| « Prev | CHAPTER IV. Concerning Efficacious Grace | Next » |
CHAP. IV.
CONCERNING EFFICACIOUS GRACE.
§ 1. it is manifest that the Scripture supposes, that if ever men are turned from sin, God must undertake it, and he must be the doer of it; that it is his doing that must determine the matter; that all that others can do, will avail nothing, without his agency. This is manifest by such texts as these: Jer. xxxi. 18, 19. “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; Thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh,” &c. Lam. v. 21. “Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned.”
§2. According to Dr. Whitby’s notion of the assistance of the Spirit, the Spirit of God does nothing in the hearts or minds of men beyond the power of the devil; nothing but what the devil can do; and nothing showing any greater power in any respect, than the devil shows and exercises in his temptations. For he supposes that all that the Spirit of God does, is to bring moral motives and inducements to mind, and set them before the understanding, &c. It is possible that God may infuse grace, in some instances, into the minds of such persons as are striving to obtain it in the other way, though they may not observe it, and may not know that it is not obtained by gradual acquisition. But if a man has indeed sought it only in that way, and with as much dependence on himself, and with as much neglect of God in his endeavours and prayers, as such a doctrine naturally leads to, it is not very likely that he should obtain saving grace by the efficacious, mighty power of God. It is most likely that God should bestow this gift in a way of earnest attention to divine truth, and the use of the means of grace, with reflection on one’s own sinfulness, and in a way of being more and more convinced of sinfulness, and total corruption and need of the divine power to restore the heart, to infuse goodness, and of becoming more and more sensible of one’s own impotence, and helplessness and inability to obtain goodness by his own strength. And if a man has obtained no other virtue, than what seems to have been wholly in that gradual and insensible way that might be expected from use and custom, in the exercise of his own strength, he has reason to think, however bright his attainments may seem to be, that he has no saving virtue.
§ 3. Great part of the gospel is denied by those who deny pure efficacious grace. They deny that wherein actual salvation and the application of redemption mainly consists; and how unlikely are such to be successful in their endeavours after actual salvation!
Turnbull’s explanation of Philip. ii. 12, 13. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure,” is this, (Christian Philosophy, p. 96, 97.) “Give all diligence to work out your salvation; for it is God, the Creator of all things, who, by giving you, of his good pleasure, the power of willing and doing, with a sense of right and wrong, and reason to guide and direct you, hath visibly made it your end so to do. Your frame shows, that to prepare yourselves for great moral happiness, arising from a well cultivated and improved mind, suitably placed, is your end appointed to you by your Creator. Consider, therefore, that by neglecting this your duty, this your interest, you contemn and oppose the good will of God towards you, and his design in creating you.”
§ 4. If we look through all the examples we have of conversion in Scripture, the conversion of the apostle Paul, and of the Corinthians, (“Such were some of you, but ye are washed, 490490 1 Cor. vi. 11. ” &c.) and all others that the apostles write to, how far were they from this gradual way of conversion, by contracted habits, and by such culture as Turn-bull speaks of! Turnbull, in his Christian Philosophy, p. 470. seems to think, that the sudden conversions that were in the apostles’ days, were instances of their miraculous power, as in these words, “They appealed to the works they wrought, to the samples they gave of their power to foretell future events; their power to cure instantaneously all diseases of the body; their power to cure, in the same extraordinary manner, all diseases of the mind, or to convert bad into good dispositions; their power to bestow gifts and blessings of all sorts, bodily and spiritual.” See again to the like purpose, p. 472.
Now I would inquire, whether those who thus had the diseases of their minds cured, and their had converted into good dispositions, had any virtue; or whether those good dispositions of theirs were virtues, or any thing praiseworthy; and whether, when they were thus converted, they became good men and the heirs of salvation? As Turnbull himself allows, all that are not good men, were called the children of the devil in Scripture; and he asserts that nothing is virtue, but what is obtained by our own culture; that no habit is virtuous, but a contracted one, one that is owing to ourselves, our own diligence, &c.; and also holds, that none are good men but the virtuous; none others are the heirs of future happiness.
§ 5. What God wrought for the apostle Paul and other primitive Christians, was intended for a pattern to all future ages, for their instruction and excitement; Eph. ii. 7. 1 Tim. i. 16. It is natural to expect, that the first fruits of the church specially recorded in history, and in that book which is the steady rule of the church in all things pertaining to salvation, should be a pattern to after-ages in those things, those privileges, which equally concern all. Or if it be said, that as soon as men take up a strong resolution, they are accepted and looked upon by God as penitents and converts; it may be inquired, is there a good man without good habits, or principles of virtue and goodness in his heart?
§ 6. Turnbull speaks of good men as born again; i. e. changed by culture: Christian Philosophy, p. 282. Is there a good man without such principles as love to God and men, or charity, humility, &c.? How comes that resolution to be so good, if no principle of virtue be exercised in it?
If it be said, Paul was a good man before he was converted, it may be answered, he did not believe in Christ, 544and therefore was in a state of condemnation. Besides, he speaks of himself as being then a wicked man.
§ 7. Concerning the supposition advanced by Bishop Butler, and by Turnbull in his Christian Philosophy, that all that God does, even miracles themselves, are wrought according to general laws, such as are called the laws of nature, though unknown to us; and the supposition of Turnbull, that all may be done by angels acting by general laws, I observe, this seems to be unreasonable. If angels effect these works, acting only by general laws, then they must do them without any immediate, special interposition at all, even without the smallest intimation of the divine mind, what to do, or upon what occasion God would have any thing to be done. And what will this doctrine bring inspiration to, which is one kind of miracle? According to this, all significations of the divine mind, even to the prophets and apostles, must be according to general laws, without any special interposition at all of the divine agency.
§ 8. Acts xii. 23. God was so angry with Herod for not giving him the glory of his eloquence, that the angel of the Lord smote him immediately, and he died a miserable death; he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. But if it be very sinful for a man to take to himself the glory of such a qualification as eloquence, how much more a man’s taking to himself the glory of divine grace, God’s own image, and that which is infinitely God’s most excellent, precious, and glorious gift, and man’s highest honour, excellency, and happiness, whereby he is partaker of the divine nature, and becomes a God-like creature? If God was so jealous for the glory of so small a gift, how much more for so high an endowment, this being that alone, of all other things, by which man becomes like God? If man takes the glory of it to himself, he thereby will be in the greatest danger of taking the glory to himself that is due to God, and of setting up himself as standing in competition with God, as vying with the Most High, and making himself a god, and not a man. If not giving God the glory of that which is least honourable, provokes God’s jealousy; much more must not giving God the glory of that which is infinitely the most honourable. It is allowed, the apostle insists upon it, that the primitive Christians should be sensible that the glory of their gifts belonged to God, and that they made not themselves to differ. But how small a matter is this, if they make themselves to differ in that, which the apostle says is so much more excellent than all gifts!
§ 9. How much more careful has God shown himself, that men should not be proud of their virtue, than of any other gift! See Deut. ix. 4. Luke xviii. 9. and innumerable other places. And the apostle plainly teaches us to ascribe to God the glory, not only of our redemption, but of our wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification; and that no flesh should glory in themselves in these things, 1 Cor. i. 29, 30, 31. Again, the apostle plainly directs, that all that glory in their virtue, should glory in the Lord, 2 Cor. x. 17. It is glorying in virtue and virtuous deeds he is there speaking of; and it is plain, that the apostle uses the expression of glorying in the Lord, in such a sense, as to imply ascribing the glory of our virtue to God.
§ 10. The doctrine of men’s being the determining causes of their own virtue, teaches them, not to do so much, as even the proud Pharisee did, who thanked God for making him to differ from other men in virtue, Luke xviii.
See Gen. xli. 15, 16. Job xi. 12. Dan. ii. 25,. &c. 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.. 2 Cor. iv. 7. 2 Cor. x. 17.
Prov. xx. 12. “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made, even both of them;” compared with many parallel places that speak about God’s giving eyes to see, and ears to hear, and hearts to understand, &c.
§ 11. The Arminian doctrine, and the doctrine of our new philosophers, concerning habits of virtue being only by custom, discipline, and gradual culture, joined with the other doctrine, that the obtaining of these habits in those that have time for it, is in every man’s power, according to their doctrine of the freedom of will, tends exceedingly to cherish presumption in sinners, while in health and vigour, and tends to their utter despair, in sensible approaches of death by sickness or old age.
§.12. Observe that the question with some is, whether the Spirit of God does any thing at all in these days, since the Scriptures have been completed. With those that allow that he does any thing, the question cannot be, whether his influence be immediate; for, if he does any thing at all, his influence must he immediate. Nor can the question be, whether his influence, with regard to what he intends to do, be efficacious.
The questions relating to efficacious grace, controverted between us and the Arminians, are two: 1. Whether the grace of God, in giving us saving virtue, be determining and decisive. 2. Whether saving virtue be decisively given by a supernatural and sovereign operation of the Spirit of God; or, whether it he only by such a divine influence or assistance, as is imparted in the course of common providence, either according to established laws of nature, or established laws of God’s universal providence towards mankind; i.e. either, 1. Assistance which is given in all natural actions, wherein men do merely exercise and improve the principles of nature and laws of nature, and come to such attainments as are connected with such exercises by the mere laws of nature. For there is an assistance in all such natural actions; because it is by a divine influence that the laws of nature are upheld; and a constant occurrence of divine power is necessary in order to our living, moving, or having a being. This we may call a natural assistance. Or, 2. That assistance, which though it be something besides the upholding of the laws of nature, (which take place in all affairs of life,) is yet, by a divine, universal constitution in this particular affair of religion, so connected with those voluntary exercises which result from this mere natural assistance, that by this constitution it indiscriminately extends to all mankind, and is certainly connected with such exercises and improvements, as those just mentioned, by a certain, established, known rule, as much as any of the laws of nature. This kind of assistance, though many Arminians call it a supernatural assistance, differs little or nothing from that natural assistance that is established by a law of nature. The law so established, is only a particular law of nature; as some of the laws of nature are more general, others more particular: but this establishment, which they suppose to be by divine promise, differs nothing at all from many other particular laws of nature, except only in this circumstance, of the established constitutions being revealed in the word of God, while others are left to be discovered only by experience.
The Calvinists suppose otherwise; they suppose that divine influence and operation, by which saving virtue is obtained, is entirely from, and above common assistance, or that which is given in a course of ordinary providence, according to universally established laws of nature. They suppose a principle of saving virtue is immediately imparted and implanted by that operation, which is sovereign and efficacious in this respect, that its effect proceeds not from any established laws of nature. I mention this as an entirely different question from the other, viz. Whether the grace of God, by which we obtain saving virtue, is determining or decisive. For that it may be, if it be given wholly in a course of nature, or by such an operation as is limited and regulated perfectly according to established, invariable laws. For none will dispute that many things are brought to pass by God in this manner, that are decisively ordered by him, and are brought to pass by his determining providence.
The controversy, as it relates to efficacious grace, in this sense, includes in it these four questions.
1. Whether saving virtue differs from common virtue, or such virtue as those have that are not in a state of salvation, in nature and kind, or only in degree and circumstances?
2. Whether a holy disposition of heart, as an internal governing principle of life and practice, be immediately implanted or infused in the soul, or only be contracted by repeated acts, and obtained by human culture and improvement?
3. Whether conversion, or the change of a person from being a vicious or wicked man, to a truly virtuous character, be instantaneous or gradual!
4. Whether the divine assistance or influence, by which men may obtain true and saving virtue, be sovereign and arbitrary, or, whether God, in giving this assistance and its 545effects, limits himself to certain exact and stated rules, revealed in his word, and established by his promises?
§ 13. Eph. i. 19, 20. “What is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward, according to the working of his mighty power,” or the effectual working, as the word signifies These words, according to the effectual working of his power, we shall find applied to conversion, to growth in grace, and to raising us up at last. You have them applied to conversion, Eph. iii. 7. “Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, given to me, by the effectual working of his power.” So likewise to grow in grace, Eph. iv. 10. “The whole body increaseth with the increase of God, by the effectual working in the measure of every part.” And to the resurrection to glory at the last day, Philip. iii. 21. “He will change our vile bodies, according to the effectual working of his mighty power, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.”
And that the power of God in conversion, or in giving faith and the spiritual blessings that attend it, is here meant, may be argued from the apostle’s change of phrase, that whereas in the foregoing verse, he spoke of the riches of the glory of Christ’s inheritance in the saints, he does not go on to say, “and what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards them,” (i. e. the saints,) which surely would have been most natural, if he still had respect only to the power of God in bestowing the inheritance of future glory. But, instead of that, we see he changes the phrase; “and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe;” plainly intimating some kind of change of the subject, or a respect to the subject of salvation with regard to something diverse; that whereas before he spoke of saints in their future state only, now he speaks of something that the saints, we that dwell in this world that believe, are the subjects of. And as the apostle includes himself, so it is the more likely he should have the mighty power of God in conversion in his thought; his conversion having been so visible and remarkable an instance of God’s marvellous power.
Again, the apostle, in praying that they “knowing the exceeding greatness of God’s power,” &c. prays for such a knowledge and conviction of the power of God to bring them to life and glory, which was a most special remedy against such doubts as the church in the then present state was most exposed to, viz. that their being preserved to glory and salvation through all their trials, persecutions, and the great opposition that was made by the enemies of Christ and their souls. Therefore, after mentioning the glory of their inheritance, he, for their comfort and establishment, mentions the power of God to bring them to the possession of this inheritance, as the apostle Peter does, 1 Pet. i. 4, 5. “To an inheritance incorruptible who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” He speaks to their hearts, for here was their difficulty and temptation to doubting. But if the keeping them in faith showed such great power, much more did the first bringing them from heathenism and the power of sin, darkness, and spiritual death and ruin, into a state of faith and salvation, quickening them when dead in trespasses and sins; as it is a greater instance of divine power to raise the dead, than to maintain life that is exposed to danger; a greater work to reconcile us being enemies, than to keep us friends being reconciled. It was natural for the apostle to put them in mind of the power of God manifested in their conversion, as he would strengthen their faith in his power to raise them at the last day, and glorify them to eternity. Dr. Goodwin says, he finds most of the Greek fathers ran this way in interpreting the place. He mentions Theophylact and Chrysostom, and cites these words of Chrysostom: “The apostle’s scope is to demonstrate by what already was manifested in them, viz. the power of God in working faith, and to raise up their hearts to believe what was not manifested, viz. the raising of them from death to life. It being (saith he) a far more wonderful work to persuade a soul to believe in Christ, than to raise up a dead man, a far more admirable work of the two.” Besides, what the apostle says in the continuation of his discourse, explains his meaning, and puts the matter of his intending to include the power of God manifested in their conversion, out of all doubt, as, in the very next sentence, “and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;” and every word that follows, to the end of the second chapter, confirms the same thing. I shall mention a few of them: Ver. 2. “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh effectually in the children of disobedience.” This shows the exceeding greatness of power in their being delivered from such a state, wherein they were held by the great power of so strong an enemy. Verses 5 and 6. “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” These things tend to show how the power of God in their conversion, and the happy, honourable, and glorious change of their state by it, was according to the power that wrought in Christ when he was quickened, raised up, and made to sit in heavenly places, as chap. i. 19, 20, 21. Now to back this with a parallel place, as here in this place the apostle speaks of the greatness of God’s power in working faith, and parallels it with the power that raised up Christ from the dead; so we find he says the very same thing in Colossians ii. 12, 13. “Ye are buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” In that text in Ephesians the apostle speaks of faith, “the power that works in us that believe.” So in this text in Colossians, “ye are risen through faith.” Again, 2dly, in Ephesians, together with what there follows, chap. ii. he compareth believing to a rising from the dead. So here in Colossians, “ye are risen with him through faith.” Thirdly, as in Ephesians the apostle speaks of the work of God in giving faith, as parallel with his works in raising Christ, so he does here in Colossians.: “Ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Fourthly, as we in Ephesians are said to believe, according to the efficacious working of God, the word Greek is also used here in Colossians. It is called faith of the operation or effectual working of God, and as there God is said to be the author, the same that raised up Christ, and to work faith in them, so here it is the faith of the operation of God who raised Christ from the dead, so that, every way, one place is parallel with the other.
Some pretend, that in that expression, through the faith of the operation of God, there is no respect to God’s operation as the efficient cause of faith, but only to the operation of God that raised Christ as the object of faith, which believes that power and operation as it was manifested in raising Christ, and which is believed to be sufficient to raise us up also. But that the apostle means the operation of God in giving faith, appears by verse 11. which introduces these words, where the apostle says, “In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” The phrase, mode without hands, in Scripture, always denote God’s immediate power, above the course of nature, and above second causes. Thus, when he speaks of heaven, 2 Cor. v. 1. he calls it “a house not made with hands,” and in Heb. ix. 11. the human nature of Christ, which was framed by so wonderful and supernatural a power of the Holy Ghost, is said to be a 491491 Heb. ix. 11. “tabernacle made without hands.”
note. The foregoing remarks, concerning the texts in Eph. i. 19, 20. and in Coloss. ii. 11, 12, 13. are taken chiefly from Dr. Goodwin’s Works, vol. 1. p. 298, &c.
§ 14. It is a doctrine mightily in vogue, that God has promised his saving grace to men’s sincere endeavours in praying for it, and using proper means to obtain it; and so that it is not God’s mere will that determines the matter, whether we shall have saving grace or not; but that the matter is left with us, to be determined by the sincerity of our endeavours.
But there is vast confusion in all talk of this kind, for want of its being well explained what is meant by sincerity of endeavour, and through men’s deceiving themselves by using words without a meaning. I think the Scripture knows of but one sort of sincerity in religion, and that is a truly pious or holy sincerity. The Bible suggests no notion of any other sort of sincere obedience, or any other sincerity of endeavours, or any doings whatsoever in religion, 546than doing from love to God and true love to our duty. As to those that endeavour and take pains, (let them do ever so much,) that yet do nothing freely, or from any true love to or delight in God, or free inclination to virtue, but wholly for by-ends, and from sinister and mercenary views, as being driven and forced against their inclination, or induced by regard to things foreign; I say, respecting such as these, I find nothing in Scripture that should lead us to call them honest and sincere in their endeavours. I doubt not but that the Scripture promises supernatural, truly divine, and saving blessings, to such a sincerity of endeavour as arises from true love to our duty. But then, as I apprehend, this is only to promise more saving grace to him that seeks it in the exercise of saving grace, agreeably to that repeated saying of our Saviour, “to him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundance. 492492 Matthew 13:12. ” Persons, in seeking grace with this sincerity, ask in faith; they seek these blessings in the exercise of a saving faith, the great condition of the covenant of grace. And I suppose, promises are made to no sincerity, but what implies this. And whoever supposes that divine promises are made to any other sincerity than this, I imagine he never will be able to make out his scheme, and that for two reasons:
1. On such a supposition, the promises must be supposed to be to an undetermined condition. And,
2. Even on the supposition that the promises are made to some other sincerity than a truly pious sincerity, the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of the condition of the promises; and so the whole must still depend on God’s determining grace.
1. On the supposition that the promises of saving grace are made to some other sincerity of endeavour than that which implies true and saving piety of heart, they must be made to an undetermined condition, and so be in effect no promises at all.
If there be any thing else worthy to be called sincerity in endeavours after holiness, but a free, pious inclination, or true regard or love to holiness, nothing better can be mentioned than this, viz. endeavours after holiness, from a real willingness of heart to put forth those endeavours for the agent’s own sake, yet for such ends as prudence and self-love would propose; such as his own eternal interest, salvation from everlasting misery, &c.
So that by sincerity here, is not meant any holy freedom or virtuous disposition or desire: but it signifies no more than reality of disposition and will to endeavour for some end, only provided the end be subservient to self-preservation. But the thing that truly in this case denominates the endeavour sincere, is the reality of the will or disposition of heart to endeavour, and not the goodness of the will or disposition. Now if this be the sincerity of endeavour which is meant, when men talk of its being the condition of peremptory and decisive promises of saving grace, then it never has (as I know of) yet been told, and I suppose never will or can be told, what the condition of the promise is.
The thing that needs to be determined, in order to know this condition, is, how great a degree of this sort of sincerity, or real willingness of heart to endeavour, a man must have, to be entitled to the promise. For there can be no question, but that multitudes that live in gross wickedness, and are men of a very debauched, flagitious behaviour, have some degree of it; and there are none, even of those that are the most strict and painful in their endeavour, but have it in a very imperfect degree, and, in many things, fail of this sincerity of endeavour. For it must be kept in mind, that the sincerity of heart we are speaking of, attending religious duties, is only a reality of willingness to use endeavours. And every man whatsoever, that uses any endeavour at all for his salvation, or ever performs any religious duty, to the end that he may go to heaven and not to hell, has this sincerity. For whatever men do voluntarily for this end, they do from a real willingness and disposition of heart to do it; for if they were not willing to do it, they would not do it. There surely are no voluntary actions performed without men’s being willing to perform them. And is there any man that will assert that God has absolutely or peremptorily promised his saving grace to any man that ever stirs hand or foot, or thinks one thought in order to his salvation?
And on the other hand, as to those that go farthest in their endeavours, still they fail, in numberless instances, of exercising this kind of sincerity, consisting in reality of will. For such are guilty of innumerable sins; and every man that commits sin, by so doing, instead of being sincerely willing to do his duty, sincerely wills the contrary. For so far as any actions of his are his sin, so far his will is in what he does. No action is imputed to us any further than it is voluntary, and involves the real disposition of the heart. The man, in this painful endeavour, fails continually of his duty, or (which is the same thing) of perfect obedience. And so far as he does so, he fails of sincerity of endeavour. No man is any further defective in his obedience, than as he is defective in sincerity; for there the defect lies, viz. in his will, and the disposition of his heart. If men were perfect in these, that would be the same thing as to be perfect in obedience, or complete in holiness. Nothing, either of omission or commission, is sin, any farther than it includes the real disposition and will; and therefore, no men are any farther sinful, than as they are sincere in sinning; and so far as they are sincere in sinning, so far they are deficient of sincerely endeavouring their duty. Now, therefore, where are the bounds to which men must come in order to be entitled to the promise? Some have a faint sincerity of endeavour, who none do suppose are entitled to the promise. And those that have most sincerity of endeavour, do greatly fail of that degree of sincerity that they ought to have, or fall short of that which God requires. And there are infinite degrees between these two classes. And if every degree of strength of endeavour is not sufficient, and yet some certain degree of it, greatly short of that which God requires, is sufficient, then let it be determined what that degree is.
Some have determined thus, that if men sincerely endeavour to do what they can, God has promised to help them to do more, &c. But this question remains to be resolved, whether the condition of the promise be, that he shall sincerely endeavour to do what he can, constantly, or only sometimes. For there is no man that sincerely endeavours to do his duty to the utmost constantly, with this sort of sincerity consisting in reality of will so to do. If he did, he would perfectly do his duty at all times. For, as was observed before, nothing else is required but the will; and men never fail of their duty, or commit sin, but when their real will is to sin.
But if the condition of the promise be sincerely doing what they can sometimes, then it should be declared how often, or how great a part of the time of man’s life, he must exercise this sincerity. It is manifest that men fail of their duty every day, yea continually; and therefore, that there is a continual defect of sincerity of endeavour in the practice of duty.
If it should be said that the condition of the promise of saving grace is, that, take one time with another, and one duty with another, the sincerity of their will should be chiefly in favour of their duty; or, in other words, that they should be sincere in endeavours to do more than half their duty, though they sincerely neglect the rest; I would inquire where they find such promises as these in the Bible? Besides, I think it can be demonstrated that there is not a man on earth, that ever comes up halfway to what the law of God requires of him; and consequently, that there is in all more want of sincerity, than any actual possession of it. But whether it be so or no, how does it appear, that if men are sincere in endeavours with respect to more than half their duty, God has promised them saving mercy and grace, though, through a defect of their sincerity, the rest be neglected?
But if we suppose the sincerity to which divine promises are made, implies a true freedom of the heart in religious endeavours and performances, consisting in love to God and holiness, inclining our hearts to our duty for its own sake, here is something determinate and precise; as a title to the benefit promised does not depend on any particular degree of sincerity to be found out by difficult and unsearchable rules of mathematical calculation, but on the nature of it; this sincerity being a thing of an entirely distinct nature and kind from any thing that is to be found in those men who have no interest in the promises. 547If men know they have this sincerity, they may know the promises are theirs, though they may be sensible they have very much of a contrary principle in their hearts, the operations of which are as real as of this. This is the only sincerity in religion that the Scripture makes any account of. According to the word of God, then, and then only, is there a sincere universal obedience, when persons love all God’s commands, and love all those things wherein holiness consists, and endeavour after obedience to every divine precept, from love and of free choice. Otherwise, in scripture account, there is nothing but sincere disobedience and rebellion, without any sincerity of the contrary. For their disobedience is of free choice, from sincere love to sin, and delight in wickedness. But their refraining from some sins, and performing some external duties, is without the least degree of free choice or sincere love.
If here it should be said, that men who have no piety of heart in a saving degree, yet may have some degree of love to virtue; and it should be insisted that mankind are born with a moral sense, which implies a natural approbation of and love to virtue; and therefore, men that have not the principle of love to God and virtue established to that degree as to be truly pious men, and entitled to heaven, yet may have such degrees of them as to engage them, with a degree of ingenuous sincerity and free inclination, to seek after farther degrees of virtue, and so with a sincerity above that which has been mentioned, viz. a real willingness to use endeavours from fear and self-interest. It may be replied, If this be allowed, it will not at all help the matter. For still the same question returns, viz. what degree of this sincerity is it that constitutes the precise condition of the promise? It is supposed that all mankind have this moral sense; but yet it is not supposed that all mankind are entitled to the promises of saving mercy. Therefore the promises depend, as above noticed, on the degree of sincerity, under the same difficulties, and with the same intricacies, and all the forementioned unfixedness and uncertainty. And other things concerning this sincerity, besides the degree of it, are undetermined, viz. how constant this degree of sincerity of endeavour must be; how long it must be continued; and how early it must be begun.
Thus, it appears that, on the supposition of God’s having made any promises of saving grace to the sincere endeavours of ungodly men, it will follow, that such promises are made to an undetermined condition.
But a supposed promise to an undetermined condition, is truly no promise at all. It is absurd to talk of positive determinate promises made to something not determined, or to a condition that is not fixed in the promise. If the condition be not decided, there is nothing decisive in the affair.
If the master of a family should give forth such a pre tended promise as this to his servants, “I promise, that if any of you will do something, though I tell you not what, that I will surely give him an inheritance among my children:” would this be truly any promise at all?
I proceed now to observe,
II. On the supposition, that the promises of saving grace are made to some other sincerity of endeavour, than that which implies truly pious sincerity, the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of the condition of the promises; and so the whole must still depend on God’s determining grace; and that, of whatever kind this sincerity, short of truly pious and saving sincerity, is supposed to be; whether it consists only in a reality of will, arising from foreign motives, for a certain degree of endeavours or use of means; or whether it be a certain sincerity or reality of willingness to use endeavours, arising from a natural love of virtue. For all suppose the sincerity, to which the promises are made, to be that in which some are distinguished from others; none supposing that all mankind, without exception, have this sincerity which is the condition of the promises. Therefore, this sincerity must be a distinguishing attainment. And how is it that some attain to it, and not others? It must be in one of these two ways; cither by the sovereign gift of God’s will, or by their endeavours. To say the former, is to give up the point, and to own that the sovereign grace and will of God determines the existence of the condition of the promises. But if it be said, that this distinguishing sincerity of endeavour is obtained by men’s own endeavour, then I ask, what sort of endeavour is it attained by? Sincere endeavour, or insincere? None will be so absurd, as to say, that this great condition of saving promises is attained to by insincere endeavours. For what tendency, either natural or moral, can the exercise of insincerity have, to produce or attain to sincerity 1 But if it be said, that distinguishing sincerity of endeavour is attained to by distinguishing sincere endeavour, this is to run round in a ridiculous circle; and still the difficulty remains, and the question returns, how the distinguishing sincerity that first of all took place in the affair came to have existence, otherwise than by the determining grace of God?
And if it be said, that there is no need of supposing any such thing as any previous, habitual sincerity, or any such sincerity going before, as shall be an established principle, but that it is sufficient that the free will does sincerely determine itself to endeavour after holiness I answer, whether we suppose the sincerity that first entitles to the promises, to be a settled habit or established principle, or not, it does not in the least remove the difficulty, as long as it is something, in which some men are distinguished from others, that precedes the distinguishing endeavour which entitles to the promises, and is the source and spring of those endeavours. This first distinguishing sincerity, which is the spring of the whole affair, must have existence by some means or other; and it must proceed either from some previous sincere endeavour of the man’s own, which is a contradiction; or from God, which is the point required; or it must be the effect of chance, in other words, of nothing.
If we suppose that distinguishing sincerity of endeavour by which some men are interested in the promises of saving grace, and not others, to be some certain degree of love to virtue, or any thing else in the disposition or exercise of the heart; yet it must be owned, that all men either are alike by nature, as to love to virtue, or they are not. If they are not, but some have naturally a greater love to virtue than others, and this determines some, rather than others, to the requisite sincerity of endeavour after saving grace; then God determines the affair by his sovereign will; for he, and not men themselves, determines all distinguishing qualifications or advantages that men are born with. Or if there be no difference naturally, but one man is born with the same love to virtue as another; then, how do some men first attain to more of this love to virtue than others, and so possess that distinguishing sincerity of endeavour which consists in it 1 To say it arises from a previous, distinguishing sincerity of endeavour, attempt, desire, or will, is a contradiction. Therefore, it must proceed from the determining grace of God; which being allowed, the great point in dispute is allowed.
§ 15. Ephesians ii. 8. “By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Mr. Beach observes, ” this text does not mean that their faith is so God’s gift, as not to be of themselves, as is most evident to any who reads the original.” This is certainly a great mistake. What I suppose he means, is, that the relative that, being of the neuter gender, and the word Greek of the feminine, they do not agree together. But if he would translate the Greek relative that thing, viz. the thing last spoken of, all the difficulty vanishes. Vid. Bezn, in loc. Such Scriptures as these, 1 Cor. xv. 10. “Not I, but the grace of God that was with me;” Gal. ii. 20. “Not I, but Christ liveth in me;” prove efficacious grace. The virtuous actions of men that are rewardable, are not left to men’s indifference, without divine ordering and efficacy, so as to be possible to fail. They are often in the Scripture the matter of God’s promises. How often does God promise reformations! How often does God promise that great revival of religion in the latter days! Dr. Whitby seems to deny any physical influence at all of the Spirit of God, on the will; and allows an influence by moral suasion and moral causes only, p. 344. This is to deny that the Spirit of God does any thing at all, except inspiring the prophets, and giving the means of grace, will] God’s ordination of this in his providence. If God do any thing physically, what he does must be efficacious and irresistible. 548Such an assistance Dr. Whitby maintains, and, concerning it, says the following things p. 221, 222.
1st, “Then I say it must be granted, that in raising an idea in my brain by the Holy Spirit, and the impression made upon it there, the action is truly physical. 2d, That in those actions I am wholly passive; that is, I myself do nothing formally to produce those ideas; but the good Spirit, without my operation, doth produce them in me. 3d, That these operations must be irresistible in their production, because they are immediately produced in us without our knowledge of them, and without our will, and so without those faculties by which we are enabled to act.”
Though it should be allowed that God assists man with a physical assistance, and yet an obliged and promised assistance only; then God does not do, or effect, or give the thing assisted to, any more than if he operated and assisted men only according to the established laws of nature; and men may as properly be said to do it of themselves, and of their own power. The doing of the thing, is in the same manner in their power. The assistance by which God assists a drunkard that goes to the tavern, and there drinks excessively, or by which he assists an adulterer or pirate in their actions, is, that he upholds the laws of nature, the laws of the nature of the human soul, whereby it is able to perform such and such acts in such order and dependence; and the laws of the union of soul and body; and moves the body in such a slated manner in consequence of such acts of the soul, and upholds the laws of motion, and causes that there shall be such and such effects in corporeal things, and also of men’s minds in consequence of such motions. All the difference is, that the assistance which he grants in the duties of religion, is according to a newer establishment than the other, according to a method established a little later; and also, that the method of assistance, in the one case, is written and revealed by way of promise or covenant, and not in the other.
But if it be said, that though God has promised assistance, yet he has not promised the exact degree, as, notwithstanding his promise, he has left himself at liberty to assist some, much more than others, in consequence of the very same endeavour. I answer, that this will prove a giving up of their whole scheme, and will infallibly bring in the Calvinistical notion of sovereign and arbitrary grace; whereby some, with the very same sincerity of endeavour, with the same degree of endeavour, and the same use of means, nay, although all things are exactly equal in both cases, both as to their persons and behaviour; yet one has that success by sovereign grace and God’s arbitrary pleasure, that is denied another. If God has left himself no liberty of sovereign grace in giving success to man’s endeavours, but his consequent assistance be always tied to such endeavours precisely, then man’s success is just as much in his own power, and is in the same way the fruit of his own doings, as the effect and fulfilment of his endeavours to commit adultery or murder; and indeed much more. For his success in those endeavours is not tied to such endeavours, but may be providentially disappointed. Although particular motions follow such and such acts of will, in such a state of body, exactly according to certain laws of nature; yet a man’s success in such wickedness is not at all tied to his endeavours by any divine establishment, as the Arminians suppose success is to man’s endeavours after conversion.
For the Spirit of God, by assisting in the alleged manner, becomes not the efficient cause of those things, as the Scriptures do certainly represent him. If God be not the proper bestower, author, and efficient cause of virtue, then the greatest benefits flow not from him; are not owing to his goodness; nor have we him to thank for them.
“Christ upbraids the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, that they were worse than Sodom, &c. and the Jews of that generation, that they were worse than the men of Nineveh; and the Pharisees, that the publicans and harlots went into the kingdom of God before them. But why did he do this, if the only reason was, that the one was brought to repent by effectual grace, and the other not?” (See Whitby, p. 169, 170, 171.) I answer, the unbelief and impenitence of those cities, of that generation, and of those Pharisees, when, on the contrary, the publicans and Nineveh repented, and the men of Sodom would have repented, was an argument that they were worse, more perverse, and hard-hearted than they. Because, though repentance is owing to special, efficacious assistance, yet in his ordinary methods of proceeding with men, God is wont much more rarely to bestow it on those that are more perverse, hard-hearted, and rooted in evil, than others. So much the more as their hearts are hardened, so much the less likely are they to be brought to repentance. And though there be oftentimes exceptions of particular persons, yet it still holds good as a general rule; and especially with regard to societies, nations, cities, and ranks of men: so that Christ might well, from the fact that he mentions, draw an argument of the greater perverseness and stubbornness of those societies and ranks of men that he spoke of.
§ 16. A command and a manifestation of will are not the same thing. A command does not always imply a true desire that the thing commanded should be done. ‘So much at least is manifest by the instance of Abraham commanded to offer up Isaac. That command was not such an effect of the divine will, as the commands to believe and repent, Sec.
§ 17. Either the stronger the habitual inclination to good is, the more virtuous; and the stronger the disposition to evil, the more vicious; or, if it be otherwise, then indifference or want of inclination is essential to both virtue and vice.
§ 18. Dr. Whitby’s inconsistence appears in that one while, when he is disputing against the decree of election, he maintains that the epistles, where the apostle speaks to the elect, are not written to the converted only; because then it suits his turn that the persons addressed should not be converted. But afterwards, when disputing against efficacious grace, he maintains that where the apostle says, “God worketh in you both to will and to do,” &c. Philip. ii. 13. he speaks only to them that are converted, p. 228. Again, when it suits the Doctor’s turn, when writing about perseverance, then all whom the apostles write to are true saints. As particularly those the apostle Peter writes to, that had precious faith, p. 399. And the Galatians addressed in Paul’s epistle, p. 401, 402.
§ 19. When the psalmist prays, “Make me to go in the way of thy statutes; 493493 Psa. cxix. 33. ” is it indeed meaning that God would give him the general grace which he gives to all, and which is sufficient for all if they will but improve it? And is this all?
§ 20. Arminians argue that God has obliged himself to bestow a holy and saving disposition, on certain conditions, and that what is given in regeneration, is given either for natural men’s asking, or for the diligent improvement of common grace; because, otherwise, it would not be our fault that we are without it, nor our virtue that we have it. But if this reasoning is just, the holy qualities obtained by the regenerate, are only the fruits of virtue, not virtues themselves. All the virtue lies in asking, and in the diligent improvement of common grace.
§ 21. Prov. xxi. 1. “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will.” This shows that the Arminian notion of liberty of will, is inconsistent with the scripture notion of God’s providence and government of the world. See also Jer. xxxi. 18. “Turn me, and I shall be turned.” Matt. vii. 18. “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Let us understand this how we will, it destroys the Arminian notion of liberty, and virtue, and vice. For, if it means only a great difficulty; then so much the less liberty, and therefore so much the less virtue or vice. And the preceding verse would be false, which says ” every tree bringeth forth good fruit,” &c. Rom. viii. 6, 7, 8, 9. “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace: because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But we are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The design of the apostle in this place overthrows Arminian notions of liberty, virtue, and vice. It appears from Scripture, that 549God gives such assistance to virtue and virtuous acts, as to be properly a determining assistance, so as to determine the effect; which is inconsistent with Arminian notions of liberty. The Scripture shows that God’s influence in the case is such, that he is the cause of the effect; he causes it to be: which shows that his influence determines the matter, whether it shall be or not. Otherwise innumerable expressions of Scripture are exceedingly improper, and altogether without a meaning.
§ 22. Dr. Whitby’s notion of the assistance of the Spirit is of the same sort with inspiration. Whereas that which I suppose is the true notion, is entirely different. Consequently their notion is much more enthusiastical, does much better agree with, and much more expose to, pernicious enthusiasm, than ours. Hence we find that the grossest enthusiasts, such as Quakers and others, are generally Arminians in the doctrine of free will, &c.
§ 23- Scripture expressions are every where contrary to the Arminian scheme, according to all use of language of the world in these days. But then they have their refuge here. They say, the ancient figures of speech are exceedingly diverse from ours; and that we in this distant age cannot judge at all of the true sense of expression used so long ago, but by a skill in antiquity, and being versed in ancient history, and critically skilled in the ancient languages; not considering that the Scriptures were written for us in these ages on whom the ends of the world are come; yea, were designed chiefly for the latter age of the world, in which they shall have their chief, and comparatively almost all their effect. They were written for God’s people in those ages, of whom at least ninety-nine in a hundred must be supposed incapable of such knowledge, by their circumstances and education; and nine hundred and ninety-nine in a thousand of God’s people, that hitherto have been saved by the Scriptures. It is easy, by certain methods of interpretation, to refine and criticise any book to a sense most foreign to the mind of the author.
§ 24. If God be truly unwilling that there should be any moral evil in the world, why does not he cause less moral evil to exist than really does? If it be answered, as is usual to such kind of objections, that though God is unwilling there should be moral evil, yet he will not infringe on man’s liberty, or destroy his moral agency to prevent it; then I ask, if this be all, why does God cause so much less to exist at some certain times; on the contrary, causes virtue gloriously to prevail? Other times are spoken of and promised, wherein it shall prevail yet vastly more. And this is spoken of as of God’s effecting, and is abundantly so spoken of and promised, as what God would do, and none should hinder, &c.
The Arminian principles, denying the efficacious, determining grace of God, as the cause of men’s virtue and piety, are wholly inconsistent with the promises and prophecies of the future flourishing of religion and virtue in the world, and never can be made consistent therewith. This flourishing of religion is spoken of as what God will effect; and is made the matter of his abundant promise; is spoken of as his glorious work, the work of his almighty power; what he will effect, and none shall hinder; what he will effect against all opposition, removing and overcoming the wickedness of men, &c.
§ 25. Dr. Stebbing says, page 104. ” So much grace as is necessary to lead us to that obedience which is indispensably required in order to salvation, God will give to every one, who humbly and devoutly prays to him for it; for this is the condition, and the only condition prescribed by our Saviour, Luke xi. 9-13. “And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. If then ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? where the promise of the Spirit is made.” Here humility and devotion are mentioned as the condition of that obedience which is indispensably required in order to salvation. By that obedience which is required in order to salvation must be meant, either, 1. That sort of virtue and obedience that is requisite, or, 2. Perseverance in it. If he means that sort of virtue which is requisite in order to salvation; then I would ask, what sort of humility and devotion is that, to which God has promised the grace which is necessary to their obtaining that virtue which is the condition of salvation? Must it not be real, sincere humility and devotion? Surely if God has promised so great a gift to any humility and devotion, it must be to that which is sincere and upright. Because that which is not sincere, is nothing; it is hypocritical; a mere show of that which is really wanting. And it would be very unreasonable to suppose that God promises such infinite rewards to hypocrisy, which he has often declared to be abominable to him, and which only provokes him the more. But if it be true, sincere, upright humility and devotion, it is unreasonable to suppose that God makes this the condition of that grace which is necessary to his obtaining that kind of virtue which is requisite to salvation. Because he, who has this humility and devotion, has that kind of virtue already. The Scripture every where speaks of uprightness and sincerity of heart, as that virtue that is saving. He that sincerely asks for grace to obey, has that sincerity and uprightness of heart that is exercised in sincere obedience; for he that sincerely asks this, is sincerely willing to obey, or sincerely desirous of obeying. Or, 2. If the Doctor, by that obedience that is indispensably required in order to salvation, means perseverance in sincere virtue, and this be promised to devoutly and sincerely asking it; then hereby must be meant, either devoutly and sincerely asking it once, or final perseverance in this sincere asking, or a certain limited continuance in that asking. If a final perseverance in asking be the condition of grace to lead us to persevere, saving virtue is, as said before, the condition of itself. For persevering sincerity is the condition of obtaining persevering sincerity. If it be only once asking, or asked a limited number of times, or a limited continuance in asking, this is contrary to the Arminian doctrine about perseverance. For it supposes a person in this life, on a past condition, to be already, before the end of the day of his probation, so confirmed in obedience that it is impossible for him to fall away.
§ 26. One danger of these Arminian notions is, that they strongly tend to prevent conviction of sin^
§ 27. The vast pretences of Arminians to an accurate and clear view of the scope and design of the sacred penmen, and a critical knowledge of the original, will prove for ever vain and insufficient to help them against such clear evidence as the Scripture exhibits concerning efficacious grace. I desire it may be shown, if it can be, that ever any terms, that are fuller and stronger, are used more frequently, or in greater variety, to signify God’s being the author, efficient, and bestower of any- kind of benefit, than as to the bestowment of true virtue or goodness of heart; whether concerning the deliverance out of Egypt, or the manna that was rained down from heaven, or the bestowment of the blessings of Canaan, or saving Noah and his family in the ark; or the raising any from the dead, or Christ’s giving health to the sick, or sight to the blind, or bread to the hungry in the wilderness, or any thing else whatsoever; or the giving being to mankind in their creation; the giving reason to them, with their other natural faculties; the giving them life and breath; the giving them the beautiful form of their bodies; the giving them life at the general resurrection; the giving them their glory and happiness in heaven; the prophets, and the word of God by the prophets and others; the giving the means of grace and salvation; the giving Christ, and providing means of salvation in him. Yea, I know of no one thing in Scripture wherein such signifiCant. strong expressions are used, in so great variety, or one half so often, as the bestowment of this benefit of true goodness and piety of heart. But after all, we must be faced down in it with vast confidence, that the Scriptures do not imply any more than only exhibiting means of instruction, leaving the determining and proper causing of the effect wholly with man, as the only proper, efficient, and determining cause; and that the current of Scripture is all against us, and that it is because we do not understand language, and are bigots and fools for imagining any such thing as that the Scriptures say any thing of that nature, and because the divines on our side do not understand Greek, and do not lay the Scripture 550before them, nor mind the scope of Scripture, nor consider the connexion, &c. &c. Perhaps it will be said, that every one of those scriptures, which are brought to prove efficacious grace, may have another interpretation, found out by careful and critical examination. But, alas! is that the way of the Most High’s instructing mankind, to use such a multitude of expressions, in different languages, and various different ages, all which, in their natural and most common acceptation, in all languages, nations, and ages, must undoubtedly be understood in a particular sense; yea, the whole thread and current of all that God says, according to the use of speech among mankind, tends to lead to such an understanding, and so unavoidably leads his people in all ages into such an understanding; but yet, that he means no such thing; intending only that the true meaning should not be found out, but by the means of acute criticism, which might possibly hit upon the strange, unusual, and surprising meaning?
§ 28. Instead of persons being the determining and efficient causes of their own virtue and piety, after all the moral means God uses with man, let us suppose some third person between God and the subject of this gift of virtue, to be in the very same manner the sovereignty determining cause and efficient of virtue; that he had power to bestow it on us, or cause us to be the subjects of it, just in the same manner as the Arminians suppose we ourselves have power to be the causes of our being the subjects of virtue; and that it depended on this third person’s free will, just in the same manner as now they suppose our having virtue depends on our own free will; and that God used moral means with that third person to bestow virtue on us, just in the same manner that he used moral means to persuade us to cause virtue in ourselves, and the moral means had the like tendency to operate on his will as on ours; but finally, it was left entirely to his free will to be the sole determining cause whether we should have virtue, without any such influence on his will as in the least to insure his sovereignty, and arbitrary disposal, and perfectly free self-determination; and it should be left contingent, whether he would bestow it or not; and, in these circumstances, this third person should happen to determine in our favour, and bestow virtue: now I ask, would it be proper to ascribe the matter so wholly to God, in such strong terms, and in such a great variety; to ascribe it so entirely to him as his gift; to pray to him beforehand for it; to give him thanks, to give him all the glory, &c.? On the contrary, would not this determining cause, whose arbitrary, self-determined, self-possessed, sovereign will, decides the matter, be properly looked upon as the main cause, vastly the most proper cause, the truest author and bestower of the benefit? Would not he be, as it were, all in the cause? Would not the glory properly belong to him, on whose pleasure the determination of the matter properly depended?
§ 29. By regeneration, being new creatures, raised from death in sin, in the New Testament, is not meant merely persons’ being brought into the state and privileges of professing Christians, according to Dr. Taylor. When Christ says unto Nicodemus, John iii. 3. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God;” he does not mean merely, that unless a man be brought to a participation of the new state and privileges of the Christian church, he cannot enter on the possession and privileges of the Christian church; for that would be nonsense, and only to say, unless a man be born again, he cannot be born again; or, unless a man enter into the new state of things, as erected by the Messiah, he cannot enter on the new state of things as erected by the Messiah. Nor can he mean, that unless a man be a professing Christian, he cannot see the future and eternal privileges of the kingdom of heaven, for he supposes many heathens will see the kingdom of God in that sense.
And how unreasonable would it be to suppose that Christ would teach this doctrine of the necessity of being instated in his new-modelled church, as such a great, important, and main doctrine of his!
Taylor, to make out his scheme, is forced to suppose, that by being born of God is meant two things in the New Testament, (see p. 127. of his Key, and on Original Sin, p. 144, &c.) So he is forced to suppose, that by the kingdom of God is meant two things, (p. 125. marginal note, and other places,) and so he supposes two senses of our being of the truth, our being of or in God, and knowing God, (see p. 127. marginal note.) He is forced to suppose that many of the expressions, signifying antecedent blessings, are to be taken in a double sense, (see p. 138. No. 243, &c.) See how evidently being born of God signifies something else than a being brought into the state of professing Christians, 1 John ii. 29. “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doth righteousness is born of him.” Chap. iii. ” Whatsoever is born of God, doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” Chap. iv. 8. “Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” Chap. v. 4. “Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world.” Ver. 18. “We know that whosoever is born of God, sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself; and that wicked one toucheth him not.”
So it is exceeding apparent, that knowing God, and being of God, and in God, having this hope in him, &c. mean something beside our Christian profession, and principles, and privileges. 1 John ii. 3,. &c. “Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected. Hereby know we that we are in him.” Chap. iii. “Every one that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” Chap. iii. 14. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.” Chap. iv. 12. “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us.” Taylor supposes that this same apostle, by being born of God, means being received to the privileges of professing Christians. John i. 12. (p. 49.) 1 John v. 1. and ver. 18. (p. 48.) 1 John iii. 1. (p. 49.)
§ 30. Why does the apostle say, concerning apostates, “they were not of us: if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us; 494494 1 John ii. 19. ” if it be, as Dr. Taylor supposes, that professing Christians are indeed of the society of Christians to all intents and purposes, have all their privileges, are truly the children of God, members of Christ, of the household of God, saints, believers that have obtained like precious faith, are all one body, have one spirit, one faith, one inheritance, have their hearts purified and sanctified, are all the children of light, are all of the household of God, fellow-citizens with the saints, have all fellowship with Christ, &c.?
§ 31. It is true, the nation of the Jews are in the Old Testament said to be elected, called, created, made, formed, redeemed, delivered, saved, bought, purchased, begotten. But particular Jews are no where so spoken of, at least with reference to the same thing, viz. their national redemption, when they were brought out of Egypt, &c.
David, in the book of Psalms, though he is so abundant there in giving thanks to God for his mercies, and is also so frequent in praising God for God’s redeeming his people out of Egypt, and the salvation God wrought for the nation and church of Israel at that time; yet he never once blesses God (having respect to that salvation) that God had chosen him and redeemed him, bought him, regenerated him; never (having reference to that affair) speaks in the language of the apostle, “He loved me, and gave himself for me:” though he often speaks of the blessedness of those men God had chose, and caused to come nigh unto him, agreeably to the language of the New Testament, and often blesses God for redeeming and saving him in particular; but never, in any of these things, has he respect to those national privileges, nor indeed any other of the penmen of the Psalms; which is very strange, if the privilege of being bought, made, created, &c. as applied to the nation of the Jews, be that which the apostle in the New Testament applies to himself in particular, and which this and the other apostles applied to many other particular persons.
§ 32. That professing Christians are said to be sanctified, washed, &c. does not argue, that all professing Christians are so in fact. For Taylor himself says, ” it should be carefully observed, that’ll is very common in the sacred writings to express not only our Christian privileges, but also the duty to which they oblige, in the present or preterperfect tense; 551or to speak of that as done, which only ought to be done, and which, in fact, may possibly never be done: as in Matt. v. 13. “Ye are the salt of the earth,” that is, ye ought to be. Rom. ii. 4. “The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance;” that is, ought to lead thee: chap. vi. 2. chap. viii. 9. Col. iii. 3. 1 Pet. i. 6. “Wherein ye greatly rejoice;” i. e. ought to rejoice. 2 Cor. iii. 18. “We all with open face (enjoying the means of) beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are (ought to be, enjoy the means of being) changed into the same image from glory to glory.” 1 Cor. v. 7. “Ye are unleavened,” i. e. obliged by the Christian profession to be. Heb. xiii. 14. “We seek (i. e. we ought to seek, or according to our profession, we seek) a city to come.” 1 John ii. 12-15. iii. 9. v. 4-18. and in other places. See Taylor’s Key, p. 139. No. 244. and p. 144. No. 246. This overthrows all his supposed proofs, that those which he calls antecedent blessings do really belong to all professing Christians.
§ 33. The case was quite otherwise in the Christian church with regard to election, redemption, creation, &c. from what it was with the Jews. With the Jews, election, their redemption out of Egypt, their creation, was a national thing; it began with them as a nation, and descended, as it were, from the nation, to particular persons. Particular persons were first of the nation and church of the Jews; so, by that means, had an interest in their election, redemption, &c. that God wrought of old. The being of the nation and church of Israel, was the ground of a participation in these privileges. 495495 It is much to be doubted whether our author is correct in the material distinction he here makes between the Jewish and Christian dispensations. The reader will consider whether privileges and blessings were not personal as much under the one as the other. But it is evident it is contrariwise in Christians. With regard to them, the election, redemption, creation, regeneration, &c. are personal things. They begin with particular persons, and ascend to public societies. Men are first redeemed, bought, created, regenerated, and by that means become members of the Christian church; and this is the ground of their membership. Paul’s regeneration, and Christ’s loving him, and giving himself for him, was the foundation of his being of the Christian church, that holy nation, peculiar people, &c. whereas, David’s being one of the nation of Israel, is the proper ground of his participation in Israel’s redemption out of Egypt, and of that birth and formation of the people that were at that time. It is apparent the case was thus. It cannot be otherwise. It is evident that the new creation, regeneration, calling, and justification, are personal things, because they are by personal influences; influences of God’s Spirit on particular persons, and personal qualifications.
Their regeneration was a personal thing, and therefore, it is not called simply an entering into the new creation, or obtaining a part in the new world or new Jerusalem, &c. but a putting off the old man, and putting on the new man. They are first raised from the dead, and by that means come to belong to the church of Christ. They are first lively or living stones, and by that means come to belong to the spiritual house, and the holy temple; by being lively stones, they come to be parts of the living temple, and capable of it. So that their, being alive, is prior to their belonging to the Christian church. The Christian calling is represented as being the ground of their belonging to the church. They are called into the church, called into the fellowship of Jesus Christ. Their spiritual baptism or washing, is prior to their being in the church. They are by one spirit baptized into one body. They put on Christ, and so become interested in Christ, and sharers with those that had a part in him. By such a personal work of the Spirit of God, they were first made meet to be partakers with the saints in light, before they were partakers.
§ 34. It will follow from Taylor’s scheme, that Simon the sorcerer had an interest in all the antecedent blessings. Yet the apostle tells him he was at that time in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. If he was really justified, washed, cleansed, sanctified; how was he at that time in the bond of iniquity? Justification, forgiveness, &c. is a release from the bond of iniquity. If the heart be purified by faith, it does not remain in the gall of bitterness.
§ 35. Saving grace differs from common grace, in nature and kind. To suppose only a gradual difference, would not only be to suppose, that some in a state of damnation are, within an infinitely little, as good as some in a state of salvation, (which greatly disagrees with the Arminian notion of men’s being saved by their own virtue and goodness,) but this, taken with the Arminian notion of men’s falling from grace, will naturally lead us to determine, that many that are once in a state of salvation, may be in such a state, and out of it, scores of times in a very short space. For though a person is in a state of salvation, he may be but just in it, and may be infinitely near the limits between a state of salvation and damnation; and as the habits of grace are, according to that scheme, only contracted and raised by consideration and exercise, and the exertion of the strength of the mind, and are lost when a man falls from grace by the intermission or cessation of these, and by contrary acts and exercises; and as the habits and principles of virtue are raised and sunk, brought into being and abolished by those things, and both the degree of them and the being of them wholly depend on them; the consequence will naturally be, that when a man is first raised to that degree of a virtuous disposition, as to be in a state of salvation, and the degree of virtue is almost infinitely near the dividing line, it will naturally be liable to be a little raised or sunk every hour, according as the thoughts and exercises of the mind are; as the mercury in the thermometer or barometer is never perfectly at rest, but is always rising or subsiding, according to the weight of the atmosphere, or the degree of heat.
§ 36. The dispute about grace’s being resistible or irresistible, is perfect nonsense. For the effect of grace is upon the will; so that it is nonsense, except it be proper to say, that a man with his will can resist his own will, or except it be possible for him to desire to resist his own will; that is, except it be possible for a man to will a thing and not will it at the same time, and so far as he does will it. Or if you speak of enlightening grace, and say this grace is upon the understanding; it is nothing but the same nonsense in other words. For then the sense runs thus, that a man, after he has seen so plainly that a thing is best for him that he wills it, yet he can at the same time nill it. If you say he can will any thing he pleases, this is most certainly true; for who can deny, that a man can will any thing lie doth already will? That a man can will any thing that he pleases, is just as certain as what is, is. Wherefore it is nonsense to say, that after a man has seen so plainly a thing to be so much best for him that he wills it, he could have not willed it if he had pleased; that is to say, if he had not willed it, he could have not willed it. It is certain that a man never doth any thing but what he can do. But to say, after a man has willed a thing, that he could have not willed it if he had pleased, is to suppose two wills in a man; the one to will which goes first; the other to please or choose to will. And so with the same reason we may say, there is another will to please; to please to will; and so on to a thousand. Wherefore, to say that the man could have willed otherwise if he had pleased, is just all one as to say, that if he had willed otherwise, then we might be sure he could will otherwise.
§ 37. Those that deny infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit, must, of necessity, deny the Spirit to do any thing at all. By the Spirit’s infusing, let be meant what it will, those who say there is no infusion contradict themselves. For they say the Spirit doth something in the soul; that is, he causeth some motion, or affection, or apprehension to arise in the soul, that, at the same time, would not be there without him. Now, God’s Spirit doeth what he doeth; he doth as much as he doth; or he causeth in the soul as much as he causeth, let that be how little soever. So much as is purely the effect of his immediate motion, that is the effect of his immediate motion, let that be what it will; and so much is infused, how little soever that be. This is self-evident. For suppose the Spirit of God only to assist the natural powers, then there is something done betwixt them. Men’s own powers do something, and God’s Spirit doth something; only they work together. Now that part that the Spirit doth, how little soever it be, 552 is infused. So that they that deny infused habits, own that part of the habit is infused. For they say, the Holy Spirit assists the man in acquiring the habit; so that it is acquired rather sooner than it would be otherwise- So that part of the habit is owing to the Spirit; some of the strength of the habit was infused, and another part is owing to the natural powers of the man. Or if you say not so, but that it is all owing to the natural power assisted; how do you mean assisted? To act more lively and vigorously than otherwise? Then that liveliness and vigorousness must be infused; which is a habit, and therefore an infused habit. It is grace, and therefore infused grace. Grace consists very much in a principle that causes vigorousness and activity in action! This is infusion, even in the sense of the opposite party. So that, if any operation of the Holy Spirit at all is allowed, the dispute is only, how much is infused? The one says, a great deal; the other says, but little.
§ 38. 1st. The main thing meant by the word efficacious, is this, it being decisive. This seems to be the main question. 2d. Its being immediate and arbitrary in that sense, as not to be limited to the laws of nature. 3d. That the principles of grace are supernatural in that sense, that they are entirely different from all that is in the heart before conversion. 4th. That they are infused, and not contracted by custom and exercise. 5th. That the change is instantaneous, and not gradual. These four last heads may be subdivisions of a second general head; so that the divisions may be thus: 1st. The main thing meant is, that it is decisive: 2d. That it is immediate and supernatural. The four last of the heads mentioned above, may be subdivisions of this last.
So that there are two things relating to the doctrine of efficacious grace, wherein lies the main difference between the Calvinists and Arminians as to this doctrine. First, That the grace of God is determining and decisive as to the conversion of a sinner, or a man’s becoming a good man, and having those virtuous qualifications that entitle to an interest in Christ and his salvation. Secondly, That the power, and grace, and operation of the Holy Spirit, in, or towards, the conversion of a sinner, is immediate: that the habit of true virtue or holiness is immediately implanted or infused; that the operation goes so far, that a man has habitual holiness given him instantly, wholly by the operation of the Spirit of God, and not gradually by assistance concurring with our endeavours, so as gradually to advance virtue into a prevailing habit. And besides these, Thirdly, It is held by many of late, that there is no immediate interposition of God; but that all is done by general laws.
The former is that which is of greatest importance or consequence in the controversy with Arminians, (though the others are also very important,) and this, only, is what I shall consider in this place; perhaps the others may be considered, God willing, in some other discourse.
§ 39. Concerning what the Arminians say, that these are speculative points; all devotion greatly depends on a sense and acknowledgment of our dependence on God. But this is one of the very chief things belonging to our dependence on God: how’ much stress do the Scriptures lay on our dependence on God! All assistance of the Spirit of God whatsoever, that is by any present influence or effect of the Spirit; any thing at all that a person that is converted from sin to God is the subject of, through any immediate influence of the Spirit of God upon him, or any thing done by the Spirit, since the completing and confirming the canon of the Scriptures, must be done by a physical operation, either on the soul or body.
The Holy Spirit of God does something to promote virtue in men’s hearts, and to make them good beyond what the angels can do. But the angels can present motives; can excite ideas of the words of promises and threatenings, &c. and can persuade in this way by moral means; as is evident, because the devils in this way promote vice.
§ 40. There is no objection made to God’s producing any effects, or causing any events, by any immediate interposition, producing effects arbitrarily, or by the immediate efforts of his will, but what lies equally against his ordering it so, that any effects should be produced by the immediate interposition of men’s will, to produce effects otherwise than the established laws of nature would have produced without men’s arbitrary interposition.
I beg the reader’s attention to the following quotations ” That otherwise, the world cannot be the object of inquiry and science, and far less of imitation by arts: since imitation necessarily presupposes a certain, determinate object, or fixed ascertainable relations and connexions of things; and that, upon the contrary supposition, the world must be absolutely unintelligible. Nature, in order to be understood by us, must always speak the same language to us. It must therefore stedfastly observe the same general laws in its operations, or work uniformly, and according to stated, invariable methods and rules. Those terms, order, beauty, general good, &c. plainly include, in their meaning, analogy; and constancy, uniformity amidst variety; or, in other words, the regular observance of general settled laws, in the make and economy, production, and operations or effects, of any object to which they are ascribed. Wherever order, fixed connexions, or general laws and unity of design take place, there is certainty in the nature of such objects, and so knowledge may be acquired. But where these do not obtain, there can be nothing but unconnected independent parts. All must be disorder and confusion; and consequently such a loose disjointed heap of things must be an inexplicable chaos. In one word, science, prudence, government, imitation, and art, necessarily suppose the prevalence of general laws throughout all the objects in nature to which they reach. No being can know itself, project or pursue any scheme, or lay down any maxims for its conduct, but so far as its own constitution is certain, and the connexion of things relative to it are fixed and constant. For so far only are things ascertainable; and therefore, so far only can rules be drawn from them.” Turnbull’s Mor. Phil. Part. I. Introd.
“The exercise of all moral powers, dispositions, and affections of mind, as necessarily presuppose an established order of nature or general laws settled by the author of nature with respect to them, as the exercise of our bodily senses about qualities and effects of corporeal beings do with regard to them. We could neither acquire knowledge of any kind, contract habits, or attain to any moral perfection whatsoever, unless the author of our nature had appointed and fixed certain laws relating to our moral powers, and their exercises and acquisitions.” Ibid. p. 13, 14. Yet this Turnbull strenuously holds a self-determining power in the will of man. Such like arguments, if they are valid against any interposition at all, will prevail against all interposition of God or man, and against the interposition of God ever to bring the world to an end, or amend it; and prove that all shall be according to general laws. And they might as well argue that the making of the world top was by general laws. If it be said, that it is of great importance and absolute necessity that God should at last interpose and rectify the course of nature I answer, this is yielding the point, that, in cases of great importance, it is reasonable to suppose there may be an interposition that may be arbitrary, and not by general laws.
§ 41. It is not necessary that men should be able, by the connexions of things, to know all future events; nor was this ever in the Creator’s designs. If it had been so, he could have enabled them to know the future volitions of men, and those events that depend upon them, which are by far the most important.
§ 42. The nature of virtue being a positive thing, can proceed from nothing but God’s immediate influence, and must take its rise from creation or infusion by God. For it must be either from that, or from our own choice and production, either at once or gradually, by diligent culture. But it cannot begin or take its rise from the latter, »»z. our choice or voluntary diligence. For if there exist nothing at all of the nature of virtue before, it cannot come from cultivation; for by the supposition there is nothing of the nature of virtue “to cultivate, it cannot be by repeated and multiplied acts of virtuous choice, till it becomes a habit. For there can be no one virtuous choice unless God immediately gives it. The first virtuous choice, or a disposition to it, must be immediately given, or it must proceed from a preceding choice. If the first 553virtuous act of will or choice be from a preceding act of will or choice, that preceding act of choice must be a virtuous act of choice, which is contrary to the supposition. For then there would be a preceding act of choice before the first virtuous act of choice. And if it be said the first virtuous act of choice is from a preceding act of will which is not virtuous, this is absurd. For an act of will not virtuous, cannot produce another act of will of a nature entirely above itself, having something positive in it which the cause has nothing of, and more excellent than it is; any more than motion can produce thought or understanding; or the collision of two bodies can produce thought; or stones and lead can produce a spirit; or nothing can produce something.
§ 43. As to man’s inability to convert himself In them that are totally corrupt there can be no tendency towards their making their hearts better, till they begin to repent of the badness of their hearts. For if they do not repent they still approve of it; and that tends to maintain their badness and confirm it. But they cannot begin sincerely to repent of the badness of their hearts ml their hearts begin to be better, for repentance consists in a change of the mind and heart. So that it is not men’s repentance that first gives rise to their having a better heart; and therefore it cannot be any tendency in them to make their hearts better, that gives rise to it. The heart can have no tendency to make itself better, till it begins to have a better tendency; for therein consists its badness, vii. its having no good tendency or inclination. And to begin to have a good tendency, or, which is the same thing, a tendency and inclination to be better, is the same thing as to begin already to be better. And therefore the heart’s inclination to be good, cannot be the thing that first gives rise to its being made good. For its inclination to be better, is the same thing with its becoming better.
§ 44. If there be any immediate influence or action of the Spirit of God at all on any created beings, in any part of the universe since the days of the apostles, it is physical. If it be in exciting ideas of motives, or in any respect assisting or promoting any effect, still it is physical; and every whit as much so, as if we suppose the temper and nature of the heart is immediately changed. And it is as near akin to a miracle. If the latter be miraculous, so is the former.
§ 45. Who ever supposed that the term irresistible was properly used with respect to that power by which an infant is brought into being; meaning, irresistible by the infant? Or who ever speaks of a man’s waking out of a sound sleep irresistibly, meaning, that he cannot resist awaking? Or who says, that Adam was formed out of the dust of the earth irresistibly? See what I have said of the use of such terms as irresistible, unfrustrable, &c. in my Inquiry about Liberty.
§ 46. The opponents of efficacious grace and physical operation, may be challenged to show that it is possible that any creature should become righteous without a physical operation, either a being created with the habit of righteousness, or its being immediately infused. See what I have written in my book of Original Sin, in those sections wherein 1 vindicate the doctrine of original righteousness, and argue, that if Adam was not created righteous, no way can be invented how he could ever become righteous.
§ 47. As to that, Matthew vii. 7. “Seek and ye shall find;” it is explained by such places as that, Deut. iv. 29. “But if from thence thou shall seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” And by Deut. xxx. 2-6. “If thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice with all thy heart and with all thy soul; the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;” which is very parallel with that,” to him that hath shall be given.”
§ 48. The Scripture teacheth that holiness, both in principle and fruit, is from God. “It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure. 496496 Phil. ii.13. ” And Prov. xvi. 1. “The preparation of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord.” Comparing this with other parts of the book of Proverbs, evinces that it is a moral preparation, and the answer of the tongue in moral regards, that is meant.
§ 49. Reason shows that the first existence of a principle of virtue cannot be from man himself, nor in any created being whatsoever; but must be immediately given from God; or that otherwise it never can be obtained, whatever this principle be, whether love to God or love to men. It must either be from God, or be a habit contracted by repeated acts. But it is most absurd to suppose that the first existence of the principle of holy action, should be preceded by a course of holy actions. Because there can be no holy action without a principle of holy inclination. There can be no act done from lore, that shall be the cause of first introducing the very existence of love.
§ 50. God is said to give true virtue and piety of heart to man; to work it in him, to create it, to form it, and with regard to it we are said to be his workmanship. Yea, that there may be no room to understand it in some improper sense, it is often declared as the peculiar character of God, that he assumes it as his character to be the author and giver of true virtue, in his being called the Sanctifier; he that sanctifieth us. “I am he that sanctifieth you.” This is spoken of as the great prerogative of God, Lev. xx. 8. and other parallel places. He declares expressly that this effect shall be connected with his act, or with what he shall do in order to it. “I will sprinkle clean water, and you shall be clean. 497497 Ezek. xxxvi. 25. ” What God does is often spoken of as thoroughly effectual; the effect is infallibly consequent. “Turn us, and we shall be turned. 498498 Lam. v. 21. ” Jesus Christ has the great character of a Saviour on this account, that “he saves his people from their sins. 499499 Matt. i. 21. ” See Rom. xi. 26