The Almighty God, who dwelt alone, was pleased to manifest himself by created works, which would display his wisdom and his power.
A Sermon Delivered On Sunday Morning, March 18, 1856, By Pastor C. H. Spurgeon, At Exeter Hall, Strand.
Truly he did not take on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Heb 2:16)
1. The Almighty God, who dwelt alone, was pleased to manifest himself by created works, which would display his wisdom and his power. When he set about the mighty work of creation, he determined in his own mind that he would fashion a variety of works, and that all his creatures would not be of one form, nature, grandeur, or dignity; hence he made some grains of dust, and others mountains of stupendous magnitude; he created some drops and some oceans; some mighty hills and some valleys. Even in his inanimate works he preserved a wonderful variety; he did not give to all stars the same glory, neither to all worlds the same ponderous mass; he did not give to all rocks the same texture, nor to all seas the same shape or form, but he was pleased, in the work of his hands, to observe an infinite variety. When he came to create living creatures, there, too, are distinctions that we must note. From the worm up to the eagle, from the eagle to the man, from the man to the angel; such are the steps of creating goodness in the fashion of things that are alive. He has not made all creatures eagles, neither has he fashioned all beings worms, but having a right to do what he wishes with his own, he has exercised that right in making one creature—the majestic lion—king of the forest, and another, the harmless lamb, which shall be devoured, without power to resist its enemy, or defend itself. He has made his creatures just as it suited him; he has given to one swiftness of foot, to another, speed of wing; to one, keenness of eye, to another, force of sinew. He has not followed any fixed rule in his creation; but he has done exactly as it pleased him in the arrangement of the living beings which he has created. So, also, we must observe a great difference in the rational beings which he has created. He has not made all men alike; they differ greatly; from the man of the smallest intellect to the man of majestic mind, there are not a few steps. And then there is the higher order of rational creatures, more superior to unrenewed man than man ever can be to his fellows; namely—the order of angels. And in the fashioning of angels and men, God, again, has exercised his own right to create as he pleases; to do just as he wishes with his own. Therefore, all angels may not be alike in dignity, and all men are not alike in intellect. He has made them to differ.
2. But now we wish to draw your attention to two instances of God’s doing as he pleases in the fashioning of the works of his hands—in the case of angels, and in the case of men. Angels were made first. God created them, and it pleased him to give to them a freewill to do as they pleased; to choose the good or to prefer the evil, even as he did to man: he gave them this stipulation—that if they should prefer the good, then their status in heaven would be for ever fixed and firm; but if they sinned they would be punished for their guilt, and cast out from the presence of his glory into flames of fire. In an evil hour, Satan, one of the chiefs of the angels, rebelled; he tempted others, and he led astray a portion of the stars of heaven. God, in his divine vengeance, smote those rebel angels, drove them from their heavenly seats, banished them from their abodes of happiness and glory, and sent them down to dwell for ever in the abyss of hell; the rest he confirmed, calling them the elect angels; he made their thrones eternally secure, and gave them a secure title to those crowns which, sustained by his grace, they had preserved by their upright holy conduct. After that it pleased him to make another race of beings, called men. He did not make them all at once; he made only two of them, Adam and Eve, and he committed to their keeping the safety of their entire progeny throughout all generations; he said to Adam, as he had said to the angels, “I give to you freewill; you may obey or disobey, as you please. There is my law; you are not to touch that tree. The command is by no means irksome. To keep that command will not be difficult for you, for I have given you freewill to choose the good.” However, so it happened, much to the misery of man, that Adam broke the covenant of works; he ate the accursed fruit, and in that day he fell. Ah! what a fall was that! Then you, and I, and all of us fell down, while cursed sin triumphed over us, there were no men that stood; there were some angels that stood, but no men, for the fall of Adam was the fall of our entire race. After one portion of the angels had fallen, it pleased God to stamp their doom, and make it fast and firm; but when man had fallen, it did not please God to do the same. He had threatened to punish him, but in his infinite mercy he selected the major portion of the human race, whom he made the objects of his special affection, for whom he provided a precious remedy, to whom he covenanted salvation, and secured it by the blood of his everlasting Son. These are the people whom we call the elect; and those whom he has left to perish, perish on account of their own sins, most justly, to the praise of his glorious justice. Now, here you notice divine sovereignty; sovereignty, that God chose to put both men and angels on the footing of their freewill; sovereignty, in that he chose to punish all the fallen angels with utter destruction; sovereignty, in that he chose to reprieve the whole human race, and to grant an eternal pardon to a number, whom no man can number, selected from men, who shall infallibly be found before his right hand above. My text mentions this great fact, for when properly translated it reads thus:—“He did not take up angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Since this text has two possible translations, I shall give you the two meanings as briefly as I can.
3. I. In the first place, the translation of our authorised version runs thus:—“He did not take on him the nature of angels.” Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when he came from heaven to die, did not take upon himself the nature of angels. It would have been a stoop, more immense than if a seraph should have changed himself into an ant, for the Almighty Son of God to have been clothed in the garb of even the archangel Gabriel; but his condescension dictated to him, that if he did stoop, he would descend to the very lowest degree; that if he did become a creature, he would become, not the noblest creature, but one of the most ignoble of rational beings, that is to say, man; therefore, he did not stoop to the intermediate step of being an angel, but he stooped right down and became a man. “He did not take on him the nature of angels: but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” Let us notice the wisdom and the love of this, and I think there will be something to cause us to glorify God for so doing.
4. 1. In the first place, if Christ had taken upon himself the nature of angels, he could never have made an atonement for man. Setting aside the thought that if he came to save man it would have seemed improper if he had come in the garb of angels, you must allow, that if he had done so, he could not have seen death. How could angels die? We can suppose that their spirit may become extinct, if God should will it; we can suppose the entire annihilation of that to which God alone supplies immortality; but since angels have no bodies, we cannot suppose them capable of death, for death is the separation of the body and the soul; therefore, it behoved Christ that he should take upon himself the form of a man, that he might become obedient to death, even the death on the cross. Had angels been standing by, they would have said, “Oh! mighty Master, take our radiant robes. Oh! do not take the poor everyday garb of humanity, take our glittering garments all decked with pearls.” And Gabriel would have said, “Come, take my wings, you mighty Maker, and I shall count myself too honoured to have lost them for your sake. There, take this crown and this mantle of azure, with which to clothe yourself, oh Son of God, put my silver sandals on your feet; do not become man, but an angel, if you have to stoop.” “But, no,” he would have said, “Gabriel, if I were in your dress I could not fight with death; I could not sleep in the tomb; I could not feel the pangs and agony of dissolution, therefore, I must, I will, become a man.” “He did not take on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”
5. 2. Had our Saviour become an angel, we must note, in the next place, that he would never have been a fitting example for us. I cannot imitate an angelic example in all points, it may be very good, so far as I can imitate, but it cannot, in all points, be my pattern. If you would give me something to imitate, give me a man like myself; then I may attempt to follow him. An angel could not have set us the same holy and pious example that our Saviour did. Had he descended from on high in the garb of one of those bright spirits, he might have been a fine example for those brilliant cherubs who surround his throne; but we, poor mortal men, condemned to drag the chain of mortality along this earthly existence, would have turned aside and said, “Ah! such a thing is too high for us, we cannot attain to it;” and we, therefore, would not have attempted it. If I am to carve marble, give me a marble statue which I am to copy; and if this mortal clay is to be cut out into the very model of perfection, as it is to be by God’s Spirit, then give me a man for my example; for a man I am, and as a man, I am to be made perfect. Not only could not Christ have been a Redeemer, but he could not have been our example, if he had taken upon himself the nature of angels.
6. 3. Sweetly, also, let us remember that if Christ had been an angel, he could not have sympathised with us. In order to sympathise with our fellow creatures we must be something like them. Suppose a man made of iron, or of brass; could he sympathise with our wearied lungs, or with our aching bones? Let such a man be told of sickness or of illness: could he understand it? I would not have him for a nurse; I would not care to have such a being for my physician; he could not feel for me; he could not sympathise with me. No, even our own fellow creatures cannot sympathise with us unless they have suffered as we have. I have heard of a lady who never knew poverty in all her life, and consequently she could not sympathise with the poor. She heard the complaint that bread was extremely dear, when it was running up to fourteen pence a loaf. “Oh!” she said, “I have no patience with the poor people, grumbling about the dearness of bread. If bread is so dear, let them live on penny buns; they are always cheap enough.” She had not been in the position of the poor, and, therefore, she could not sympathise with them; and no man can sympathise with another, to any great extent, unless he has been in some measure in the same position, and endured the same trouble. “It behoved him, therefore, that he should be made in all points like to his brethren that he might be a faithful high priest;” “for we do not have a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, for he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” But if he had been an angel, what sympathy could he have had for me? Suppose I should tell an angel that I could scarcely resist my corruptions: the angel would look at me, and wonder what I meant. If I should tell him that I find this world a vast howling wilderness: how could he believe me, for he has never heard howlings, his ears have only been greeted by golden harps and sweet choral symphonies of praise. If I should tell him that I found it hard work to hold my course, and keep close to my Saviour, the angel could only say, “I cannot sympathise with you, for I am not tempted as you are; I have no fallen nature to abate my ardent zeal, but day without night, with unflagging wing, I circle his throne rejoicing; nor have I a wish nor will to depart from my great Maker.” There you see the Saviour’s wisdom. He would become a man and not an angel.
7. 4. Once more, Christ became a man, and not an angel, because he desired to be one with his dear church. Christ was betrothed to his church before time began; and when he came into the world he virtually said, “I will go with you, my bride, and I will delight myself in your company. Angels’ garments were not a fitting wedding dress for me to wear, if I am to be bone of your bone, and flesh of your flesh. I am allied to you by a union firm and strong. I have called you Hephzibah, my delight is in you; and I have said, your land shall be called Beulah, that is, married. Well, if I am married to you, I will live in the same condition with you; it would not be appropriate that husband should live in palace, and that wife should live in cottage; it would not be proper that husband to be arrayed in gorgeous robes, and wife in poorer garments.” “No,” he said to his church “if you dwell upon earth, I will; it you dwell in a tabernacle of clay, I will do the same;”
Yes, said the Lord, with her I’ll go,
Through all the depths of care and woe,
And on the cross will even dare
The bitter pangs of death to bear.
Christ cannot bear to be different from his church. You know, he would not be in heaven without her, therefore, he made that long, long journey, to redeem her and visit her, and when he came on this good errand, he did not wish that she should be made of clay, and he should not be made of clay too; he was the head, and it would have been inappropriate that the head should have been of gold, and the body of clay; it would have been like Nebuchadnezzar’s image, that must be broken. “Since the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he must also take part in the same,” for he became “perfect through suffering,” since he was “the captain of our salvation.” Thus, again, you see his love and his wisdom, that he “did not take on him the nature of angels, but took upon him the seed of Abraham.”
8. 5. Again, if Christ had not taken upon him the nature of man, then manhood would not have been so honourable or so comfortable as it is. I consider that to be a Christian man is to be the greatest thing that God has made. Little as I am, I can say of myself, if I am a child of God, I am next to my Maker. There is an infinite, an awful, an immeasurable distance; but, except for Jesus Christ himself, there is no being between man and God. As for an angel, he is less than redeemed man. “Are they not ministering spirits, sent forth to be ministers to us who are heirs of salvation?” Without controversy, the less is minister to the greater, and the greater shall not attend to the less; therefore, the angels are less than men, for they minister to us. Manhood is a noble thing, for God wore manhood once; manhood is a glorious thing, for it was the robe of the eternal; “God was made flesh and dwelt among us;” therefore, flesh is dignified and glorified. As I said, it would not be so comfortable to be a man, if Christ had not been a man. For I know that I must die; now, my comfort is, that I shall rise again; but I would not have had that comfort if Christ had not been a man, and if he had not died and risen again. Oh! death, I have often seen your dungeon, and I have thought, how can it be that any should escape from it, its walls are thick, and against the door is a ponderous stone, it is sealed fast, and watchers guard it. Oh! death, where is the man that can rend your sepulchre, or open your door? Your iron bars, oh death cannot be filed by mortal, and your chains are too heavy to be snapped by the finite; but I take comfort, for there was a man who broke the bonds of death; there was one who snapped the fetter, cut the bars of brass, unlocked the gates, and made his way triumphantly through the sky, in that man I see an instance of what I, too, shall do. When the loud trumpet of the archangel shall startle my sleeping atoms, I, too, shall find it easy to rise, for as the Lord my Saviour rose, so all his followers must; and therefore, death, I look upon your dungeon as one that must be opened again, for it has been opened once. I look upon your worm as a very little thing that must yield up its prey, and give back the flesh on which it fed; I look upon the stone of your sepulchre as only some pebble of oceans’ shingly beach, which I shall cast away with eager hand, when I shall burst the shroud of the grave, and mount to immortality. It is a comfortable thing to be a man, because Christ died and rose again; but had he been an angel, the resurrection would not have had that great and glorious proof, nor should we have been so content to be human, seeing there would be death, but no immortality and life.
9. II. Thus I have tried to explain the first part of the subject; and now for the second. The literal translation, according to the marginal reading, is, “he did not take up angels, but he took up the seed of Abraham,” by which is meant, that Christ did not die to save angels, though many of them needed salvation, but he died to save fallen man. Now, I like every now and then to give the opponents of the great doctrine of grace something hard to put between their teeth. I have often been told, that election is a most dreadful doctrine, and to teach that God saves some, and lets others perish, is to make God unjust. Sometimes I have asked how that was; and the usual answer I have received is this: Suppose a father should have a certain number of children, and he placed some of his children into a terrible dungeon, and make the rest of them happy, would you think that father was just? Well, I reply, you have supposed a case, and I will answer you. Of course I should not: the child has a claim upon his father, and the father is bound to give him his claim; but I want to know what you mean by asking that question. How does that apply to the case of God? I did not know that all men were God’s children; I knew that they were God’s rebellious subjects, but I did not know that they were his children. I thought they did not become his children until they were born again, and that when they were his children, he did treat them all alike, and did carry them all to heaven, and gave them all a mansion; and I never did hear that he sent any of his children to hell; truly, I have heard you say so. I have heard you say that some of his children fall from grace and he therefore sends them to hell, and I leave you to solve the problem how that is just; but, sir, I do not agree that all God’s creatures are his children, and I have a small question for you. How do you explain this—that the demons and fallen angels are all lost, and yet, according to your own reasoning, fallen men all have a chance of being saved? How do you arrive at that? “Oh!” you say, “that is a different matter; I was not considering the fallen angels.” But if you were to ask the devil about it, he would not tell you it was a different matter; he would say, “Sir, if all men are God’s children, all demons are quite as much so. I am sure they ought to stand on the same footing as men, and a fallen angel has as much right to call himself one of God’s children as a fallen man.” And I should like you to answer the devil on that subject based on your own hypothesis. Let Satan, for once, ask you a question, “You say it is unfair of God to send one of his children to hell and take another to heaven. Now, you have said all creatures are his children. Well, I am a creature, and, therefore, I am his child. I want to know, my friend,” Satan says, “how you consider it just that my Father should send me to hell, and let you go to heaven?” Now, you must settle that question with the devil; I will not answer for you. I never supposed such a case; my views never bring me into such a dilemma, but you are only in for trouble, and you may try out of it the best way you can. On my principle, the deed is just enough; men and demons have both sinned and have both deserved to be damned for their sins; God, if he shall so resolve, can justly destroy them all, or he may save them all, if he can do it with justice; or, he may save one of them if he pleases, and let the others perish; and if as he has done, he chooses to save a remnant, and that remnant shall be men, and if he allows all the fallen angels to sink to hell, all that we can answer is, that God is just, and he has a right to do as he pleases with his creatures. You know, you give to the queen the right to pardon a rebel when she sees fit, and will you not give that right to God? “No,” you say, “not unless he pardons all.” Well, sir, then there would be no righteous at all in that; the queen would not thank you if you gave her liberty to pardon all; she would say, “No, there are instances where it is to my honour and to the honour of my laws not to pardon, and, therefore, I will not do it; there are other instances where it is to the honour of my clemency, and not harmful to my laws, and, therefore, I pardon these, and I uphold my right to do it.” Now what you will permit a king or an emperor to do, you will deny to God; but I stand here to claim this right for him. Deny it, if you please; but you will have to deny it in the teeth of the Scriptures, for they do authoritatively declare, that God is a Sovereign; that he “has mercy on whom he wishes to have mercy, and whom he wishes he hardens.”
10. Now, come, if our friend will let us, we will, for a moment, just consider this case: how it is that demons are lost, and some men are saved.
11. 1. In the first place, I do not think it is because of any difference in the sin. When two criminals are brought before a judge, if one of them is to be saved, and the other punished, very likely the judge will say, “Which is the greatest offender? Let the greatest offender die, and let the less offender be saved.” Now, I do not know that Satan was a greater offender than man; I am not sure that the fallen angels sinned more than man did. “Why, sir,” you say “man’s sin was a very little one; he only stole some of his Master’s fruit.” Aye, but if it was such a little thing to do, what a little thing it would have been not to do it! If it was so little a thing, how easily he might have avoided it! and, therefore, because he did it, it became all the greater sin. “Oh!” you say, “but Satan was proud, and the fallen angels were proud.” And are you not just as equally infected my friend? at any rate, Adam was. “But,” you say, “Satan was rebellious.” Well if you were not a rebel, you would not talk that way; if you had not rebelled against God, you would not set yourself up to deny his sovereignty. “But,” you say, “the devil was a liar from the beginning.” I wonder how long it is since you have spoken the truth, sir, you know how to lie as well as he, and though you may not have developed your sin as much as the fallen angels have done, if God were to let you alone, and remove the restraints, I wonder what would be the difference between you and the devil? I believe, that if men were allowed to do just as they liked, and there was no government over them, they would almost go beyond Satan. Look at Robespierre, in France; look at the doings of the Reign of Terror; turn to heathen countries; I do not dare to tell you what abominable vices, what lascivious sins are committed there in public; I point you to Sodom and Gomorrah, and I ask you what man may become; and I say that I do not know but that a man might become as vile as a devil, if God’s restraining mercy were taken from him; at any rate I do not say but that Adam’s sin was as great as Satan’s. “Ah!” you say, “but Adam was tempted to do it.” Yes, that was some excuse; but so were the most of the demons. It is true, Satan was not tempted, he did it of his own freewill; but he tempted the other spirits, and, therefore, the excuse which will do for man will do for the great mass of fallen spirits; and why did not God, therefore, select a portion of the fallen spirits to be saved? I answer, that you can never find any reason except this, “Shall I not do what I wish with my own;” and we must fall down, and breathlessly admire the infinite sovereignty that passed by angels, and saved man.
12. 2. But suppose there is not much difference in their sin, the next question is which of those two beings is most worth saving? Which is the most valuable creature? Which would serve his Maker most, if his Maker would spare him! And I defy any of you to hold, that a sinful man is a more valuable creature than an angel. Why, if God had looked at profit, speaking after the manner of men, it would be more profitable to him to save the angel. Could the restored angel not serve him better than restored man? If I serve God, day after day, yet at night I must rest; but the angels serve day without night in his temple. If my zeal is ever so intense, yet my body must tire; but angels did not know weariness; and if saved, I shall make only a poor courtier to stand around his throne, but that bright fallen seraph would, if he had been delivered, have made a very noble being to grace the halls of the Almighty. If I shall ever be carried to heaven, I have no bright angelic honours, and my nature when ennobled, will not surpass what an angel might have been if God had so decreed; but if Satan had been saved, oh! how loudly would he have sung, and with what glory would he have marched through heaven, to the praise and glory of the grace which rescued him from hell! Therefore, if God had in that thought of his own profit, he would sooner have saved angels than have saved men.
13. 3. Another thought. Sometimes the government will say, “Well, here are two people to be executed; we desire to save one; which of the two would be the most dangerous character to allow to continue an enemy?” Now, which could harm God the most, speaking as man would speak, a fallen angel, or a man? I answer, that fallen man can do very little injury to divine government, compared to a fallen angel; a fallen angel is so subtle, so powerful, so swift, so able to fly on the lightning’s wings, that he can do ten times more injury to his Maker, if indeed, his Maker can be injured, than ever man could do; so that if there had been any consideration of this kind in the divine mind, God would have selected the demons to save them, since they could, if saved, do him the most glory, and if not saved, do him the most injury.
14. 4. And yet one more consideration here, to show you still further how sovereign the divine will is in this matter. Perhaps it would be said, if one is to be saved, let that one be saved who would take the least trouble to save. Now, which could be saved with the greatest ease, should you suppose a fallen angel, or a fallen man? For my part, I can see no difference; but if there is any, it strikes me that a restoration does not put things one half so much out of order as a revolution; and to have restored the angels to the place from which they had fallen, speaking as a man must speak, would not have been as hard as to have taken fallen man out of the place from which he had fallen, and placed him where fallen angels had once stood.
15. If Satan had entered heaven, it would have been like a restoration—an old king come back to his ancient throne; but when man goes there, it is like a king going to a new dynasty—a new kingdom; it is man entering into the angel’s place; and for that you know, there must be sanctifying grace and purchasing love. That might have been needed for fallen angels, but certainly not more for them than for fallen man. Here, then, we are brought back to the one and only answer, that God saves men, and not angels, just because he chooses to do it; and he says to angels who have perished, “No, but oh! Satan, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why have you made me thus?”
16. 5. But, you may say, God saved man because he pitied him. But then why did he not pity the demons? I know two men living on three or four shillings a week. I pity one of them very much, indeed; but the other, who is no better off, I pity him the most, for he once knew better times. Man, it is true, fell out of Eden; but Satan fell out of heaven, and is the more to be pitied on account of the greatness of his fall; and, therefore, if pity had ruled the day, God would have decided for the fallen angels, and not for fallen men.
17. But I think I hear some one whispering again, “Aye, but I do not see that first part: you said, that you did not know if the sin of man was as great as the sin of Satan.” Well, I beg to repeat it; and I say another thing, that, as wise as you think you are, you do not know any difference either; for do you think, if the sins were different, the punishment would be the same? Certainly not, you say; the same punishment for the same sin. Well, now, demons and men are to be in the same hell; the lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels is the place into which men are cast; and therefore I defy you to prove that their sin is not the same. I believe, if it is not the same in degree, it is the same in quality, and the same in nature. And, therefore, a fallen angel and a fallen man are on an equal footing; so that if God makes a difference, he makes it only because he will make it, and gives no account of his dealings. This is a knife which cuts up root and branch, anything like merit. It takes away from the freewiller any chance of charging God with injustice; for how can he prove God unjust in saving one man and not another, when he dares not hint that he is unjust in saving some men, and letting demons perish?
18. And now I have finished this subject, and I must just make a practical reflection or two, and then I shall be done. Some may rail at this doctrinal preaching, and they will go out and call me an Antinomian. I will not be at all troubled about that, as long as I can make them angry; for if a man hates the truth, I shall never be backward in stirring up his wrath; and if any man offends my God then let him be offended. Far better for him to show his opposition; for then, perhaps, he may know that it is in him, and repent of it before God. But I will show you that this is a practical subject. It is practical in this way: that if any man does not submit to God’s right to do with him as he pleases, he has very grave reason to doubt his own piety. “Aye,” you say, “too cutting by half!” Now, I do not mean to say anything harsh or bigoted; but I do mean to say that again. I do not assert that if you doctrinally deny it, but if you in your hearts hate the doctrine, that God has a right to save or to destroy you, you give me very grave cause to suspect whether you ever knew your own position in the sight of God; for I am quite sure that no humble sinner will doubt God’s right to destroy him, and I believe that no man who has any love for his fellow creatures, believing that God has a right to destroy him, will ever quarrel with God, if he chose to save another who is only as bad as himself. I tell you, it is your unhumbled pride that kicks against these doctrines; it is your infernal self-conceit, born of hell, that makes you hate this truth. Men have always kicked at it, and they always will. When Christ preached it once, they would have dragged him out to the brow of the hill, and cast him down headlong; and I expect always to meet with opposition, if I speak out broadly and plainly; but let me tell you solemnly, if you do not believe God’s right over you, I am afraid your heart has never been right before God.
19. But here is another practical conclusion. If you do feel this to be true, that God has a right to send your soul to hell, and that if he saves another, and not you, he will be just, but if he saves you it will be an act of free distinguishing love, you show a spirit which is very near to the kingdom of heaven. I do not think a man will admit this truth unless he has a change of heart: he may admit it in his mind, but he will not feel it to be true, unless he has received a new heart and a right spirit. I will not go as far as to say that a man who believes divine sovereignty must be a Christian; that would be stretching the truth; but I do say, that if a man is humble enough, meek enough, contrite enough, to lay himself down at the Saviour’s feet with this.
Nothing in my hands I bring;
“I have no righteousness, no claims; if you should damn me, you would be just; if you save me I will thank you for ever;” such a man must have had a work of grace in his heart to bring him to such a conclusion. If you can say that, then, poor sinner, come to Jesus, come to Jesus; for he will never cast you out. Let me tell you a story about the prodigal, and then I will be done. The prodigal set out one morning, and he had a long, long journey to go; he had a high hill to climb, called the hill of his own sins and follies. He had scarcely made it to its top, and was getting near the tower, called the tower of true repentance, when his father, who was sitting on the top of the house, saw him; and when he saw him, he ran out immediately, and before his son had arrived at the door, he had fallen on his neck and kissed him. He took his son into his house, and a feast was prepared, and they sat down to it; but after the son had sat down, the father turned his eye to him, and he was not eating, but the tears were rolling down your cheeks. “My son,” said the father, “why do not you eat? Why do you weep, my son? The feast is all prepared for you.” Bursting into tears, the son said, “Father, do you forgive me all?” “Yes,” said the father, “I do. Eat my son. Do not weep.” The prodigal went on. The father turned his eye to the other guests, and by and by, looking on his son, he saw that he was weeping again, and not eating. The father said, “Son, why do you not eat? The feast is all for you. Why do you weep, my son?” “Father,” he said, with the tears rolling down his cheeks again, “will you let me stay here?” “Oh, yes, my son,” said the father, “eat; do not weep; you shall stay here; you are my beloved son.” Well, the prodigal went on, and the father looked at the other guests; but by and by he turned his eyes again, and there was his son weeping once more. “My dear son,” he asks, “why do you weep?” “Oh, father,” he said, “will you keep me here? for if you do not, I know I shall run away. Father, will you make me stay here?” “Yes, my son,” he said, “that I will.”
My grace shall like a fetter bind
That wandering heart to me.
The son wiped his eyes, went on with his meal, and never wept again. There, poor prodigal, there is something for you; if you will come to Christ, you shall always stay there; and over and above that, he will keep you there. Therefore rejoice; for though he has a right to destroy you, remember, he will not; for his heart is full of love and pity towards you. Only come to him, and you shall be saved.
These sermons from Charles Spurgeon are a series that is for reference and not necessarily a position of Answers in Genesis. Spurgeon did not entirely agree with six days of creation and dives into subjects that are beyond the AiG focus (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism, modes of baptism, and so on).
Modernized Edition of Spurgeon’s Sermons. Copyright © 2010, Larry and Marion Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada. Used by Answers in Genesis by permission of the copyright owner. The modernized edition of the material published in these sermons may not be reproduced or distributed by any electronic means without express written permission of the copyright owner. A limited license is hereby granted for the non-commercial printing and distribution of the material in hard copy form, provided this is done without charge to the recipient and the copyright information remains intact. Any charge or cost for distribution of the material is expressly forbidden under the terms of this limited license and automatically voids such permission. You may not prepare, manufacture, copy, use, promote, distribute, or sell a derivative work of the copyrighted work without the express written permission of the copyright owner.