Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 29 cont 2
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 29 cont 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
This explains the statement in the sermon on Luk_22:31 that there is no essential difference between that principle of grace which believers have, and that original holiness which our first parents and the angels had. *94* Edwards thought of original righteousness as nothing other than the indwelling of the Spirit, and of the Fall as His departure.
The degree to which believers possess the Holy Spirit in this life is but an earnest of the fullness with which they shall later receive him, Eph_1:14. Edwards often speaks of the meager degree of grace that saints in this life possess. In his Original Sin, he estimates that sin has far more expression in the Christian than virtue (though it is not the prevailing principle). But that precipitates an objection:
that the argument seems to prove too much, in that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin than holiness; which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would follow, that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly pious; which is plainly contrary to the Word of God.
I answer, if it be indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness, than there is of holiness in good men in this world; yet it will not follow, that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice for two reasons.
1. They may love God more than other things, and yet there may not be so much love, as there is want of due love; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox: a person may love a father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be chargeable,
all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and gratitude, that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive principles of sin; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other things besides God. And therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the governing influence. The
predominancy of the love of God in the hearts of good men is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object is one of supreme loveliness; immensely above all other objects in worthiness of regard; and ’tis by such a transcendent excellency, that he is
God, and worthy to be regarded and adored as God, and he that truly loves God, loves him as God. True love acknowledges him to be God, or to be divinely and supremely excellent, and must arise from some knowledge, sense and conviction of his worthiness of supreme respect. And though the sense and view of it may be very
imperfect, and the love that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realizing view of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.
2. Another reason, why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God’s strength and assistance to be on its side, and to help it against its enemy, that it may not be
overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its Author and Finisher, and derives strength and efficacy from the divine Fountain, and by this means overcomes. For, as the Apostle says, “This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith” (1Jn_5:4). ’Tis our faith in him who has promised, never to leave nor forsake his people, and not to forsake the work of his own hands, nor suffer his people to be tempted above their ability, and that his grace shall be sufficient for them, and that his strength shall be made perfect in weakness, and that where he has begun a good work he will carry it on to the day of Christ. *95*
It may seem strange in the light of what has just been said to find this statement in another sermon: “When men under convictions are put upon fleeing, it is a mere force, it is because God lays hold on their hands, as he did on Lot’s and his wife’s, and drags them so far.” *96* But this is another aspect of the experience. Here God is not changing the nature, but overcoming it. In the case of Lot’s wife, who never was converted, that is all that God did do. Lot, who was a converted man and therefore a man whose nature had been changed, did not have the corruptions of his old nature removed and hence God was obliged, on occasions such as this, to overcome that nature (as he did before he was converted). But the saving acceptance of Christ is not forced, but voluntary. None,
Edwards insists, is forced to come to Christ; it is a “free choice.” *97* They shall be made willing in the day of God’s power. So he pleads for a free response to his invitation:
“God has sent me to you to make you the offer. Christ has sent me to give you an invitation.”
So, then, the invitation is given to all, and no one who gets Christ gets him any other way than by a “free choice.” Nevertheless, no natural man, says Edwards, makes choice of God until that man is converted. *98* God must first choose us before we choose him. Our choice rests on his sovereignty. It is but a peradventure, whether God will ever give
them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. *99* When God does give this grace, no man will resist because no man can resist the loveliness of Christ when once he sees it. Edwards scores the Arminian doctrine of resistance to grace. *100*
We may conclude this section with a question concerning the relation between regeneration and illumination. Both mark the very beginning of the Christian life. How are they related to each other? They seem in their beginning not to be mutually dependent. That is, the illumination does not seem to depend on the regeneration, nor the regeneration on the illumination. The illumination comes from God immediately, not from the nature, even the regenerate nature, of man. Nor can the regeneration come from the illumination. The amiableness of the divine attributes is always there, but it is never seen by the carnal nature of man. The natural man is totally destitute of this “knowledge.” Therefore, when a person sees the light he is no longer an unconverted person. Unconverted persons cannot see it in order to become changed. They must be
changed in order to see it. Therefore the conversion must come directly from God even as the light does. But they must come simultaneously. When the light dawns, at that very moment the spiritual eyes are opened. These two phenomena are not causally related, it would seem, but only occasionally. This is Edwards’ soteriological “pre-established harmony.”
To sum up Edwards’ teaching on regeneration I will conclude this chapter with some selections from:
§ 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_31:18-19. “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_5:21. “Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned.” *101*
§ 12. . . . 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 be 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 effects, limits himself to certain exact and stated rules, revealed in his word, and established by his promises? *102*
§ 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 endeavors.
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, than 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.” 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.
I. 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 endeavor, 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 mens 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 endeavoring 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 half way 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. If 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 principal 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 aforementioned 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 promiseto 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 pretended 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; either 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? 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? 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. *103*
§ 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 before 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 Highs 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? *104*
§ 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 he 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. *105*
§ 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 till 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, viz. 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. *106*
§ 64. In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some, and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, viz. our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are, in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.
In the Scriptures the same things are represented as from God and from us. God is said to convert, and men are said to convert and turn. God makes a new heart, and we are commanded to make us a new heart. God circumcises the heart, and we are commanded to circumcise our own hearts; not merely because we must use the means in order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act and our duty. These things are agreeable to that text, “God worketh in you both to will and to do.” *107*
§ 72. When I say that the acts and influences of the Spirit determine the effects, it is not meant that man has nothing to do to determine the affair. The soul of man undoubtedly, in every instance, does voluntarily determine with respect to his own consequent actions. But this determination of the will of man, or voluntary determination of the soul of man, is the effect determined. This determining act of the soul is not denied, but supposed, as it is the effect we are speaking of, that the influence of God’s Spirit determines. *108*
§ 79. . . . Men’s salvation is attributed wholly and entirely to men in their [the Arminians’] scheme, and none of the praise of it is due to God, as will most evidently appear, if the matter be considered with a little attention. For, 1. They hold that man’s salvation is given as a reward of man’s virtue; so is pardon of sin, deliverance from hell, and eternal life and glory in heaven; all is for man’s virtue. 2. Rewardable virtue wholly consists in the exercise of a man’s own free will. They hold that a man’s actions are no farther virtuous nor rewardable, than as they are from man himself. If they are partly from some foreign cause, so far they are not rewardable. It being so, that that virtue which is rewardable in man, is entirely from man himself; hence it is to himself wholly that he is to ascribe his obtaining the reward. If the virtue, which is that thing, and that thing only, which obtains the reward, be wholly from man himself, then it will surely follow, that his obtaining the reward is wholly from himself.
All their arguments suppose, that men’s actions are no farther virtuous and rewardable, than as they are from themselves, the fruits of their own free will and self-determination. And men’s own virtue, they say, is the only condition of salvation, and so must be the only thing by which salvation is obtained. And this being of themselves only, it surely follows, that their obtaining salvation is of themselves only.
They say, their scheme gives almost all the glory to God. That matter, I suppose, may easily be determined, and it may be made to appear beyond all contest, how much they do ascribe to the man, and how much they do not.
By them, salvation is so far from God, that it is God that gives opportunity to obtain salvation; it is God that gives the offer and makes the promise: but the obtaining of the thing promised is of men. The being of the promise is of God; but their interest in it is wholly of themselves, of their own free will. And furthermore, it is to be observed, that even God’s making the offer, and giving the opportunity to obtain salvation, at least that which consists in salvation from eternal misery, is not of God, so as to be owing to any proper grace or goodness of his. For they suppose he was obliged to make the offer, and it would have been a reproach to his justice, if he had not given an opportunity to obtain salvation. For they hold, it is unjust for God to make men miserable for Adam’s sin; and that it is unjust to punish them for that sin that they cannot avoid; and that, therefore, it is unjust for God not to preserve or save all men that do what they can, or use their sincere endeavours to do their duty; and therefore it certainly follows, that it is unjust in God not to give all opportunity to be saved or preserved from misery; and consequently, it is no fruit at all of any grace or kindness in him to give such opportunity, or to make the offer of it. So that, all that is the fruit of God’s kindness in man’s salvation, is the positive happiness that belongs to salvation. But neither of these two things are in any respect whatsoever the fruit of God’s kindness, neither his deliverance from sin, nor from misery in his virtue and holiness; and when hereafter he shall see the misery of the damned, he will have it to consider, that it is owing in no respect to God that he is delivered from that misery. And that good men differ from others that shall burn in hell to all eternity, is wholly owing to themselves. When they, at the day of judgment, shall behold some set on the left hand of the Judge, while they are on his right hand, and shall see how they differ, they may, and, as they would act according to truth, they ought to take all the glory of it unto themselves; and therefore the glory of their salvation belongs to them. For it is evident that a man’s making himself to differ with regard to any great spiritual benefit, and his not receiving it from another, but his having it in distinction from others, being from himself, is ground of a man’s boasting and glorying in himself, with respect to that benefit, and of boasting of it: I say, it is evident by the apostle’s words, “Who maketh thee to differ? Why boasteth thou, as though thou hadst not received it?” These words plainly imply it.
It is evident, that it is God’s design to exclude man’s boasting in the affair of his salvation. Now, let us consider what does give ground for boasting in the apostle’s account, and what it is that in his account excludes boasting, or cuts off occasion for it. It is evident by what the apostle says, 1 Cor. i. latter end, that the entireness and universality of our dependence on God, is that which cuts off occasion of boasting; as, our receiving our wisdom, our holiness, and redemption through Christ, and not through ourselves; that Christ is made to us wisdom, justification, holiness, and redemption; and not only so, but that it is of God that we have any part in Christ; Of him are ye in Christ Jesus: nay, further, that it is from God we receive those benefits of wisdom, holiness, &c. through the Saviour that we are interested in.
The import of all these things, if we may trust to scripture representations, is, that God has contrived to exclude our glorying; that we should be wholly and every way dependent on God, for the moral and natural good that belongs to salvation; and that we have all from the hand of God, by his power and grace. And certainly this is wholly inconsistent with the idea that our holiness is wholly from ourselves; and that we are interested in the benefits of Christ rather than others, is wholly of our own decision. And that such a universal dependence is what takes away occasion of taking glory to ourselves, and is a proper ground of an ascription of all the glory of the things belonging to man’s salvation to God, is manifest from Rom_11:35-36. “Or who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and to him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
The words are remarkable, and very significant. *109* If we look into all the foregoing discourse, from the beginning of Romans chapter 9 of which this is the conclusion, by not giving to God, but having all this wholly from, through, and in God, is intended that these things, these great benefits forementioned, are thus from God, without being from or through ourselves. That some of the Jews were distinguished from others in enjoying the privileges of Christians, was not of themselves; not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. It is of him who has mercy on whom he will have mercy. It is of God who makes of the same lump, a vessel to honour and a vessel unto dishonour. It is not of us, nor our works, but of the calling of God, or of him that calleth, chap. 9:11 and 23, 24. Not first of our choice, but of election, Rom_9:11-27. and chap. 11:5. It is all of the grace of God in such a manner, as not to be of our works at all; yea, and so as to be utterly inconsistent with its being of our works; chap. 11:5-7. In such a manner as not first to be of their seeking; their seeking does not determine, but God’s election; Rom_11:7. It is of God, and not of man, that some were gathered in, that were wild olive branches in themselves, and were more unlikely as to any thing in themselves to be branches, than others, verse 17. Their being grafted in, is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness, while he was pleased to use severity towards others, verse 22. Yea, God has so ordered it, on purpose that all should be shut up in unbelief; be left to be so sinful, that he might have mercy on all; so as more visibly to show the salvation of all to be merely dependent on mercy. Then the apostle fitly concludes all this discourse, Rom_11:35-36. “Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and to him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
Again, in the apostle’s account, a benefit’s being of our works, gives occasion for boasting, and therefore God has contrived that our salvation shall not be of our works, but of mere grace, Rom_3:27; Eph_2:9. And that neither the salvation, nor the condition of it, shall be of our works, but that, with regard to all, we are God’s workmanship and his creation antecedently to our works; and his grace and power in producing this workmanship, and his determination or purpose with regard to them, are all prior to our works and the cause of them. See also Rom_11:4-6.
And it is evident, that man’s having virtue from himself, and not receiving it from another, and making himself to differ with regard to great spiritual benefits, does give ground for boasting, by the words of the apostle in Rom_3:27. And this is allowed by those men in spiritual gifts. And if so in them, more so in greater things; more so in that which in itself is a thousand times more excellent, and of ten thousand times greater importance and benefit.
By the Arminian scheme, that which is infinitely the most excellent thing, viz. virtue and holiness, which the apostle sets forth as being infinitely the most honourable, and will bring the subjects of it to infinitely the greatest and highest honour, that which is infinitely the highest dignity of man’s nature of all things that belong to man’s salvation; in comparison of which, all things belonging to that salvation are nothing; that which does infinitely more than any thing else constitute the difference between them and others, as more excellent, more worthy, more honourable and happy; this is from themselves. With regard to this they have not received of another. With regard to this great thing, they, and they only, make themselves to differ from others; and this difference proceeds not at all from the power or grace of God. . . .
Virtue is not only the most honourable attainment, but it is that which men, on the supposition of their being possessed of it, are more apt to glory in, than in any thing else whatsoever. For what are men so apt to glory in as their own supposed excellency, as in their supposed virtue? And what sort of glorying is that, which, it is evident in fact, the Scriptures do chiefly guard against? It is glorying in their own righteousness, their own holiness, their own good works.
It is manifest, that in the apostle’s account, it is a proper consideration to prevent our boasting, that our distinction from others is not of ourselves, not only in being distinguished in having better gifts and better principles, but in our being made partakers of the great privileges of Christians, such as being engrafted into Christ, and partaking of the fatness of that olive-tree. Rom_11:17-18. “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, boast not against the branches.”
Here it is manifest, it is the distinction that was made between some and others, that is the thing insisted on; and the apostle, verse 22, calls upon them to consider this great distinction, and to ascribe it to the distinguishing goodness of God only. “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness.” And its being owing, not to them, but to God and his distinguishing goodness, is the thing the apostle urges as a reason why they should not boast, but magnify God’s grace or distinguishing goodness. And if it be a good reason, and the scheme of our salvation be every way so contrived (as the apostle elsewhere signifies) that all occasion of boasting should be precluded, and all reasons given to ascribe all to God’s grace; then it is doubtless so ordered, that the greatest privileges, excellency, honour, and happiness of Christians, should be that wherein they do not distinguish themselves, but the difference is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness. . . . *110*