Old Paths Paved

Horatius Bonar, “The Surety’s Thirst“)

“The soldiers mocked Him, too, by offering
Him a drink of sour wine.” Luke 23:36

This is the last venting of man’s enmity against God;
the last drop of the old serpent’s venom poured upon
the holy Jesus! “This is the heir; come, let us kill Him!”
Man has got God into his power; he has got the
Son of God hanging helplessly on a tree; and his enmity
to God now gives full vent! He can mock God safely
now. Thus man’s hatred of God comes out in all its
bitterness; and it does so, just at the very point where
God’s love was coming out in its fullness. Never did love
and hatred, kindness and enmity–so meet together.
Never was love so requited, and kindness so mocked,
as here.

That very thing, which ought to have softened them,
and drawn out their profoundest sympathies–is that
which calls forth insult, which extinguishes pity, which
steels them against the Sufferer’s cry, which rouses all
hell in their bosoms! Towards God they are as devils!

Now is their time for taunt, and insult, and cruelty!
So long as Jesus is going about, doing miracles, they are
afraid to touch Him. But now, when He is dying on a cross,
they may hate and mock Him as they please! Now, when
the lion of the tribe of Judah is in chains, and expiring of
His wounds–they may trample on Him at will.

O man, such is your heart! Such is the extent of
your enmity to the God in whom you live, and move,
and have your being!

Herein is love; not man loving God, but God loving man;
so loving man as to persist in His great work of grace,
notwithstanding man’s utmost hatred and rejection! Here
is God’s provision, not only for man’s pardon–but for his
fullest joy. The Surety thirsted that we might not thirst!
He drank of the vinegar–that we might not drink it!
He drained the cup of wrath–that we might never taste it!
He was wounded that–we might be healed! What love!
The love of the Just to the unjust;
the love of the Holy to the unholy;
the love of the Heavenly to the earthly;
the love of the Creator to the creature;
the love of Jesus–infinite and divine!

Sermon preparation time is a very subjective thing. One sermon may take as long as fifteen hours to prepare, and the next, not even six. Depending on the outward and inward circumstances surrounding the sermonization of a text, the preparation time will vary. I do not believe there is any set time- your done when your done! A friend of mine, who’s also somewhat of a homiletical mentor to me (Rev. T. Atkinson) told me once that he is still working on a text that came to him several years earlier. He has preached on it many times, but he is still perfecting it. Spurgeon once said, “If a sermon is worth preaching once, it is worth preaching again”. I’m coming around to that opinion myself.

Yet in my quest for the perfect blend of homiletics and hermeneutics, I have stumbled upon a few interesting bits that might shed some light on the question of preperation time.

1.Musing

2.Undirected Reading

3.Directed Reading

4.Personal Spiritual Condition

5.Prayer

Musing

I have discovered that you can begin to prepare for a sermon long before your fingers ever set over a keyboard. If the text you have chosen has been committed to memory (a very helpful hint), musing becomes the natural outflow. David says in Psalm 119:148 “Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word.” The word for “meditate” in this verse means “to ponder, or to muse”. One will be pleasantly surprised how quickly a sermon develops if the preacher has given it adequate forthought. This can be done in the car, in a reception room, or in line at the bank. Your text is portable. Meditate and muse.

Undirected Reading

It is amazing to me how many of the most effective thoughts during a sermon come from the most unlikely places. Spurgeon is said to have read a book a day, on a wide variety of spiritual topics. If you read Spurgen often enough, as well as the Puritans, you will quickly notice that he was greatly impacted by whichever author he was reading that week. A wide range of topics and authors will give much fodder for the sermon. I was reading Bunyan’s All Loves Excelling last week, and found some deep thoughts on the Nature of God. I was not looking for it, nor is the book directly on this topic, yet there it was. Similarly, I was reading Guthrie’s The Christians Great Interest, a book about assurance, and I found a wonderful piece on the subject of presumption in salvation. The point is, wide reading of good authors, will dig a well of recourses for preaching. Even if you cannot remember the exact quote, the impetus behind the it will help you develop a thought into something of your own making. So the need then is adequate, undirected, personal reading time, on may subjects, by several authors. My own Pastor was a fine example of this. He always had 4 kinds of books by his reading chair- one history, one biography, one devotional, and one systematics. Believe it or not, thoughts will flow in a sermon (especially in an experiential fashion), by doing this.

Directed Reading

This should be self explanatory. Directed reading is doing all the necessary groundwork of the text itself. There is no better book on this subject than Jay. E Adam’s Preaching with Purpose. If there is a single book that will remind the preacher of the task at hand (in understanding the passage), this is the book. If we would work out the language apparatus from the inside out, do word studies, as well as contextual analysis, the flow of the sermon itself would break into its natural order. Finding the points within a text is often discovered this way. This is what Paul means when he says to young Timothy, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (Ti 2:15 ). Lexical, as well as expositional and experiential works are needed here.

Personal Spiritual Condition

There is nothing more impossible than preaching before a congregation when the preacher’s heart is far from Christ because of indwelling sin. We must remember that we are vessels in need of cleaning and filling too! When we allow unrepented sin to inhabit our life, is it any wonder we struggle with providing for others? Writing a sermon often becomes a burdensome work when we are not keeping a short account with Christ ourselves. The Spirit is quenched when we ignore His motions and checks in our own lives. David says, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try
me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting”(Psa 139:23,24). This should be our prayer as well. David knew that if there was to be any lasting effect in ministry, we must be clean in our hearts from the stain of sin. Are we finding a text not developing as we write? Let David’s prayer be our own, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee (Psalm 51:10-13).

Prayer

This last help in the writing of a sermon is the most important. John Bunyan once said, “You can do more than pray, after you have prayed, but you cannot do more than pray until you have prayed.” Prayer is vital in sermon preperation.

Prayer is vital,

Before you write. We often plunge into a text with no prayer at all. But this should not be so. A sermon from beginning to end needs to be bathed in prayer. Is there not some aplication here for the preacher, ” Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not” (Jer 33:3)? We are weak, and in need of divine help. Who is able or capable to deliver the Words of Life to needy souls?

A Puritan Prayer goes like this:

“I myself need thy support, comfort, strength, holiness,
that I might be a pure channel of thy grace,
and be able to do something for thee;
Give me then refreshment among thy people,
and help me not to treat excellent matter in a defective way,
or bear a broken testimony to so worthy a redeemer,
or be harsh in treating of Christ’s death, its design and end,
from lack of warmth and fervency.
And keep me in tune with thee as I do this work.”

As you write. The Puritans were big on ejaculatory prayer (also called extemporaneous prayer). It is a spiritual work to throw up prayers as we write our sermons. To ask the Lord for clarity, simplicity, a dilated heart, doctrinal faithfulness, and a picture of the congregation before our eyes. As we write, ask for direction to the several kinds of souls that will be in the congregation. The unsaved, the backslidden, the cold, the indifferent, the hurting, the growing, and the mature. It is amazing how the flow of a sermon develops when one prays as he writes.

John “Rabbi” Duncan was late for Lord’s Day morning worship. This was not exactly unique as the man was well known for his absentmindedness. After a long duration ( I think an hour or more), the elders decided to send a runner to the Manse to fetch the minister.

When they young man entered the study of the “Rabbi”, he found him on his knees uttering these words over and over, “I will not go, unless Thou go with me. I will not go, unless Thou go with me”. The runner softly closed the study door and returned to the elders with these words, “He will be with us soon”. And indeed he was. That sermon, it is said, converted many that morning.

Rev. Duncan knew that if the Spirit is not working in him, he would be an ineffective tool. Pray before you preach, that the Holy Spirit would do the work.

As you preach. This is always more difficult to do when you are in the midst of preaching. Yet not impossible. Often these too are ejaculatory prayers. In the mind, to pray, “Lord give light”, Lord help me”, “Lord, do Thy perfect work”. These should be short and from the heart. Spurgeon, it is said, as he ascended the spiral staircase of his pulpit at the Tabernacle, paused on every step and said, “I believe in the holy Spirit. I believe in the Holy Spirit.” Pray as you preach.

Sermon preparation is more involved than we think. At least this is what I have discovered for myself. It begins long before it is written, and ends long after it has concluded. Perhaps these brief thought will help us understand the preparation of a sermon in some small way.

style="margin-bottom:0;text-align:justify;">

(Thomas Brooks, “The Privy Key of Heaven” 1665)

While the disciples were healing diseases and casting
out demons, the proud white devil was a-stirring in
their own souls; as is evident by that gentle rebuke
which our Savior gives them in Luke 10:20, “Don’t
rejoice that the spirits submit to you.”

There is no pious duty which a Christian performs, but
one white devil or another–one lust or another–will be
still dogging and following of him to that duty. There is
no public duty, there is no family duty, there is no private
duty which a Christian performs–but either that white
devil pride, or that white devil hypocrisy, or that white
devil vainglory; or else some one or another white devil
will follow the soul, near at heel to it.

John Angell James, “Christian Love” 1828)

“We were as gentle among you as a mother feeding
and caring for her own children.” 1 Thessalonians 2:7

Oh! what churches we would have, if Christian
love had its full scope!

The pastor would labor with the most earnest,
indefatigable, and unselfish zeal for the eternal
welfare of the flock; and make it evident that
compassion for souls, and not filthy lucre–was
the impulse of all his conduct. Affection would
beam in his eyes, and breathe in his spirit, while
“the law of kindness” would dwell on his lips.

He would preside over the people in the meekness
of wisdom; and, instead of proudly lording it over
God’s heritage, he would rule them in love.

Over all his talents, however brilliant, he would put
the ‘garment of humility’. And, with respect to all his
success, however great, he would speak in the language
of modesty. He would neither envy his more gifted or
successful brethren, nor proudly vaunt over his inferiors.

To all under his pastoral care, even the most illiterate
and poor, he would conduct himself with the humility
and love of true benevolence. He would labor to correct
their errors, whether doctrinal or practical; and have
no greater joy than to see them walking in the truth!

“Be an example to all believers in what you teach, in the
way you live, in your love, your faith, and your purity.”
1 Timothy 4:12

(Thomas Brooks, “The Transcendent Excellency of
a Believer’s Portion above All Earthly Portions“)

The free favor and love of God, the good will and pleasure
of God–is the true ground and cause of God’s bestowing of
Himself as a portion upon His people. There was no cause,
nor loveliness, nor desirableness in them–which could
move God to bestow Himself upon them.

God, for the glory of His own free grace and love, has bestowed
Himself as a portion upon those who have deserved to have their
portion among devils and damned spirits–in those torments
which are endless, ceaseless, and remediless.

But what should move God to love us, who were so unworthy,
so filthy, so empty, so beggarly? The question may be resolved
in these words–He loves us because He loves us. The root
of all divine love to us, lies only in the bosom of God.

Under the Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant was largely a physical covenant with a spiritual remnant imbibing in promises and blessings. Under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is not primarily physical with a spiritual component, but primarily spiritual with a physical component (Hodge 130). Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 are very descriptive as to the nature of the New Covenant in contrast with the status quo,

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Obviously there was a change of administration in the New Covenant as well as a change of emphasis. The Covenant of Grace today is so overtly spiritual, one can almost speak of it exclusively in ethereal terms. Indeed the Westminster Confession of Faith does so by insisting that the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only (Chapter 7; LC 30, 31, 32). Yet the Westminster Standards also speak of a secondary and subordinate sense of the Covenant of Grace that is objective and physical. Larger Catechism Q & A 166 says,

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?

A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. (Emphasis mine)(Westminster Larger Catechism, 256)

Some have contended that the Westminster Larger Catechism holds within itself a tension regarding with whom the Covenant of Grace is made (Baldwin). It is argued that in Larger Catechism Q & A 31, the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only, while Q & A 166 teaches that the Covenant of Grace is made with the members of the Visible Church. One can see the apparent contradiction.

But is this a valid criticism and a real tension? Or is it the case that the Larger Catechism is speaking about two different aspects of the Covenant of Grace, one spiritual and unbreakable, the other conditional and breakable? To answer this question we may turn to one of the greatest of all Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford.

In his monumental and rarely read book The Covenant of Life Opened (1654), Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term (94). After establishing this indisputable fact Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in abstracto by visible profession, in which the covenant is “professed, visible, and conditional,” and then in concreto, where the covenant is, “internal, real, and absolute”(94). It is for this reason Rutherford finds no tension in the Larger Catechism and has no problem saying that the unregenerate, in one way, are in the Covenant of Grace:

It is no inconvenient [sic] that the Reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God.(94)

By in abstracto Rutherford means, ” formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners”, in which contains only “the will of precept“. Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only. This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenental (94).

Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,

The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession
to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)

In this way says Rutherford, “all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace” (94). It is in this same way Rutherford can speak of a Federal Holiness that allows for Larger Catechism 166 to remain non-contradictory with Larger Catechism 31. Federal holiness is not necessarily a saving holiness but a setting apart by covenant promise. Rutherford is very clear that true holiness while set in the context of a federal promise, is truly predicated upon God’s secret decree. Observe:

But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, or to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrair. Nor is internal and effectual confederacie with God, that, by which one is a son of promise. 1. For no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen. A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations, or houses, or societies, but of single person. (85)

Needless to say, Rutherford believes that mere Federal Holiness is no true holiness unless regeneration has taken place. Yes, there is a physical aspect to the Covenant of Grace which has blessings and cursing; however, for it to carry any lasting benefit, it must be a personal work wrought by the effectual converting power of the Holy Spirit in a one-to-one correlation between election and regeneration.

James Bannerman

Likewise, another great Presbyterian who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church (and the Covenant) also found no tension in the Westminster Standard’s regarding the Covenant of Grace. In his two volume work, The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, taught an important contrast between the members of the Church visible and invisible. “The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in outward relationship only” (Bannerman 29).

The visible/invisible distinction according to Bannerman cannot go unnoticed. Observe how he uses visible Church and external covenant synonymously.

The external relationship in which the members of the visible Church stand to Christ, as having been brought into a Church state from out of the world, has been often spoken of by theologians under the name of an external covenant or federal relationship. Whatever name may be given to it, there is no doubt there is a real and important relationship into which the members of the visible Church have entered… (30)

Later he reinforces this same idea when he states, “This relation of the mere formal professor and member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an external covenant and an outward federal union, or not. But under whatever name, it in important to bear in mind that there is such a relationship involving both real responsibilities and real privileges. (Emphasis mine)(32)

Bannerman is equally clear as Rutherford insisting the true, vital, saving, unbreakable nature of the Covenant of Grace as it stands in eternity, is made with the elect alone.

In so far as the Church invisible is concerned, the truth of this statement will be admitted by all. There can be no difference of opinion on this point. The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileged belongs is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for whom Christ died. (30-31)

He goes on to say, “The case is all together different for with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges” (31).

In this regard, to suggest that the Covenant of Grace has a works component upon its entry is to misunderstand its function entirely. Every good Presbyterian will agree that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from any works of the law. This federal and outward separation that is called “sanctified” and “holy” in 1 Corinthians 7:14, “broken off branches” in John 15;1-8, and “unwise virgins” in Matthew 25, is meant to convey how God sets aside certain people to be objects of physical, covenantal blessings. These outward blessings (which are not saving), such as hearing the Word preached, observing or participating in the sacraments, and involvement in the fellowship of the covenant community, are the means by which God brings the unregenerate soul within earshot of the call of the Gospel; inviting all to come from darkness to light, from the temporal covenant into the Everlasting Covenant. Bannerman says, “To the ex
ternal privileges of that visible society even sinners are invited,- not that they may rest there, but that they may go on to the invisible and spiritual society within.” The visible covenant blessings are meant to cause the sinner to “seek for something higher and more blessed” (33).

The spiritual blessings and promises of the Covenant of Grace must be the dominant theme in all federalist teaching and preaching. Bannerman reminds us that in the separation between Rome and Protestantism the visible/invisible Church distinction, “…lies at the very foundation of the controversy between them. The strong desire and tenancy with Popish controversialists is to deny the existence of the invisible Church; or when they are not bold enough to do that, at least to give the decided precedence to the Church visible”(37).

This should be avoided at all costs. The invisible Church is the true Church, it is the “glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:27).

Conclusion

When we speak of Federal Holiness it should always be in light of its goal- a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Elect One. To simply think of Church members as being in confederacy with Christ by baptism and profession is to forget the most vital portion of the equation. Indeed many today are so emphasizing the mere federal element of the Covenant of Grace they are(practically speaking), omitting the weightier matters of the Covenant.

Inward union is the only true union with Christ. Any substitution of Church-ism in place of the internal operation of the Spirit is to supplant the roll of the Visible Church and turn the gospel on its head. We must be diligent in both our understanding and application of every aspect of Christ’s Church and of His gracious covenant.

Bannerman’s conclusion is a good one:

[N]othing but a clear discernment of the principles that connect and yet distinguish the Church invisible from the Church visible, and a right application of these to explain the statements of the Word of God on the point, will save us from mistakes fraught with the most ruinous consequences both in doctrine and practice. (40)

* Originally appeared in the Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth Magazine March 2005. The Outlook Magazine March 2005.

Bibliography

1. Baldwin, Bill. Several Quick Arguments That The Covenant of Works is Not Gracious. <http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/several_quick.html#note3> 2002.

3. Hodge, Archibald. Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.

2.Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened. Edinburgh: 1654.

3. Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960.

4. Westminster Divines. Westminster Larger Catechism. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995.

“A godly man loves the Word preached, which is a commentary upon the Word written. The Scriptures are the sovereign oils and balsams; the preaching of the Word is the pouring of them out. The Scriptures are the precious spices; the preaching of the Word is the beating of these spices, which causes a wonderful fragrance and delight. The Word preached is ‘the rod of God’s strength’ (Psa. 110:2) and the breath of his lips’(1sa. 11:4). What was once said of the city of Thebes, that it was built by the sound of Amphius’ harp, is much more true of soul conversion. It is built by the sound of the gospel harp. Therefore the preaching of the Word is called ‘the power of God to salvation‘ (1Cor. 1:24). By this, Christ is said (now) to speak to us from heaven (Heb. 12:25). This ministry of the Word is to be preferred before the ministry of angels.”

“A godly man loves the Word preached, partly from the good he has found by it – he has felt the dew fall with this manna – and partly because of God’s institution. The Lord has appointed this ordinance to save him. The king’s image makes the coin current. The stamp of divine authority on the Word preached makes it an instrument conducive to men’s salvation.”

“Do we love the Word preached? Do we prize it in our judgments? Do we receive it into our hearts? Do we fear the loss of the Word preached more than the loss of peace and trade? Is it the removal of the ark that troubles us?”

“Again, do we attend to the Word with reverential devotion? When the judge is giving his charge on the bench, all attend. When the Word is preached, the great God is giving us his charge. Do we listen to it as to a matter of life and death? This is a good sign that we love the Word.”

“Again, do we love the holiness of the Word (Psa. 119:140)? The Word is preached to beat down sin and advance holiness. Do we love it for its spirituality and purity? Many love the Word preached only for its eloquence and notion. They come to a sermon as to a music lecture (Ezek. 33:31,32) or as to a garden to pick flowers, but not to have their lusts subdued or their hearts bettered. These are like a foolish woman who paints her face but neglects her health.”

“Again, do we love the convictions of the Word? Do we love the Word when it comes home to our conscience and shoots its arrows of reproof at our sins? It is the minister’s duty sometimes to reprove. He who can speak smooth words in the pulpit, but does not know how to reprove, is like a sword with a fine hilt without an edge. ‘Rebuke them sharply’(Titus 2:15). Dip the nail in oil, reprove in love, but strike the nail home. Now Christian, when the Word touches on your sin and says, ‘Thou art the man’, do you love the reproof? Can you bless God that ‘the sword of the Spirit’ has divided between you and your lusts? This is indeed a sign of grace and shows that you are a lover of the Word.”

“A corrupt heart loves the comforts of the Word, but not the reproofs: ‘They hate him that rebuketh in the gate‘ (Amos 5:10). ‘Their eyes flash with fire!’ Like venomous creatures that at the least touch spit poison, ‘when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth‘(Acts 7.-54). When Stephen touched them to the quick, they were mad and could not endure it.”

“Question: How shall we know that we love the reproofs of the Word?

Answer 1 : When we desire to sit under a heart-searching ministry. Who cares for medicines that will not work? A godly man does not choose to sit under a ministry that will not work upon his conscience.

Answer 2: When we pray that the Word may meet with our sins. If there is any traitorous lust in our heart, we would have it found out and executed. We do not want sin covered, but cured. We can open our breast to the bullet of the Word and say, ‘Lord, smite this sin.’

Answer 3: When we are thankful for a reproof: ‘Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head‘ (Psa. 141:5). David was glad of a reproof. Suppose a man were in the mouth of a lion, and another should shoot the lion and save the man, would he not be thankful? So, when we are in the mouth of sin, as of a lion, and the minister by a reproof shoots this sin to death, shall we not be thankful? A gracious soul rejoices when the sharp lance of the Word has pierced his abscess. He wears a reproof like a jewel on his ear: ‘As an earring of gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear‘ (Prov. 25:12). To conclude, it is convincing preaching which must do the soul good. A nipping reproof prepares for comfort, as a nipping frost prepares for the sweet flowers of spring” (Puritan Paperbacks, The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson- pp 64-67).