eChurch Blog

Article this morning from Christian Today

Campaigners for the Christian Party and Christian Peoples Alliance have taken clean brooms to Westminster to underline their commitment to sweeping reforms to the political system.

Launching their campaign bus at the weekend which will tour the London European electoral region, the two party leaders urged Christians and all people of goodwill to cast a vote for Christian integrity and truthfulness at the European elections on June 4.

For the first time ever in a UK election, there are candidates running on a Christian ticket across the United Kingdom.

Speaking at the launch, Christian Party Leader, Rev George Hargreaves, who is top of the London Region EU List, said: “Christianity has been at the heart of our national life for centuries.

“Our Christian religion promoted the public values of modesty, self-restraint, integrity, honesty and service that made the ‘Mother of Parliaments’ a democratic model for the world.

“Our campaign is about bringing those values back into the heart of politics, in Europe and then next year in Westminster.”

Councillor Alan Craig is Leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance, which is part of the wider family of Christian Democracy in Europe.

He said this election is an opportunity for the country to recognise the essential role that Christianity plays in shaping the national moral and political discourse.

“Half a century of corrosive and aggressive secularisation has created a selfish, superficial and materialistic culture amongst decision-makers and opinion-formers that is appropriately reflected in those we have elected to Parliament.

“We can have a criminal investigation and a reform of the expenses system, we can replace the speaker and even call a General Election, but none of these will get to the core of the problem.

“Rather we need to recognise that the active marginalisation of Christianity has led directly to the current moral malaise and that it is only the renewal and reassertion of those values that offers any hope for the moral authority of our Parliament and the long term future of our democratic institutions.”

I thought the below media article by George Pitcher (from the Telegraph) was quite interesting and revealing:-

MPs’ expenses: Things the Archbishops never told us

Dr Williams was making a good point about self-respect when he was misquoted, says George Pitcher.

I had lunch with George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, on Friday, at an annual event hosted by a church newspaper of which he is a trustee. I’d like to tell you all he had to say, but the lunch was off the record. But I’m not breaking any confidences when I say that as we left lunch he made a point of saying that the Telegraph‘s investigation of MPs’ expenses was “terrific”. Later, he emailed me to say: “The Telegraph has done us all a service. The public expects the highest standards from its elected representatives.”

Always nice to have a corporate pat on the back from someone as eminent as Lord Carey. But the exchange held extra significance because, unbeknown to either of us, as we were talking a column by his successor to the See of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was being put to bed by The Times, along with the headline: “Archbishop appeals for end to MPs’ humiliation”.

When I relayed the headline to Lord Carey later, he said he was “surprised that Rowan is taking this approach”. So, presumably, was Dr Williams. Because actually he had said nothing of the sort. After writing that the expenses scandal was “as grave as could be for our parliamentary democracy” and calling for “urgent action” to “restore trust”, he said: “Many will be wondering if the point has not been adequately made; the continuing systematic humiliation of politicians itself threatens to carry a heavy price in terms of our ability to salvage some confidence in our democracy.” He then embarked on a thoughtful analysis of the role of self-respect in public morality. Message clear: it is MPs who have to recover our trust.

But the BBC dutifully followed the enough-humiliation line – which was as misrepresentative of what Dr Williams had to say as if I had written that Lord Carey had “slammed” him in a “furious row” after that lunch.

There is an obvious media psychology to note. The headline could as easily have read: “Humiliation of other media must stop”, as rival news organisations have flailed about in the wake of the Telegraph‘s revelations. And, it should be said, an archbishop being misrepresented in a news story would itself hardly be newsworthy, causing nothing so much as rolled eyes of resignation in deaneries across the land, were it not for a far more serious misrepresentation a couple of days earlier.

Vincent Nichols, the new Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, greeted the Ryan Report into systematic abuse of children in Irish religious institutions over 70 years in an interview thus: “I think of those in religious orders and some of the clergy in Dublin who have to face these facts from their past which instinctively and quite naturally they’d rather not look at. That takes courage.”

This was widely reported in tones of faux outrage as the Archbishop saying that the abusers of children (many of whom are presumably now dead anyway) had been courageous in confessing their crimes. Some media outlets went so far as to suggest that Archbishop Nichols had “praised” the abusers for their courage and had even sought to “exonerate” them. Yet he had simply noted that it took courage for those in religious orders to face the abominations of their forebears.

Interestingly, there was a passage in Archbishop Nichols’s homily at his enthronement at Westminster last week that went almost completely overlooked, as he had a little pop at the media. He said: “Respectful dialogue is crucial… In this the media have such an important part to play, not by accentuating difference and conflict, but by enhancing creative conversation. Let us be a society in which we genuinely listen to each other… in which reasoned principles are not construed as prejudice and in which we are prepared to attribute to each other the best and not the worst of motives.”

It would be glib to suggest, as some politicians do at the moment over the expenses scandal, that it’s all the media’s fault. Or even that the media’s principal role should be “enhancing creative conversation”; that’s the sort of liberal salon talk that enrages Archbishop Nichols’s traditionalist critics. And it would be plain daft to contend that bishops don’t say stupid things.

As it happens, I think the Church of England’s current preoccupation with stopping people voting for the BNP is pretty dumb. For goodness sake, it even passed a motion at its General Synod to stop its clergy being members of the BNP, when none of them currently is. Talk about chasing the wrong issue.

And yet it remains a fact that bishops and church leaders aren’t always the only stupid interpreters of current affairs. When it comes to what they have to say, collectively we all have a responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff.

They say silly enough things already without us having to make them look worse than they do when they have something sensible to say. So let’s be robust critics, but there are times when we should give them a break.

Another article from Lifesitenews this morning:-

Critics Charge U.K. Equality Bill is About “Ideological Coercion” and Will “Reintroduce Discrimination into the Workplace”

By Hilary White

LONDON, May 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As the Labour government’s Equality act works its way through Parliament, critics are becoming increasingly vocal about the bill’s potential to stifle religious expression. A coalition of clergy, including sitting members of the House of Lords, some Labour MPs and leading opposition Conservative MPs have said that the bill is a direct threat to Britain’s ancient heritage of civil liberties and freedoms.

The government’s proposed Equality bill is not about protecting the rights of minorities, but about “ideological coercion,” said Charles Moore, a columnist with the Daily Telegraph. Moore compared the bill to the legislative structure which underpinned the South African apartheid regime.

The Equality act proposes to replace and amalgamate current law, to create a single Equalities Commission to cover all aspects of discrimination law and to outlaw all discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in goods and services in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It also contains a provision relating to the creation of a public duty to promote equality on the ground of “gender.”

Moore warned that the agenda behind the Bill is “a gigantic, bureaucratic organisation of ideological coercion, promoting grievance, imposing cost and attacking businesses, charities, schools.”

Just as the architects of apartheid created “a vast edifice of legislation” to segregate South African society, “the ideologues of ‘Equality’ have sought to spin a single web to bind the entire structure of [British] society.”

The way the bill is structured, he said, requires adherence to an entire unified ideology. “Each ‘equality’ relates to every other,” he wrote earlier this month. “If you are in favour of, say, maternity leave, you must also support the legal recognition of trans-sexuals. You want better wheelchair access? Then you must be in favour of gay marriage.”

Tory MP Philip Davies slammed the bill, saying it had “nothing to do with equality,” and called it “incredibly misleadingly titled.”

“One of its central planks is not to enshrine equality in law but to reintroduce discrimination into the workplace.”

Andrea Williams, director of Christian Concern For Our Nation, which is helping co-ordinate opposition to the bill said, “No reasonable person supports the stirring up of hatred of any kind.”

“However, in 21st-century Britain we must find a way of being able to live peaceably alongside one another allowing for free and robust debate around every aspect of life, including reasonable criticism and discussion of all forms of sexual behaviour.”

Under the rubric of “anti-discrimination,” the Labour government continues its attempts to outlaw all criticism of the homosexual lifestyle in other bills. Last year, the proposed Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was introduced, which would have created the criminal offence of “incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.”

The measure was defeated by a group of peers, led by the Tory Lord Waddington, who forced the government to accept an amendment that allowed “the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices.” But a new clause being considered for the Coroners and Justice Bill would overturn this exemption.

Some Anglican bishops are opposing what they identify as an attempt to restrict freedom of expression for those who disagree with the homosexualist political doctrines. The Anglican bishop of Southwell and Nottingham told parliament last week “Our concern is with the potential application of the law to restrict legitimate discussion and expression of opinion about sexual ethics and sexual behaviour.”

Andrea Williams said that such legislation as the Equality Act and its relatives and antecedents are purely the work of the homosexualist political lobby who do not want their practices questioned.

Williams continued, “We are seeing case after case of Christians being discriminated against because of their biblical views on sexual conduct. It is time to take action before our laws silence any objection to homosexual practice.”

Article from Lifestenews this morning:-

Tony Blair “Not a Good Guide to the Teachings of the Catholic Church”: New Archbishop of Westminster

By Hilary White

LONDON, May 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The newly installed Archbishop of the Catholic diocese of Westminster, recently told Times columnist Dominic Lawson in an interview that former Prime Minister Tony Blair is not someone worthy of trust on religious matters. Archbishop Vincent Nichols called it “extraordinary” that Blair should have presumed to “lecture” the Pope on moral issues in an interview last month.

In April Blair gave an interview to a homosexualist magazine in which he attacked Pope Benedict XIV and the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Nichols, however, said that Blair’s strong “political instincts,” are “not a good guide to the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

He continued, saying that “a bit more reflection is needed as to the relationship between political instinct in general – and certainly his – and the nature of the truth that the Church tries to put forward.

“Maybe he lacks a bit of experience in Catholic life.”

Nichols, usually described as a “conservative” by the British press, is widely credited with having helped spearhead the fight against the Blair government’s legislation that caused many of the British Catholic adoption agencies either to close or secularise in the face of new requirements that they allow adoption by homosexual partners.

At his May 21st installation Mass at Westminster Cathedral in London, Nichols urged Catholics to express themselves confidently in the public square. “Faith is never a solitary activity, nor can it be simply private,” he said. “Faith in Christ always draws us into a community and has a public dimension.”

In the Times, Lawson described Nichols, the former archbishop of Birmingham, as “still seething” over the adoption agency issue and describes him as never having “been afraid of taking the battle to the politicians when he feels his church is under attack.”

He quotes the Nichols saying, “We have been pushed out unnecessarily … It was a disproportionate response [by the government] and the victims are the children, not the church.”

Nichols said that all government adoption agencies except for the 11 Catholic ones accepted homosexual partners for consideration for adoptions, and therefore the Catholic agencies should have been allowed to opt out of the law.

However, critics of the archbishop’s reasoning point out that by the archbishop’s own admission, his own Birmingham Catholic adoption agency had “for years” been accepting single homosexuals as potential adopters against the teachings of the Church. In 2007, at the height of the adoption agency controversy, Nichols told the BBC in an interview that his agency was happy to adopt children out to single homosexuals but that the objection was only to those in legally recognised domestic arrangements.

The Birmingham diocesan agency would also allow single non-homosexuals and unmarried but cohabiting heterosexual couples to be considered.  However, the teaching of the Catholic Church says that to allow children to be adopted into irregular domestic situations, including with homosexual partners, unmarried single people or unmarried “common-law” partners, constitutes an act of “violence” to their natural development. Children, the Church teaches, have the right to be raised in the context of the natural family, with a mother and a father.

Critics have also pointed out that as head of the archdiocese of Birmingham, Nichols, with the rest of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, had been fully briefed by an expert on Britain’s discrimination laws that it was unnecessary for any Catholic adoption agency either to close or secularise. “Regulation 18″ in the law allows them to operate according to their religious beliefs said Neil Addison, a barrister and the author of a textbook, “Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law.”

Addison told LifeSiteNews.com that there was no need under the law for any Catholic adoption agency in the UK to close or secularize, if they had been acting in accordance with Catholic teaching, or willing to change their practices to do so. Addison claims that the bishops were complicit in the closure or secularisation of the adoption agencies due to their unwillingness to fight for the religious nature of the agencies.

Addison told LSN that, with the exception of Bishop Patrick O’Donohue of Lancaster, the bishops of the Catholic Church of England and Wales simply ignored the existence of Regulation 18, claiming in the media that the government was forcing their adoption agencies to close.

The following article is from our friend Andrea Minichiello Williams at the Christian Legal Centre

NURSE WITH 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE SACKED FOR SUGGESTING A PATIENT ‘GO TO CHURCH’ TO RELIEVE STRESS IN A TRAINING COURSE

A NHS Nurse with over 40-years experience has been sacked after he suggested two “patients” might go to Church to relieve stress during a role play session on a training course.

Committed Christian, Anand Rao, aged 71, was taking part in simulated situations as part of an exercise in palliative care. He had elected to go on the training session and found his own grant funding to do so. The Christian, a bank staff nurse in hospitals run by the Leicester NHS Trust, advised two persons playing the roles of husband and wife patients they might like to try going to church to relieve stress. He has recently instructed the Christian Legal Centre to advise him and is considering taking legal action for religious discrimination against his former employer.

Anand Rao says that he, and thousands of his former patients, will be staggered that someone who has given four decades to caring for people can be treated in the way he has.  He feels the action by his employers is “heavy handed and disproportionate”.

In the simulated exercise Mr Rao was involved in he was asked to advise the wife with a serious heart condition.  In the exercise the trainers were looking to elicit how a nurse would deal with advising a patient about reducing stress through the patient’s sexual intimacy with her husband. Mr Rao said: “Mrs. Jones [a made-up name] told me that her doctor had informed her that she would not live long and this had created stress. I advised her going to church might ease her anxiety and stress.” It is understood the woman “patient” in the role play situation felt she did not receive sympathetic, suitable advice.

The course directors raised this concern with Rao and told him that they do not want him to talk about God. Subsequently, the course organiser, Leicestershire and Rutland Organisation for the Relief of Suffering (LOROS), sent a report to his employer raising concerns over his performance.

Mr Rao, who worked for the Leicester NHS Trust since May 2005, was initially suspended by his employer on the grounds that “concerns have been raised about your professional conduct by the course directors at LOROS.”  The care worker did not attend a disciplinary hearing on 23 January 2009 when the allegations against him were being examined as he had not been given, despite several requests, a copy of the questions and answers from his training meeting.  Mr Rao had his contract terminated in a letter from his employers which addressed concerns about his behavior at the training course.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, Director of CLC commented: “How is it possible that a nurse who has served the public for 40 years should find himself dismissed because in a training exercise he advised someone to go to Church?  To seek to censor and suppress this kind of language and belief is the first fruits of a closed society”.

“I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins” Isaiah 43:25

THERE are some passages of sacred writ which have been more abundantly
blessed to the conversion of souls than others. They may be called
salvation texts. We may not be able to discover how it is, or why it is, but
certainly it is the fact, that some chosen verses have been more used of
God to bring men to the cross of Christ than any others in his Word.

Certainly they are not more inspired, but I suppose they are more
noticeable from their position, from their peculiar phraseology more
adapted to catch the eye of the reader, and more suitable to a prevailing
spiritual condition. All the stars in the heavens shine very brightly, but only
a few attract the eye of the mariner, and direct his course; the reason is
this, that those few stars from their peculiar grouping are more readily
distinguished, and the eye easily fixes upon them. So I suppose it is with
those passages of God’s Word which especially attract attention, and direct
the sinner to the cross of Christ. It so happens that this text is one of the
chief of them. I have found it, in my experience, to be a most useful one;
for out of the hundreds of persons who have come to me to narrate their
conversion and experience, I have found a very large proportion who have
traced the divine change which has been wrought in their hearts to the
hearing of this precious declaration of sovereign mercy read, and the
application of it with power to their souls: “I, even I, am he that blotteth
out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”

Hence I feel this morning somewhat pleased to have such a text, because I
anticipate that my Master will give me souls; and I feel likewise somewhat
afraid lest I should spoil the passage by my own imperfect handling thereof
I will, therefore, cast myself implicitly on the help of the Spirit, so that
whatever I speak, may be suggested by him, and whatever he saith that
may I speak, to the exclusion of my own thoughts as much as possible.

We shall notice first, this morning, the recipients of mercy – the persons of
whom the Lord is here speaking; secondly, the deed of mercy, — “I, even
I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions;” thirdly, the reasons for
mercy – ”for mine own sake;” and fourthly, the promise of mercy – ”I will not
remember thy sins.”

I. We are about to see who are THE RECIPIENTS OF MERCY; and I would
have you all listen, peradventure there be some strayed in here who are the
very chief of sinners – some who have sinned against light and knowledge,
who have gone the full length of their powers for sin, so that they come
here self-condemned, and fearing that for them there is neither mercy nor
pardon. I am about to talk to you of the lovingkindness of our glorious
Jehovah, and may some of you be led to read your own condition in those
characters which I shall describe to you.

If you will turn to your Bibles, you will find who are the persons here
spoken of. Look for example at the 22nd verse of the chapter from which
our text is taken, and you will see, first, that they were prayerless people:
“Thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob.” And are there not some
prayerless ones sitting or standing here this morning? Might I not walk
along these benches, and point my finger to one and another, and say,
“Thou art not a praying one?” Or might I not reach out my hand to one
and another upon this platform, and say, “Thou hast not been with God in
secret, and held heart converse with him?” These prayerless ones may have
repeated many a form of prayer, but the breathing desire, the living words,
have not come from their lips. Thou hast lived, sinner, up to this time
without sincere prayer, and if an ejaculation has bee forced from thy lips
from a fear that took hold of thee; if a cry has gone forth from thee when in
the sufferings of a sick bed, because the pains of death get hold upon thee;
if it has not been thy habit to pray, the impressions of that trying period
have soon been forgotten. Is prayer your constant practice, my hearers?
How many of you now before me, ay, and behind me too, must confess
that you have not prayed, that it is not your habit to hold communion with
God. Prayerless souls are Christless souls; for you can have no real
fellowship with Christ, no communion with the Father, unless you
approach his mercy-seat, and be often there; and yet if you are condemning
yourselves, and lamenting that this has been your condition, you need not
despair, for this mercy is for you: “Thou hast not called upon me, O
Jacob;” yet, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine
own sake.”

Next, these persons were despisers of religion, for observe the language of
the same verse:- ”Thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.” And may I not
say to some here-thou despisest religion, thou hatest God; thou art weary
of him, and lovest not his services. As for the Sabbath-day, do not too
many of you find it the most tiresome day in the week, and do you not, in
fact, look over your ledger on the Sabbath afternoon? If you were
compelled to attend a place of worship twice on the Sabbath day, would
you not think it the greatest and most terrible hardship that could be
inflicted upon you? You have to find some worldly amusement to make the
hours of the Sabbath-day pass away with any comfort at all. So far from
wishing that “congregations might never break up” and the Sabbath last for
eternity, is it not to some of you the most tedious day of the week? You
feel it to be a weariness, and are glad when it is gone. You do not
understand the sentiment expressed by the poet:

“Sweet is the work, my God, my King,
To praise thy name, give thanks and sing.

You know nothing of the pain of banishment from the courts of Zion,
whither the sacred tribes repair; and when there you do not hold
communion with God, rejoicing that the hallowed place has become a
Bethel – the house of God – the very gate of heaven. You can never say-

“My willing soul would stay
In such a frame as this
And sit and sing herself away
To everlasting bliss.”

Ah, no! not only is religion unlovely to you, but it is a weariness. But if you
are now convinced of this sin, and are repenting of it, and desire to be
delivered from its power, then God speaks to you this morning, and says,
“I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake return unto me, with unfeigned repentance, and I will have mercy upon
you.”

Note, again, the character. They have been thankless persons: “Thou hast
not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings.” They have been
unthankful. They had their cattle and their flocks all multiplied and
increased many fold, but they did not bring even one of the small cattle to
him in return. Thou never gavest him a kid for a burnt offering, but hast
been like the swine, regardless of the oak which strews food upon the
ground for thee; thou hast been a carnal worldly character, receiving a gift,
but never thanking the Almighty who caused it to be bestowed; while the
little chicken, after it has drunk of the stream, lifteth its head, as if to thank
God who provided the water. Thou hast been fed, day by day, by an
Almighty power, and yet thou hast never given in return even one of the
small cattle of thy flock for a burnt offering. This is true of some who
attend our houses of prayer; they very rarely give to any collection for the
cause of God; they are like the man in America, of whom some one has
told us, who boasted that religion had been to him a very cheap thing,
costing him only a few cents a year, of whom a good man said, “The Lord
nave mercy on your little stingy soul.” If a man has no more religion than
that, if he has not a religion that will make him generous, he has no religion
at all.

I thought of that passage last Thursday night, while I was preaching:
“Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money.” God needeth nothing at
your hands, but he likes little presents, he loves now and then to receive of
your substance; for you know that little as it is in his eyes, comparatively
speaking it is great, because it comes from a friend. But some of you have
never bought him a sweet cane with your money – never sang a hymn to his
praise; you have attributed everything to your good luck, and have boasted
that you have obtained everything you have got by the labor of your own
hands, and that you can say, I have need to thank nobody for what I have.
That has been thy spirit; thou hast given no thanks to God, – the God of
heaven and earth; thou hast not glorified him, but thyself, and yet the Most
High is willing to pardon thy sin in this thing, if thou art but unfeignedly
penitent, and dost sue for forgiveness, for he saith also to you, “I, even I,
am he that blotteth out thy transgressions.”

Yet, again, these people were a useless people. “Neither hast thou filled me
with the fat of thy sacrifices; but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins.”
It is well said, the chief end of man is to glorify God. For that purpose God
made the sun, moon, and stars, and all his works, that they might honor
him. And yet how many are there, even, perhaps among my hearers this
morning, who have never honored God in their lives. Ask yourselves what
have you done? If you were to write your own history, it would be little
better than that of Belzon’s toad, which existed in the rock for three
thousand years; you may have lived like it, but you have done nothing.
What souls have you ever won to the Savior? How has his name been
magnified by you? Have you ever served him? How have you ever worked
for him? What have you done for God? Have you not been cumberers of
the ground; taking the nourishment of the earth where some better tree
might have grown, and bearing no fruit to the great husbandman, or at
least, only a few sorry crabs, that were not worth his acceptance. For all
you have done, the world might as well have never known you. You have
not been even so much use as the glowworm, which, at least, serves to
light the steps of the traveler. The world may possibly be glad to get rid of
some of you, and rejoice when you are gone. Perhaps you have assisted in
destroying the souls of those with whom you have been connected in life.
You can recollect the time when you led that young man first into the ale
house. You can remember the hour when you swore a most horrible oath;
your child was within hearing, and learned to be profane also. You may
look upon some souls who are going even now to damnation through your
example; and in hell you may see spirits starting up from their iron beds,
and hear them shrieking in their woe: “Who is it that led me here, and
caused my soul to be destroyed? – thou art the author of my damnation.” Is
the indictment true? Will you not be compelled to plead guilty to the
charge? Do you not even now repent of your great transgressions? Even if
it be so, my Master authorises me to say again, “This saith the Lord, I,
even I, am he that blotteth out my transgressions, and will not remember
thy sins.”

Again, there are some who may be termed sanctuary sinners – sinners in
Zion – and these are the worst of sinners. I can usually tell whether inquirers
have been the children of pious parents or no, if after a confession of great
guilt they feel unable to proceed at the remembrance of what they once
were groaning, and sobbing, and tears running down their cheeks, are the
silent language of their woe. When I see this, I always know that the
language that succeeds will be: “I have been the child of pious parents; and
I feel that I am one of the worst of sinners, because I was brought up to
religion; and yet I disregarded it, and turned aside from it.” O yes, the
worst of sinners are sinners in Zion, because they sin against light and
knowledge; they force their way to hell, as John Bunyan says, over the
Cross of Christ; and the worst way to hell is to go by the cross to it. Many
of you now before me were consecrated to God by a beloved mother, and
your father taught you to read and love the Scriptures of truth. You were
brought up like Timothy; you well understand the theory of the way of
salvation, and yet you come here, young men, some of you enemies to God
and without Christ, and despisers of his word; some of you are even
scoffers, or if not actually scoffers, you say religion is nought to you, and
by your actions, if not by your words, declare it is nothing to you that Jesus
should die. Ah! when I speak to you, I would not forget myself. Should it
ever be my lot to wake up in hell, I should be amongst the most horribly
damned there, for I had a most pious training, and should be forced to take
my place with the sanctuary sinners. And you that are such, whom I am
addressing now, are you not afraid? Ask yourselves now, “Who among us
shall dwell with devouring fire?” Do you tremble and shake for fear, and
with a penitent heart desire forgiveness? If so, then I say again, in my
Master’s name – who spake nothing but love and mercy to penitent sinners,
who said, “Neither do I condemn thee” – Jehovah now declares “I, even I,
am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not
remember thy sins.”

Yet, once more, we have here men who had wearied God: “Thou hast
made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.”
You see the man who has been a professor of religion, and can look back
twenty years ago, when he was a member of a Christian church; he was
apparently walking in the fear of the Lord, and All men thought he had
received the grace of God in truth; but he has turned aside into the paths of
sin; sometimes his lips have been defiled with oaths, and his soul the
bondslave of sin; but even now he is often found in God’s house;
sometimes he is affected to tears, and says within himself, “Surely I will
return unto the Lord, for then was it better with me than now.” Self condemned, he stands and weeps in the bitterness of his heart; and mark
you, it may be this morning he has stepped into this vast assembly, and that
his knees are knocking one against the other, yet it may be that his
goodness shall prove like the morning cloud and the early dew, that
passeth away; or it may be that the turning point is now come; “Now or
never,” as Baxter used to say; now God or Satan, now accepted or
condemned. Poor backslider return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy
upon thee; he will blot out all thy sins; and so blot them out that he will not
remember them against thee any more for ever.

These, then, are the characters who receive mercy. Some of you may say,
“You seem to think us a bad lot “ – and so I do. Others exclaim, “How can
you talk to us in this way? We are a honest, moral, and upright people.” If
so, then I have no gospel to preach to you. You may go elsewhere if you
will, for you may get moral sermons in scores of chapels if you want them;
but I am come in my Master’s name to preach to sinners, and so I will not
say a word to you Pharisees except this – By so much as you think yourself
righteous and holy, by so much shall ye be cast out of God’s presence at
last. Your sentence will be eternal banishment from the presence of him
who hath said to every repenting sinner, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out
thy transgressions, and will not remember thy sins.”

II. The second point is, THE DEED OF MERCY. We have found out the
persons to whom God will give mercy; now what is mercy’s deed? It is a
deed of forgiveness, and in speaking of it, I shall speak first of its being a
divine forgiveness — “I, even I, am he.” Divine pardon is the only
forgiveness possible; for no one can remit sin but God only, and it matters
not whether a Roman Catholic Priest, or any other priest shall say in the
name of God, “I absolve thee from thy transgressions,” it is abominable
blasphemy. If a man has offended me I can forgive him, but if he has
offended God I cannot forgive him. The only discharge possible is pardon
by God; but then it is the only pardon necessary. Suppose I have so sinned
that the king or the queen will not pardon me, that my brethren will not
forgive me, and that I cannot pardon myself; if God absolves me, that is all
the acquittal that will be necessary for my salvation. Perhaps I stand
condemned by the lay of my country: I am a murderer and must suffer on
the scaffold; the queen refuses to pardon, and perhaps she does right in
such a refusal; but I do not want her forgiveness in order to enter heaven; if
God acquits me, that will be enough. Were I such a reprobate that all men
hissed at me and wished me gone from existence, if I knew that they would
never forgive my crime – though I ought to desire my fellow-creatures
forgiveness – it would not be necessary that I should have it to enter heaven.

If God says, I forgive thee, that is enough. It is only God that can forgive
satisfactorily; because no human pardon can ease the troubled conscience.
The self-righteous Pharisee may be content to give himself into the hands
of a priest to be rocked to sleep in the cradle of delusion, but the poor
convinced sinner wants something more than the arrogant dictum of a
priest – ten thousand of them, with all their enchantments, he feels to be all
in vain, unless Jehovah himself shall say, “I have blotted out thy sins for
mine own sake”

Again, it is surprising forgiveness; for the text speaks as if God himself
were surprised that such sins should be remitted: “I, even, I;” it is so
surprising that it is repeated in this way, lest any of us should doubt it. And
it is amazing to the poor sinner when first awakened to his sin and danger.
It seems to be too good too be true, and he “wonders to feel his own
hardness depart,” the mercy offered is so overwhelming. It is said that
Alexander, whenever he attacked a city, put a light before the gate of it;
and if the inhabitants surrendered before the light was burnt out, he spared
them; but if the light went out first, he put them all to death. But our
Master is more merciful than this; for if he had manifested grace only while
a small light would burn, where should we have been? There be some here
seventy or eighty years of age, and God has mercy on you still; but there is
a light you know which when once quenched, extinguishes all hope of
pardon – the light of life. See then, gray-headed man, thy candle is burnt
almost to the socket – it has but the snuff left. Seventy years thou hast been
here living in sin, and yet mercy waits on thee; but thou shalt soon depart,
and mark me, there is no hope for thee then. But surprising grace, mercy’s
message is still proclaiming-

For while the lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return.”

Inutterable mercy! There is no sinner out of hell so black but that God can
wash him white. There is not out of the pit one so guilty that God is not
able and willing to forgive him; for he declares the wondrous fact – ”I, even
I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions.”

Notice once more, that it is a present forgiveness. It does not say I am he
that will blot out thy transgressions, but that blotteth them out now. There
are some who believe, or at least seem to imagine, that it is not possible to
know whether our sins are forgiven in this life. We may have hope, it is
thought, that at last there will be a balance to strike on our side. But this
will not satisfy the poor soul who is really seeking pardon, and is anxious
to find it; and God has therefore blessedly told us, that he blotteth out our
sin now; that he will do it at any moment the sinner believes. As soon as he
trusts in his crucified God, all his sins are forgiven, whether past, present,
or to come. Even supposing that he is yet to commit them, they are all
pardoned. If I live eighty years after I receive pardon, doubtless I shall fall
into many errors, but the one pardon will avail for them as well as for the
past.

Jesus Christ bore our punishment, and God will never require at my
hands the fulfillment of that law which Christ has honored in my stead; for
then would there be injustice in heaven: and that be far from God. It is no
more possible for a pardoned man to be lost than for Christ to be lost,
because Christ is the sinner’s surety. Jehovah will never require my debt to
be paid twice. Let none impute injustice to the God of the whole earth: let
none suppose that he will twice exact the penalty of one sin. If you have
been the chief of sinners, you may have the chief of sinner’s forgiveness,
and God can bestow it now.

I cannot help noticing the completeness of this forgiveness. Suppose you
call on your creditor, and say to him, “I have nothing to pay with.” “Well,”
says he, “I can issue a distress against you, and place you in prison and
keep you there.” You still reply that you have nothing and he must do what
he can. Suppose he should then say, “I will forgive all.” You now stand
amazed and say, “Can it be possible that you will give me that great debt of
a thousand pounds?” He replies, “Yes, I will.” “But how am I to know it?”
There is a bond: he takes it and crosses it all out and hands it back to you,
and says, “There is a full discharge, I have blotted it all out.” So does the
Lord deal with penitents. He has a book in which all your debts are written;
but with the blood of Christ he crosses out the handwriting of ordinances
which is there written against you. The bond is destroyed, and he will not
demand payment for it again. The devil will sometimes insinuate to the
contrary, as he did to Martin Luther. “Bring me the catalogue of my sins,”
said Luther; and he brought a scroll black and long. “Is that all?” said
Luther. “No,” said the devil; and he brought yet another. “And now,” said
the heroic saint of God, “write at the foot of the scroll: “The blood of Jesus
Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin.” That is a full discharge.”

III. Now, very briefly, the third thing – THE REASON FOR MERCY. Say
some poor sinner, “Why should God forgive me? I am sure there is no
reason why he should, for I have never done anything to deserve his
mercy.” Hear what God says, “I am not about to forgive you for your own
sake, but for my own sake.” “But, Lord, I shall not be thankful enough.” “I
am not about to pardon you because of your gratitude, but for my name’s
sake.” “But, Lord, if I am taken into thy church I can do very little for thy
cause in future years, for I have spent my best days in the devil’s service,
surely the impure dregs of my life cannot be sweet to thee, O God.” “I will
not engage to forgive you for your sake, but for my own. I do not want
you, says God, “I can do as well without you as with you; the cattle upon a
thousand hills are mine; and if I pleased I could create a whole race of men
for my service, who should be as renowned as the greatest monarchs, or
the most eloquent preacher, but I can do as well without them, as with
them; and I forgive you therefore for my own sake.” Is there not hope for a
guilty sinner here? It cannot be pleaded by any one that his sins are too
great to be pardoned, for the amount of guilt is hereby put entirely out of
consideration, seeing that God forgives not on account of the sinner, but
for his own sake. Did you never hear of a physician visiting a man upon a
sick bed, when the poor man said, “I have nothing to give you for your
attention to me.” “But,” says the doctor, “I did not ask for anything; I attend you from pure benevolence; and moreover to prove my skill. It will make no difference to me how long you live, I love to try my skill, and let the world know that I have power to heal diseases. I want to get myself a name.” And so God says, I desire to have a name for mercy, so that the worse you are, the more God is honored in your salvation. Go then to Christ, poor sinner, naked, filthy, poor, wretched, vile, lost, dead, come as thou art, for there is
nothing required in thee, except the need of him:

“This he gives you,
Tis his Spirit’s rising beam.”
“for mine own sake,” says God, “I will forgive.”

IV. Now to conclude – THE PROMISE OF MERCY. “And will not remember
thy sins.” There are some things which even God cannot do. Though it is
true he is Omnipotent, yet there are some things he cannot do. God cannot
lie – he cannot forsake his people – he cannot disown his covenant; and this is
one of the things it might be thought he could not do – that is, forget. Is it
impossible for God to forget? We finite creatures suffer many things to
skip, but can the Almighty ever do so? That God who counteth the stars
and calleth them all by their names – who knoweth how many animalculae
there are in the mighty ocean – who notices every grain of dust that floats in
the summer air, and is acquainted with every leaf of the forest, can he cease
to remember? Perhaps we may answer “No.” Not as to the absolute fact of
the committal of the deed; but there are senses in which the expression is
entirely accurate. In what sense are we to understand God’s forgetfulness
of our sins?

First of all, he will not exact punishment for them when we can come
before his judgment bar at last. The Christian will have many accusers.
The devil will come and say “that man is a great sinner” “I don’t remember
it,” says God. “That man rebelled against thee, and cursed thee,” says the
accuser. “I do not remember it,” says God, “for I have said I will not
remember his sins.” Conscience says, “Ah! but Lord, it is true, I did sin
against thee, and that most grievously.” “I do not remember it,” says God -
”I said, I will not remember his sins.” Let all the demons of the pit clamor
in God’s ear, and let them vehemently shout out a list of our sins, we may
stand boldly forth at that great day, and sing, “Who shall lay anything to
the charge of God’s elect?” for God does not even remember their sin. The
Judge does not remember it, and who then shall punish? Unrighteous as we
were; wicked as we have been; yet he has forgotten it all. Who then can
bring to remembrance what God has forgotten? He says, “I will cast thy
sins into the depths of the sea,” not into the shallows where they might be
fished up again, but into the depths of the sea, where Satan himself cannot
find them. There are no such things as sins recorded against God’s people.
Christ has so taken them away, that sin becomes a nonentity to Christians it
is all gone, and through Jesu’s blood they are clean.

The second meaning of this is, I will not remember thy sins to suspect thee.
There is a father, and he has a wayward son who went away that he might
live a life of looseness and profligacy, but after a while he comes home
again in a state of penitence. The father says, “I will forgive thee.” But he
says next day to his younger son, “There is business to be done at a distant
town tomorrow, and here is the money for you to do it with.” He does not
trust the returned prodigal with it. “I have trusted him before with money,”
says the father to himself, “and he robbed me, and it makes me afraid to
trust him again.” But our heavenly Father says, “I will not remember thy
sins.” He not only forgives the past, but trusts his people with precious
talents. He never suspects them. He has never one suspicious thought. He
loves them just as much as if they had never gone astray. He will employ
them to preach his gospel; he will put them into the Sunday school, and
make them servants of his Son: for he says, “I will not remember thy sins.”
Again: he will not remember in his distribution of the recompense of the
reward. The earthly parent will kindly pass over the faults of the prodigal;
but you know when that father comes to die, and is about to make his will,
the lawyer sitting by his side, he says, “I shall give so much to William,
who always behaved well, and my other son shall have so-and-so, and my
daughter, she shall have so much; but there is that prodigal, I have spent a
large sum upon him when he was young, but he wasted what he received,
and though I have taken him again into favor, and for the present he is
going on well; still I think I must make a little difference between him and
the others. I think it would not be fair – though I have forgiven him – to treat
him precisely as the rest;” and so the lawyer puts him down for a few
hundred pounds, while the others, perhaps, get their thousands. But God
will not remember your sins like that; he gives all an inheritance. He will
give heaven to the chief of sinners as well as to the chief of saints. When he
divides the portion to his children it may be he will put Mary Magdalene as
high as he does Peter, and the thief as high as he does John; yea, the
malefactor who died on the cross is as much in the sight of God as the
most moral person that ever lived.

Here is a blessed forgetfulness. What
sayest thou, poor sinner? Is thy heart drawn by a mysterious inspiration to
the foot of the cross? Then I thank my Master; for I trust the one object of
my life is to win souls for Christ, and if I may be blessed in that, my life
shall be happy. Still do you say, “My sins are too great to be forgiven.”
Nay, but O man, as high as the heaven is above the earth, so great is his
mercy above thy sins, and so far does his grace exceed thy thoughts. Oh,
but sayest thou, “He will not accept me.” What then is the meaning of this
text — “He is able to save unto the uttermost;” or this – ”Whosoever
cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out;” and again — “Whosoever will,
let him come and take of the water of life freely.” Do you still say, “This
does not include me.” Oh be not so faithless, but rather believe. Oh! had I
the power, God knows I would weep myself away in order to win your
souls.

But feeble our compassion proves
And can but weep where most it loves.

I can do nothing but preach God’s gospel; but since the moment Christ
forgave me, I cannot help speaking of his love. I turned away from his
gospel, and would have none of his reproofs. I cared not for his voice or
his Word. That blessed Bible lay unread; these knees refused to bend in
prayer, and my eyes looked on vanity. Has he not pardoned? Has he not
forgiven? Yes. Then sooner may this tongue cleave to the roof of my
mouth, than cease to proclaim free-grace in all its mighty displays of
electing, redeeming, pardoning, and saving mercy. Oh! how loud ought I to
sing, seeing I am out of hell, and delivered from condemnation. And if I am
out of hell, why should not you be? Why should I be saved and not
another? It was for sinners, remember, that Jesus came. Mary Magdalene,
Saul of Tarsus – the very chief of sinners, were accepted, and why do you
foolishly conclude that you are cast out? Oh, poor penitent if you perish,
you will be the FIRST penitent who ever did so. God give you his blessing,
my dear friends, for Christ’s sake. Amen.

Article from the Guardian this morning:-

Cross-party peers cite free speech defence to block changes to bill

Church of England bishops are on a collision course with the government over its plans to amend the incitement to hatred laws, claiming they will stifle what they believe is legitimate criticism of homosexual lifestyles.

In what is being portrayed in some parliamentary quarters as a battle for free speech, a coalition of Anglican bishops, Conservative peers, Labour malcontents and leading crossbenchers have united to block the proposals.

“No reasonable person supports the stirring up of hatred of any kind,” said Andrea Williams, director of Christian Concern For Our Nation, which is helping co-ordinate opposition to the plan. “However, in 21st-century Britain we must find a way of being able to live peaceably alongside one another allowing for free and robust debate around every aspect of life, including reasonable criticism and discussion of all forms of sexual behaviour.”

Last year’s Criminal Justice and Immigration Act created the criminal offence of “incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation”. But a group of peers, led by the Tory Lord Waddington, forced the government to accept an amendment stipulating that people should not be taken to court for stating that homosexual sex is wrong or for trying to persuade gay people to remain celibate. The clause read: “The discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

Now a new clause inserted in the Coroners and Justice Bill would see this defence dropped. The majority of the Church of England’s bishops are believed to oppose dropping the defence, although there have been dissenters. “Our view is, if it isn’t broke don’t mend it,” a church spokesman said. “This is about freedom of speech and avoiding unnecessary police investigations.”

The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, the Right Rev George Cassidy, told parliament last week “that people should be protected from inflammatory and intimidating behaviour towards them on the basis of their sexual orientation”. However, he added: “Our concern is with the potential application of the law to restrict legitimate discussion and expression of opinion about sexual ethics and sexual behaviour.”

Christian groups complain the current laws have already resulted in people being investigated for criticising homosexual lifestyles and claim more will be prosecuted if the amendment becomes law. They point to cases such as that of Kwabena Peat, a north London history teacher, who was dismissed for complaining that a staff away day was used to promote homosexual lifestyles.

In January 2006, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, then secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, was investigated by police for saying on radio that homosexual practice was unacceptable in terms of health and moral issues.

“The government seeks to remove this commonsense provision at the behest of the homosexual lobby who do not want to have their sexual practices questioned,” Williams said. “We are seeing case after case of Christians being discriminated against because of their biblical views on sexual conduct. It is time to take action before our laws silence any objection to homosexual practice.”

“There is, in our view, a very real danger of a chilling effect caused by this kind of legislation,” legal advice sought by Christian Concern from Simon Draycott QC concludes. “The harm is often done on the ground, when the police are pressed to intervene to stop a perfectly lawful speech or debate on the grounds that one of the speakers is stirring up hatred.”

But gay rights groups say the threshold for prosecution under incitement to hatred laws is set so high there is no danger that people who criticise homosexuality will be subject to police investigations if the clause in the Criminal Justice Act is dropped. “People must be free to express their views in temperate terms,” said Derek Munn, director of public affairs at Stonewall, the gay rights group. “We do not accept that people should be able to incite violence or hatred. This risks offering a defence to those who incite hatred.”

Given the opposition in the Lords, and pressures on the legislative timetable, the government may be forced to drop the proposal to get the bill passed.

The following article is from the BBC this morning:-

A nurse who says he was sacked for suggesting patients could become less stressed if they went to church could take action against the NHS trust.

Anand Rao said he made the comments to a woman in a training exercise and was suspended by University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust after a complaint.

He was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing. The Christian Legal Centre said it is considering legal action.

A trust spokesman said Mr Rao, 71, had “continuously” breached guidelines.

Mr Rao said that in the training exercise the woman had been playing the part of a patient with a life-threatening heart condition.

He said he told her she should go to church to alleviate stress.

Christian Legal Centre (CLC) director Andrea Minichiello Williams said the centre was now representing Mr Rao and was considering legal action against his former employer.

She said: “How is it possible that a nurse who has served the public for 40 years should find himself dismissed because in a training exercise he advised someone to go to church?

“To seek to censor and suppress this kind of language and belief is the fruits of a closed society.”

Kate Bradley, from the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, said Mr Rao’s contract was formally terminated in February after he failed to attend two disciplinary hearings.

She said: “Caring at its best is our motto, and it is important that every member of our staff, permanent or otherwise, deliver the best care possible to all of our patients regardless of their personal beliefs or lifestyle choices.

“The incident which led to the launch of the investigation was unfortunately not the first. Since joining us in 2005 Mr Rao had continuously shown a disregard for the Nursing and Midwifery’s code of conduct, which he had breached on more than one occasion.

“Mr Rao was given every opportunity to assure us that this would not happen again, but he was unable to do so and showed little regard for the standards of care and professionalism that is expected of him as a nurse.”

She added that Mr Rao was “welcome” to follow the trust’s formal appeals process.

“For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are
saved, and in them that parish; to the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor or life unto life. And Who is sufficient for these things?” 2 Corinthians 2:15, 16

THESE are the words of Paul, speaking on the behalf of himself and his
brethren the Apostles, and they are true concerning all those who by the
Spirit are chosen, qualified, and thrust into the vineyard to preach God’s
gospel. I have often admired the 15th verse of this chapter, especially when
I have remembered from whose lips the words fell, “Now thanks be unto
God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest
the savor of his knowledge by us in every place.” Picture Paul, the aged,
the man who had been beaten five times with “forty stripes save one,” who
had been dragged forth for dead, the man of great sufferings, who had
passed through whole seas of persecution – only think of him saying, at the
close of his ministerial career, “Now thanks be unto God, which always
causeth us to triumph in Christ!” to triumph when shipwrecked, to triumph
when scourged, to triumph in the stocks, to triumph under the stones, to
triumph amidst the hiss of the world, to triumph when he was driven from
the city and shook of I the dust from his feet, to triumph at all times in
Christ Jesus! Now, if some ministers of modern times should talk thus, we
would think little of it, for they enjoy the world’s applause. They can
always go to their place in ease and peace; they have an admiring people,
and no open foes; against them not a dog doth move his tongue; everything
is safe and pleasant. For them to say, “Now thanks be unto God, which
always causeth us to triumph “is a very little thing; but for one like Paul, so
trampled on, so tried, so distressed, to say it-then, we say, outspoke a
hero; here is a man who had true faith in God and in the divinity of his
mission.

And, my brethren, how sweet is that consolation which Paul applied to his
own heart amid all his troubles. “Notwithstanding all,” he says, “God
makes known the savor of his knowledge by us in every place.” Ah! with
this thought a minister may lay his head upon his pillow: “God makes
manifest the savor of his knowledge.” With this he may shut his eyes when
his career is over, and with this he may open them in heaven: “God hath
made known by me the savor of his knowledge in every place.” Then
follow the words of my text, of which I shall speak, dividing it into three
particulars. Our first remark shall be, that although the gospel is “a sweet
savor” in every place, yet it produces different effects in different persons;
“to one it is the savor of death unto death; and to the other the savor of life
unto life.” Our second observation shall be, that ministers of the gospel are
not responsible for their success, for it is said, “We are unto God a sweet
savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.” And
thirdly, yet the gospel minister’s place is by no means a light one: his duty
is very weighty; for the Apostle himself said, “Who is sufficient for these
things?”

I. Our first remark is, that THE GOSPEL PRODUCES DIFFERENT EFFECTS. It
must seem a strange thing, but it is strangely true, that there is scarcely
ever a good thing in the world of which some little evil is not the
consequence. Let the sun shine in brilliance – it shall moisten the wax, it shall harden clay; let it pour down floods of light on the tropics – it will cause
vegetation to be extremely luxuriant, the richest and choicest fruits shall
ripen, and the fairest of all flowers shall bloom, but who does not know,
that there the worst of reptiles and the most venomous snakes are also
brought forth? So it is with the gospel. Although it is the very sun of
righteousness to the world, although it is God’s best gift, although nothing
can be in the least comparable to the vast amount of benefit which it
bestows upon the human race, yet even of that we must confess, that
sometimes it is the “savor of death unto death.” But then we are not to
blame the gospel for this; it is not the fault of God’s truth; it is the fault of
those who do not receive it. It is the “savor of life unto life” to every one
that listens to its sound with a heart that is open to its reception. It is only
“death unto death” to the man who hates the truth, despises it, scoffs at it,
and tries to oppose its progress. It is of that character we must speak first.

1. The gospel is to some men “a savor of death unto death.” Now, this
depends very much upon what the gospel is; because there are some things
called gospel that are “a savor of death unto death” to everybody that hears
them. John Berridge says he preached morality till there was not a moral
man left in the village; and there is no way of injuring morality like legal
preaching. The preaching of good works, and the exhorting men to
holiness, as the means of salvation, is very much admired in theory; but
when brought into practice, it is found not only ineffectual, but more than
that – it becomes even “a savor of death unto death.” So it has been found;
and I think even the great Chalmers himself confessed, that for years and
years before he knew the Lord, he preached nothing but morality and
precepts, but he never found a drunkard reclaimed by strewing him merely
the evils of drunkenness; nor did he find a swearer stop his swearing
because he told him the heinousness of the sin; it was not until he began to
preach the love of Jesus, in his great heart of mercy – it was not until he
preached the gospel as it was in Christ, in some of its clearness, fullness,
and power, and the doctrine, that “by grace ye are saved, through faith,
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” that he ever met with
success. But when he did preach salvation by faith, by shoals the drunkards
came from their cups, and swearers refrained their lips from evil speaking;
thieves became honest men, and unrighteous and ungodly persons bowed
to the scepter of Jesus. But ye must confess, as I said before, that though
the gospel does in the main produce the best effect upon almost all who
hear it either by restraining them from sin, or constraining them to Christ;
yet it is a great fact, and a solemn one, upon which I hardly know how to
speak this morning, that to some men the preaching of Christ’s gospel is
“death unto death,” and produces evil instead of good.

i. And the first sense is this. Many men are hardened in their sins by
hearing the gospel. Oh! ‘tis terribly and solemnly true, that of all sinners
some sanctuary sinners are the worst. Those who can dive deepest into sin,
and have the most quiet consciences and hardest hearts, are some who are
to be found in God’s own house. I know that a faithful ministry will often
prick them, and the stern denunciations of a Boanerges will frequently
make them shake. I am aware that the Word of God will sometimes make
their blood curdle within them; but I know (for I have seen the men) that
there are many who turn the grace of God into licentiousness, make even
God’s truth a stalking-horse for the devil, and abuse God’s grace to pallate
their sin. Such men have I found amongst those who hear the doctrines of
grace in their fullness. They will say, “I am elect, therefore I may swear; I
am one of those who were chosen of God before the foundation of the
world, and therefore I may live as I list.” I have seen the man who stood
upon the table of a public house, and grasping the glass in his hand, said,
“Mates! I can say more than any of you; I am one of those who are
redeemed with Jesus’ precious blood:” and then he drank his tumbler of ale
and danced again before them, and sang vile and blasphemous songs. Now,
that is a man to whom the gospel is “a savor of death unto death.” He
hears the truth, but he perverts it; he takes what is intended by God for his
good, and what does he do, he commits suicide therewith. That knife
which was given him to open the secrets of the gospel he drives into his
own heart. That which is the purest of all truth and the highest of all
morality, he turns into the panderer of his vice, and makes it a scaffold to
aid in building up his wickedness and sin. Are there any of you here like
that man – who love to hear the gospel, as ye all it, and yet live impurely?
who can sit down and say you are the children of God, and still behave like
liege servants of the devil? Be it known unto you, that ye are liars and
hypocrites, for the truth is not in you at all. “If any man is born of God, he
cannot sin.” God’s elect will not be suffered to fall into continual sin; they
will never “turn the grace of God into licentiousness;” but it will be their
endeavor, as much as in them lies, to keep near to Jesus. Rest assured of
this: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” “A good tree cannot bring forth
corrupt fruit; neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.” Such men,
however, are continually turning the gospel into evil. They sin with a high
hand, from the very fact that they have heard what they consider excuses
their vice. There is nothing under heaven, I conceive, more liable to lead
men astray than a perverted gospel. A truth perverted is generally worse
than a doctrine which all know to be false. As fire, one of the most useful
of the elements, can also cause the fiercest of conflagrations, so the gospel,
the best thing we have, can be turned to the vilest account. This is one
sense in which it is “a savor of death unto death.”

ii. But another. It is a fact that the gospel of Jesus Christ will increase
some men’s damnation at the last great day. Again, I startle at myself
when I have said it; for it seems too horrible a thought for us to venture to
utter – that the gospel of Christ will make hell hotter to some men than it
otherwise would have been. Men would all have sunk to hell had it not
been for the gospel. The grace of God reclaims “a multitude that no man
can number;” it secures a countless army who shall be saved in the Lord
with an everlasting salvation;” but, at the same time, it does to those who
reject it, make their damnation even more dreadful. And let me tell you
why.

First, because men sin against greater light; and the light we have is an
excellent measure of our guilt. What a Hottentot might do without a crime,
would be the greatest sin to me, because I am taught better; and what some
even in London might do with impunity – set down, as it might be, as a sin
by God, but not so exceeding sinful – would be to me the very height of
transgression, because I have from my youth up been tutored to piety. The
gospel comes upon men like the light from heaven. What a wanderer must
he be who strays in the light! If he who is blind falls into the ditch we can
pity him, but if a man, with the light on his eyeballs dashes himself from the
precipice and loses his own soul, is not pity out of the question?

“How they deserve the deepest hell,
That slight the joys above!
What chains of vengeance must they feel,
Who laugh at sov’reign love!”

It will increase your condemnation, I tell you all, unless you find Jesus
Christ to be your Savior, for to have had the light and not to walk by it,
shall be the condemnation, the very essence of it. This shall be the virus of
the guilt – that the “light came into the world, and the darkness
comprehended it not;” for “men love darkness rather than light, because
their deeds are evil.”

Again: it must increase your condemnation if you oppose the gospel. If
God devises a scheme of mercy, and man rises up against it, how great
must be his sin? Who shall tell the great guilt incurred by such men as
Pilate, Herod, and the Jews? Oh! who shall picture out, or even faintly
sketch, the doom of those who cried “Crucify him! Crucify him!” And who
shall tell what place in hell shall be hot enough for the man who slanders
God’s minister, who speaks against his people, who hates his truth, who
would, if he could, utterly cut off the godly from the land? Ah! God help
the infidel! God help the blasphemer! God save his soul: for of all men least
would I choose to be that man. Think you, sirs, that God will not take
account of what men have said? One man has cursed Christ; he has called
him a charlatan Another has declared, (knowing that he spoke a lie) that
the gospel was else. A third has proclaimed his licentious maxims, and then
has pointed to God’s Word, and said, “There are worse things there!” A
fourth has abused God’s ministers and held up their imperfections to
ridicule. Think you God shall forget all this at the last day? When his
enemies come before him, shall he take them by the hand and say, “The
other day thou didst call my servant a dog, and spit on him, and for this I
will give thee heaven!” Rather, if the sin has not been cancelled by the
blood of Christ, will he not say, “Depart, cursed one, into the hell which
thou didst scoff at; leave that heaven which thou didst despise; and learn
that though thou saidst there was no God, this right arm shall teach thee
eternally the lesson that there is one; for he who discovers it not by my
works of benevolence shall learn it by my deeds of vengeance: therefore
depart, again, I say!” It shall increase men’s hell that they have opposed
God’s truth. Now, is not this a very solemn view of the gospel, that it is
indeed to many “a savor of death unto death?”

iii. Yet, once more. I believe the gospel makes some men in this world
more miserable than they would be. The drunkard could drink, and could
revel in his intoxication with greater joy, if he did not hear it said, “All
drunkards shall have their portion in the lake that burneth with fire and
brimstone.” How jovially the Sabbath breaker would riot through his
Sabbaths, if the Bible did not say, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it
holy!” And how happily could the libertine and licentious man drive on his
mad career, if he were not told, “The wages of sin is death, and after death
the judgment!” But the truth puts the bitter in his cup; the warnings of God
freeze the current of his soul. The gospel is like the skeleton at the
Egyptian feast. Though by day he laughed at it, by night he will quiver as
the aspen leaf, and when the shades of evening gather around him, he will
shake at a whisper. At the thought of a future state his joy is spoiled, and
immortality, instead of being a boon to him, is in its very contemplation the
misery of his existence. The sweet wooings of mercy are to him no more
harmonious than peals of thunder, because he knows he despises them.
Yea I have known some who have been in such misery under the gospel,
because they would not give up their sins, that they have been reedy to
take their own lives. Oh! terrible thought! The gospel is “a savor of death
unto death.” Unto how many here is it so? Who are now hearing God’s
Word to be damned by it? Who shall retire hence to be hardened by the
sound of the truth? Why, every man who does not believe it, for unto those
that receive it, it is “a savor of life unto life,” but to unbelievers it is a
curse, and “a savor of death unto death.”

2. But, blessed be God, the gospel has a second power. Besides being
“death unto death,” it is “a savor of life unto life.” Ah! my brethren, some
of us could speak, if we were allowed this morning, of the gospel as being
“a savor of life” to us. We can look back to that hour when we were “dead
in trespasses and sins.” In vain all Sinai’s thunders, in vain the rousing of
the watchmen; we slept on in the death-sleep of our transgressions; nor
could an angel have aroused us. But we look back with joy to that hour
when first we stepped within the walls of a sanctuary, and savingly heard
the voice of mercy. With some of you it is but a few weeks. I know where
ye are and who ye are. But a few weeks or months ago ye too were far
from God, but; now ye are brought to love him. Canst thou look back my
brother Christian, to that very moment when the gospel was “a savor of
life” to thee – when thou didst cast, away thy sins, renounce the lusts, and
turning to God’s Word, received it with full purpose of heart? Ah! that
hour – of all hours the sweetest! Nothing can be compared there with. I
knew a person who for forty or fifty years had been completely deaf.
Sitting one morning at her cottage door as some vehicle was passing; she
thought she heard melodious music. It was not music, it was but the sound
of the vehicle. Her ear had suddenly opened, and that rough sound seemed
to her like the music of heaven, because it was the first she had heard for
so many years. Even so, the first time our ears were opened to hear the
words of love – the assurance of our pardon – we never heard the word so
well as we did then; it never seemed so sweet; and perhaps, even now, we
look back and say,

“What peaceful hours I then enjoyed!
How sweet their memory still!”
When first it was “a savor of life” unto our souls.

Then, beloved, if it ever has been “a savor of life,” it will always be a savor
of life,” because it says it is not a savor of life unto death, but “a savor of
life unto life.” Now I must aim another blow at my antagonists the
Arminians; I cannot help it. They will have it that sometimes the gospel is a
savor of life unto death. They tell us that a man may receive spiritual life,
and yet may die eternally. That is to say, a man may be forgiven, and yet be
punished afterwards, he may be justified from all sin, and yet after that, his
transgressions can be laid on his shoulders again. A man may be born of
God, and yet die; a man may be loved of God, and yet God may hate him
tomorrow. Oh! I cannot bear to speak of such doctrines of lies; let those
believe them that like. As for me, I so deeply believe in the immutable love
of Jesus that I suppose that if one believer were to be in hell, Christ himself
would not long stay in heaven, but would soon cry, “To the rescue! to the
rescue!” Oh! if Jesus Christ were in glory with one of the gems wanting in
his crown, and Satan had that gem in hell, he would say, “Aha! prince of
light and glory, I have one of thy jewels!” and he would hold it up, and
then he would say, Aha! thou didst die for this man, but thou hadst not
strength enough to save him; thou didst love him once – where is thy love? It
is not worth having, for thou didst hate him afterwards!” And how would
he chuckle over that heir of heaven, and hold him up, and say, “This man
was redeemed. Jesus Christ purchased him with his blood:” and plunging
him in the waves of hell, he would say, “There purchased one! see how I
can rob the Son of God!” And then again he would say, “This man was
forgiven; behold the justice of a God! He is to be punished after he is
forgiven. Christ suffered for this man’s sins, and yet,” says Satan with a
malignant joy, “I have him afterwards, for God exacted the punishment
twice!” Shall that e’er be said? Ah! no. It is “a savor of life unto life,” and
not of life unto death. Go, with your vile gospel; preach it where you
please; but my Master said, “I give unto my sheep eternal life.” You give to
your sheep temporary life, and they lose it; but, says Jesus, “I give unto my
sheep ETERNAL life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man
pluck them out of my hands.”

I generally wax warm when I get to this
subject because I think few doctrines more vital than that of the
perseverance of the saints for if ever one child of God did perish, or if I
knew it were possible that one could I should conclude at once that I must,
and I suppose each of you would do the same; and then where is the joy
and happiness of the gospel? Again I tell you the Arminian gospel is the
shell without the kernel; it is the husk without the fruit, and those who love
it may take it to themselves. We will not quarrel with them. Let them go
and preach it. Let them go and tell poor sinners that if they believe in Jesus
they will be damned after all, that Jesus Christ will forgive them, and yet
the Father send them to hell. Go and preach your gospel, and who will
listen to it? And if they do listen, is it worth their hearing? I say no; for if I
am to stand after conversion on the same footing as I did before
conversion, then it is of no use for me to have been converted at all. But
whom he loves he loves to the end.

“Once in Christ, in Christ for ever:
Nothing from his love can sever.”

It is “a savor of life unto life.” And not only “life unto life” in this world,
but; of life unto life” eternal. Every one who has this life shall receive the
next life; for “the Lord will give grace and glory, and no good thing will he
withhold from them that walk uprightly.”

I am obliged to leave this point; but if my Master will but take it up and
make his word; a savor of life unto life” this morning, I shall rejoice in
what I have said.

II. But our second remark was, that THE MINISTER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR HIS SUCCESS. He is responsible for what he preaches; he is
accountable for his life and actions; but he is not responsible for other
people. If I do but preach God’s word, if there never were a soul saved,
the King would say, “Well done, good and faithful servant!” If I do but tell
my message, if none should listen to it, he would say, “Thou hast fought
the good fight: receive thy crown.” You hear the words of the text: “We
are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, as well in them that perish, as in
them that are saved.” This will appear, if I just tell you what a gospel
minister is called in the Bible. Sometimes he is called an ambassador. Now,
for what is an ambassador responsible? He goes to a country as a
plenipotentiary; he carries terms of peace to the conference: he uses all his
talents for his master; he tries to show that the war is inimical to the
prosperity of the different countries; he endeavors to bring about peace;
but the other kings haughtily refuse it. When he comes home does his
master say, “Why did not you make peace?” “Why, my Lord,” he would
say, “I told them the terms; but they said nothing.” “Well, then,” he will say
“thou hast done thy duty; I am not to condemn thee if the war continues.”

Again: the minister of the gospel is called a fisherman. Now a fisherman is
not responsible for the quantity of fish he catches, but for the way he
fishes. That is a mercy for some ministers, I am sure, for they have neither
caught fish, nor even attracted any round their nets. They have been
spending all their life fishing with most elegant silk lines, and gold and
silver hooks; they always use nicely polished phrases; but the fish will not
bite for all that, whereas we of a rougher order have put the hook into the
jaws of hundreds. However, if we cast the gospel net in the right place,
even if we catch none, the Master will find no fault with us. He will say,
“Fisherman! didst thou labor? Didst thou throw the net into the sea in the
time of storms?” “Yes, my Lord, I did.” “What hast thou caught?” “Only
one or two.” “Well, I could have sent thee a shoal, if it so pleased me; it is
not thy fault. I give in my sovereignty where I please, or withhold when I:
choose; but as for thee, thou hast well labored, therefore there is thy
reward.”

Sometimes the minister is called a sower. Now, no farmer expects
a sower to be responsible for the harvest; all he is responsible for is, does
he sow the seed? and does he sow the right seed? If he scatters it on good
soil, then he is happy; but if it falls by the way-side, and the fowls of the air
devour it, who shall blame the sower? Could he help it? Nay, he did his
duty; he scattered the seed broad-cast, and there he left it. Who is to
blame? Certainly not the sower. So, beloved, if a minister comes to heaven
with but one sheaf on his shoulder, his Master will say “O reaper! once a
sower! where didst thou gather thy sheaf?” “My Lord, I sowed upon the
rock, and it would not grow, only one seed on a chance Sabbath-morning
was blown a little awry by the wind, and it fell on a prepared heart; and this
is my one sheaf.” “Hallelujah!” the angelic choirs resound, “one sheaf from
a rock is more honor to God than a thousand sheaves from a good soil;
therefore let him take his seat as near the throne as yon man, who, stooping
beneath his many sheaves, comes from some fertile land, bringing his
sheaves with him.”

I believe that if there are degrees in glory, they will not
be in proportion to success, but in proportion to the earnestness of our
endeavors. If we mean right, and if with all our heart we strive to do the
right thing as ministers if we never see any effect, still shall we receive the
crown. But how much more happy is the man who shall have it in heaven
said to him, “He shines for ever, because he was wise, and won many souls
unto righteousness.” It is always my greatest joy to believe that if I should
enter heaven, I shall in future days see heaven’s gates open, and in shall fly
a cherub, who, looking me in the face, will smilingly pass along to God’s
throne, and there bow down before him; and when he has paid his homage
and his adoration, he may fly to me, and though unknown, shall clasp my
hand; and if there were tears in heaven surely I should weep, and he would
say, “Brother, from thy lips I heard the word; thy voice first admonished
me of my sin, here I am, and thou the instrument of my salvation.” And as
the gates open one after another, still will they come in, souls ransomed,
souls ransomed; and for each one of these a star – for each one of these
another gem in the diadem of glory – for each one of them another honor,
and another note in the song of praise. Blessed be that man that shall die in
the Lord, and his works shall follow him; for thus saith the Spirit.

What will become of some good Christians now in Exeter Hall, if crowns
in heaven are measured in value by the souls that are saved? Some of you
will have a crown in heaven without a single star in it. I read a little while
ago, a piece upon the starless crown in heaven – a man in heaven with a
crown without a star! Not one saved by him! He will sit in heaven as happy
as he can be, for sovereign mercy saved him; but oh! to be in heaven
without a single star! Mother! what sayest thou to be in heaven without
one of thy children to deck thy brow with a star? Minister! what wouldst
thou say to be a polished preacher, and yet have no star? Writer! will it
well become thee to have written even as gloriously as Milton, if thou
shouldst be found in heaven without a star? I am afraid we pay too little
regard to this. Men will sit down and write huge folios and tomes, that they
may have them put in libraries for ever, and have their names handed down
by fame! but how few are looking to win stars for ever in heaven! Toil on,
child of God, toil on; for if thou wishest to serve God, thy bread cast upon
the waters shall he found after many days. If thou sendest in the feet of the
ox or the ass, thou shalt reap a glorious harvest in that day when he comes
to gather in his elect. The minister is not responsible for his success.

III. But yet, in the last place, TO PREACH THE GOSPEL IS HIGH AND
SOLEMN WORK. The ministry has been very often degraded into a trade. In
these days men are taken and made into ministers who would have made
good captains at sea, who could have waited well at the counter, but who
were never intended for the pulpit. They are selected by man, they are
crammed with literature, they are educated up to a certain point, they are
turned out ready dressed; and persons call them ministers. I wish them all
God-speed, every one of them, for as good Joseph Irons used to say, “God
be with many of them if it be only to make them hold their tongues.”

Man made ministers are of no use in this world, and the sooner we get rid of
them the better. Their way is this: they prepare their manuscripts very
carefully, then read it on the Sunday most sweetly in sotto voce, and so the
people go away pleased. But that is not God’s way of preaching. If so, I
am sufficient to preach forever, I can buy manuscript sermons for a shilling,
that is to say, provided they have been preached fifty times before, but if I
use them for the first time the price is a guinea, or more. But that is not the
way. Preaching God’s word is not what some seem to think, mere child’s
play – a mere business or trade to be taken up by any one. A man ought to
feel first that he has a solemn call to it, next, he ought to know that be
really possesses the Spirit of God, and that when he speaks there is an
influence Upon him that enables him to speak as God would have him,
otherwise out of the pulpit he should go directly; he has no right to be
there, even if the living is his own property. He has not been called to
preach God’s truth, and unto him God says, “What hast thou to do, to
declare my statutes?”

But you say “What is there difficult about preaching God’s gospel?” Well it
must be somewhat hard, for Paul said, “Who is sufficient for these things?”
And first I will tell you, it is difficult because it is so hard as not to be
warped by your own prejudices in preaching the word. You want to say a
stern thing, and your heart says, “Master! in so doing thou wilt condemn
thyself;” then the temptation is not to say it. Another trial is, you are afraid
of displeasing the rich in your congregations. Your think, “If I say such-and-such a thing, so-and-so will be offended; such an one does not approve of that doctrine; I had better leave it out.” Or perhaps you will happen to win the applause of the multitude, and you must not say anything that will displease them, for if they cry, “Hosanna “to day, they will cry, “Crucify, crucify,” tomorrow.

All these things work on a minister’s heart. He is a
man like yourselves; and he feels it. Then comes again the sharp knife of
criticism, and the arrows of those who hate him and hate his Lord; and he
cannot help feeling it sometimes. He may put on his armor, and cry, “I care
not for your malice,” but there were seasons when the archers sorely
grieved even Joseph. Then be stands in another danger, lest he should
come out and defend himself; for he is a great fool whoever tries to do it.
He who lets his detractors alone, and like the eagle cares not for the
chattering of the sparrows, or like the lion will not turn aside to rend the
snarling jacka – he is the man, and he shall be honored. But the danger is,
we want to set ourselves right. And oh! who is sufficient to steer clear
from these rocks of danger? “Who is sufficient,” my brethren, “for these
things?” – To stand up, and to proclaim, Sabbath after Sabbath, and weekday
after week day, “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Having said thus much, I may draw the inference – to close up – which is: if
the gospel is “a savor of life unto life,” and if the minister’s work be solemn
work, how well it becomes all lovers of the truth to plead for all those who
preach it, that they may be “sufficient for these things.” To lose my Prayerbook, as I have often told you, is the worst thing that can happen to me. To have no one to pray for me would place me in a dreadful condition.
“Perhaps,” says a good poet, “the day when the world shall perish, will be
the day unwhitened by a prayer;” and, perhaps, the day when a minister
turned aside from truth, was the day when his people left off to pray for
him, and when there was not a single voice supplicating grace on his
behalf. I am sure it must be so with me. Give me the numerous hosts of
men whom it has been my pride and glory to see in my place before I came
to this hall; give me those praying people, who on the Monday evening met
in such a multitude to pray to God for a blessing, and we will overcome
hell itself, in spite of all that may oppose us. All our perils are nothing, so
long as we have prayer. But increase my congregation; give me the polite
and the noble, – give me influence and understanding,- and I should fail to do
anything without a praying church. My people! shall I ever lose your
prayers? Will ye ever cease your supplications? Our toils are nearly ended
in this great place, and happy shall we be to return to our much-loved
sanctuary. Will ye then ever cease to pray? I fear ye have not uttered so
many prayers this morning as ye should have done; I fear there has not
been so much earnest devotion as might have been poured forth. For my
own part, I have not felt the wondrous power I sometimes experience. I
will not lay it at your doors; but never let it be said, “Those people, once so
fervent, have become cold!” Let not Laodiecanism get into Southwark; let
us leave it here in the West-end, if it is to be anywhere; let us not carry it
with us. Let us “strive together for the faith once delivered unto the
saints:” and knowing in what a sad position the standard bearer stands, I
beseech you rally round him; for it will be ill with the army,

“If the standard bearer fall, as fall full well he may.
For never saw I promise yet, of such a deadly fray.”

Stand up my friends; grasp the banner yourselves, and maintain it erect
until the day shall come, when standing on the last conquered castle of
hell’s domains, we shall raise the shout, “Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth!” Till that time, fight on.

I love this tune, most folks don’t realise that this is a song about Jesus!