ROM. 2. 14.
WE have handled those things that concern the light and conduct of Nature: now we shall speak of that which belongs to the ability and power of Nature; for herein are two extreme errours: one of the Pelagian, Papist, and Arminian, with others, who lift up this power too high, The enemies of grace lurk under the praises of nature, Sub laudibus Naturae latent inimici gratiae; and the other of the Antinomians, who seem to deny all the preparatory works upon the heart of a man; holding, that Christ immediately communicateth himselfe to grosse sinners abiding so: and though they hold us passive at the first receiving of Christ, which all orthodox do; yet they expresse it in an unsound sense, comparing God unto a Physician, that doth violently open the sick mans throat, and poure down his physick whether he will or no; whereas God, though he doth convert fortiter, yet he doth it also suaviter. Now for the full clearing of our inability to any good thing, we will lay down these Propositions:
-
There is a naturall power of free-will left in us. Free-will is1 not indeed a Scripture name, but meerly ecclesiasticall, and hath been so abused, that Calvin wished the very name of it were quite exploded: but if we speak of the quid sit, and not the quid possit, the being of it, and not the working of it, we must necessarily acknowledge it. The neerest expression to the word Free-will, is that 1 Cor. 7. 37. having […], power over his own will: but generally the Scripture useth the word […], and […], which is as much as we intend. There is in all men naturally that power, whereby, through the help of Reason, he chooseth this, and refuseth another-thing; only this must not be extended to the things of grace. Now to say what this Free-will is, is very hard: Perkins, following some Schoole-men, maketh it a mixed power of the Understanding and the Will; others a third reall distinct power from them: but it may probably be thought, that it is nothing but the will in electing or refusing such things; so that we call it the Will in those things it’s necessarily carried out to, as to will what is good, and not sin as sin: and then Free-will, when it’s carried out to those things that are not necessarily connexed with it: Even as in the Understanding, while the Understanding doth consider first Principles, it’s called Intellectus; while Conclusions that are gathered from them, it’s called Ratio. Therefore our Adversaries do but calumniate us, when they say, we turn men into beasts; for we hold the Understanding going before, and the Will after: and this is more then a meere spontaneous inclination in things naturall. Therefore it is, that we do not bid the fire burn, or perswade an horse to goe, because there is not Understanding or Will in these things, as there is in a man.
-
This which is left in us is not able to performe naturall actions,2 without the generall help of God. That which we have acknowledged to be in a man naturally, must still be limited to his proper sphere, to naturall, and civill actions, or some externally religious duties: but even then we must acknowledge a generall help, or assistance of God, without which we could not doe any naturall thing; so that place in the Acts, In him we live, and move, and have our being: by which we prove, that God doth not onely give us the principles of being and moving, but we move in him, i. e. by him. Therefore Hierome did well reprove the Pelagians, that thought, without the generall aide of God, a man might move his finger, or write, and speak. There have beem some who have thought, that all which God doth for us in our naturall actions, is onely to give the principles and power of actions; and then afterwards we need no further aide, then mee[…] preservation of our being, no concourse or aide of God helping us in the action: Thus Durand of old, and one Dodo of late, who hath written a Book onely to that purpose: but the place abovesaid doth evidently convince it; and we see, that God did hinder the fire from burning the three Worthies, though he did preserve the fire at the same time in the power of burning, which could not be otherwise, then by denying his actuall aide to the working of the fire: For, to say that the reason was because of Gods doing something upon their bodies, were to make the miracle there, where the Scripture doth not lay it. If you aske then, why this may not be called a speciall help of God, as well as that whereby we are inabled to beleeve, or repent; I answer, there is a great deal of difference:
-
Because this generall aide is necessary to wicked actions, in regard of their positive nature, as well as to good.
-
God doth this in the way of his Providence, as a Creatour, the other he doth in the way of Predestination, as a Father in Christ.
-
The other aide may be said to be due, as our Divines speak of originall righteousnesse, upon a supposition that a man is made a creature to do such actions; yet not properly a debt, but that for our sin we are deprived of it: but this speciall help of grace cannot be called so.
-
It is wholly unable to work any good thing. All this while we have considered the power of man but as in the lower region;3 and if you doe consider him, in reference to good things, so he hath no power, or will, or free-will at all; but, as Austin said before Luther, it’s servum arbitrium, a servant, and inslaved will to sin onely. Indeed we have not lost our understandings or our wills, but to know or will that which is good, is wholly lost: Though we have not lost the will, yet we have the rectitude in that will, whereby we should encline to good. And this may be proved from many Arguments:
-
From all those places of Scripture which declare our estate4 to be full of sin and corruption, and altogether wicked. Now, Doe men gather grapes of thornes, or figs of thistles? Hence the Father compareth us well to the ship in a tempest, that is destitute of a Pilot: we are dashed continually upon rocks, though this speak of the negative onely, not the positive corruption.
-
All those places, which speak of grace, and conversion, and5 regeneration, as the work of God. As for those places, where we are said to repent, and to turn unto God, in time we shall cleare; only these Texts prove, that all the good things we do, they are the works of the Lord: not that God beleeveth or repenteth in us, but he worketh those actions in us efficiently, which we doe formally and vitally.
-
All those places whereby glory and praise is to be given unto6 God onely, and not unto our selves. What hast thou thou hast not received? We are to glory in nothing, because no good thing is ours. Therefore, we bring forth good things, as Sarahs dead womb brought forth a child; it was not a child of nature, but a child of the meere Promise: thus are all our graces. And, indeed, if we could either in whole or part work our own conversion, we might thank God, and our wils: But how absurd would this be, Lord, I thank thee for the turning of my heart, when I was willing to turn it?
-
It cannot prepare or dispose it self for the grace of justification7 or sanctification. As it cannot immediately work any good thing, so neither can a naturall man dispose, or prepare himself for the great works of grace. There is no truth in such an assertion. Let man do what he can naturally, God will meet him graciously: and the reasons are plain:
-
Because no naturall thing is in it self an order or a disposition to a supernaturall thing; for they differ in their whole kind and nature. Hence it is, that we never read of any Heathens, that, by the improvement of a naturall light, had supernaturall vouchsafed unto them.
-
Those places that speak of our totall corruption, intensively onely evil, and extensively, all the thoughts of a man are evil, and protensively, continually, do sufficiently declare, that we cannot prepare our selves to meet God.
-
If we could prepare, or dispose our selves to grace, then the greatest cause of glory would still be in a mans own self For, Why doth Peter repent, and not Judas? Because, may some say, he disposed and set himself to repent, and not Judas. But still here is the Question, Why did Peter set himself to repent and not Judas? Here it must be ultimately resolved either into the grace of God, or the will of man.
-
All those similitudes that the Scripture useth, do illustrate this thing. We are not said to be blind, or lame, but dead in sin: now did Lazarus prepare himself to rise? So it’s called Regeneration. Can a man dispose himself to have life? I know these comparisons must not be extended too far; yet, the Scripture using such expressions to declare our utter inability, we may well presse those breasts of the Scripture so farre, and bring out no blood. The parched earth doth not dispose it self for the rain, nor doth the cold ice of it self thaw, which is the Fathers Similie.