IV. Free grace and free-will come next into debate
IV. Free grace and free-will come next into debate
1. This man’s notion of free grace is, that it is free and common to all men; upon which scheme he is asked, [5552] what grace is that in God to decree to save all men conditionally, to send his Son to redeem all mankind; and yet to whole nations, and that for many hundred years together, does not so much as afford the means of grace, of the knowledge of salvation, nor vouchsafes his Spirit to make application of it to them, but leaves them in their sin, and eternally damns them? To which he answers, [5553] “When we are upon the nature of the gospel and the universality of its offers, there is no need to evade the argument, by transferring the scene to the heathen world.” I am at a loss to know what argument is evaded by putting the question; for, if grace is free and common to all men, if God’s decree of salvation is universal, and reaches to all the individuals of mankind, and Christ has died for them all, then, surely, the heathen world has a concern in these things; and it must seem strange, if all this is true, that the knowledge of salvation, and the means of it, should not be afforded them, and they left in their sins to perish without law. Where is the grace of this scheme? What is now become of free, common, and universal grace? And an idle thing it is, to talk of the universality of the offers of the gospel, when the gospel is not preached to a tenth part of the world, nor anything like it; when multitudes, millions, whole nations know nothing of it. What this man means by saying that this is equally a difficulty against God’s government of the world, I know not; since this argument does not concern God’s government of the world, but the administration of his grace to the sons of men.
2. That there is a free-will in man, and that man is a free agent, is not denied by us; the natural liberty of the will, and the power of man to perform the natural and civil actions of life, and the external parts of religion, are owned by us. We assert, indeed, that there is no free-will in man of himself to do that which is spiritually good, nor any power in him to perform it. This is the account of free-will which we have [5554] already given, though this author suggests, that we have given no other than he has done, and dare not define it: [5555] he thinks that man cannot be free who is under a necessitating decree to sin; and, that if man has no power to do anything spiritually good, and yet obliged to do it, then he is obliged to impossibilities, and damned for not performing them. To which may be replied, that whatever concern the decree of God has in the sins of men, it does not necessitate or force them to do them; it does not at all infringe the freedom of their will, or destroy their free agency; as appears in the cases of Joseph’s being sold into Egypt, and the crucifixion of Christ; which were both according to the decree and counsel of God; and yet Joseph’s brethren and the crucifiers of Christ, acted as free agents, and with the full liberty of their wills. The things spiritually good which man cannot do, have been instanced in; [5556] as to convert and regenerate himself, to believe in Christ, and to repent of sin in an evangelical manner; and these are things which he is not obliged to do of himself, and will not be damned for not performing of them. There are indeed things which man is obliged to, which he now cannot do, as to keep the whole law; which impotency of his is owing to his sin and fall, by which we mean the sin and fall of Adam, and of all mankind in him; and this author may make what use he pleases of it.
3. An O yes is cried, and all men are desired to attend; [5557] to what? to this; “Writers on your side have not the courage and honesty plainly to deny that that men are in a state of trial, though a consequence of their principles; yet now and then they craftily insinuate this article of their dark and hideous scheme.” That the saints whilst in this life, are in a state of trial, that is of their graces by afflictions, temptations, etc. is readily owned; but then all mankind are not in such a state, only converted persons, who only have grace to be tried; but if by a state of trial is meant, as I suppose it is, that men are upon probation of their good or ill behavior towards God, according to which their state will be fixed as to happiness or misery, that being as yet unfixed, so that whilst this life last it is uncertain whether they will be saved or lost: if this, I say is meant, I have had courage and honesty, as this man calls it, plainly to deny it years ago, and have published [5558] my arguments and reasons against it, which this writer, if he pleases, may try if he can answer.
4. This writer thinks [5559] that the drawings of God are necessary to conversion; but that these are only by moral suasion, and not by any powerful influence of divine grace, and so not irresistible. He owns irresistible evidence, illuminations and convictions; but such as may be resisted, and stifled, and come to nothing: how then are they irresistible? To use his own words, “If they may be resisted, then they are not irresistible.” [5560] We own, indeed, that the grace of God may be resisted, but not so as to be stifled, and come to nothing, to be overcome, and entirely frustrated. The instances given of God’s grace being frustrated, and of resisting internal operations, are not at all to the purpose; since the passages alleged, Hosea 7:1, Luke 13:34 and 19:42, 27, regard not special grace, and internal operations, but external, temporal things, or the outward ministry of the word. It has been urged, that if no man can come to Christ unless irresistible grace draw him, then there can be no fault in not turning to him. To which it has been answered, that “to live in sin, is blame-worthy; and though man, by sinning, has involved himself in a state out of which he cannot extricate himself, yet is he not the less culpable on that score, for living in it:” which answer stands good, for anything this man has replied to it; since men are involved in this state not merely by another’s, but by their own sin, and their continuance in it is of their own freewill. The argument from the offer of help has been set aside already, by denying there is any. The instance of a man’s drinking himself into a fever, and continuing in it, notwithstanding commands of recovery, and offers of remedy, is stupidly impertinent; since not continuing in a fever, the consequence of his drinking, but in the sin itself, of which such an habit may be acquired he cannot break, can only have any show of agreement with the case before us. We readily allow, that no internal operations are employed, as to thousand who hear the gospel. But then, says this writer, such cannot believe and obey, and therefore cannot be justly punished for not believing and obeying. I reply, that such indeed cannot believe with the faith which is of the operation of God, nor perform new and spiritual obedience, to which the Spirit of God is necessary, and for which he is promised in the covenant, and therefore will never be punished for not believing and obeying, in this sense: but then, without internal operations, or special grace, such as are favored with an external revelation, are capable of believing the outward report of the gospel, and of yielding obedience to it; that is, of attending on the ministry of the word, and performing the external parts of religion; and in failure of these, may be justly punished for their unbelief and disobedience. I take no notice of our scheme being called by this man Antichristian and Diabolical; I am now pretty well used to such language, and indeed expect no other from men of modern charity.