The person who lives in all good conscience, may hope in the divine mercy for the pardon of involuntary errors: But with what face can the willful offender ask mercy of God? No plea which is not affrontive can he make before him—"Shall I not visit for these things, saith the Lord: And shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?"
That awful threatening, or prophetic denunciation, "The Lord will not spare him; but the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses written in this book [the law] shall lie upon him," regards willful sinners, flattering themselves with expectation of divine favor. [58]
When St. Paul would magnify the riches of divine grace in the salvation of the chief of sinners, he exemplifies it in himself—"Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious—Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." But he subjoins an alarming hint that those who sin wilfully, have no reason to express like mercy from God. "But I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." That no mercy would have been shewn him had he done those things presumptuously, is here intimated with sufficient plainness. This deserves the attention of those who sin presuming on divine mercy. Surely they cannot reasonably expect mercy from him "who is no respecter of persons," if Paul "obtained it because he did those things ignorantly in unbelief." If this is duly considered, Will not presumptuous sinners believe and tremble? Will they not perceive their hopes to be vain?
2. Another abuse of the revelation of divine mercy is the universal scheme which is built upon it. The text and similar passages of scripture are alleged as evidence that none can be lost.
To help the argument, it is said—"To be influenced to obedience by fear is low and mercenary; and God would not urge men to duty by so unworthy a principle."
But was not fear of punishment used as a guard to innocence while man remained upright? "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Had the influence of fear, operating to duty, been wrong, God would not have urged it as a motive to obedience. "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." If God useth this as an argument to excite to duty, it must be a proper argument. That it is thus used in all his word, admits no dispute. Every teacher whom God hath sent to teach the way of life, and persuade men to walk in it, hath used it. The divine teacher is not to be excepted—"Fear him who is able to destroy soul and body in hell, yea, I say unto you, fear him." And when he delineates the process at the great day, after declaring that the righteous and the wicked will be separated from each other, the whole is closed with that solemn declaration—"These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."
To be influenced by promises is no less mercenary than being driven by terror. And this is also proposed as an incitement to obedience. "God hath given us exceeding great and precious promises, that by them we should become partakers of a divine nature."
Every inspired teacher hath called men to repentance in the same manner, and urged it by the same arguments. Proof is needless. To pretend that application is not made, by divine order, to the hopes and fears of mankind, is trifling—Yea to pretend that they are not urged by the dread of eternal punishment, is to deny the most obvious truth.
And is there no cause for his fear? Doth God frighten men with vain terrors? Doth he threaten evils which can never come?
Or if this argument was necessary to be used with man before be fell, is it needless since he hath fallen?