Section 5.
SECTION 5.
The doctrines of free grace and free will are farther maintained against Honestus and Zelotes by a variety of Scripture arguments. I FLATTER myself that the harmonious opposition of the scriptures, produced in the preceding sections, demonstrates the truth of the Gospel axioms. But lest prejudice hinder Honestus and Zelotes from yielding to conviction, I present them with some Scriptural arguments, which, like so many buttresses, will, I hope, support the doctrines of free grace and free will, and render them as firm as their solid basis, — REASON and REVELATION. I begin with the doctrine of free grace.
1. How gladly would Honestus stoop to, and triumph in free grace, if he considered the force of such scriptures! “Without me you can do nothing. What hast thou which thou hast not received,” in a remote or immediate manner? “We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Who hath first given him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, &c, are all things.”
2. We cannot do an action that is truly good without faith and love; and the least degree of true faith and genuine love springs first from free grace; for “faith is the gift of God, love is the fruit of his Spirit:” and when the apostle wishes charity to his converts, he wishes it to them “from God the Father, who is the author of every good and perfect gift.” Now if our every good thought, word, and work, spring from faith and love; and if faith and love spring from God; is it not evident that he is the first cause of our genuine righteousness, as well as of our existence?
3. When God says, “Ask and you shall have,” does he not show himself the original of all that we want for body and soul, for time and eternity? And if God owes us nothing, if “the help, that is done upon earth, the Lord originally does it himself,” is it not the height of ingratitude and pride to restrain from God, and arrogate to ourselves, the glory due to him and his infinite perfections?
4. We are commanded “in every thing to give thanks.” But if grace be not the source of all the good we do or receive, does it not follow, that in some things the original glory belongs to us, and therefore we deserve thanks before God himself? And is not this the horrid sin of antichrist, who “sitteth as God in the temple of God,” and there receives Divine honours “as if he were God?”
5. Does not reason dictate that God will not give his glory to another, and that even “the man who is his fellow,” must pay him homage? Is it not the Almighty’s incommunicable glory to be the first cause of all good, agreeably to those words of our Lord, “There is none good [i.e. self good, and truly self righteous] but God,” from whom goodness and righteousness flow, as light and heat do from the sun? How dangerous then, how dreadful is the error of the self righteous, who are above stooping to Divine goodness, and giving it its due! If robbing a Church of its ornaments is sacrilege, how sacrilegious is the pride of a Pharisee, who, by claiming original goodness, robs God’s grace of its indisputable honours, and God himself of his incommunicable glory!
6. To show Christians how ridiculous and satanic the pride of the self righteous is, I need only remind them that Christ himself — “Christ the righteous” (as the Son of David) declined all self righteousness. Did he not call his works “the works that I do in my Father’s name,” or by my Father’s grace? And did he not, as it were, annihilate himself, when he said, “Why callest thou me GOOD,” without any reference to the Godhead, of which I am the living temple? “I can do nothing of myself. I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he does the works. Learn of me to be lowly in heart?” What real Christian can read such scriptures without learning to disclaim all self righteousness, and to abhor Pharisaic dotages? If Honestus be a reasonable Christian I need say no more to reconcile him to free grace.
I know not which of the two extremes is the most abominable, that of the Pharisee, who, by slighting free grace, will not allow God to be the first cause of all our good works; or that of the Antinomian, who, by exploding free will, indirectly represents the Parent of good as the first cause of all our wickedness. This last error is that of Zelotes, to whom I recommend the following arguments: —
1. All rationals (as such) are necessarily endued with free will, otherwise reason and conscience would be powers as absurdly bestowed upon them, as persuasiveness upon a carp, and a taste for music upon an oyster. What are reason and conscience but powers, by which we distinguish right from wrong, that we may choose the one and refuse the other? And how do they reflect upon God’s wisdom, who suppose that he gave and restored to man these powers, without giving him a capacity to use them? And what can this capacity be, if it be not free will? As surely then as wings and legs prove that eagles have a power to fly, and hares to run; whether they fly or run toward the sportsman’s destructive weapon, or from it; so surely do reason and conscience demonstrate that men are endued with liberty, i.e. have a power to choose, whether they make a right or a wrong choice. Again:
2. What is a human soul? You justly answer, “It is a thinking, willing, accountable creature.” And I reply, from the very nature of our soul, then, it is evident that we are, and ever shall be, free-willing beings. For the moment souls have lost their power of thinking and willing freely, they are no longer accountable; moral laws are as improper for them as for raging billows. None but fools would attempt to rule delirious persons, and mad men by penal laws. The reason is plain: people stark mad, thinking freely no longer, are no longer free willers; and being no longer free willers, they are no more considered as moral agents. So certain then as man is a reasonable, accountable creature, he is endued with free will: for all rationals under God are accountable, and all accountable beings have more or less power over themselves and their actions. “He [the Lord] himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. If thou wilt keep the commandments, and perform acceptable faithfulness. He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death, and whether him liketh shall be given him,” Ecclus. 15:14, &c. The tempter therefore may allure, but cannot force us to do evil; and God himself so wisely invites, and so gently draws us to obedience, as not to turn the scale for us in an irresistible manner.
3. O the absurdity of supposing that “God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness,” if the world be not capable of making a right and wrong choice; and if Christ, Adam or the devil absolutely turn the scale of our morals for us! O the blot upon God’s wisdom, when he is represented as rewarding men with heavenly thrones, for having done the good which they could no more avoid doing than rivers can prevent their flowing! O the dishonour done to his justice, when he is represented as sentencing men to everlasting burnings, for committing sin as necessarily as a leaden ball tends to the centre!
4. If free grace do all in believers without free will, why does David say, “The Lord is my helper?” Why does our Church pray, after the psalmist, “Make haste to help me?” Why does St. Paul declare that “the Spirit itself f34 helpeth our infirmities?” Why did he not say, I can do absolutely nothing, instead of saying, “I can do all things through the Lord who strengtheneth me?” And when Christ had said, “Without me ye can do nothing,” why did he not correct himself, and declare that we can do nothing with him, and that he alone must do all? Nay, why does St. Paul apply to himself and others, when they work with God, the very same word that St. Mark applies to God, when he works with men? “We are sunergoi, workers together with God,” 1 Corinthians 3:9. “The Lord sunergountov, working together with them,” Mark 16:20.
5. Do not all the PROMISES, the performance of which is suspended upon some terms to be performed by us through Divine assistance, prove the concurrence of free grace with free will? When God says, “Seek, and you shall find. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. Come unto me, and I will give you rest. Return to me, and I will return to you,” &c; when God, I say, speaks this language, who does not see free grace courting and alluring free will? Free grace says, “Seek ye my face;” and free will answers, “Thy face, Lord, will I seek.” On the other hand, unbelievers know that so long as their free will refuses to submit to the terms fixed by free grace, the promise miscarries, and God himself declares, “Ye shall know my breach of promise,” Numbers 14:34.
6. As the promises, which free grace makes to submissive free will, prove the doctrine of the Gospel axioms; so do the THREATENINGS, which anxious free grace denounces, lest it should be rejected by free will. Take also two or three examples: — “I will cast them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. He that believeth not shall be damned. If we sin wilfully, [i.e. obstinately, and to the last moment of our day of grace,] after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth [for us,] &c, a fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries,” &c. Who does not see here that free grace, provoked by inflexible free will, can, and will act the part of inflexible justice?
7. There is not one reproof, encomium, or exhortation in the Old or New Testament that does not support the capital doctrines of free grace or free will. When Christ says with a frown, “How is it that you have no faith? O perverse generation, how long shall I suffer you? O generation of vipers, bring forth fruit meet for repentance. Have ye your heart yet hardened?” When he smiles and says, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” When he marvels and cries out, “Great is thy faith.” Or when he gives such gracious exhortations, “Be not faithless, but believing: come to the marriage: be faithful unto death: only believe.” When Christ, I say, speaks in this manner, is it not as if he expressed himself in such words as these: “My free grace tries every rational means to win your free will. I reprove you for your sins, I commend you for your faith, I exhort you to repentance, I shame you into obedience, I leave no stone unturned to show myself the rational Saviour of my rational, free creatures?”
8. I may proceed one step farther, and say, There is not one commandment in the law, nor one direction in the Gospel that does not demonstrate the truth of this doctrine. For all God’s precepts and directions are for our good; therefore free grace gave them. Now since God is wise as well as gracious, it follows that he gave his precepts and directions to free agents, that is, to free-willing creatures. Let a king, who has lost his reason, make a code of moral laws for trees or horses; let him send preachers into every mill in the kingdom to give proper directions to cog wheels, and to assure them that if they turn fast and right, they shall grind for the royal family; and, if they stop or turn wrong, they shall be cut to pieces and ground to saw dust. But let not the absurdity of a similar conduct be charged upon God.
9. Every humble confession of sin shows the various workings of free grace and free will: “I have sinned — I have done wickedly,” &c, is the language of free will softened by free grace. To suppose that these acknowledgments are the language of free grace alone, is to suppose that free grace sins and does wickedly. And when we heartily join in such petitions as these, “Turn us, and we shall be turned: draw me, and I will run after thee: bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: save, or I perish,” &c, do we not feel our free will endeavouring to apprehend free grace? Is this heresy? Did not St. Paul maintain this doctrine in the face of the Church, and seal it with the account of his own experience, when he said, “I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of God?”
10. To conclude: there is not a damned spirit in hell that may not be produced as a living witness of the double doctrine which I defend. Why is Lucifer loaded with chains of darkness? Is it because there never was any free grace for him, and because free wrath marked him out for destruction, before he had personally deserved it? No: but because his free will “kept not the first estate” of holiness, in which God’s free grace had placed him. Why is Judas gone to his own place? Is it because the Holy Ghost spake an untruth when he said that (till the day of retribution comes) “God’s mercy is over all his works?” No: but because Judas’ free will was so obstinately bent upon “gaining the world,” that, according to our Lord’s declaration, “he lost his own soul,” became a “son of perdition,” and, by “denying in works the Lord that bought him, brought upon himself swift destruction.” Now, if Judas himself cannot say, “God’s free wrath sent me to hell, and not my free will; I am here in Adam’s place, and not in my own; I never rejected against myself the counsel of a gracious God; for, with respect to ME, the Father of mercies was always unmerciful-’the God of all grace’ had never any saving grace:” — if Judas, I say, cannot justly utter these blasphemies, surely none can: and if none can, then every sinner in hell demonstrates the truth of the Gospel axioms, and is a tremendous monument of the vengeance justly taken on free will, for doing obstinately despite to the Spirit of free grace.
11. But leaving Judas to experience the truth of this awful scripture, “The backslider in heart shall be filled with HIS OWN ways,” let your soul soar upon the wings of faith and reason to the happy regions where the spirits of just men made perfect shine like stars or suns in their Father’s kingdom. Ask them, “To whom and to what do you ascribe your salvation?” and you hear them all reply, “Salvation is of the Lord. Not unto us, but to his name we ascribe glory. Of his own mercy he saved us, to the praise of the glory of his grace.” What a noble testimony is this to the doctrine of free grace!
12. Nor does the Lord stand less for their free will than they do for his free grace. Prostrate yourselves before his everlasting throne; and, with all becoming reverence, ask the following question, that you may be able to vindicate God’s righteous ways before unrighteous man. “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will take upon me to speak unto the Lord. Didst thou admit those happy spirits into thy kingdom entirely out of partiality to their persons? If they are raised to glorious thrones, while damned spirits are cast into yonder burning lake, is it merely because absolute grace and absolute wrath made originally all the difference? In a word, is their salvation so of thy free grace that their free will had absolutely no hand in the matter?”
Methinks I hear “the Judge of all the earth” giving you the following answer, which appears to me perfectly agreeable to his sacred oracles: — “O injudicious man, how canst thou be so ‘slow of heart to believe all that I and my prophets have said!’ Am not I a Judge as well as a Saviour? Can I show myself a righteous Judge, and yet be partial in judgment? Nay, should I not be the most unjust of all judges, if from my righteous tribunal I distributed heavenly thrones and infernal racks out of distinguishing grace and distinguishing wrath? Know that ‘all souls are mine,’ and that, in point of judgment, ‘there is no respect of persons with me.’ In the great day ‘I judge,’ that is, I condemn or justify, I punish or reward ‘every man according to his own work,’ and consequently according to his free will; for if a work is not the work of a man’s free will, it is not his work, but the work of him that uses him as a tool, and works by his instrumentality. So certain then as the office of a gracious Saviour is compatible with that of a righteous judge, my capital doctrines of free grace and free will are consistent with each other. If these, therefore, ‘walk with me in white,’ know that it is ‘because they are WORTHY: for the righteous is MORE EXCELLENT than his neighbour. Like good and faithful servants, they occupied till I came; and lo, I come, and my reward is with me.’ They have ‘kept the faith;’ and I have kept my promise. They have not finally forsaken me; and I have not finally forsaken them. ‘They have kept the word of my patience; and I have kept them from the great tribulation.’ They have ‘made themselves ready,’ (though some have done it only at the eleventh hour,) and I have admitted them to the heavenly feast. They have ‘done my commandments, and they are entered by the gates into the New Jerusalem.’ My free grace gave them their free will; their free will yielded to my free grace: and now my free grace crowns their faithfulness. They ‘were faithful unto death, and I have given them the crown of life.’ Thus my free grace and mercy, which began the work of their salvation, concludes it in conjunction with my truth and justice: and my free-willing people shout, Grace! grace! when they consider the top stone, as well as when they behold the foundation of their salvation. My free grace is ALL to them, and their free will is so much to me that ‘I am not ashamed to call them BRETHREN,’ and to acknowledge that ‘as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so do I rejoice over them, because when they heard my voice, they knew the day of their visitation, and did not harden their hearts to the last.”
If Honestus and Zelotes candidly weigh the preceding arguments in the balance of the “sanctuary, they will, I hope, drop their prejudices against free grace and free will, and consent to a speedy, lasting reconciliation. But Zelotes is ready to say that there can be no reconciliation between Honestus and himself, because he cannot in conscience be reconciled even to me, who here act the part of a mediator; though I come nearer to “the doctrines of grace” than Honestus does. Consider we then the capital objections of Zelotes: and if we can answer them to his satisfaction, we shall probably remove out of his way the strongest bars which the author of discord has fixed between him and Honestus.