh) determined to answer the prayer for himself, and instead of leaving the Lord to “open the way” for him, took matters into his own hand. We quote next from one of the latest books issued on Prayer. In it the author says, “The possibilities and neces- sity of prayer, its power and results, are manifested in ar- resting and changing the purposes of God and in relieving the stroke of His power”. Such an assertion as this is a hor- rible reflection upon the character of the Most High God who “doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What doest Thou?” (Dan. 4:35). There is 10 need whatever for God to change His designs or alter His purpose, for the all-sufficient reason that these were framed under the influence of perfect goodness and unerr- ing wisdom. Men may have cccasion to alter their purposes, for in their short-sightedness they are frequently unable to anticipate what may arise after their plans are formed, But not so with God, for He knows the end from the beginning. To affirm that God changes His purpose is either to impugn His goodness or to deny His eternal wisdom. In the same book we are told, “The prayers of God’s saints are the capital stock in heaven by which Christ carries on His great work upon earth. The great throes and mighty convulsions on earth are the results of these prayers. Eartb GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 213 is changed, revolutionized, angels move on more powerful, more rapid wing, and God’s policy is shaped as the prayers are more numerous, more efficient”. If possible, this is even worse, and we have no hesitation in denominating it blas- phemy. In the first place, it flatly denies Eph. 3:11, which speaks of God’s having an “eternal purpose”. If God’s pur- pose is an eternal one, then His “policy” is not being “shaped” today. In the second place, it contradicts Eph. 1:11 which expressly declares that God “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will,’ therefore it follows that, “God's policy” is not being “shaped” by man’s prayers. In the third place, such a statement as the above makes the will of the creature supreme, for if our prayers shape God’s policy then is the Most High subordinate to a worm of the earth. Well might the Holy Spirit ask through the apostle, “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor?” (Rom. 11:34). Such thoughts on prayer as we have been citing are due to low and inadequate conceptions of God Himself. It ought to be apparent that there could be little or no comfort in praying to a God that was like the chameleon which chang- es its color every day. What encouragement is there to lift up our hearts to One who is in one mind yesterday and an- other today? What would be the use of petitioning an earth- ly monarch if we knew he was so mutable as to grant a pe- tition one day and deny it another? Is it not the very un- changeableness of God which is our greatest encouragement to pray? It is because He is “without variableness or shad- ow of turning’’ we are assured that if we ask anything ac- cording to His will we are most certain of being heard. Well did Luther remark, “Prayer is not overcoming God’s reluc- tance, but laying hold of His willingness.” And this leads us to offer a few remarks concerning the design of prayer. Why has God appointed that we should 214 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD pray’? The vast majority of people would reply, In order that we may obtain from God the things which we need. While this is one of the purposes of prayer, it is by no means the chief one. Moreover, it considers prayer only from the human side, and prayer sadly needs to be viewed from the Divine side. Let us look, then, at some of the reasons why God has bidden us to pray. First and foremost, prayer has been appointed that the Lord God Himself should be honored. God requires we should recognize that He is, indeed, “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity” (Isa. 57:17). God requires that we shall own His umversal dominion: in petitioning God for rain Elijah did but confess His control over the elements; - in praying to God to deliver a poor sinner from the wrath to come, we acknowledge that “salvation is of the Lord” (Jonah 2:9) ; in supplicating His blessing on the Gospel unto the uttermost parts of the earth, we declare His rulership over the whole world. Again; God requires that we shall worship Him, and prayer, real prayer, is an act of worship. Prayer is an act of worship inasmuch as it is the prostrating of the soul be- fore Him, inasmuch as it is a falling upon His great and holy name, inasmuch as it is the owning of His goodness, His power, His immutability, His grace, and inasmuch as it is the recognition of His sovereignty, owned by a submission to His will. It is highly significant to notice in this connec- tion that the Temple was not termed by Christ the House of sacrifice, but instead, the House of Prayer. Again; prayer redounds to God’s glory, for in prayer we do acknowledge our dependency upon Him. When we hum- bly supplicate the Divine Being we cast ourselves upon His power and mercy. In seeking blessings from God we ac- knowledge that He is the Author and Fountain of every good and perfect gift. That prayer brings glory to God is further GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 215 seen from the fact that prayer calls faith into exercise, and nothing from us is so honoring and pleasing to Him as the exercise of prayer. In the second place, prayer is appointed by God for our spiritual blessing, as a means for our growth in grace. When seeking to learn the design of prayer, this should ever occupy us before we regard prayer as a means for obtaining the sup- ply of our need. Prayer is designed by God for our humbling. Prayer, real prayer, is a coming into the Pres- ence of God, and a sense of His awful majesty produces a realization of our nothingness and unworthiness. Again ; prayer is designed by God for the exercise of our faith. Faith is begotten in the Word (Rom. 10:17), but it is exer- cised in prayer; hence, we read of “the prayer of faith’. Again; prayer calls Jove into action. Concerning the hypo- crite the question is asked “Will he delight himself in the Al- mighty? Will he always call upon God?” (Job 27:10). But they that love the Lord cannot be long away from Him, for they delight in unburdening themselves to Him. Not only does prayer call love into action but through the direct an- swers vouchsafed to our prayers our love to God is in- creased—“I love the Lord, because He hath heard my voice and my supplications” (Psa. 116:1). Again; prayer is de- signed by God to teach us the value of the blessings we have sought from Him, and it causes us to rejoice the more when He has bestowed upon us that for which we supplicate Him. Third, prayer is appointed by God for our seeking from Him the things which we are in need of. But here a diffi- culty may present itself to those who have read carefully the previous chapters of this book. If God has fore-ordained, before the foundation of the world, everything which hap- pens in time, what is the use of prayer? If it is true that “of Him and through Him and to Him are all things’ (Rom. 216 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 11:36), then why pray? Ere replying directly to these queries it should be pointed out how that there is just as much reason to ask, What is the use of me coming to God and telling Him what He already knows? Wherein is the use of me spreading before Him my need, seeing He is already acquainted with it, as there is to object, What is the use of praying for anything when everything has been ordained be- forehand by God? Prayer is not for the purpose of inform- ing God, as if He were ignorant, (the Saviour expressly de- clared “for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him”—Matt. 6:8), but it is to acknowledge He does know what we are in need of. Prayer is not ap- pointed for the furnishing of God with the knowledge of what we need, but it is designed as a confession to Him of the sense of our need. In this, as in everything, God’s thoughts are not as ours. God requires that His gifts should be sought for. He designs to be honored by our asking, just as He is to be thanked by us after He has bestowed His blessing. However, the question still returns on us, If God is the Predestinator of everything that comes to pass, and the Reg- ulator of all events, then is not prayer a profitless exercise? A sufficient answer to these questions is, that God bids us to pray—“Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). And again, “men ought always to pray” (Luke 18:1). And further. Scripture declares that “the prayer of faith shall save the sick”, and, “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (Jas. 5:15, 16). While the Lord Jesus Christ —our perfect Example in all things—was pre-eminently a Man of Prayer. Thus, it is evident that prayer is neither meaningless nor valueless. But still this does not remove the difficulty nor answer the question with which we started out. What then is the relationship between God’s sovereignty and Christian prayer? GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 217 First of all we would say with emphasis that prayer is not intended to change God’s purpose, nor is to move Him to form fresh purposes. God has decreed that certain events shall come to pass, but He has also decreed that these events shall come to pass through the means He has appointed for their accomplishment. God has elected certain ones to be saved, but He has also decreed that these ones shall be saved through the preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel, then, is one of the appointed means for the working out of the eternal counsel of the Lord; and prayer is another. God has decreed the means as well as the end, and among the means is prayer. Even the prayers of His people are includ- ed in His eternal decrees. Therefore, instead of prayers be- ing in vain they are among the means through which God exercises His decrees. “If indeed all things happen by a blind chance, or a fatal necessity, prayers in that case could be of no moral efficacy, and of no use; but since they are regulated by the direction of Divine wisdom, prayers have a place in the order of events” (Haldane). That prayers for the execution of the very things decreed by God are not meaningless, is clearly taught in the Scrip- tures. Elijah knew that God was about to give rain, but that did not prevent him from at once betaking himself to prayer, (Jas. 5:17, 18). Daniel “understood” by the writings of the prophets that the captivity was to last but seventy years, yet when these seventy years were almost ended we are told that he “set his face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes” (Dan. 9:2,3). God told the prophet Jeremiah “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end”, but instead of adding, there is, therefore, no need for you to supplicate Me for these things, He said, “Then shall ye call upon Me, and ye shall go and pray unto 218 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Me, and I will hearken unto you” (Jer. 29:12). Once more; in Ezek. 36 we read of the explicit, positive, and uncondi- tional promises which God has made concerning the future restoration of Israel, yet in verse 37 of this same chapter we are told “Thus saith the Lord God; / will yet for this be en- quired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them”! Here then is the design of prayer: not that God’s will may be al- tered but that it may be accomplished in His own good time and way. It is because God has promised certain things that we can ask for them with the full assurance of faith. It is God’s purpose that His will shall be brought about by His own appointed means, and that He may do His people good upon His own terms, and that is, by the ‘means’ and ‘terms’ of entreaty and supplication. Finally; it should be said that God’s will is immutable, and cannot be altered by our cry- ings. When the mind of God is not toward a people to do them good, it cannot be turned to them by the most fervent and importunate prayers of those who have the greatest in- terest in Him—‘Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be to- ward this people: cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth” (Jer. 15:1). The prayers of Moses to enter the promised land is a parallel case. Our views respecting prayer need to be revised and brought into harmony with the teaching of Scripture on the subject. The prevailing idea seems to be that I come to God and ask Him for something that I want, and that I expect Him to give me that which I have asked. But this is a most dishonoring and degrading conception. The popular belief reduces God to a servant, our servant, doing our bidding, performing our pleasure, granting our desires. No; prayer is a coming to God, telling Him my need, committing my way unto the Lord, and leaving Him to deal with it as seem- eth Him best. This makes my will subject to His, instead of, GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 219 as in the former case, seeking to bring His will into subjec- tion to mine. No prayer is pleasing to God unless the spirit actuating it is “not my will, but Thine be done’. “When God bestows blessings on a praying people, it is not for the sake of their prayers, as if He was inclined and turned by them; but it is for His own sake, and of His own sovereign will and pleasure. Should it be said, to what purpose then is prayer? it is answered, This is the way and means God has appointed, for the communication of the blessing of His goodness to His people. For though He has purposed, provided, and promised them, yet He will be sought unto, to give them, and it is a duty and privilege to ask. When they are blessed with a spirit of prayer, it forebodes well, and looks as if God in- tended to bestow the good things asked, which should be asked always with submission to the will of God, saying. Not my will but Thine be done” (John Gill). The distinction just noted above is of great practical im- portance for our peace of heart. Perhaps the one thing that exercises Christians as much as anything else is that of un- answered prayers. They have asked God for something: so far as they are able to judge, they have asked in faith believing they would receive that for which they had suppli- cated the Lord: and they have asked earnestly and re- peatedly, but the answer has not come. The result is that, in many cases, faith in the efficacy of prayer becomes weakened, until hope gives way to despair and the closet is altogether neglected. Is it not so? Now will it surprise our readers when we say that eve- ry real prayer of faith that has ever been offered to God has been answered? Yet we unhesitatingly affirm it. But in say- ing this we must refer back to our definition of prayer. Let us repeat it. Prayer is a coming to God, telling Him my need (or the need of others), committing my way un- to the Lord, and then leaving Him to deal with the case 220 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD as seemeth Him best. This leaves God to answer the prayer in whatever way He sees fit, and often, His answer may be the very opposite of what would be most accep- table to the flesh yet, if we have really LEFT our need in His hands, it will be His answer nevertheless. Let us look at two examples. In John 11 we read of the sickness of Lazarus. The Lord “loved” him, but He was absent from Bethany. The sis- ters sent a messenger unto the Lord acquainting Him of their brother’s condition. And note particularly how their appeal was worded—‘“Lord, behold, he whom Thou lov- est is sick.” That was all. They did not ask Him to heal Lazarus. They did not request Him to hasten at once to Bethany. They simply spread their need before Him, committed the case into His hands, and left Him to act as He deemed best! And what was our Lord’s reply? Did He respond to their appeal and answer their mute request ? Certainly He did, though not, perhaps, in the way they had hoped. He answered by abiding “two days still in the same place where He was” (John 11:6) and allowing Laza- rus to die! But, in this instance, that was not all. Later, He journeyed to Bethany and raised Lazarus from the dead. Our purpose in referring here to this case is to illustrate the proper attitude for the believer to take before God in the hour of need. The next example will emphasise, rather, God’s method of responding to His needy child. Turn to 2 Cor. 12. The apostle Paul has been accorded an unheard of privilege. He has been transported into Paradise. His ears have listened to and his eyes have gazed upon that which no other mortal had heard or seen this side of death. The wondrous revelation was more than the apostle could endure. He was in danger of becoming “puffed up’ by his extra-ordinary experience. Therefore, a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, was sent to buffet him lest GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 221 he be exalted above measure. And the apostle spreads his need before the Lord ; he thrice beseeches Him that this thorn in the flesh should be removed. Was his prayer answered? Assuredly, though not in the manner he had desired. The “thorn” was not removed, but grace was given to bear it. The burden was not lifted, but strength was vouchsafed to carry it. Does someone object that it is our privilege to do more than spread our need before God? Are we reminded that God has, as it were, given us a blank cheque and invited us to fill it? Is it said that the promises of God are all- inclusive and that we may ask God for what we will? If so, we must call attention to the fact that it is necessary to compare scripture with scripture if we are to learn the full mind of God on any subject, and that as this is done we discover God has qualified the promises given to praying souls by saying “If we ask anything according to His will He heareth us” (1 John 5:14). Real prayer is communion with God, so that there will be common thoughts between His mind and ours. What is needed is for Him to fill our hearts with His thoughts and then His desires will become our desires flowing back to Him. Here then is the meeting- place between God’s sovereignty and Christian prayer: If we ask anything according to His will He heareth us, and if we do not so ask, He does not hear us; as saith the apostle James “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye might consume it upon your lusts” or desires (4:3). But did not the Lord Jesus tell His disciples, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you” (John 16:23)? He did; but this promise does not give praying souls carte blanche. These words of our Lord are in perfect accord with those of the apostle John—“If we ask anything according to His will He heareth us.”’ What is it to ask in the name of 222 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Christ? Surely it is very much more than a prayer formula, the mere concluding of our supplications with the words “in the name of Christ.” To apply to God for anything in the name of Christ, it must needs be in keeping with what Christ is! To ask God in the name of Christ is as though Christ Himself were the suppliant. We can only ask God for what Christ would ask. To ask in the name of Christ, is therefore, to set aside our own wills, accepting God’s! Let us now amplify our definition of prayer. What is prayer? Prayer is not so much an act as it is an attitude— an attitude of dependency, dependency upon God. Prayer is a confession of creature weakness, yea, of helplessness. Prayer is the acknowledgment of our need and the spreading of it before God. We do not say that this is al] there is in prayer, it is not: but it 7s the essential, the primary element in prayer. We freely admit that we are quite unable to give a complete definition of prayer within the compass of a brief sentence, or in any number of words. Prayer is both an atti- tude and an act, a human act, and yet there is the Divine ele- ment in it too, and it is this which makes an exhaustive analy- sis impossible as well as impious to attempt. But admitting this, we do insist again, that prayer is fundamentally an atti- tude of dependency upon God. Therefore, prayer is the very antithesis of dictating to God. Because prayer is an attitude of dependency, the one who really prays is submissive, sub- missive to the Divine will; and submission to the Divine will means that we are content for the Lord to supply our need according to the dictates of His own sovereign pleasure. And hence it is that we say, every prayer that is offered to God in this spirit is sure of meeting with an answer or response from Him. Here then is the reply to our opening question, and the Scriptural solution to the seeming difficulty. Prayer is not the requesting of God to alter His purpose or for Him to form GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY AND PRAYER 223 a new one. Prayer is the taking of an attitude of dependency upon God, the spreading of our need before Him, the asking for those things which are in accordance with His will, and therefore there is nothing whatever inconsistent between Divine sovereignty and Christian prayer. In closing this chapter we would utter a word of caution to safeguard the reader against drawing a false conclusion from what has been said. We have not here sought to epitomize the whole teaching of Scripture on the subject of Prayer, nor have we even attempted to discuss in general the problem of prayer; instead, we have confined ourselves, more or less, to a consideration of the relationship between God’s Sov- ereignty and Christian Prayer. What we have written is in- tended chiefly as a protest against much of the modern teach- ing, which so stresses the human element in prayer, that the Divine side is almost entirely lost sight of. In Jer. 10:23 we are told “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (cf. Prov. 16:9) ; and yet in many of his prayers man impiously presumes to direct the Lord as to His way, and as to what He ought to do: even implying that if only he had the direction of the affairs of the world and of the Church, he would soon have things very different from what they are. This cannot be denied: for anyone with any spiritual discernment at all could not fail to detect this spirit in many of our modern prayer meetings where the flesh holds sway. How slow are we all to learn the lesson that the haugh- ty creature needs to be brought down to his knees and hum- bled into the dust. And this is where the very act of prayer ts intended to put us. But man (in his usual perversity) turns the footstool into a throne, from whence he would fain direct the Almighty as to what He ought to do! giving the onlooker the impression that if God had half the compassion that those who pray (?) have, all would quickly be put right! Such is the arrogance of the old nature even in a child of God. 224 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Our main purpose in this chapter has been to emphasize the need for submitting, in prayer, our wills to God’s. But it must also be added, that prayer is much more than a pious exercise, and far otherwise than a mechanical performance. Prayer is, indeed, a Divinely appointed means whereby we may obtain from God the things we ask, providing we ask for those things which are in accord with His will. These pages will have been penned in vain unless they lead both writer and reader to cry with a deeper earnestness than here- tofore, “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1). CEA TERS EN OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY. “Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” attzitr 201 X. OUR ATTITUDE TOWARD GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY. briefly, the practical application to ourselves of the ges. great truth which we have pondered in its various ramifications in earlier pages. In chapter twelve we shall deal more in detail with the value of this doctrine, but here we would confine ourselves to a definition of what ought to be our attitude toward the Sovereignty of God. Every truth that is revealed to us in God’s Word is there not only for our information but also for our inspiration. The Bible has been given to us not to gratify an idle curiosity but to edify the souls of its readers. The Sovereignty of God is something more than an abstract principle which explains the rationale of the Divine government: it is designed as a motive for godly fear, it is made known to us for the promo- tion of righteous living, it is revealed in order to bring into subjection our rebellious hearts. A true recognition of God’s sovereignty humbles as nothing else does or can humble, and brings the heart into lowly submission before God, causing us to relinquish our own self-will and making us delight in the perception and performance of the Divine will. When we speak of the Sovereignty of God we mean very much more than the exercise of God’s governmental power, though, of course, that is included in the expression. As we have remarked in an earlier chapter, the Sovereignty of God 'means the Godhood of God. In its fullest and deepest meaning the title of this book signifies the Character and Being of the One whose pleasure is performed and whose will is executed. To truly recogmze the sovereignty of God is, therefore, to gaze upon the Sovereign Himself. It is to cB. the present chapter we shall consider, somewhat 228 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD come into the presence of the august “Majesty on High.” It is to have a sight of the thrice holy God in His excellent glory. The effects of such a sight may be learned from those scriptures which describe the experience of different ones who obtained a view of the Lord God. Mark the experience of Job—the one of whom the Lord Himself said, ‘There is none like him in the earth, a per fect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil” (Job 1:8). At the close of the book which bears his name we are shown Job in the Divine presence, and how does he carry himself when brought face to face with Jehovah? Hear what he says: “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth Thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5,6). Thus, a sight of God, God revealed in awesome majesty, caused Job to abhor himself, and not only so, but to abase himself before the Almighty. Take note of Isaiah. In the sixth chapter of his prophecy a scene is brought before us which has few equals even in Scripture. The prophet beholds the Lord upon the Throne, a Throne, “high and lifted up.’ Above this Throne stood the seraphim with veiled faces crying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts.” What is the effect of this sight upon the prophet? We read, “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (Is. 6:5). A sight of the Di- vine King humbled Isaiah into the dust bringing him, as it did, to a realization of his own nothingness. Once more. Look at the prophet Daniel. Toward the close of his life this man of God beheld the Lord in theo- phanic manifestation. He appeared to His servant in hu- man form “clothed in linen” and with loins “girded with fine gold’’—symbolic of holiness and Divine glory. We read that, OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 229 “His body also was like the beryl, and His face as the ap- pearance of lightning, and His eyes as lamps of fire, and His arms and His feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of His words like the voice of a multitude.” Daniel then tells the effect this vision had upon him and those who were with him—‘And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet heard I the voice of His words: and when I heard the voice of His words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground” (Dan. 10:6-9). Once more, then, we are shown that to obtain a sight of the Sovereign God is for creature strength to wither up and result in man being humbled into the dust before his Maker. What then ought to be our attitude toward the Supreme Sovereign? We reply, I ONE OF GODLY FEAR. Why is it that, today, the masses are so utterly uncon- cerned about spiritual and eternal things, and that they are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God? Why is it that even on the battlefields multitudes were so indifferent to their soul’s welfare? Why is it that defiance of heaven is becoming more open, more blatant, more daring? The an- swer is, Because “There is no fear of God before their eyes’’ (Rom. 3:18). Again; why is it that the authority of the Scriptures has been lowered so sadly of late? Why is it that even among those who profess to be the Lord’s people there is so little real subjection to His word, and that its precepts are so lightly esteemed and so readily set aside? Ah! what needs to be stressed to-day is that God is a God to be feared. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Pro. 1:7). Happy the soul that has been awed by a view of God’s 230 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD majesty, that has had a vision of God’s awful greatness, His ineffable holiness, His perfect righteousness, His irresistible power, His sovereign grace. Does someone say, “But it is only the unsaved, those outside of Christ, who need to fear God”’? Then the sufficient answer is that the saved, those who are in Christ, are admonished to work out their own salvation with “fear and trembling.” Time was, when it was the gener- al custom to speak of a believer as a “God-fearing man”— that such an appellation has become nearly extinct only serves to show whither we have drifted. When we speak of godly fear, of course, we do not mean a servile fear such as prevails among the heathen in connec- tion with their gods. No; we mean that spirit which Jehovah is pledged to bless, that spirit to which the prophet referred when he said, “To this man will I (the Lord). look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My Word” (Is. 66:2). It was this the apostle had in view when he wrote, “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17). And nothing will foster this godly fear like a recognition of the sovereign Majesty of God. What ought to be our attitude toward the Sovereignty of God? We answer again, 2 ONE OF IMPLICIT OBEDIENCE. A sight of God leads to a realization of our littleness and nothingness, and issues in a sense of dependency and of cast- ing ourselves upon God. Or, again; a view of the Divine Majesty promotes the spirit of godly fear and this, in turn, begets an obedient walk. Here then is the Divine antidote for the native evil of our hearts. Naturally, man is filled with a sense of his own importance, with his greatness and self-sufficiency ; in a word, with pride and rebellion. But, as we remarked, the great corrective is to behold the Mighty OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 231 God, for this alone will really humble him. Man will glory either in himself or in God. Man will live either to serve and please himself, or he will seek to serve and please the Lord. None can serve two masters. Irreverence begets disobedience. Said the haughty mon- arch of Egypt, “Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Ex. 5:2). To Pharaoh the God of the Hebrews was merely a god, one among many, a powerless entity who needed not to be feared or served. How sadly mistaken he was and how bitterly he had to pay for his mistake he soon discovered, but what we are here seeking to emphasize is that Pharaoh’s defiant spirit was the fruit of irreverance and this irreverence was the consequence of his ignorance of the maj- esty and authority of the Divine Being. Now if irreverence begets disobedience, true reverence will produce and promote obedience. To realize that the Holy Scriptures are a revelation from the Most High, com- municating to us His mind and defining for us His will, is the first step toward practical godliness. To recognize that the Bible is God’s Word and that its precepts are the precepts of the Almighty will lead us to see what an awful thing it is to despise and ignore them. To receive the Bible as ad- dressed to our own souls, given to us by the Creator Himself, will cause us to cry with the Psalmist, “Incline my heart unto Thy testimonies.... Order my steps in Thy Word” (Ps. 119 :36, 133). Once the Sovereignty of the Author of the Word is apprehended it will no longer be a matter of picking and choosing from the precepts and statutes of that Word, selecting those which meet with our approval, but it will be seen that nothing less than an unqualified and whole-hearted submission becomes the creature. What ought to be our attitude toward the Sovereignty of God? We answer, once more, 232 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 3. ONE OF ENTIRE RESIGNATION. A true recognition of God’s Sovereignty will exclude all murmuring. This is self-evident, yet the thought deserves to be dwelt upon. It is natural to murmur against afflictions and losses. It is natural to complain when we are deprived of those things upon which we had set our hearts. We are apt to regard our possessions as ours unconditionally. We feel that when we have prosecuted our plans with prudence and diligence that we are entitled to success ; that when by dint of hard work we have accumulated a ‘competence,’ we deserve to keep and enjoy it; that when we are surrounded by a hap- py family, no power may lawfully enter the charmed circle and strike down a loved one; and if in any of these cases disappointment, bankruptcy, death, actually comes, the per- verted instinct of the human heart is to cry out against God. But in the one who, by grace, has recognised God’s sover- eignty, such murmuring is silenced, and instead, there is a bowing to the Divine will and an acknowledgment that He has not afflicted us as sorely as we deserve. A true recognition of God’s sovereignty will avow God’s perfect right to do with us as He wills. “The one who bows to the pleasure of the Almighty will acknowledge His. abso- lute right to do with us as seemeth Him good. If He chooses to send poverty, sickness, domestic bereavements, even while the heart is bleeding at every pore it will say, Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right! Often there will be a strug- gle, for the carnal mind remains in the believer to the end of his earthly pilgrimage. But though there may be a con- flict within his breast, nevertheless to the one who has really yielded himself to this blessed truth there will presently be heard that Voice saying, as of old it said to the turbulent Gennesareth, “Peace be still,” and the tempestuous flood within will be quieted and the subdued soul will lift a tearful but confident eye to heaven and say, “Thy will be done.” OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 233 A striking illustration of a soul bowing to the sovereign will of God is furnished by the history of Eli the high priest of Israel. In 1 Samuel 3 we learn how God revealed to the young child Samuel that He was about to slay Eli’s two sons for their wickedness, and on the morrow Samuel communicates this message to the aged priest. It is difficult to conceive of more appalling intelligence for the heart of a pious parent. The announcement that his child is going to be stricken down by sudden death is, under any circumstances, a great trial to any father, but to learn that his two sons—in the prime of their manhood, and utterly unprepared to die —were to be cut off by a Divine judgment, must have been overwhelming. Yet, what was the effect upon Eli when he learned from Samuel the tragic tidings? What reply did he make when he heard the awful news? “And he said, It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good” (1 Sam. eu: 18). And not another word escaped him. Wonderful sub- mission! Sublime resignation! Lovely exemplification of the power of Divine grace to control the strongest affections of the human heart and subdue the rebellious will, bringing it into unrepining acquiescence to the sovereign pleasure of Jehovah. Another example, equally striking, is seen in the life of Job. As is well known, Job was one that feared God and eschewed evil. If ever there was one who might reasonably expect Divine providence to smile upon him—we speak as a man—it was Job. Yet, how fared it with him? For a time, the lines fell unto him in pleasant places. The Lord filled his quiver by giving him seven sons and three daughters. He prospered him in his temporal affairs until he owned great possessions. But of a sudden, the sun of life was hidden behind dark clouds. In a single day Job lost not only his flocks and herds, but his sons and daughters as well. News arrived that his cattle had been carried off by robbers, and 234 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD his children slain by a cyclone. And how did he receive this intelligence ? Hearken to his sublime words: “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.” He bowed to the sovereign will of Jehovah. He traced his afflictions back to their First Cause. He looked behind the Sabeans who had stolen his cat- tle, and beyond the winds that had destroyed his children, and saw the hand of God. But not only did Job recognise God’s sovereignty, he rejoiced in it, too. To the words, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away,” he added, “Blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). Again we say, Sweet submission! Sublime resignation! A true recognition of God’s sovereignty causes us to hold our every plan in abeyance to God’s will. The writer well recalls an incident which occurred in England some nineteen years ago. Queen Victoria was dead, and the date for the coronation of her eldest son, Edward, had been set for April 1902. In all the announcements which were sent out, two little letters were omitted—D. V.—Deo Volente: God wil- ling. Plans were made and all arrangements completed for the most imposing celebrations that England had ever wit- nessed. Kings and emperors from all parts of the earth had received invitations to attend the royal ceremony. The king’s proclamations were printed and displayed, but, so far as the writer is aware, the letters D. V. were not found on a single one of them. A most imposing programme had been arranged, and the late Queen’s eldest son was to be crowned Edward the Seventh at Westminster Abbey at a certain hour on a fixed day. And then God intervened, and all man’s plans were frustrated. A still small voice was heard to say, “You have reckoned without Me,” and Prince Edward was stricken down with appendicitis, and his coronation post- poned for months! As remarked, a true recognition of God’s sovereignty causes us to hold our plans in abeyance to God’s will. It ~~ = OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 235 makes us recognise that the Divine Potter has absolute power over the clay and moulds it according to His own imperial pleasure. It causes us to heed that admonition— now, alas! so generally disregarded—‘“Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Where- as ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, I f the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (Jas. 4:13-15). Yes, it is to the Lord’s will we must bow. It is for Him to say where I shall live—whether in America or Africa. It is for Him to determine under what circumstances I shall live —whether amid wealth or poverty, whether in health or sick- ness. It is for Him to say how long I shall live—whether I shall be cut down in youth like the flower of the field, or whether I shall continue for three score and ten years. To really learn this lesson is, by grace, to attain unto a high form in the school of God, and even when we think we have learnt it, we discover, again and again, that we have to re- learn it. We turn now to mark how this recognition of God’s Sov- ereignty which is expressed in godly fear, implicit obedience, and entire resignation, was supremely and perfectly exempli- fied by the Lord Jesus Christ. 4 THE EXAMPLE OF ouR Lorp. | In all things the Lord Jesus has left us an example that we should follow His steps. But is this true in connection with the first point made above? Are the words “godly fear” ever linked with His peerless name? Remembering that ‘godly fear’ signifies not a servile terror but rather a filial subjection and reverence, and remembering too that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” would it not 236 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD rather be strange if no mention at all was made of ‘godly fear’ in connection with the One who was wisdom incarnate! What a wonderful and precious word is that of Heb. 5 :7— “Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and having been heard for His godly fear” (R. V.). What was it but ‘godly fear’ which caused the Lord Jesus to be “subject” unto Mary and Joseph in the days of His childhood? Was it not ‘godly fear’—a filial subjection to and reverence for God—that we see displayed, when we read, “And He came to Naza- reth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day” (Luke 4:16)? Was it not ‘godly fear’ which caused the incarnate Son to say, when tempted by Satan to fall down and wor- ship him, “It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve’? Was it not ‘godly fear’ which moved Him to say to the cleansed leper, “Go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses com- manded” (Matt. 8:4)? But why multiply illustrations ?* How perfect was the obedience that the Lord Jesus of- fered to God the Father! And in reflecting upon this let us not lose sight of that wondrous grace which caused Him who was in the very form of God to stoop so low as to take upon Him the form of a Servant and thus be brought into the place where obedience was becoming. As the perfect Sery- ant He yielded complete obedience to His Father. How ab- solute and entire that obedience was we may learn from the words, He “became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). That this was a conscious and intelli- *Note how Old Testament prophecy also declared that “the Spirit of the Lord” should “rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and un- derstanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord” (Isaiah 11:1, 2). OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 237 gent obedience is clear from His own language—“Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from My Father” (John 10:17, 18). And what shall we say of the absolute resignation of the Son to the Father’s will—what, but, between Them there was entire oneness of accord. Said He, “For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me” (John 6:38), and how fully He substantiated that claim all know who have attentively followed His path as marked out in the Scriptures. Behold Him in Gethsem- ane! The bitter ‘cup,’ held in the Father’s hand, is presented to His view. Mark well His attitude. Learn of Him who was meek and lowly in heart. Remember that there is the Garden we see the Word become flesh—a perfect Man. His body is quivering at every nerve in contemplation of the phys- ical sufferings which await Him; His holy and sensitive nature is shrinking from the horrible indignities which shall be heaped upon Him; His heart is breaking at the awful “re- proach” which is before Him; His spirit is greatly troubled as He foresees the terrible conflict with the Power of Dark- ness; and above all, and supremely, His soul is filled with horror at the thought of being separated from God Himself— thus and there He pours out His soul to the Father, and with strong crying and tears He sheds, as it were, great drops of blood. And now observe and listen. Still the beating of thy heart and hearken to the words which fall from His blessed lips—“Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me: nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done” (Luke 22:42). Here is submission personified. Here is resignation to the pleasure of a sovereign God superlatively exemplified. And He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. 238 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD He who was God became man, and was tempted in all points like as we are—sin apart—to show us how to wear our creature nature. Above we asked, What shall we say of Christ’s absolute resignation to the Father’s will? We answer further, This —that here, as everywhere, He was unique, peerless. In all things He has the pre-eminence. In the Lord Jesus there was no rebellious will to be broken. In His heart there was nothing to be subdued. Was not this one reason why, in the language of prophecy, He said, “I am a worm, and no man” (Ps. 22:6)—a worm has no power of resistance! It was because in Him there was no resistance that He could say, “My meat is to do the wilkof Him that sent Me” (John 4: 34). Yea, it was because He was in perfect accord with the Father in all things that He said, “I delight to do Thy will, O God; yea, Thy law is within My heart” (Ps. 40:8). Note the last clause here and behold His matchless excellency. God has to put His laws into our minds, and write them in our hearts (see Heb. 8:10) but His law was already in Christ’s heart ! What ought to be our attitude towards God’s sovereignty? Finally, 5 ONE OF ADORING WORSHIP. It has been well said that “true worship is based upon rec- ognised GREATNESS, and greatness is superlatively seen in Sovereignty, and at no other footstool will men really worship” (J. B. Moody). In the presence of the Divine King upon His throne even the seraphim ‘veil their faces.’ Divine sovereignty is not the sovereignty of a tyrannical Despot, but the exercised pleasure of One who is infinitely wise and good! Because God is infinitely wise He cannot err, and because He is infinitely righteous He will not do wrong. Here then is the preciousness of this truth. The OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY 239 mere fact itself that God’s will is irresistible and irreversible fills me with fear, but once I realise that God wills only that which is good, my heart is made to rejoice. Here then is the final answer to the question of this chapter—What ought to be our attitude toward the Sov- ereignty of God? The becoming attitude for us to take is that of godly fear, implicit obedience, and unreserved resignation and submission. But not only so: the recog- nition of the sovereignty of God, and the realization that the Sovereign Himself is my Father ought to overwhelm the heart and cause me to bow before Him in adoring worship. At all times I must say, “Even so, Father, for. so it seemeth good in Thy sight.” We conclude with an example which well illustrates our meaning. Some two hundred years ago the saintly Madame Guy- on, after ten years spent in a dungeon lying far below the surface of the ground, lit only by a candle at meal-times, wrote these words, “A little bird I am, Shut from the fields of air; Yet in my cage I sit and sing To Him who placed me there; Well pleased a prisoner to be, Because, my God, it pleases Thee. Nought have I else to do I sing the whole day long; And He whom most I love to please, Doth listen to my song; He caught and bound my wandering wing But still He bends to hear me sing. My cage confines me round; Abroad I cannot fly; But though my wing is closely bound, My heart’s at liberty. My prison walls cannot control The flight, the freedom of the soul. 240 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Ah! it is good to soar These bolts and bars above, To Him whose purpose I adore, Whose Providence I love; And in Thy mighty will to find The joy, the freedom of the mind.” CHAPTER ELEVEN DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS. “Vet ye say, The way of the Lord ts not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not My way equal? are not your ways unequal?” Ezekiel 18 :25. » Xl. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS (ai CONVENIENT point has been reached when we may now examine more definitely some of the dif- Jv ficulties encountered and the objections which might be advanced against what we have written in previous pag- es. The author deemed it better to reserve these for a sep- arate consideration rather than to deal with them as he went along, requiring as that would have done the breaking of the course of thought and destroying the strict unity of each chapter, or else cumbering our pages with numerous and lengthy footnotes. That there are difficulties involved in an attempt to set forth the truth of God’s Sovereignty is readily acknowledged. The hardest thing of all, perhaps, is to maintain the balance of truth. It is largely a matter of perspective. That God is sovereign is explicitly declared in Scripture: that man is a responsible creature is also expressly affirmed in Holy Writ. To define the relationship of these two truths, to fix the di- viding line betwixt them, to show exactly where they meet, to exhibit the perfect consistency of the one with the other, is the weightiest task of all. Many have openly declared that it is impossible for the finite mind to harmonize them. Oth- ers tell us it is not necessary or even wise to attempt it. But, as we have remarked in an earlier chapter, it seems to us more honoring to God to seek in His Word the solution to every problem. What is impossible to man is possible with God, and while we grant that the finite mind is limited in its reach, yet, we remember that the Scriptures are given to us that the man of God may be “thoroughly furnished,” and if we approach their study in the spirit of humility and of ex- pectancy then according unto our faith will it be unto us. 244 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD As remarked above, the hardest task in this connection is to preserve the balance of truth while insisting on both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of the creature. To some of our readers it may appear that in pressing the sovereignty of God to the lengths we have, man is reduced to a mere puppet. Hence, to guard against this, they would modify their definitions and statements relating to God’s sovereignty and thus seek to blunt the keen edge of what is so offensive to the carnal mind. Others, while refusing to weigh the evidence that we have adduced in support of our assertions, may raise objections which to their minds are suf- ficient to dispose of the whole subject. We would not waste time in the effort to refute objections made in a carping and contentious spirit, but we are desirous of meeting fairly the difficulties experienced by those who are anxious to obtain a fuller knowledge of the truth. Not that we deem ourselves able to give a satisfactory and final answer to every ques- tion that might be asked. Like the reader, the writer knows but “in part’ and sees thro’ a glass “darkly.” All that we can do is to examine these difficulties in the light that we now have in dependence upon the Spirit of God that we may follow on to know the Lord better. We propose now to retrace our steps and pursue the same order of thought as that followed up to this point. As a part of our “definition” of God’s Sovereignty we affirmed: “To say that God is sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will. . . . The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite.” To put it now in its strongest form, we insist that God does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases : that whatever takes place in time is but the outworking of that which He decreed in eternity. In proof of this assertion we appeal to the fol- DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 245 lowing scriptures—“But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). ‘For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall dis-annul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Is. 14:27). “And all the inhabitants of the earth are re- puted as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest thour” (Dan. 4:35). “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen”’ (Rom. 11:36). The above declarations are so plain and positive that any comments of ours upon them would simply be darkening counsel by words without knowledge. Such express state- ments as those just quoted are so sweeping and so dogmatic that all controversy concerning the subject of which they treat ought for ever to beat anend. Yet, rather than receive them at their face value, every device of carnal ingenuity is resort- ed to so as to neutralize their force. For example, it has been asked, If what we see in the world today is but the outworking of God’s eternal purpose, if God’s counsel is NOW being accomplished, then why did our Lord teach His disciples to pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’? Is it not a clear implication from these words that God’s will is not now being done on earth? The answer is very simple. The emphatic word in the above clause is “as.” God’s will is being done on earth today, if it is not then our earth is not subject to God’s rule, and if it is not subject to His rule then He is not, as Scripture proclaims Him to be, “The Lord of all the earth” (Josh. 3:13). But God’s will is not being done on earth as it is in heaven. How is God’s will “done in heaven” ?—consciously and joyfully. How is it “done on earth” ?—for the most part, unconscious- ly and sullenly. In heaven the angels perform the bidding of 246 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD their Creator intelligently and gladly, but on earth the unsaved among men accomplish His will blindly and in ignor- ance. As we have said in earlier pages, when Judas betrayed the Lord Jesus and when Pilate sentenced Him to be cruci- fied, they had no conscious intention of fulfilling God’s de- sires yet, nevertheless, unknown to themselves they did do so! | But again. It has been objected: If everything that hap- pens on earth is the fulfilling of the Almighty’s pleasure, if God has fore-ordained—before the foundation of the world —everything which comes to pass in human history, then why do we read in Gen. 6:6, “It repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart” ? Does not this language intimate that the anti-diluvians had followed a course which their Maker had not marked out for them, and that in view of the fact they had “corrupted” their way upon the earth the Lord regretted that He had ever brought such a creature into existence? Ere drawing such a conclusion let us note what is involved in such an in- ference. If the words “It repented the Lord that He had made man” are regarded in an absolute sense, then God’s omniscience would be denied, for in such a case the course followed by man must have been un-foreseen by God in the day that He created him. Therefore it must be evident to every reverent soul that this language bears some other mean- ing. We submit that the words, “It repented the Lord” is an accommodation to our finite intelligence, and in saying this we are not seeking to escape a difficulty or cut a knot, but are advancing an interpretation which we shall seek to show is in perfect accord with the general trend of Scripture. The Word of God is addressed to men and therefore it speaks the language of men. Because we cannot rise to God’s level He, in grace, comes down to ours and con- ~ verses with us in our own speech. The apostle Paul tells us of how he was “caught up into Paradise and heard unspeak- DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 247 able words which it is not possible (margin) to utter” (2 Cor. 12:4). Those on earth could not understand the ver- nacular of heaven. The finite cannot comprehend the In- finite, hence the Almighty deigns to couch His revelation in terms we may understand. It is for this reason the Bible contains many anthropomorphisms—i. e., representations of God in the form of man. God is a Spirit, yet the Scrip- tures speak of Him as having eyes, ears, nostrils, breath, hands etc., which is surely an accommodation of terms brought down to the level of human comprehension. Again; we read in Gen. 18:20, 21, “And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come up unto Me; and if not, I will know.” Now, manifest- ly, this is an anthropologism—God, speaking in human lan- guage. God knew the conditions which prevailed in Sodom, and His eyes had witnessed its fearful sins, yet He is pleased to use terms here that are taken from our own vocabulary. Again; in Gen. 22:12 we read, “And He (God) said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from Me.” Here again, God is speaking in the language of men, for He “knew” be- fore He tested Abram exactly how the patriarch would act. Once more: in the parable of the vineyard our Lord Him- self represents its Owner as saying, “Then said the Lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send My beloved Son: it may be they will reverence Him when they see Him” (Luke 20:13), and yet, it is certain that God knew perfectly well that the “husbandmen” of the vineyard—the Jews— would not “reverence His Son” but, instead, would “despise and reject” Him, as His own Word had declared! In the same way we understand the words in Gen. 6:6—“It re- 248 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD pented the Lord that He had made man on the earth’— as an accommodation of terms to human comprehension. This verse does not teach that God was confronted with an un- foreseen contingency and therefore regretted that He had made man, but it expresses the abhorrence of a holy God at the awful wickedness and corruption into which man had fallen. Should there be any doubt remaining in the minds of our readers as to the legitimacy and soundness of our in- terpretation, a direct appeal to Scripture should. instantly and entirely remove it—“The Strength of Israel (a Divine title) will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that He should repent” (1 Sam. 15:29)! “Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with Whom ts no variableness, neither shadow of turning’ (Jas. 1:17)! Careful attention to what we have said above will throw light on numerous other passages which, if we ignore their figurative character and fail to note that God applies to Him- self human modes of expression, will be obscure and per- plexing. Having commented at such length upon Gen. 6:6 there will be no need to give such a detailed exposition of other passages which belong to the same class, yet, for the benefit of those of our readers who may be anxious for us to examine several other Scriptures, we turn to one or two more. One Scripture which we often find cited in order to over- throw the teaching advanced in this book is our Lord’s la- ment over Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that 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!” (Matt. 23:37). The question is asked, Do not these words show that the Saviour acknowledged the defeat of His mission, that as a people the Jews resisted all DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 249 His gracious overtures toward them? In replying to this question, it should first be pointed out that our Lord is here referring not so much to His own mission as He is upbraid- ing the Jews for having in all ages rejected His grace—this is clear from His reference to the “prophets.” The Old Testa- ment bears full witness of how graciously and patiently Je- hovah dealt with His people, and with what extreme ob- stinacy, from first to last, they refused to be “gathered” un- to Him, and how in the end He (temporally) abandoned them to follow their own devices, yet, as the same Scrip- tures declare, the counsel of God was not frustrated by their wickedness, for it had been foretold (and therefore, de- creed) by Him—see, for example, 1 Kings 8:33. Matthew 23:37 may well be compared with Isaiah 65:2 where the Lord says, “I have spread out My hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts.” But, it may be asked, Did God seek to do that which was in opposition to His own eternal purpose? In words borrowed from Calvin we reply, “Though to our apprehension the will of God is manifold and various, yet He does not in Himself will things at variance with each other, but astonishes our faculties with His various and “manifold” wisdom, according to the expres- sion of Paul, till we shall be enabled to understand that He mysteriously wills what now seems contrary to His will.” As a further illustration of the same principle we would re- fer the reader to Is. 5:1-4: ‘‘Now will I sing to my well Be- loved a song of my Beloved touching His vineyard. My well Beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: And He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine and built a tower in the midst of tt, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that tt should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, 250 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. 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 wild grapes?” Is it not plain from this language that God reckoned Himself to have done enough for Israel to warrant an expectation—speaking after the manner of men—of better returns? Yet, is it not equally evident when Jehovah says here “He looked that it should bring forth grapes” that He is accommodating Himself to a form of finite expression? And, so also when He says “What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it?” we need to take note that in the pre- vious enumeration of what He had done—the “fencing” etc.—He refers only to external privileges, means, and op- portunities, which had been bestowed upon Israel, for, of course, He could even then have taken away from them their stony heart and given them a new heart, even a heart of flesh, as He will yet do, had He so pleased. In chapter one we have affirmed that God is sovereign in the exercise of His Jove, and in saying this we are fully aware that many will strongly resent the statement and that, furthermore, what we have now to say will probably meet with more criticism than anything else advanced in this book. Nevertheless, we must be true to our convictions of what we believe to be the teaching of Holy Scripture, and we can only ask our readers to examine diligently in the light of God’s Word what we here submit to their attention. One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody, and the very fact that it is so popular with all classes ought to be enough to arouse the suspicions of those who are subject to the Word of Truth. God’s Love toward all His creatures is the fundamental and favorite ten- et of Universalists, Unitarians, Theosophists, Christian Sci- entists, Spiritualists, Russellites, etc. No matter how a man DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 261 may live—in open defiance of Heaven, with no concern whatever for his soul’s eternal interests, still less for God’s glory, dying, perhaps with an oath on his lips,—notwith- standing, God loves him, we are told. So widely has this dogma been proclaimed, and so comforting is it to the heart which is at enmity with God, we have little hope of convinc- ing many of their error. That God loves everybody, is, we may say, quite a modern belief. The writings of the church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we be- lieve) be searched in vain for any such concept. Perhaps the late D. L. Moody—captivated by Drummond’s “The Greatest Thing in the World’—did more than anyone else last century to popularize this concept. It has been custom- ary to say God loves the sinner, though He hates his sin.” But that is a meaningless distinction. What is there in a sinner but sin? Is it not true that his “whole head is sick’ and his “whole heart faint” and that “from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness” in him? (Is. 1:5,6). Is it true that God loves the one who is despising and rejecting His blessed Son? God is Light as well as Love, and therefore His love must be a righteous love. To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterise his conscience as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is that the Love of God, like Election is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. With the exception of John 3:16, which will receive atten- tion below, not once in the four Gospels do we read of the Lord Jesus—the perfect Teacher—telling sinners that God loved them, and in the book of Acts which records the evan- gelistic labors and messages of His apostles, God’s Love is never referred to at all! Yet, when we come to the Epistles, *Rom. 5:8 is addressed to saints, and the “we” are the same ones as those spoken of in 8:20, 30. 252 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD which are addressed to the saints we have a full presenta- tion of this precious truth—God’s love for His own. Let us seek to rightly divide the Word of Truth and then we shall not be found taking truths which are addressed to believers and mis-applying them to unbelievers. What sinners need to have brought before them is the ineffable holiness, the - exacting righteousness, the inflexible justice and the terrible wrath of God. Risking the danger of being mis-understood, let us say—and we wish we could say it to every evangelist and preacher in the country—there is far too much present- ing of Christ to sinners today (by those sound in the faith), and far too little showing sinners their need of Christ, i. e., their absolute ruined and lost condition, their imminent and awful danger of suffering the wrath to come, the fearful guilt resting upon them in the sight of God—to present Christ to those who have never been shown their need of Him, seems to us to be guilty of casting pearls before swine.* If it be true that God loves every member of the human family then why did our Lord tell His disciples, “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Fa- ther. . . . . If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him” (John 14:21, 23)? Why say “he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father” if the Father loves everybody? Again; we read, “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity’—not merely the works of iniquity. *Concerning the rich young ruler of whom it is said Christ “loved him” (Mark 10:21), we fully believe that he was one of God’s elect and was “saved” sometime after his interview with our Lord. Should it be said this is an arbitrary assumption and assertion which lacks anything in the Gospel record to substantiate it, we reply, It is writ- ten, “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out,” and this man certainly did “come” to Him. Compare the case of Nicodemus. He, too, came to Christ, yet there is nothing in John 3 which intimates he was a saved man when the interview closed; nevertheless, we know from his later life that he was not “cast out.” DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 253 “God is angry with the wicked every day.” “He that be- lieveth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God” —not “shall abide,” but even now—“abideth on him” (Ps. 5:5; 7:11; John 3:36). Can God “love” the one on whom His “wrath” abides? Again; is it not evident that the words “The love of God which is in Christ Jesus’. (Rom. 8:39) mark a limitation both in the sphere and objects of His love? Again; is it not plain from the words “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:13) that God does not love everybody? Again; it is written, “For whom the Lord lov- eth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He re- ceiveth” (Heb. 12:6). Does not this verse teach that God’s love is restricted to the members of His own family? If He loves all men without exception then the distinction and lim- itation here mentioned is quite meaningless. Finally, we would ask, Is it conceivable that God will love the damned in the Lake of Fire? - Yet, if He loves them now He will do so then, seeing that His love knows no change—He is “without variableness or shadow of turning’! It should now be evident after what we have said above that John 3:16 will not bear the construction that is usually put upon it. The particular point which now requires our consideration is the meaning here of the word “world’— “God so loved the world.’ Are we to understand it as having an absolute force or a relative one? Is it to be regard- ed as a general or a specific term? To harmonize its mean- ing with all that we have said above, we must reply, relative and general. That this is not an arbitrary interpretation ought to be clear from the following considerations. First; our Lord was addressing a Pharisee, one who belonged to a class that believed God’s mercies were confined to his own nation. But what our Lord here taught Nicodemus was that henceforth God’s love would no longer be limited to the Tews, but would reach out to the world—i. e., to the Gentiles 254 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD as well, to all nations. In other words ‘‘world” here has a geographical rather than an ethnic force. Second; there is nothing said in this verse about God giving His Son for the world: on the contrary, the very terms in which the gift of His Son is described clearly imply a limitation of it to those who “believe.” Third; we need to compare this verse with . other passages where “the world” is mentioned. For ex- ample, we read in John 6:33—“For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” Now it is to be noted that this is a positive state- ment and that it is not a question of proffering “life to the world,” but that life 7s given to the world. Has then Christ given “life” to the entire human race? Can the term “world” be regarded as having an absolute force here? Again, in John 12:47 our Lord says, “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.’ Does “the world” here signify all mankind? If it does, then Christ has failed to fulfill the purpose of His incarnation. What then are we to under- stand by “the world” in these passages? We answer, again, it is a word used in contrast with Israel. It is a general term which embraces the Gentiles out of which God is now taking a people for His name. If we attempt to analyze it, then it must stand as an equivalent for God’s elect who are at pres- ent scattered throughout the world.* They are the only ones that God “loves,” though, of course, as Creator, His tender mercies (Providences) are over all His works. All who are im Christ God loves, and all who are out of Christ He hates. Jacob and Esau are representative characters. Jacob was loved not because of any excellency that was to be found in him, for by nature he had none, but solely be- cause God had chosen him in Christ before the foundation of the world and viewed Jacob in Him. Those whom He *This is no novel interpretation of John 3:16, but the one uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 255 loves He brings to Himself: as said the prophet of old, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lov- ing kindness have I drawn thee” (Jer. 31 :3). Toward His own elect God’s love never had a beginning and, blessed be His name, it will never have an ending. But God’s love for the non-elect, for those out of Christ and who despise and reject Him, is something that exists only in the imaginations of pious sentimentalists.* Coming now to chapter three—The Sovereignty of God in Salvation—innumerable are the questions which migiit be raised here. It is strange, yet it is true, that many who acknowledge the sovereign rule of God over material things, will cavil and quibble when we insist that God is also sover- eign in the spiritual realm. But their quarrel is with God and not with us. We have given Scripture in support of every- thing advanced in these pages, and if that will not satisfy our readers it is idle for us to seek to convince them. What we write now is designed for those who do bow to the authority of Holy Writ, and for their benefit we propose to examine several other scriptures which have purposely been held over for this chapter. In treating of the sovereignty of God the Son in salva- tion we have shown from Scripture that there was an express design in connection with His death, that His blood was shed with a definite end in view and that was—manward— to secure the salvation of all that the Father had given to Him. The one passage which is relied upon more than any other to repudiate any limitation in the design and purpose of His death is 1 John 2:1, 2—“If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” This scripture has already been before us, but a further word upon it is here in place. It is to be particularly noted that this passage does not say *See Appendix III on “Kosmos,” page 3109. 256 ; THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD that the Lord Jesus Christ made propitiation for the whole world, but that He is the propitiation for the whole world: that is to say, by virtue of His personal excellency and the infinite value of His cross work, God can righteously show mercy toward the whole world. That the Lord Jesus did not make propitiation for the whole world, but that He made propitiation for God’s elect only is clear from Heb. 2:17— ‘Wherefore it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17, R. V.)— compare Matt. 1:21. That all for whom Christ died will be saved is clear from many considerations. In John 17:24 we find Him saying, “Father, J zwill—the only time He ever declared His own blessed will—that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am.” That this heart longing of the Son of God will be realized is sure from His own words in John 11 :42—“Thou hearest Me always.’ Again, we are told “He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satis- fied” (Is. 53:11), and He certainly would not be “satisfied” if one of His own were lost. Because He is God, His pur- pose cannot fail: because all power in heaven and earth is His, His will must be accomplished. But to this it might be objected that we read in Mark 6:5, “And He could there do no mighty work.” Suppose it be said, Is not the inference plain that our Lord desired to do some “mighty work” here in Nazareth but was unable to do so, and that if He was hin- dered in the days when He sojourned among men, may He not still be hindered? In replying to this question we would say, first, these words do not declare that the Lord desired to do any mighty work at this particular place, but simply states “He could there do no mighty work,” words, which we readily acknowledge, signify that He could not do - _ DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 257 any. But, in the second place, it is to be inquired, What is the precise force of the could not in this connection? As we have shown in chapter 8 the words “could not” and “can- not” have a dual force in Scripture, referring sometimes to natural inability and sometimes to moral inability. Manifestly, it is the latter of these meanings that the words “could not” bear here. Christ was not lacking in natural ability, but was limited by the spiritual condition of His auditors. Why was it that “He could there do no mighty work”? Clearly it was because of their unbelief, the very next verse going on to say, “And He marvelled because of their unbelief.” There- fore we say He could not because He would not. And why would He not? The answer is, Because to have done so there would be casting pearls before swine. He was in “His own country” (Mk. 6:1), where He ought to have been known and appreciated. His own peerless character, His sinless walk, His perfect ways, were sufficient to mark Him out as the Holy One of God. But they were blind to His glory and said, “Is not this the carpenter” (v. 3)? Such was their miserable estimate of Him. Hence He refused to do any “mighty work” before them: He scorned to perform any dazzling miracles in their sight, because there would have been no moral worth in convincing them that He was in- finitely inore than “the carpenter.” In expounding the Sovereignty of God the Spirit in Sal- vation we have shown that His power is irresistible, that, by His gracious operations upon and within them, He “com- pels” God’s elect to come to Christ. The Sovereignty of the Holy Spirit is set forth not only in John 3:8 where we are told “The wind bloweth where it pleaseth ...... so is every one that is born of the Spirit,” but is affirmed in other pass- ages as well. In 1 Cor. 12:11 we read, “But all these work- eth that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.” And again; we read in Acts 16:6, 7— 258 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD “Now when they had gone throughout Phyrgia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the Word in Asia. After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go in to Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.” Thus we see how the Holy Spirit interposed His imperial will in opposition to the determination of the apostles. But, it is objected against the assertion that the will and power of the Holy Spirit are irresistible that there are two passages, one in the Old Testament and the other in the New, which appear to militate against such a conclusion. God said of old, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man” (Gen 6:3), and to the Jews Stephen declared, “Ye stiff- necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” (Acts 7:51,52). If then the Jews “resisted” the Holy Spirit how can we say His power is irresistible? The answer is found in Neh. 9:30—“Many years didst Thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by Thy Spirit in Thy prophets: yet would they not give ear.” It was the external operations of the Spirit which Israel “resisted.” It was the Spirit speak- ing by and through the prophets to which they “would not give ear.” It was not anything which the Holy Spirit wrought im them that they “resisted,” but the motives pre- sented to them by the inspired messages of the prophets. Perhaps it will help the reader to catch our thought better if we compare Matt. 11 :20-24—“Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee Chorazin!” ete. Our Lord here pronounces woe upon these cities for their failure to repent because of the “mighty works” (miracles) which He had done in their sight, and not because of any imternal operations of His grace! The same is true of Gen. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 259 6:3. By comparing 1 Pet. 3:18-20 it will be seen that it was by and through Noah that God’s Spirit “strove” with the antidiluvians. The distinction noted above was ably summarized by Andrew Fuller (another writer long deceased from whom our moderns might learn much) thus: “There are two kinds of influences by which God works on the minds of men. First, That which is common, and which is effected by the ordinary use of motives presented to the mind for consideration; Secondly, That which is special and supernatural. The one contains nothing mysterious, anymore than the influence of our words and actions on each other ; the other is such a mystery that we know nothing of it but by its effects—The former ought to be effectual; the latter 1s so.” ; The next question to be considered is: Why preach the Gospel to every creature? If God the Father has predestined only a limited number to be saved, if God the Son died to effect the salvation of only those given to Him by the Fa- ther, and if God the Spirit is seeking to quicken none save God’s elect, then what is the use of giving the Gospel to the world at large, and where is the propriety of telling sinners that “Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life’? First; it is of great importance that we should be clear upon the nature of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is God’s good news concerning Christ and not concerning sinners,— “Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, sep- arated unto the Gospel of God . . . . concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:1,3). God would have proclaimed far and wide the amazing fact that His own blessed Son ‘‘became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” A universal testimony must be borne to the matchless worth of the person and work of Christ. Concerning the character and contents of the Gospel the 260 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD utmost confusion prevails today. The Gospel is not an “offer” to be bandied around by evangelistic peddlers. The Gospel is a proclamation, true whether men believe it or not. No man is asked to believe that Christ died for him in particular. The Gospel, in brief, is this: Christ died for sin- ners, you are a sinner, believe in Christ, and you shall be saved. In the Gospel God simply announces the terms upon which men may be saved (namely, repentance and faith) and, indiscriminately, all are commanded to fulfill them. Second; God commands that the Gospel be preached to “every creature” because there is an infinite sufficiency in the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. Because there is no limitation in the value of His death, there is to be no limita- tion in the proclamation of it. No sinner is lost for lack of a Saviour. Christ is ready to receive all who come to Him. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and it is the duty and privilege of every Christian to press this truth upon all. Election is God’s concern: ours is to heed His Word and beseech men to be reconciled to Him. The exercise of God’s Sovereignty is seen in the application of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice to whom He wills. We do not know the ones that God has “ordained to eternal life,’ but we do know that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation,to every one that believeth. ~ Third; repentance and remission of sins are to be preached in the name of the Lord Jesus “unto all the nations” (Luke 24:47) because God’s elect are “scattered abroad” (John 11:52) among all nations, and it is by the preaching and hearing of the Gospel that they are called out of the world. The Gospel is the means which God uses in the sav- ing of His own chosen ones. By nature God’s elect are chil- dren of wrath “even as others”; they are lost sinners need- ing a Saviour, and apart from Christ there is no salvation for them. Hence, the Gospel must be believed by them be- DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 261 fore they can rejoice in the knowledge of sins forgiven. The Gospel is God’s winnowing fan: it separates the chaff from the wheat, and gathers the latter into His garner. Fourth; it is to be noted that God has other purposes in the preaching of the Gospel than the salvation of His own elect. The world exists for the elect’s sake, yet others have the benefit of it. So the Word is preached for the elect’s sake, yet others have the benefit of an external call. The sun shines, though blind men see it not. The rain falls upon rocky mountains and waste deserts, as well as on the fruitful valleys; so also, God’s suffers the Gospel to fall on the ears of the non-elect. The power of the Gospel is one of God’s agencies for holding in check the wickedness of the world. Many who are never saved by it are reformed, their lusts are bridled, and they are restrained from becoming worse. Moreover, the preaching of the Gospel to the non- elect is made an admirable test of their characters. It ex- hibits the inveteracy of their sin: it demonstrates that their hearts are at enmity against God: it justifies the declaration of Christ that “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19). Finally ; it is sufficient for us to know that we are bidden to preach the Gospel to every creature. It is not for us to reason about the consistency between this and the fact that “few are chosen.” It is for us to obey. It is a simple matter to ask questions relating to the ways of God which no finite mind can fully fathom. We, too, might turn and remind the objector that our Lord declared, “Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness” (Mark 3:28, 29), and there can be no doubt whatever but that certain of the Jews were guilty of this very sin (see Matt. 12:24 etc.), and hence their destruction was inevitable. 262 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD Yet, notwithstanding, scarcely two months later, He con- manded His disciples to preach the Gospel to every creature. When the objector can show us the consistency of these two things—the fact that certain of the Jews had committed the sin for which there is never forgiveness and the fact that to them the Gospel was to be preached—we will undertake to furnish a more satisfactory solution than the one given above to the harmony between a universal proclamation of the Gos- pel and a limitation of its saving power to those only that God has predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Once more, we say, it is not for us to reason about the Gospel; it is our business to preach it. When God ordered Abraham to offer up his son as a burnt-offering, he might have objected that this command was inconsistent with His promise “In /saac shall thy seed be called.” But instead of arguing he obeyed, and left God to harmonize His promise and His precept. Jeremiah might have argued that God had bade him do that which was altogether unreasonable when He said, “Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee ; thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee” (Jer. 7-29 \ a big instead, the prophet obeyed. Ezekiel, too, might have com- plained that the Lord was asking of him a hard thing. when He said, “Son of man, go, get thee unto the House of Israel, and speak with My words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the House of Israel; Not to many people of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words thou cans’t not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee. But the House of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto Me; for all the House of Israel are impudent and hard hearted” (Ezek. 3 :4-7). DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 263 “But, O my soul, if truth so bright Should dazzle and confound thy sight, Yet still His written Word obey, And wait the great decisive day.”—Watts. It has been well said, “The Gospel has lost none of its ancient power. It is, as much today as when it was first preached, ‘the power of God unto salvation’. It needs no pity, no help, and no handmaid. It can overcome all obstacles, and break down all barriers. No human device need be tried to prepare the sinner to receive it, for if God has sent it no power can hinder it; and if He has not sent it, no power can make it effectual.’ (Dr. Bullinger). This chapter might be extended indefinitely, but it is al- ready too long, so a word or two more must suffice. A num- ber of other questions will be dealt with in the pages yet to follow, and those that we fail to touch upon the reader must take to the Lord Himself who has said, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all liberally, and upbraideth not” (Jas. 1:5). CHAR E.R aa VV EE VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE. “All Scripture is giveh by inspiration of God, And is profitable for doctrine, For reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, Throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Lins snie.r7, rary 7 _ a ie a2 i} Liat ‘ Pa ~-\r ¥ * ‘ : Se a a" ( ‘ A ‘ j 4 = > ~~ ra %e s. = i e P bd : ; ‘ : . ‘ a? : , ’ i*a pve ‘ > - i? d é ram | ry . ‘i j LF g tue poe : , A 4 . , - a - . . 8 a ¥ f a | + ¥ BCp R* . + ~ : ' ° " ’ + na! > 2 b? rhe H ' mo ‘ 3 - e ‘ - = aa , : >t. 4 | F e? : 2c ts I, ‘ e ' . . ad i . ~ a eer ' i i \ a ia , } ‘ . aw ? . y j . ‘ ¢ * ‘ : . e ee! 7 Wiki» eee ple : . “i =? « 7 y ? . \ A i: , hr + . 4 yi P- 4 i ‘ << } ‘ ah, y ee ¢ e°y . vr ¢ { : af = bi 1 . , G a) ae u 7. } =+ty r S eae : . 5 é oy 4 ae art ay ‘ e , a } : tur? és:% ! F 3 b 4 eet j * = ie ' 7 : y x9 a - y rr hs 2 T. A : + y : , ; 4 Pcs ‘ ~ t a A at ' 4 3 - at = = - , r : 1 te : : "fh 4 . * 7. < ead “45 ‘i «4 + 7 A . : “5 , 1 7 rr if F A > | 4 j : ve poe - ; 2 > = & J a fF * LL 4 * ' Titce a Pa oe } 2 ’ 7 ¥ a - % Z cae 7 ' ‘ * 4 3 * > Tw . ae) : * - a 4 i psy ‘ arty ; 4 ‘ * ‘ ; eat: J ' - . : « } f oe 4 : a j ; oe a s 4 f 4 Pa ~ i ‘ ’ > A , ‘ ‘ ‘ts. id < 7? t IY i te P al ' F .* ’ ¥ i ie {A nd * ‘ i cam or ii ‘ a : - ad ‘ , 1 y Chal ae Le >> = ea ELT ’ ‘ mal he a eh, ; ' i wy whe ne Ae } yy i 4 ort ct ee ba ee) ae ine Ve =) ot pe Sali XIl. VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE. —_—_— 7) LL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 1s JS profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, sss for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). “Doctrine” means “teaching,” and it is by doctrine or teaching that the great realities of God and of our relation to Him—of Christ, the Spirit, sal- vation, grace, glory, are made known to us. It is by doctrine (through the power of the Spirit) that believers are nour- ished and edified, and where doctrine is neglected growth in grace and effective witnessing for Christ necessarily cease. How sad then that doctrine is now decried as “unpractical’’ when, in fact, doctrine is the very base of the practical life. There is an inseparable connection between belief and prac- tice—“s he thinketh in his heart, so is he” CP rom23e7)Thie relation between Divine truth and Christian character is that of cause to effect—“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8 :32)—free from igno- rance, free from prejudice, free from error, free from the wiles of Satan, free from the power of evil; and if the truth is not “known” then such freedom will not be enjoyed. Observe the order of mention in the passage with which we have opened. All Scripture is profitable first for “doctrine” ! The same order is observed throughout the Epistles, particu- larly in the great doctrinal treatises of the apostle Paul. Read the Epistle of “Romans” and it will be found that there is not a single admonition in the first five chapters. In the Epistle of “Ephesians” there are no exhortations till the fourth chapter is reached. The order is first doctrinal expo- 268 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD sition and then admonition or exhortation for the regulation of the daily walk. The substitution of so-called “practical” preaching for the doctrinal exposition which it has supplanted is the root cause of many of the evil maladies which now afflicts the church of God. The reason why there is so little depth, so little intelli- gence, so little grasp of the fundamental verities of Christian- ity, is because so few believers have been established in the faith through hearing expounded and through their own per- sonal study of the doctrines of grace. While the soul is un- established in the doctrine of the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures—their full and verbal inspiration—there can be no firm foundation for faith to rest upon. While the soul is ignorant of the doctrine of Justification there can be no real and intelligent assurance of its acceptance in the Beloved. While the soul is un-acquainted with the teaching of the Word upon Sanctification it is open to receive all the crudities and errors of the Perfectionists or “Holiness” people. While the soul knows not what Scripture has to say upon the doc- trine of the New Birth there can be no proper grasp of the two natures in the believer, and ignorance here inevitably results in loss of peace and joy. And so we might go on right through the list of Christian doctrine. It is ignorance of doc- trine that has rendered the professing church helpless to cope with the rising tide of infidelity. It is ignorance of doctrine which is mainly responsible for thousands of professing Christians being captivated by the numerous false isms of the day. It is because the time has now arrived when the bulk of our churches “will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3) that they so readily receive false doctrines. Of course it is true that doctrine, like anything else in Scripture, may be studied from a merely cold intellectual viewpoint, and thus approached doctrinal teaching and doctrinal study will leave the heart untouched and will naturally be “dry” and profit- VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 269 less. But, doctrine properly received, doctrine studied with an exercised heart, will ever lead into a deeper knowledge of God and of the unsearchable riches of Christ. The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty then is no mere met- aphysical dogma which is devoid of practical value, but is one that is calculated to produce a powerful effect upon Christian character and the daily walk. The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty lies at the foundation of Christian theology and in importance is perhaps second only to the Divine In- spiration of the Scriptures. It is the centre of gravity in the system of Christian truth—the sun around which all the lesser orbs are grouped. It is the golden milestone to which every highway of knowledge leads and from which they all radiate. It is the cord upon which all other doctrines are strung like so many pearls, holding them in place and giv- ing them unity. It is the plumbline by which every creed needs to be measured, the balance in which every human dogma must be weighed. It is designed as the sheet-anchor for our souls amid the storms of life. The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty is a Divine cordial to refresh our spirits. It is designed and adapted to mould the affections of the heart and to give a right direction to conduct. It produces grati- tude in prosperity and patience in adversity. It affords com- fort for the present and a sense of security respecting the unknown future. It is, and it does all, and much more than we have just said, because it ascribes to God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the glory which is His due, and places the creature in his proper place before Him—in the dust. We shall now consider the Value of this doctrine in detail. I. IT DEEPENS OUR VENERATION OF THE Divine CHARACTER. The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty as it is unfolded in the Scriptures affords an exalted view of the Divine per fec- tions. It maintains His creatorial rights. It insists that “to 270 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). It declares that His rights are those of the “potter” who forms and fashions the clay into vessels of whatever type and for whatever use He may please. Its testimony is, “Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4: 11). It argues that none has any right to “reply” against God, and that the only becoming attitude for the creature to take is one of reverent submission before Him. It exhibits the inscrutableness of His wisdom. It shows that while God is immaculate in His holiness, He has per- mitted evil to enter His fair creation; that while He is the Possessor of all power, He has allowed the Devil to wage war against Him for six thousand years at least; that while He is the perfect embodiment of love, He gave His only be- gotten Son to die for sinners; that while He is the God of all grace, multitudes will be tormented for ever and ever in the Lake of Fire. High mysteries are these. Scripture does not deny them, but acknowledges their existence—“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! (Rom. 11:33). It makes known the irreversibleness of His will. “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). From the beginning God purposed to glorify Himself “in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end” (Eph. 3:21). To this end, He created the world, and formed man. His all-wise plan was not de- feated when man fell, for in the Lamb “slain from the foun- dation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) we behold the Fall antici- pated. Nor will God’s purpose be thwarted by the wicked- ness of men since the Fall, as is clear from the words of the Psalmist, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 271 remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain” (Ps. 76:10). Be- cause God is the Almighty His will cannot be withstood. “His purposes originated in eternity, and are carried forward without change to eternity. They extend to all His works, and control all events. He ‘worketh all things after the coun- sel of His own will.’” (Dr. Rice). Neither man nor devil can successfully resist Him, therefore is it written, “The Lord reigneth ; let the people tremble.” (Ps. 99:1). It magnifies His grace. Grace is un-merited favor, and be- cause grace is shown to the un-deserving and Hell-deserving, to those who have no claim upon God, therefore is grace free and can be manifested toward the chief of sinners. But because grace is exercised toward those who are destitute of worthiness or merit, grace is savereign; that is to say, God bestows grace upon whom He pleases. Divine Sovereignty has ordained that some shall be cast into the Lake of Fire to show that all deserved such a doom. But Grace comes in like a drag-net and draws out from a lost humanity a people for God’s name, to be throughout all eternity the monu- ments of His inscrutable favor. Sovereign grace reveals God breaking down the opposition of the human heart, sub- duing the enmity of the carnal mind, and bringing us to love Him because He first loved us. Zz 7 IS THE SOLID FOUNDATION OF ALL TRUE RELIGION. This naturally follows from what we have said above un- der the first head. If the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty alone gives God His true place then it is also true that it alone can supply a firm base for practical religion to build upon. There can be no progress in Divine things until there is the personal recognition that God is Supreme, that He is to be feared and revered, that He is to be owned and served as Lord. We read the Scriptures in vain unless we come to them earnestly desiring a better knowledge of God’s will for 272 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD us—any other motive is selfish and utterly inadequate and unworthy. Every prayer we send up to God is but carnal presumption unless it be offered “according to His will’— anything short of this is to ask ‘amiss,’ that we might con- sume upon our own lusts the thing requested. Every service we engage in is but a “dead work” unless it be done for the glory of God. Experimental religion consists mainly in the perception and performance of the Divine will—perform- ance both active and passive. We are predestinated to be “conformed to the image of God’s Son” whose meat it ever was to do the will of the One that sent Him, and the meas- ure in which each saint is becoming “conformed” practically, in his daily life, is largely determined by his response to our Lord’s word—“Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart.” 3. IT REPUDIATES THE HERESY OF SALVATION BY WORKS. “There 1s a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Pro. 14:12). The way which “‘seemeth right” and which ends in “death,” death eter- nal, is salvation by human effort and merit. The belief in sal- vation by works is one that is common to human nature. It may not always assume the grosser form of Popish pen- ances, or even of Protestant “repentance’’—i. e., sorrowing for sin, which is never the meaning of repentance in Scrip- ture—anything which gives man a place at all is but a variety of the same evil genus. To say, as alas! many preachers are saying, God is willing to do His part if you will do yours, is a wretched and excuseless denial of the Gospel of His grace. To declare that God helps those who help themselves is to repudiate one of the most precious truths taught in the Bi- ble, and in the Bible alone, namely, that God helps those who are unable to help themselves, who have tried again and again only to fail. To say that the sinner’s salvation turns VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 273 upon the action of his own will is another form of the God- dishonoring dogma of salvation by human efforts. In the final analysis, any movement of the will is a work: it is some- thing from me, something which I do. But the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty lays the axe at the root of this evil tree by declaring “Jt is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom. 9:16). Does some one say, Such a doctrine will drive sinners to despair. The reply is, Be it so; it is just such despair the writer longs to see prevail. It is not until the sinner despairs of any help from himself that he will ever fall into the arms of sovereign mercy ; but if once the Holy Spirit convicts him that there is no help in himself, then he will recognize that he is Jost and will cry “God be merciful to me a sinner,’ and such a cry will be heard. If the author may be allowed to bear person- al witness, he has found during the course of his ministry that the sermons he has preached on human depravity, the sinner’s helplessness to do anything himself, and the salva- tion of the soul turning upon the sovereign mercy of God, have been those most owned and blessed in the salvation of the lost. We repeat, then, a sense of utter helplessness is the first prerequisite to any sound conversion. There is no salvation for any soul until it looks away from itself, looks to something, yea, to Someone, outside of itself. 4. IT IS DEEPLY HUMBLING TO THE CREATURE. This doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God is a great battering-ram against human pride, and in this it is in sharp contrast from “the doctrine of men.” The spirit of our age is essentially that of boasting and glorying in the flesh. The achievements of man, his development and progress, his greatness and self-sufficiency are the shrine at which the world worships today. But the truth of God’s sovereignty, with all its corollaries, removes every ground for human boasting and instills the spirit of humility in its stead. It de- 274 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD clares that salvation is of the Lord—of the Lord in its orig- ination, in its operation and in its consummation. It insists that the Lord has to apply as well as supply, that He has to complete as well as begin His saving work in our souls, that He has not only to reclaim but to maintain and sustain us to the end. It teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, and that all our works (before conversion), good as well as evil, count for nothing toward salvation. It tells us we are “born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). And all this is most humbling to the heart of man who wants to contribute something to the price of his redemption and do that which will afford ground for boasting and self-satisfaction. But if this doctrine humbles us it results in praise to God. If, in the light of God’s Sovereignty, we have seen our own worthlessness and helplessness, we shall indeed cry with the Psalmist “All my springs are in Thee” (Ps. 87:7). If by nature we were “children of wrath,” and by practice rebels against the Divine government and justly exposed to the “curse” of the Law, and if God was under no obligation to rescue us from the fiery indignation and yet, notwithstand- ing, He delivered up His well-beloved Son for us all, then how such grace and love will melt our hearts, how ‘the ap- prehension of it will cause us to say in adoring gratitude, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake” (Ps. 115:1)! How readily shall each of us acknowledge, “By the grace of God [Tam what I am”! With what wondering praise shall we exclaim— “Why was I made to hear His voice, And enter while there’s room, When thousands make a wretched choice, And rather starve than come? *Twas the same love that spread the feast, That sweetly forced us in; Else we had still refused to taste And perished in our sin.” VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 275 5- IT AFFORDS A SENSE OF ABSOLUTE SECURITY. God is infinite in power and therefore it is impossible to withstand His will or resist the outworking of His de- crees. Such a statement as that is well calculated to fill the sinner with alarm, but from the saint it evokes naught but praise. Let us add a word and see what a difference it makes —My God is infinite in power! then “I will not fear what man can do unto me.” My God is infinite in power, then “what time I am afraid I will trust in Him.” My God is infinite in power, then “I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for Thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety” (Ps. 4:8). Right down the ages this has been the source of the saints’ confidence. Was not this the assurance of Moses when, in his parting words to Israel, he said—‘‘There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun (Israel), who rideth upon the heaven in Thy help, and in His excellency on the sky. The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlast- ing arms’ (Deut. 33:26, 27). Was it not this sense of se- curity that caused the Psalmist, moved by the Holy Spirit, to write—“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God: in Him will I trust. Surely He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under His wings shalt thou trust: His truth shall be thy shield and buckler: Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand, but it shall not come nigh thee. Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the Most High thy Habitation; There shall no evil befall thee (instead, all 276 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD things will work together for good), neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling” (Ps. gr)? O the preciousness of this truth! Here am I, a poor, help- less, senseless “sheep,” yet am I secure in the hand of Christ. And why am I secure there? None can pluck me thence be-— cause the hand that holds me is that of the Son of God and all power in heaven and earth is His! Again; I have no strength of my own: the world, the flesh, and the Devil,. are arrayed against me, so I commit myself into the care and keeping of the Lord and say with the apostle, “I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day” (2 Tim. 1:12), And what is the ground of my confi- dence? How do I know that He is able to keep that which [ have committed unto Him? I know it because God is all- mighty, the King of kings and Lord of lords. 6. IT SUPPLIES COMFORT IN SORROW. The doctrine of God’s Sovereignty is one that is full of consolation and imparts great peace to the Christian. The Sovereignty of God is a foundation that nothing can shake and is more firm than the heavens and earth. How blessed to know there is no corner of the universe that is out of His reach! as said the Psalmist, “Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the morn- ing, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me. If I say surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from Thee: but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to Thee” (Ps. 139:7-12). How blessed it is to know that God’s strong hand is upon every one and VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 277 every thing! How blessed to know that not a sparrow fall- eth to the ground without His notice! But our God is not only infinite in power, He is infinite in wisdom and goodness too. And herein is the preciousness of this truth. God wills only that which is good and His will is irreversible and irresistible! God is too wise to err and too loving to cause His child a needless tear. Therefore if God be perfect wisdom and perfect goodness how blessed is the assurance that everything is in His hand and moulded by His will according to His eternal purpose! “Behold, He taketh away, who can hinder Him? who will say unto Him what doest Thou? (Job 9:12). Yet, how comforting to learn that it is “He” and not the Devil who “taketh away” our loved ones! Ah! what peace for our poor frail hearts to be told that the number of our days is with Him (Job 7:1; 14:5); that disease and death are His messengers, and always march under His orders; that it is the Lord who gives and the Lord who takes away! Fi IT BEGETS A SPIRIT OF SWEET RESIGNATION, To bow before the sovereign will of God is one of the great secrets of peace and happiness. There can be no real submission with contentment until we are broken in spirit, that is, until we are willing and glad for the Lord to have Alts way with us. Not that we are insisting upon a spirit of fatalistic acquiescence; far from it. The saints are exhorted to “prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). We touched upon this subject of resignation to God’s will in the chapter upon our Attitude towards God’s Sovereignty, and there, in addition to the supreme Pattern, we cited the examples of Eli and Job: we would now supplement their cases with further examples. What a word is that in Lev. 10:3—“And Aaron held his peace.” Look at the circum- 278 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD stances: “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put in- cense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord... . . And Aaron held his peace.’ Two of the high priests’ sons were slain, slain by a visitation of Divine judg- ment, and they were probably intoxicated at the time; more- over, this trial came upon Aaron suddenly, without anything to prepare him for it; yet, he “held his peace.” Precious exemplification of the power of God’s all-sufficient grace! Consider now an utterance which fell from the lips of David: “And the king said unto Zadok, Carry back the ark of God into the city: if I shall find favor in the eyes of the Lord, He will bring me again, and shew me both it, and His habitation. But if He thus say, I have no delight in thee; behold, here am I, Jet Him do to me as seemeth good unto Him” (2Sam. 15:25,26). Here, too, the circumstances which confronted the speaker were exceedingly trying to the human heart. David was sore pressed with sorrow. His own son was driving him from the throne, and seeking his very life. Whether he would ever see Jerusalem and the Tabernacle again he knew not. But he was so yielded up to God, he was so fully assured that His will was best, that even though it meant the loss of the throne and the loss of his life he was content for Him to have His way—“let Him do to me as seemeth Him good.” There is no need to multiply examples, but a reflection upon the last case will be in place. If amid the shadows of the Old Testament dispensation, David was content for the Lord to have His way, now that the heart of God has been fully revealed at the Cross, how much more ought we to de- VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 279 light in the execution of His will! Surely we shall have no hesitation in saying— “Till that He blesses is our good, And unblest good is ill, And all is right that seems most wrong, If it be His sweet will.” 8. IT EVOKES A SONG OF PRAISE. It could not be otherwise. Why should I, who am by na- ture no different from the indifferent and godless throngs all around, have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world and now blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Him! Why was I, that once was an alien and a rebel, singled out for such wondrous favors! Ah, that is something I cannot fathom. Such grace, such love, “passeth knowledge.’’ But if my mind is unable to discern a reason, my heart can express its gratitude in praise and adoration. But not only should I be grateful to God for His grace to- ward me in the past, His present dealings will fill me with thanksgivings. What is the force of that word “Rejoice in the Lord alway” (Phil. 4:4)? Mark it is not “Rejoice in the Saviour,” but we are to “Rejoice in the Lord,” as “Lord,” as the Master of every circumstance. Need we remind the read- er that when the apostle penned these words he was himself a prisoner in the hands of the Roman government. A long course of affliction and suffering lay behind him. Perils on land and perils on sea, hunger and thirst, scourging and ston- ing, had all been experienced. He had been persecuted by those within the church as well as by those without: the very ones who ought to have stood by him had forsaken him. And still he writes, “Rejoice in the Lord alway’! What was the secret of his peace and happiness? Ah! had not this same apostle written, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). But how did he, 280 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD and how do we, “know,” that al] things work together for good? The answer is, Because all things are under the con- trol of and are being regulated by the Supreme Sovereign, and because He has naught but thoughts of love toward His own, then “all things” are so ordered by Him that they are made to minister to our ultimate good. It is for this cause we are to give “thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5: 20). Yes, give thanks for “all things” for, as it has been well said “Our disappointments are but His appointments.” To the one who delights in-the Sovereignty of God the clouds not only have a ‘silver lining’ but they are silvern all through, the darkness only serving to offset the light— “Ye fearful saints fresh courage take The clouds ye so much dread, Are big with mercy and shall break In blessings o’er your head.” g. IT GUARANTEES THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF GOOD OVER EVIL. Ever since the day that Cain slew Abel the conflict on earth between good and evil has been a sore problem to the saints. In every age the righteous have been hated and per- secuted, whilst the unrighteous have appeared to defy God with impugnity. The Lord’s people, for the most part, have been poor in this world’s goods, whereas the wicked in their temporal prosperity have flourished like the green bay tree. As one looks around and beholds the oppression of believers and the earthly success of unbelievers, and notes how few are the former and how numerous the latter; as he sees the apparent defeat of the right, and the triumphing of might and the wrong; as he hears the roar of battle, the cries of the wounded, and the lamentations of the bereaved ; as he discovers that almost everything down here is in con- fusion, chaos, and ruins, it seems as though Satan was get- ting the best of the conflict. But as one looks above, instead VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 281 of around, there is plainly visible to the eye of faith a Throne, a Throne unaffected by the storms of earth, a Throne that is “set,” stable and secure, and upon it is seated One whose name is the Almighty, and who “worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11). This then is our confidence—God is on the Throne. The helm is in His hand, and being Almighty His purpose cannot fail, for “He is in one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth” (Job 23:13). Soon His abso- lute sovereignty will be visibly manifested to all the world, when His Son returns to take its government upon His shoul- der and rule it with a rod of iron. In the meantime, though God's governing hand is invisible to the eye of sense it is real to faith, that faith which rests with sure confidence upon His Word, and therefore is assured He cannot fail. What fol- lows below is from the pen of our brother Mr. Gaebelein. “There can be no failure with God. ‘God is not a man, that He should lie, neither the Son of man, that He should repent; hath He said and shall not He do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?’ (Num. 23:19). All will be accomplished.: The promise made to His own be- loved people to come for them and take them from hence to glory will not fail. He will surely come and gather them in His own presence. The solemn words spoken to the nations of the earth by the different prophets will also not fail. ‘Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken ye people; let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all armies; He hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter’ (Is. 34:1,2). Nor will that day fail in which ‘the lofty looks of man shall be humbled and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down and the Lord alone shall be ex- alted’ (Is. 2:11). The day in which He is manifested, when 282 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD His glory shall cover the heavens and His feet will stand again upon this earth, will surely come. His kingdom will not fail, nor all the promised events connected with the end of the age and the consummation.” “In these dark and trying times how well it is to remem- ber that He is on the throne, the throne which cannot be shaken, and that He will not fail in doing all He has spoken and promised. ‘Seek ye out of the book of the Lord and read: Not one of these shall fail’ (Is. 34:16). In believing, blessed anticipation, we can look on to the glory-time when His Word and His Will is accomplished, when through the coming of the Prince of Peace, righteousness and peace comes at last. And while we wait for the supreme and blessed moment when His promise to us is accomplished, we trust Him, walking in His fellowship and daily find afresh, that He does not fail to sustain and keep us in all our ways.’’* 10. IT PROVIDES A RESTING-PLACE FOR THE HEART. Much that might have been said here has already been anticipated under previous heads. The One seated upon the Throne of Heaven, the One who is Governor over the nations and who has ordained and now regulates all events, is infinite not only in power but in wisdom and goodness as well. He who is Lord over all creation is the One that was “manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). Ah! here is a theme no human pen can do justice to. The glory of God consists not merely in that He is Highest, but in that being high He stooped in lowly love to bear the burden of His own sinful creatures, for it is written “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). The Church of God *The above is an extract from an editorial from that most excel- lent magazine “Our Hope” (May 1918 issue) to which the author contributes an article each month. (Sample copy free from Bible Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa.) VALUE OF THIS DOCTRINE 283 was purchased “with His own Blood” (Acts 20:28). It is upon the gracious self-humiliation of the King Himself that His kingdom is established. O wondrous Cross! By it He who suffered upon it has become not the Lord of our destinies (He was that before) but the Lord of our hearts. Therefore, it is not in abject terror that we bow before the Supreme Sovereign, but in adoring worship we cry, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” Pev.25. 20 Here then is the refutation of the wicked charge that this doctrine is a horrible calumny upon God and dangerous to expound to His people. Can a doctrine be “horrible” and “dangerous” that gives God His true place, that maintains His rights, that magnifies His grace, that ascribes all glory to Him and removes every ground of boasting from the creature? Can a doctrine be “horrible” and “dangerous” which affords the saints a sense of security in danger, that supplies them comfort in sorrow, that begets patience within them in adversity, that evokes from them praise at all times? Can a doctrine be “horrible” and “dangerous” which assures us of the certain triumph of good over evil, and which pro- vides a sure resting-place for our hearts, and that place the perfections of the Sovereign Himself? No; a thousand times, no. Instead of being “horrible and dangerous” this doctrine of the Sovereignty of God is glorious and edifying, and a due apprehension of it will but serve to make us exclaim with Moses, “Who ts like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like Thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Ex. 15:11). "2 DA ‘es. ~ ris to / >. P . a oe Pac: ¥; ts Tt . . d bah » J Nodne'® rn Py “_ ¢ uf ws bei ew Shy, ' Tit P CONCLUSION. “Halleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” Rev. 19:6. CONCLUSION. and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the Jak new court, And said, O Lord God of our fathers, art not Thou God in heaven? and rulest not Thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in Thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand Thee?” (2Chron. 20:5,6). Yes, the Lord is God, ruling over all the kingdoms of men, ruling in supreme majesty and might. Yet in our day, a day of boasted enlightenment and progress, this is denied on every hand. A materialistic science and an atheistic philosophy have bowed God out of His own world, and everything is regulated, forsooth, by (im- personal) laws of nature. So in human affairs: at best God is a far-distant spectator, and a helpless one at that. God could not help the launching of the dreadful war, and though He longed to put a stop to it He was unable to do so. Hav- ing endowed man with “free agency” God is obliged to let man make his own choice and go his own way, and He cannot interfere with him or otherwise his moral responsibil- ity would be destroyed. Such are the popular beliefs of the day. One is not surprised to find these sentiments emanating from German neologians, but how sad that they should be taught in many of our Seminaries, echoed from many of our pulpits, and accepted by many of the rank and file of profess- ing Christians. One of the most flagrant sins of our age is that of ir- reverence—the failure to ascribe the glory which is due the august majesty of God. Men limit the power and activities of the Lord in their degrading concepts of His being and EP an Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah 288 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD character. Originally, man was made in the image and like- ness of God, but today we are asked to believe in a god made in the image and likeness of man. The Creator is reduced to the level of the creature: His omniscience is called into question, His omnipotency is no longer believed in, and His absolute sovereignty is flatly denied. Men claim to be the architects of their own fortunes and the determiners of their own destiny. They know not that their lives are at the dis- posal of the Divine Despot. They know not they have no more power to thwart His secret decrees than a worm has to resist the tread of an elephant. They know not that “The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens ; and His king- dom ruleth over all’ (Ps. 103:19). In the foregoing pages we have sought to repudiate such paganistic views as the above-mentioned, and have en- deavored to show from Scripture that God is God, on the Throne, and that so far from the recent war being an evi- dence that the helm had slipped out of His hand, it was a sure proof that He still lives and reigns and is now bringing to pass that which He had fore-determined and fore-an- nounced (Matt. 24:6-8 etc.). That the carnal mind is at enmity with God, that the un-regenerate man is a rebel against the Divine government, that the sinner has no con- cern for the glory of his Maker and little or no respect for His revealed will, is freely granted. But, nevertheless, be- hind the scenes, God is ruling and over-ruling and fulfilling His eternal purpose not only in spite of but also by means of those who are His enemies. How earnestly are the claims of man contended for against the claims of God! Has not man power and knowledge, but what of it?) Has God no will, or power, or knowledge ? Suppose man’s will conflicts with God’s—then what? Turn to the Scripture of Truth for answer. Men had a will on the plains of Shinar and determined to build a tower whose ra CONCLUSION 289 top should reach unto heaven, but what came of their pur- pose? Pharaoh had a will when he hardened his heart and refused to allow Jehovah’s people to go and worship Him in the wilderness, but what came of his rebellion? Balak had a will when he hired Balaam to come and curse the Hebrews, but of what avail was it? The Canaanites had a will when they determined to prevent Israel occupying the land of Ca- naan, but how far did they succeed? Saul had a will when he hurled his javelin at David, but it entered the wall instead! Jonah had a will when he refused to go and preach to the Ninevites, but what came of it? Nebuchadnezzar had a will when he thought to destroy the three Hebrew children, but God had a will too, and the fire did not harm them. Herod had a will when he sought to slay the Child Jesus, and had there been no living, reigning God, his evil desire would have been effected, but in daring to pit his puny will against the irresistible will of the Almighty, his efforts came to nought. Yes, my reader, and you, too, had a will when you formed your plans without first seeking counsel of the Lord, there- fore did He overturn them! “There are many devices in a man’s heart: nevertheless the counsel of the Lord, that shall Stand eae Pronio21)). What a demonstration of the irresistible sovereignty of God is furnished by that wonderful statement found in Rev. 17:17—“For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the Beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” This is one of many prophecies which is to receive its fulfillment in the Great Tribulation, and has reference to the federation of the ten kings—the future League of Nations—becoming subject to the Anti-christ. The fulfillment of any single prophecy 1s but the sovereignty of God in operation. It 1s the demon- stration that what He has decreed He is able also to perform. It is proof that none can withstand the execution of His 290 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD counsel or prevent the accomplishment of His pleasure. It is the evidence that God inclines men to fulfill that which He has ordained and perform that which He has fore-deter- mined. If God were not absolute Sovereign, then Divine prophecy would be valueless, for in such case no guarantee would be left that what He had predicted would surely come to pass. “For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the Beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled” (Rev. 17:17). As remarked, these words have reference to conditions that will obtain during the Tribulation period, after the Church and the Holy Spirit have left the earth. Even in that terrible time, when Satan has been cast down to the earth itself (Rev. 12: 9), when the Anti-christ is reigning in full power (Rev. 13), when the basest passions of men are let loose (Rev. 6: 4), even then God is Supreme above all, working “through ull” (Eph. 4:6), controlling men’s hearts and directing their counsels to the fulfilling of His own purpose. We cannot do better than quote here the excellent comments of our esteemed friend Mr. Walter Scott upon this verse—“God works tinseen, but not the less truly, in all the political changes of the day. The astute statesman, the clever di- plomatist, is simply an agent in the Lord’s hands. He knows it not. Self-will and motives of policy may influence to ac- tion, but God is steadily working toward an end—to exhibit the heavenly and earthly glories of His Son. Thus, instead of kings and statesmen thwarting God’s purpose, they un- consciously forward it. God is not indifferent, but is behind the scenes of human action. The doings of the future ten kings in relation to Babylon and the Beast—the ecclesiastical and secular powers—are not only under the direct control of CONCLUSION 291 God, but all is done in fulfillment of His words” (‘“Exposi- tion of the Revelation’’ ).* Closely connected with Rev. 17:17 is that which is brought before us in Micah 4:11, 12—“Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they His counsel: for He shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor.’ This is another remarkable statement—inspired of God—and three things in it deserve special notice. First, a day is coming when “many nations” shall “gather against” Israel with the ex- press purpose of humiliating her. Second, quite unconscious- ly to themselves—for they “understand not” His counsel— they are “gathered” together by God, for “He shall gather them.” Third, God gathers these “many nations” against Israel in order that the daughter of Zion may “beat them in pieces” (v. 13). Here then is another instance which demonstrates God’s absolute control of the nations, of His power to fulfill His secret counsel or decrees through and by them, and of His inclining men to perform His pleasure though it be performed blindly and unwittingly. Once more. What a word was that of the Lord Jesus as He stood before Pilate! Who can depict the scene! There was the Roman official, and there also was the Serv- ant of Jehovah standing before him. Said Pilate, “Whence art Thou?’ And we read, “Jesus gave him no answer.” Then said Pilate unto Him, “Speakest Thou not unto me? Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and have power to release Thee?’ (John 19:10). Ah! that is what Pilate thought. That is what many another has thought. He was merely voicing the common conviction of the human heart—the heart which leaves God out of its reckoning. But *“Fixposition of Revelation” by Walter Scott. Price $2.25. Bible Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa. . 292 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD hear the Lord Jesus as He corrects Pilate, and at the same time repudiates the proud boasting of men in general— “thou couldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above” (John 19:11). How sweeping is this assertion! Man—even though he be a prominent of- ficial in the most influential empire of his day—has no power except that which is given him from above, no power, even, to do that which is evil, i.e., carry out his own evil de- signs, unless God empowers him so that His purpose may be forwarded. It was God who gave Pilate the power to sentence to death His well-beloved Son! And how this re- bukes the sophistries and reasonings of men who argue that God does nothing more than permit evil! Why, go right back to the very first words spoken by the Lord God to man after the Fall, and hear Him saying, “TJ will put ENMITY between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15)! Bare permission of sin does not cover all the facts which are revealed in Scripture touching this mystery. As Calvin succinctly remarked “But what reason shall we assign for His permitting it but because it is His will?” At the close of chapter eleven we promised to give atten- tion to one or two other Difficulties which were not exam- ined at that time. To them we now turn. If God has not only pre-determined the salvation of His own, but has also fore-ordained the good works which they are to walk in (Eph. 2:10), then what incentive remains for us to strive after practical godliness? If God has fixed the num- ber of those who are to be saved, and the others are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, then what encouragement have we to preach the Gospel to the lest? Let us take up these three questions in the order of mention. CONCLUSION 2938 1. Gop’s SOVEREIGNTY AND THE BELIEVER’S GROWTH IN GRACE. | If God has fore-ordained everything that comes to pass of what avail is it for ws to “exercise” ourselves “unto god- liness” (1 Tim. 477)? If God has before ordained the good works in which we are to walk (Eph. 2:10), then why should we be “careful to maintain good works” (Titus 3:8)? This only raises once more the problem of human responsibility. Really, it should be enough for us to reply, God has bidden us do so. Nowhere does Scripture inculcate or encourage a spirit of fatalistic indifference. Contentment with our pres- ent attainments is expressly dis-allowed. The word to every believer is, “Press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). This was the apostle’s aim, and it should be ours. Instead of hindering the development of Christian character, a proper apprehen- sion and appreciation of God’s sovereignty will forward it. Just as the sinner’s despair of any help from himself is the first prerequisite of a sound conversion, so the loss of all con- fidence in himself is the first essential in the believer’s growth in grace; and just as the sinner despairing of help from him- self will cast him into the arms of sovereign mercy, so the Christian, conscious of his own frailty, will turn unto the Lord for power. It is when we are weak, we are strong (2 Cor. 12:10): that is to say, there must be consciousness of our weakness before we shall turn to the Lord for help. While the Christian allows the thought that he is sufficient in himself, while he imagines that by mere’ force of will he shall resist temptation, while he has any confidence in the flesh then, like. Peter who boasted that though all forsook the Lord yet should not he, so we shall certainly fail and fall. Apart from Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5). The promise of God is, “He giveth power to the faint; and to 294 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD them that have no might (of their own) He increaseth strength” (Is. 40:29). The question now before us is of great practical im- portance, and we are deeply anxious to express ourselves clearly and simply. The secret of development of Christian character is the realization of our own powerlessness, ac- knowledged powerlessness, and the consequent turning unto the Lord for help. The plain fact is that of ourselves we are utterly unable to practice a single precept or obey a single command that is set before us in the Scriptures. For. example: “Love your enemies’—but of ourselves we cannot do this, or make ourselves do it. “In nothing be anxious” —but who can avoid and prevent anxiety when things go wrong? “Awake to righteousness and sin not”—but who can help sinning? These are merely examples selected at random from scores of others. Does then God mock us by bidding us do what He knows we are unable to do? The answer of Augustine to this question is the best we have met with—“God gives commands we cannot perform, that we may know what we ought to request from Him.” A con- sciousness of our powerlessness should cast us upon Him who has all power. Here then is where a vision and view of God’s Sovereignty helps, for it reveals His sufficiency and shows us our insufficiency. 2. Gop’s SOVEREIGNTY AND CHRISTIAN SERVICE. If God has determined before the foundation of the world the precise number of those who shall be saved, then why should we concern ourselves about the eternal destiny of those with whom we come into contact? What place is left for geal in Christian service? Will not the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, and its corollary of predestination, dis- courage the Lord’s servants from faithfulness in evangelism? No; instead of discouraging His servants, a recognition of CONCLUSION 295 God’s sovereignty is most encouraging to them. Here is one, for example, who is called upon to do the work of an evan- gelist, and he goes forth believing in the freedom of the will and in the sinner’s own ability to come to Christ. He preaches the Gospel as faithfully and zealously as he knows how ; but, he finds the vast majority of his hearers are utter- ly indifferent and have no heart at all for Christ. He dis- covers that men are, for the most part, thoroughly wrapt up in the things of the world, and that few have any concern about the world to come. He beseeches men to be reconciled to God and pleads with them over their soul’s salvation. But it is of no avail. He becomes thoroughly disheartened, and asks himself, What is the use of it all? Shall he quit, or had he better change his mission and message? If men will not respond to the Gospel, had he not better engage in that which is more popular and acceptable to the world? Why not occupy himself with humanitarian efforts, with social uplift work, with the purity campaign? Alas! that so many men who once preached the Gospel are now engaged in these activities instead. What then is God’s corrective for His discouraged serv- ant? First, he needs to learn from Scripture that God is not now seeking to convert the world, but that in this Age He is “taking out of the Gentiles” a people for His name (Acts 15:14). What then is God’s corrective for His discouraged servant? ‘This—a proper apprehension of God’s plan for this Dispensation. Again; what is God’s remedy for dejec- tion at apparent failure in our labors? This—the assurance that God’s purpose cannot fail, that God’s plans cannot mis- carry, that God’s will must be done. Our labors are not in- tended to bring about that which God has not decreed. Once more: what is God’s word of cheer for the one who is thor- oughly disheartened at the lack of response to his appeals and the absence of fruit for his labors? This—that we are 296 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD not responsible for results: that is God’s side, and God's busi- ness.* Paul may “plant,” and Apollos may “water,” but it is God who “gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6). Our business is to obey Christ and preach the Gospel to every creature, to emphasise the “Whosoever,” and then to leave the sovereign operations of the Holy Spirit to apply the Word in quicken- ing power to whom He wills, resting on the sure promise of Jehovah—‘For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please (1t may not that which we please), and it shall prosper in the thing where- to I sent it” (Is. 55:10, 11). Was it not this assurance that sustained the beloved apostle when he declared ‘Therefore (see context) I endure all things for the elect’s sake” (2 Tim. 2:10)! Yea, is not this same lesson to be learned from the blessed example of the Lord Jesus!) When we read that He said to the people “Ye also have seen Me, and believe not,’ He fell back upon the sovereign pleasure of the One who sent Him, saying “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me, and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:36, 37). He knew that His labor would not be in vain. He knew God’s Word would not return unto Him “void.” He knew that “God’s elect’? would come to Him and believe on Him. And this same assurance fills the soul of every servant who intelligently rests upon the blessed truth of God’s Sovereignty. It now remains for us to offer a few closing reflections and our happy task is finished. God’s sovereign election of certain ones to salvation is a MERCIFUL provision. The sufficient answer to all the wicked accusations that the doctrine of Predestination is CONCLUSION 297 cruel, horrible, and unjust, is that, unless God had chosen certain ones to salvation none would have been saved, for “there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11). This is no mere inference of ours but the definite teaching of Holy Scripture. Attend closely to the words of the apostle in Romans 9, where this theme is fully discussed—“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. . . . And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:27, 29). The teaching of this passage is unmistakable: but for Divine interference, Israel would have become as Sodom and Gomorrah. Had God left Israel alone, human depravity would have run its course to its own tragic end. But God left Israel a “remnant” or “seed.” Of old the cities of the plain had been obliterated for their sin, and none was left to survive them; and so it would have been in Israel’s case had not God “left” or spared a remnant. Thus it is with the human race: but for God’s sovereign grace in sparing a rem- nant, all of Adam’s descendants had perished in their sins. Therefore, we say that God’s sovereign. election of certain ones to salvation is a merciful provision. And, be it noted, in choosing the ones He did, God did no injustice to the oth- ers who were passed by, for none had any right to salvation. Salvation is by grace, and the evercise of grace is a matter of pure sovereignty—God might save all or none, many or few, one or ten thousand, just as He saw best. Should it be replied, But surely it were “best” to save all. The answer would be: We are not capable of judging. We might have thought it “best” never to have created Satan, never to have allowed sin to enter the world, or having entered to have brought the conflict between good and evil to an end long be- fore now. Ah! God’s ways are not ours, and His ways are “past finding out.” = a 298 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD God fore-ordains everything which comes to pass. His sovereign rule extends throughout the entire Universe and is over every creature. “For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things’ (Rom. 11:36). God initiates all things, regulates all things, and all things are working unto His eternal glory. “There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8: 6). And again, “According to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will’ (Eph. 1:11). Surely if anything could be ascribed to chance it is the drawing of lots, and yet the Word of God expressly. declares, “The lot is cast into the Jap; but the whole dispos- ing thereof is of the Lord” (Pro. 16:33) !! God’s wisdom in the government of our world shall yet be completely vindicated before all created tntelligences. God is no idle Spectator, looking on from a distant world at the happenings on our earth, but is Himself shaping every- thing to the ultimate promotion of His own glory. Even now He is working out His eternal purpose, not only in spite of human and Satanic opposition, but by means of them. How wicked and futile have been all efforts to resist His will shall one day be as fully evident as when of old He over- threw the rebellious Pharaoh and his hosts at the Red Sea. It has been well said, “The end and object of all is the glory of God. It is perfectly, divinely true, that ‘God hath ordained for His own glory whatsoever comes to pass.’ In order to guard this from all possibility of mistake, we have only to remember who is this God, and what the glory that He seeks. It is He who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,—of Him in whom divine love came seeking not her own, among us as “One that serveth.’ It is He who, sufficient in Himself, can receive no real accession of glory from His creatures, but from whom—‘Love’, as He is CONCLUSION 299 ‘Light, —cometh down every good and every perfect gift, in whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning. Of His own alone can His creatures give to Him.” “The glory of such an one is found in the display of His own goodness, righteousness, holiness, truth; in manifest- ing Himself as in Christ He has manifested Himself and will forever. The glory of this God is what of necessity all things niust serve—adversaries and evil as well as all else. He has ordained it; His power will insure it; and when all apparent clouds and obstructions are removed, then shall He rest—'rest in His love’ forever, although eternity only will suffice for the apprehension of the revelation. ‘God shall be all in all’ (italics ours throughout this paragraph) gives in six words the ineffable result” (F. W. Grant on “Atone- melita). That what we have written gives but an incomplete and imperfect presentation of this most important subject we must sorrowfully confess. Nevertheless, if it results in a clearer apprehension of the majesty of God and His sov- ereign mercy we shall be amply repaid for our labors. If the reader has received blessing from the perusal of these pages, let him not fail to return thanks to the Giver of every good and perfect gift, ascribing all praise to His inimitable and sovereign grace. “The Lord, our God, is clothed with might, The winds and waves obey His will; He speaks, and in the shining height The sun and rolling worlds stand still. Rebel ye waves, and o’er the land With threatening aspect foam and roar, The Lord hath spoken His command That breaks your rage upon the shore. Ye winds of night, your force combine— Without His holy high behest You shall not in a mountain pine Disturb the little swallow’s nest. His voice sublime is heard afar; 300 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD In distant peals it fades and dies; He binds the cyclone to His car And sweeps the howling murky skies. Great God! how infinite art Thou, What weak and worthless worms are we, Let all the race of creatures bow And seek salvation now from Thee. Eternity, with all its years Stands ever-present to Thy view, To Thee there’s nothing old appears Great God! There can be nothing new. Our lives through varied scenes are drawn, And vexed with mean and trifling cares; While Thine eternal thought moves on Thy fixed and undisturbed affairs.” “Halleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” Rev. 19:6. AEN DEX oT THE WILL OF GOD. . = 4 } « oe } 7 _\ 5 Lo | 44 o —s ‘ i + . zy ' i A a 5 + | \ t 7% * , u : a 7 ' ts) / a Y: j 45 5 ? h 7 j — } 5 +i oe? h fd ae ‘ fale} be 7 ats a < by i r . eee rf es ot s ve OP é , & vn eS . oe ‘s<8i fag A * THE WILL OF GOD. 4 14 differentiated between His decretive will and His per- zee, missive will, insisting that there are certain things which God has positively fore-ordained, but other things which He merely suffers to exist or happen. But such a distinction is really no distinction at all, inasmuch as God only permits that which is according to His will. No such distinction would have been invented had these theologians discerned that God could have decreed the existence and activities of sin without Himself being the Author of sin. Personally, we much prefer to adopt the distinction made by the older Calvinists between God’s secret and revealed will, or, to state it in another way, His disposing and His preceptive will. God’s revealed will is made known in His Word, but His secret will is His own hidden counsels. God’s revealed will is the definer of our duty and the standard of our responsi- bility. The primary and basic reason why I should follow a certain course or do a certain thing is because it is God’s will that I should, His will being clearly defined for me in His Word. That I should not follow a certain course, that I must refrain from doing certain things, is because they are contrary to God’s revealed will. But suppose I disobey God’s Word, then do I not cross His will? And if so, how can it still be true that God’s will is always done and His counsel accomplished at all times? Such questions should make evi- dent the necessity for the distinction here advocated. God’s revealed willis frequently crost, but His secret will is never thwarted. That it is legitimate for us to make such a dis- oh treating of the Will of God some theologians have 304 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF .GOD tinction concerning God’s will is clear from Scripture. Take these two passages: “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3); “For who hath resisted His will?” (Rom. 9:19). Would any thoughtful reader declare that God’s ‘“‘will” has precisely the same meaning in both of these passages? We surely hope not. The first passage re- fers to God’s revealed will, the latter to His secret will. The first passage concerns our duty, the latter declares that God’s secret purpose is immutable and must come to pass notwithstanding the creature’s insubordination. God’s re- vealed will is never done perfectly or fully by any of us, but His secret will never fails in accomplishment even in the minutest particular. His secret will mainly concerns future events ; His revealed will, our present duty : the one has to do with His irresistible purpose, the other with His manifested pleasure: the one is wrought upon us and accomplished through us, the other is to be done by us. The secret will of God is His eternal, unchanging purpose concerning all things which He hath made, to be brought about by certain means to their appointed ends: of this God expressly declares ‘“My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). This is the absolute, efficacious will of God, always effected, always fulfilled. The revealed will of God contains not His purpose and decree but our duty,—not what He will do according to His eternal coun- sel, but what we should do if we would please Him, and this is expressed in the precepts and promises of His Word. Whatever God has determined within Himself, whether to do Himself, or to do by others, or to suffer to be done, whilst it is in His own breast, and is not made known by any event in providence, or by precept, or by prophecy, is His secret will. Such are the deep things of God, the thoughts of His heart, the counsels of His mind, which are impenetrable to all creatures. But when these are made known they be- THE WILL OF GOD 305 come His revealed will: such is almost the whole of the book of Revelation, wherein God has made known to us “things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev. I :1—‘‘must”’ because He has eternally purposed that they should). It has been objected by Arminian theologians that the di- vision of God’s will into secret and revealed is untenable, because it makes God to have two different wills, the one op- posed to the other. But this is a mistake due to the failure to see that the secret and revealed will of God respect entirely different objects. If God should require and forbid the same thing, or if He should decree the same thing should and should not exist, then would His secret and revealed will be contradictory and purposeless. If those who object to the secret and revealed will of God being inconsistent would only _ make the same distinction in this case that they do in many other cases, the seeming inconsistency would at once disap- pear. How often do men draw a sharp distinction between what is desirable in its own nature and what is not desirable all things considered. For example, the fond parent does not desire simply considered to punish his offending child, but, all things considered, he knows it is His bounden duty, and so corrects his child. And though he tells his child he does not desire to punish him, but that he is satisfied it is for the best all things considered to do so, then an intelligent child would see no inconsistency in what his father says and does. Just so the All-wise Creator may consistently decree to bring to pass things which He hates, forbids and condemns. God chooses that some things shall exist which He thorough- ly hates (in their intrinsic nature), and He also chooses that some things shall not yet exist which He perfectly loves (in their intrinsic nature). For example: He commanded that Pharaoh should let His people go, because that was right in the nature of things, yet, He had secretly declared that Pharaoh should not let His people go, not because it was 306 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD right in Pharaoh to refuse, but because it was best all things considered that he should not let them go—i. e. best because it subserved God’s larger purpose. Again; God commands us to be perfectly holy in this life (Matt. 5:48), because this is right in the nature of things, but He has decreed that no man shall be perfectly holy in this life, because this is best all things considered that none shall be perfectly holy (experimentally) before they leave this world. Holiness is one thing, the taking place of holiness is another; so, sin is one thing, the taking place of sin is another. When God requires holiness His preceptive or revealed will respects the nature or moral excellence of holiness; but when He decrees that holiness shail not take place (fully and perfectly) His secret or decretive will re- spects only the event of it not taking place. So, again, when He forbids sin, His preceptive or revealed will respects only the nature or moral evil of sin; but when He decrees that sin shall take place, His secret will respects only its actual occurrence to serve His good purpose. Thus the secret and revealed will of God respect entirely different objects. God’s will of decree is not His will in the same sense as His will of command is. Therefore, there is no difficulty in supposing that one may be contrary to the other. His will, in both senses, is His inclination. Everything that concerns His revealed will is perfectly agreeable to His nature, as when He commands love, obedience, and service from His creatures. But that which concerns His secret will has in view His ultimate end, that to which all things are now work- ing. Thus, He decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, though His own holy nature hates all sin with infinite ab- horrence, yet, because it is one of the means by which His appointed end is to be reached He suffered it to enter. God’s revealed will is the measure of our responsibility and the THE WILL OF GOD 307 determiner of our duty. With God’s secret will we have noth- ing to do: that is His concern. But, God knowing that we should fail to perfectly do His revealed will ordered His eter- nal counsels. accordingly, and these eternal counsels, which make up His secret will, though unknown to us are, though unconsciously, fulfilled in and through us. Whether the reader is prepared to accept the above dis- tinction in the will of God or not he must acknowledge that the commands of Scripture declare God’s revealed will, and he must also allow that sometimes God wills not to hinder a breach of those commands, because He does not as a fact so hinder it. God wills to permit sin as is evident, for He does permit it. Surely none will say that God Himself does what He does not wll to do. i. + . « “ ~ D 14 . ‘ oe , . ‘ 4 ' ; ‘ > eC eee ae ~ ©; + J 2 = “Y ie Se * . 4 i, * * “ k . , Ls ’ ‘ Y - » ‘ ¥ : 4 a $ oe. % ‘oy y «* A ry <> = * ‘<= 7 7 ‘ “ty +e Fa ~—_ sag 5.4% A : ‘ Lee cee Pat Ax": ral (ie ay “ ; Ls ore ie, Pires ‘< P et + he ‘ ™ Sg Tid , fed} t ths 20 Guat at 4\_* * < > ‘% a ">? ! , oy § } Ss be Pe” Pats ee | v7} N ry 4 fi io Lath coe 30 as NUN AE Me WR gi , . sr 4 : » ee ‘ - » i ty ; - ~ " 7. ; w ee be - 7 - y . ; ot 4 F ab vf ae é 4 { Ai M i of ad eae AP Rey * “ * x UY id N ‘. ye . # r Le, / hick ; ’ > ‘! 7 a ear i ae — i Pe — , v 4 , a »? 2a Aw A hel ». 7” rc - ay) # % < D7 i ¢ ‘ j ) * 3 2 -—" - it} a4 i - , 2 ; xu : a . ' : é » . 4 ~ - P fn a ‘ 5 Ms . i , y ' ch ‘ e ‘ : i> ie ‘ Rael ta a *. or : be Oty 4” 4 “ay ; = as a. any ” J ; a ’ ' ‘ * a , ‘ 7 ; 1 Ae \ a neal © . * : ay , 7 ; or ; “hee i ate ” ie Ge nee le Beit ad Le, i Ma e 5 A ' big ; x 7s : “ | edie | eee | P » ‘ Dare ~ oe a ‘ : . & Ms * ~ i ae oy a i es - 7 sre d APPENDIX II THE CASE OF ADAM. THE CASE OF ADAM. &"N our chapter on God’s Sovereignty and Human Re- ch sponsibility we dealt only with the responsibility of gee, man considered as a fallen creature, and at the close of the discussion it was pointed out how that the measure and extent of our responsibility varies in different individuals according to the advantages they have received and the priv- ileges they have enjoyed, which is a truth clearly established by the declaration of the Saviour recorded in Luke 12:47, 48, “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and pre- pared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did not commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more”. Now, strictly speaking, there are only two men who have ever walked this earth which were endowed with full and unimpaired responsibility, and they were the first and last Adam’s. The responsibility of each of the rational descend- ants of Adam, while real, and sufficient to establish them ac- countable to their Creator is, nevertheless, limited in degree, limited because impaired through the effects of the Fall. Not only is the responsibility of each descendent of Adam sufficient to constitute him, personally an accountable crea- ture (that is, as one so constituted that he ought to do right and ought not to do wrong), but originally every one of us was also endowed, judicially with full and unimpaired re- sponsibility, not in ourselves, but, in Adam. It should ever be borne in mind that not only was Adam the father of the hu- 312 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD man race seminally, but he was also the head of the race Jegal- ly. When Adam was placed in Eden he stood there as our rep- resentative, so that what he did is reckoned to the account of each for whom he acted. It is beside our present purpose to enter here into a lengthy discussion of the Federal Headship of Adam%, suffice it now to refer the reader to Romans 5:12-19 where this truth is dealt with by the Holy Spirit. In the heart of this most im- portant passage we are told that Adam was “the figure of Him that was to come” (v 14), that is, of Christ. In what sense, then, was Adam “the figure” of Christ? The answer must be, In that he was a Federal Head; in that he acted on the behalf of a race of men; in that he was one who has legally, as well as vitally, affected all connected with him. It is for this reason that the Lord Jesus is in 1 Cor. 15:45 denominated “‘the last Adam’’, that is, the Head of the new creation as the first Adam was the Head of the old creation. In Adam, then, each of us stood. As the representative of the human race the first man acted. As then Adam was created with full and unimpaired responsibility, unimpaired because there was no evil nature within him; and as we were all “in Adam’’, it necessarily follows that each of us, origi- nally, were also endowed with full and unimpaired responsi- bility. Therefore, in Eden, it was not merely the responsi- bility of Adam as a single person that was tested, but it was Human Responsibility, the Responsibility of the Race, as a whole and in part, which was on trial. Webster defines Responsibility first, as “liable to account” ; second, as “able to discharge an obligation”. Perhaps the meaning and scope of the term Responsibility might be ex- pressed and summed up in the one word oughtness. God- wards, responsibility respects that which is due the Creator *Though there is deep and widespread need for this, and we hope ere long to write upon this subject in another book. THE CASE OF ADAM 313 from the creature, and which the creature is under moral obligations to render. In the light of the above definition it is at once apparent that Responsibility is something that must be placed on trial. And as a fact, this is, as we learn from the Inspired Record, exactly what transpired in Eden. Adam was placed on pro- bation. His obligations to God were put to the test. His loyalty to the Creator was tried out. The test consisted of obedience to His Maker’s command. Of a certain tree he was forbidden to eat. But right here a very formidable difficulty confronts us. From God’s standpoint the result of Adam’s probation was not left in uncertainty. Before He formed him out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, God knew exactly how the appointed test would terminate. With this statement every Christian reader must be in accord, for, to deny God’s foreknowledge is to deny His omniscience, and this is to repudiate one of the funda- mental attributes of Deity. But we must go further: not only had God a perfect foreknowledge of the outcome of Adam’s trial, not only did His omniscient eye see Adam eating of the forbidden fruit, but He decreed beicrehand that he should do so. This is evident not only from the general fact that nothing happens save that which the Crea- tor and Governor of the universe has eternally purposed, but also from the express declaration of Scripture that Christ as a Lamb “verily was foreordained before the foun- dation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20). If, then, God had fore- ordained before the foundation of the world that Christ should, in due time, be offered as a Sacrifice for sin, then it 1s unmistakably evident that God had also foreordained sin should enter the world, and if so, that Adam should trans- gress and fall. In full harmony with this, God Himself 314 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD placed in Eden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and also allowed the Serpent to enter and deceive Eve. Here then is the difficulty: If God had eternally decreed that Adam should eat of the tree, how could he be held re- sponsible not to eat of it? Formidable as the problem ap- pears, nevertheless, it is capable of a solution, a solution, moreover, which can be grasped even by the finite mind. The solution is to be found in the distinction between God’s secret will and His revealed will. As stated in Appendix I, human responsibility is measured by our knowledge of God’s revealed will; what God has told us, not what He has not told us, is the definer of our duty. So it was with Adam. That God had decreed sin should enter this world through the disobedience of our first parents was a secret hid in His own breast. Of this Adam knew nothing, and that made all the difference so far as his responsibility was concerned. Adam was quite unacquainted with the Creator’s hidden counsels. What concerned him was God’s revealed will. And that was plain! God had forbidden him to eat of the tree, and that was enough. But God went further: He even warned Adam of the dire consequences which would follow should he disobey—death would be the penalty. Transgres- sion, then, on the part of Adam was entirely ewxcuseless. Created with no evil nature in him, with a will in perfect equipoise, placed in the fairest environment, given domin- ion over all the lower creation, allowed full liberty with only a single restriction upon him, plainly warned of what would follow an act of insubordination to God, there was every pos- sible inducement for Adam to preserve his innocence; and, should he fail and fall, then by every principle of righteous- ness his blood must lie upon his own head, and his guilt be imputed to all in whose behalf he acted. Had God disclosed to Adam His purpose that sin would enter this world, and that He had decreed Adam should eat THE CASE OF ADAM ~ 818 of the forbidden fruit, it is obvious that Adam could not have been held responsible for the eating of it. But in that God withheld the knowledge of His counsels from Adam his accountability was not interfered with. Again; had God created Adam with a bias toward evil, then human responsibility had been impaired and man’s probation merely one in name. But inasmuch as Adam was included among that which God, at the end of the sixth day, pronounced “Very good”, and, inasmuch as man was made “upright” (Ecc. 7:29), then every mouth must be “stopped” and “the whole world” must acknowledge itself “guilty be- fore God” (Rom. 3:19). Once more: it needs to be carefully borne in mind that God did not decree that Adam should sin and then inject into Adam an inclination to evil, in order that His decree might be carried out. No; “God cannot be tempted, neither tempt- eth He any man” (Jas. 1:13). Instead, when the Serpent came to tempt Eve, God caused her to remember His com- mand forbidding to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and of the penalty attached to disobedience! Thus, though God had decreed the Fall, in no sense what He the Author of Adam’s sin, and at no point was Adam’s responsi- bility impaired. Thus may we admire and adore the “man- ifold wisdom of God”, in devising a way whereby His eter- nal decree should be accomplished, and yet the responsibility of His creatures be preserved intact. APPENDIX III. THE MEANING OF “KOSMOS” IN JOHN 3:16. boy THE MEANING OF “KOSMOS” IN JOHN 3:16. It may appear to some of our readers that the Exposition we have given of John 3:16 in the chapter on “Difficulties and Objections” is a forced and unnatural one, inasmuch as our difinition of the term “world” seems to be out of har- mony with the meaning and scope of this word in other pass- ages, where, to supply the world of believers (God’s Elect) as a definition of “world” would make no sense. Many have said to us, “Surely, ‘world’ means world, that is, you, me, and everybody.” In reply we would say: We know from experience how difficult it is to set aside the “traditions of men’ and come to a passage which we have heard explained in a certain way scores of times, and study it carefully for ourselves without bias. Nevertheless, this is essential if we would learn the mind of God. Many people suppose they know already the simple mean- ing of John 3:16, and therefore they conclude that no dili- gent study is required of them to discover the precise teach- ing of this verse. Needless to say, such an attitude shuts out any further light which they otherwise might obtain on the passage. Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read carefully the various passages in which the term “world” (as a translation of “Kosmos”) occurs, they will quickly perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of the word “world” in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is pop- ularly supposed. The word “Kosmos,” and its English equivolent “world,” is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. Below we will refer to a few passages where this term occurs, suggesting a tentative definition in each case: 320 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD t “Kosmos” is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts 17: 24— “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.” 2 “Kosmos” is used of the earth: John 13:1; Eph. 1:4, etc., CG “When Jesus knew that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end.” “Depart out of this world” signifies, leave this earth. “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foun- dation of the world.” This expression signifies, before the earth was founded—compare Job 38:4 etc. 3 “Kosmos” is used of the World-System: John 12:31 ete. “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out” Reese Bente Matt. 4:8 and I John S510; Raav 4 “Kosmos” is used of the whole Human Race: Rom. 3: £0; Ct. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” +s “Kosmos” is used of Humanity minus Believers: John 15:18; Rom. 3:6— “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.”’ Believers do not “hate” Christ, so that “the world” here must signify the world of un-believers in con- trast from believers who love Christ. “God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.” Here is another passage where “the world” cannot mean +B] THE MEANING OF “KOSMOS” IN JOHN 3:16 321 “you, me, and everybody,” for believers will not be “judged” by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of un-believers which is ini view. 6 “Kosmos” is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: COMES el oeeLG. “Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fullness.” Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, “the world” cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel! Fae tx0smos jis ised of Believers: only. John. 1:29; 3:16, Iwas l2 47.7 1-Cor. 44:0. 2.Cor.1 510, “We, leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of “the world” in each place. Thus it will be seen that “Kosmos” has at least seven clearly defined different meanings in the New Testament. It may be asked, Has then God used a word thus to confuse and confound those who read the Scriptures? We answer, No! nor has He written His Word for lazy people who are too dilitary, or too busy with the things of this world, or, like Martha, so much occupied ‘with “serving,” they have no time and no heart to “search” and “study” Holy Writ! Should it be asked further, But how is a searcher of the Scriptures to know which of the above meanings the term “world” has in any given passage? The answer is: This may be ascertained by a careful study of the context, by diligently noting what is predicated of “the world’ in each passage, and by prayerfully consulting other parallel pass- ages to the one being studied. The principal subject of John 3:16 is Christ as the Gift of God. The first clause tells us what moved God to “give” 322 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD His only begotten Son, and that was His great “Love;” the second clause informs us for whom God “gave” His Son, and that is for, “whosoever (or, better, ‘Every one’) be- lieveth ;” while the last clause makes known why God “gave” His Son (His purpose), and that is, that everyone that be- lieveth “should not perish but have everlasting life.” That “the world” in John 3:16 refers to the world of Be- levers (God’s elect), in contradistinction from “the world of the Ungodly” 2 Pet. 2:5, is established, unequivocally es- tablished by a comparison of the other passages which speak of God’s “Love.” “God commendeth His love toward US” —the saints, Rom. 5:8. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasten- eth’’—every son, Heb. 12:6. “We love Him, because He first loved US’’—believers, 1 John 4:19. The wicked God “pities” (see Matt. 18:33). Unto the unthankful and evil God is “kind” (see Luke 6:35). The vessels of wrath He endures “with much long-suffering” (see Rom. 9:22). But “His own” God “loves” !! EP te PR oe ar ee ; ; . ss s t . rie . ‘ . ’ ' : ? ‘ 5 7 . ‘ : ; +] | ' ‘ s »e \ « : i ‘ Pal) e ret ee ’ 1 ~ b d \ pV ges: . as er I ; } ; . ‘ , 1 ‘ 7 ; te t y : ; 2 Me t :. ' ‘ - a ie F > y \> > >. ¥ _ » 4 ¥ ; nail : » ’ ¢ ee , 2 Oe x ‘ ‘F 4 ‘ *y : ." : ‘ * P 5 ne els | a - ¢ 7 Le | ie ’ 7 - 6 * be t a8 ts he] 4 ‘ 2 at Shia net sf ’ . = , - » 4 : 2 Ae: : fp Peat i s a q yee 2 a eS . 4 . Pt @ F - As -3 ig “> . ; rr t ei A. bed ie De i> - » ie | t Fe | . he — We ’ ee ae ef taal ie ; ‘ “ » > a 4 ‘ a % “ ©. ? i, 3 od ns “ = + a ‘ ' % Ye ae . > : vas 2 al 3 * , y ‘ « é ¥ ry e .% a: ot . ; a F f o j t a! f A" ‘ % i) %, x : t ; i f _ “ : - , | + r2 w® r 19 } * ' r ’ : ae * ‘ : : ih => pee 3 e > ‘ 5 te we ; f) 2 ¢ t ae sy , ‘ , J A ; : AA fa. ead ety Ne | ( ' i Ps * x, Ay ei A . tT 7 : Ly J Se» | < 7. er < . , a 4 i - ' , , a” > a : . er. j i] a od . a ; ' 5 ‘ ‘ ft - r ‘ tk . tt BY ARTHUR W. PINK THE SEVEN SAYINGS OF THE SAVIOUR ON THE CROSS. This new work of Mr. Pink is fully up to the high level of all his other productions. The author shows how marvelously full are the words of the dying Saviour. He calls attention to seven different sides of each separate “‘Saying’’. Ile shows how these Seven Words of Christ not only reveal His own personal excellencies, but also set forth the Gospel of our Salvation, as well as interpret the purpose, the meaning, and the sufficiency of the Death Divine. Mr. Pink brings out much that is new as well as that which though old never grows old. This book is suited alike to sinners and saints, for it not only sets forth the Way of Salvation but is designed to confirm the faith of those who have been saved. We believe a reading of this book will cause many to say “God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Contents: Introduction. Chapter I. The Word of Forgiveness. II. The Word of Salvation. III. The Word of Affection. IV. The Word of Anguish. V. The Word of Suffering. VI. The Word of Victory. VII. The Word of Contentment. Just published. 167 pages. Cloth, $1.25 postpaid. SATAN AND HIS GOSPEL. A forceful but simple setting forth of the teaching of the Word of God regarding mankind’s greatest enemy—Satan. Especially helpful to young Christians, though it should be read by all. Seven chapters on Satan’s Personality, Origin, Fall, Work, Doom, etc. Mr. R. E. Neigh- bour, author of “Folly of Federation’, ‘Glories of Grace”’, etc., says: “This book by Mr. Pink is true to the Word. Many today are ignorant of Satan and his devices, but Mr. Pink, with homiletical clearness, and Scriptural exactness, sets forth what God tells us in His Word about the great Adversary of our souls. The book covers a wide scope of teach- ing, but takes its name from one of the chapters called ‘the Gospel of Satan’. This chapter alone is well worth the value of the whole book, and should be carefully and prayerfully read and digested.”’ Attractive cover in two colors. 68 pages. 20 cents. PHILOSOPHY OF SPIRITUALISM. Shows the evil nature and awful tendencies of this fearful delusion. The follies and fallacies of Spiritualism are shown under five headings, and four principal reasons are given why it should be shunned. If you wish to open the eyes of others get this booklet. 5 cents each. SINS OF THE SAINTS. This_ booklet shows from the Scriptures that a “saint” (a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ) can and does sin, but that he does not thereby forfeit his eternal life, etc. The consequences and results of a believer’s sinning are treated in a twofold way; Ist, negatively under five heads; 2nd, positively under seven heads. Treats briefly but conclusively of the believer’s security in Christ. We highly commend this little booklet to the careful and prayerful consideration of the Lord’s people. Many have been greatly helped by its timely message. Bound in attractive cover in two colors. 31%4x6in. 8 cents. A THREEFOLD SALVATION. Past, Present and Future. A _ helpful pamphlet making clear the teaching of Scripture regarding our : “great salvation” in its three aspects. Greatly needed by the Lord’s people in these last days—especial- ly by young converts. Neatly bound. 7 cents. Published by BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT, Swengel, Pa. THE REDEEMER’S RETURN By ARTHUR W. PINK, Author of “The Sovereignty of God,” “The Divine Inspiration of the Bible,” ‘‘Satan and His Gospel,” etc., etc. Cloth, $1.50 postpaid. THE REDEEMER’S RETURN gives a com- plete and systematic set- ting forth of this most im- portant and timely subject of the Second Coming of Christ. It contains in full ten lectures which Mr. Pink has delivered before numerous audiences in both England and America. Size 3, xy ind gus pages. Lhe ‘contents are: Introduction The NEED of the Redeemer’s Return The HOPE of the Redeemer’s Return The FACT of the Redeemer’s Return The TIME of the Redeemer’s Return The IMMINENCY of the Redeemer’s Return The SIGNS of the Redeemer’s Return The BENEFICIARIES of the Redeemer’s Return The CHURCIIWARD RESULTS of the Redeemer’s Return The WORLDWARD RESULTS of the Redeemer’s Return The CONSUMMATION of the Redeemer’s Return Conclusion Appendix Such questions as the controversy between Pre and Post Millennial- ism, the Church and the Tribulation, who will participate in the Rap- ture, etc., are dealt with at length. The prophecies concerning the restoration of Israel, the person and career of the Antichrist, the battle of Armageddon, the Millennium, etc., are examined in detail. Over five hundred Scriptures are expounded and tabulated. “The discussions are marked by great soberness of presentation, real Scriptural insight, true spiritual experience, and constant practical ap- plication. As a guide to the Scriptural presentation of the subject, this is one of the best books available, and is deserving of wide circula- tion and careful attention.’ —The Sunday School Times. The Redeemer’s Return will be found to contain food for thought for those who are more advanced in the study of prophecy, as well as help for the saints generally. We heartily commend this work from Mr. Pink’s pen. Buy it. Read it. Recommend it to your friends. Published by BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT, SWENGEL, PA. BY ARTHUR W. PINK THE MILLENNIUM. Mr. Pink has recently written an enlarged edition of his booklet on this subject which contains 84 pages giving a full examination of all the leading Old and New Testament prophecies bearing on the Millen- nium. It is written in a lucid and simple style, and the interest of the reader is sustained to the last page. We recommend it to the careful attention of all who are interested. Chapter contents as fol- lows: Introduction. I. The Millennium in Relation to Satan. II. The Millennium in Relation to Christ. III. The Millennium in Relation to the Church. IV. The Millennium in Relation to Israel. V. The Millen- nium in Relation to the World. VI. The Millennium in Relation to Creation. VII. The Millennium in Relation to Sin. Nicely bound in paper, 25 cents postpaid. THE NEW BIRTH. Just published! The subject of the new birth is clearly, helpfully and Scripturally discussed and considered from two view-points—the Divine and human. Five chapters as follows: I. The Nature of the New Birth. II. The Need of the New Birth. III. The Author of the New Birth. IV. The Instrument of the New Birth. V. The Evidences of the New Birth. 40 pages. 3%x6 in. Neat cover. 7 cents. UNIVERSALISM EXAMINED AND REFUTED. Chap. I. The Teaching of Universalism. II. The Evils of Universalism. III. Refutation of Universalism. Clear Scriptural teaching showing the fallacy of the widespread theory of universal salvation. Simply written but very helpful. 48 pages. Neatly bound. 8 cents. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Its Significance and Scope. Does this scriptural phrase perplex you? Are you clear as to what it means; What it is; When, etc.? Are you able to distinguish the dif- ference in meaning between this expression and that of The Kingdom of God, etc., etc.? If you would like these and many other questions re- garding this subject helpfully and clearly answered from the Word of God we urge you strongly to study this booklet, which contains “sound words”’ from the pen of this able and gifted writer. Just off the press. 10 cents. THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION. Sets forth clearly and simply the teaching of the Scriptures on this important theme so little understood. Deals with The Mystery Of Election The Truth Of Election The Certainty Of Election, etc. New and enlarged edition, 7 cents. (Old edition out of print.) THE GODHOOD OF GOD. The latest and yet one of the most important of his smaller writings, This pamphlet clearly shows from the Word of God that God is on the Throne; that He is “doing according to His will’’; that God is God, etc. It is well calculated to bring the utmost comfort and assurance to the believer’s heart. Buy it. Read it. 7 cents. Published by BIBLE TRUTH DEPOT, Swengel, Pa. Date..Due ea rs PDP OIA IIE noe a ™ ; fon naeetne % Shi = eet es es 2 Bmes ap e,, ban ee le ~ ee ee EPs eae ‘line ro Cu Atay aie ee ; i Ps Ne TZ aaa Ae en tS 4 > + Y os sys Tues > f PD ps Pe > ; ; Tales oS ym are Min . ; : 7 we 4 . : r Pa ple 7 ca: tit ae 2, pe Syte t a oe 7 . Pe ee ae eee ate, e - Kw nl. Piel *F aot eos e aie FP ; a reanery ery oe . oT ae ae ; 2o¥r em. te . he et CE 4G «2 i Soar - a “ 5) JE Ge a eee . A. = =i nail a) ee eee Teer wen 2