Jonathan Edwards Selected Shor
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, arbitrary disposal, and perfectly free selfdetermination, 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 favor, 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, etc.? 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 3:3, "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 newmodeled 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, etc.). 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, etc.). See how evidently being born of God signifies something else than a being brought into the state of professing Christians, 1 John 2:29, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doth righteousness is born of him." Chap. 3, "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. 4:8, "Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." 1 John 5:4, "Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world." Verse 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."