John Owen · 48 of 73

Chapter XII. Objections to the doctrine refuted. · Part 1

It will be needless to use many words unto the discourse of the first section, seeing it will not in the least prejudice our cause in hand to leave Mr Goodwin in full possession of all the glory of the rhetoric thereof; for although I cannot close with him in the exposition given of that expression, 1 Tim. vi. 16, “God inhabiteth light inaccessible,” something, in my weak apprehension, much more glorious and divine being comprised therein than what it is here turned aside unto (neither am I in the least convinced of the truth τῆς ἀποδόσεως of the former discourse, in the close of the whole, asserting a deliverance to be obtained from our thoughts of the doctrine of the defection of the saints, which he intimateth to be [evangelical], that it is anti-evangelical, tormenting, and bringing souls under bondage, by a narrow and unprejudicate search into it, finding myself every day more and more confirmed in thoughts of that kind concerning it by my engagement into such an inquiry, which hath been observed in this present discourse as far as my weakness will permit), yet it being not in the least argumentative, but, for the whole frame and intendment of it, commune exordium, and that which any man of any opinion in the world might make use of, I shall not insist upon it.

His second section containeth his first argument, drawn forth in the defence of his doctrine of the “possibility” (as he calleth it, but indeed what it is we have heard) “of the defection of believers.” Of this I presume he intended no more use but (as a forlorn) to begin a light skirmish with his adversaries, ordering it to retreat to his main body advancing after, or desperately casting it away, to abate the edge of his combatants’ weapons, it is so weak and feeble; and therefore I shall be very brief in the consideration of it. Thus, then, he proposeth it:—

“That doctrine which rendereth God free from the unrighteousness which the Scripture calleth the respecting of persons of men, is a doctrine of perfect consistence with the Scripture and the truth; the doctrine which teacheth the possibility of the saints’ declining, and this unto death, is a doctrine of this import: ergo.”

Ans. The first proposition must be supposed universal, or else the whole will quickly be manifested to be unconclusive. If it be only indefinite, and so equivalent, as it lieth, to a particular, the conclusion is from all particulars, and of no force, as Mr Goodwin well knoweth. Take it universally, and I say it is evidently false, and might easily be disproved by innumerable instances. Not that any error or falsehood can indeed give God the glory of any one of his attributes, but that they may be fitted and suited for such a service, were not their throats cut and their mouths stopped by the lies that are in them; which Mr Goodwin’s doctrine is no less liable to than any other, and not at all exempted from that condition by its seeming subserviency unto God’s aprosopolepsia. Doth not the doctrine of justification by works, even in the most rind sense of it, according to the tenor of the old covenant, absolutely render God free from the unrighteousness of accepting of persons? and yet, for all that, it hath not one jot the more of truth in it, nor is it the less and-evangelical. This foundation, then, being removed, whatever is built upon it mole ruit suâ. Neither is it in any measure restored or laid anew by the reason of it given by Mr Goodwin, namely, “That the Scripture affirmeth in sundry places that God is no accepter of persons;” for he that shall hence conclude that whatever doctrine affirmeth, directly or by consequence, that God is no accepter of persons, whatever other abomination it is evidently teeming withal, is yet true and according to the mind of God, shall have leave, notwithstanding the antiquated statute of our university against it, to go and read logic at Stamford. On this account do but prove that a doctrine be not guilty of any one crime, and you may conclude that it is guilty of none. For instance, that doctrine which impeacheth not the omnipresence of the Deity is true and according to the Scripture, for the Scripture aboundeth with clear testimonies of the presence of God in all places; now the doctrine of the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ doth no way impeach the omnipresence of the Deity: therefore it is true and according to Scripture!

I might supersede all farther considerations of this argument, having rendered it altogether useless and unserviceable in this warfare by breaking its right leg, or rather crutch, whereon it leaned. But something also may be added to the minor, because of its reflection in the close of its proof upon the doctrine we maintain, intimating an inconsistency of it with that excellency of God spoken of, namely, that he is no accepter of persons.

Prosopolepsia, or accepting of persons, is an evil in judgment, when he who is to determine in causes of righteousness hath respect to personal things, that concern not the merit of the cause in hand, and judgeth accordingly. This properly can have no place in God as to any bestowing of free grace, mercy, or pardon. There is room made for it only when the things that are bestowed or wrought by it are such as in justice are due; it being an iniquity solely and directly opposed to distributive justice, that rendereth to every one according to what is righteous and due. That with God there be no accepting of persons there is no more required but this, that he appoint and determine equal punishments to equal faults, and give equal rewards to equal deservings. If he will dispose of his pardoning mercy and free grace to some in Christ, not to others, who shall say unto him, “What doest thou?’ May he not do what he will with his own? So he giveth a penny to him that laboureth all day, he may give a penny also to him that worketh but one hour. Now, suppose that Mr Goodwin’s doctrine render God free from this (or rather chargeth him not with it), yet if withal it calleth his truth, righteousness, faithfulness, oath, and immutability into question, shall it pass for a truth, or be embraced ever the sooner?

But the sting of this argument lieth in the tail or close of it, in the reflection insisted on upon the common doctrine of perseverance, as it is called, namely, that it teacheth God to be an accepter of persona This is Mr Goodwin’s way of arguing all along: When at any time he hath proposed a proof of the doctrine he goeth about to establish, finding that as something heavy work to lie upon his hand, and not much to be said in the case, he instantly turneth about and falleth upon his adversaries, in declaiming against whom he hath a rich and overflowing vein. There is scarce any one of his arguments in the pursuit and improvement whereof one fourth part of it is spoken to that head wherein he is engaged.

But wherein is the “common doctrine of perseverance” guilty of this great crime? It teacheth that “he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” It teacheth that God hath allotted equal punishments to equal transgressions, and appointed equal rewards to equal ways of obedience; that the wages of every sin is death, and that every sinner must die, unless it be those concerning whom God himself saith, “Deliver them, I have found a ransom,” Job xxxiii. 24; that he is alike displeased with sin in whomsoever it is, and that in a peculiar and eminent manner when it is found in his own. Indeed, if this be to impute acceptation of persons to God, to say “that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth,” — that is, is tender to his own, as a father to his only child that serveth him, and will recover them (being faithful in his promises) from their sins, and heal their backslidings, though he suffer others to lie wallowing in their rebellions and pollutions all their days; — that he will not give pardon to any sinner but upon faith and repentance, but will give faith and repentance to those whom he hath chosen, and given unto Jesus Christ to be saved: if this, I say, be acceptance of persons, our doctrine owneth the imputation of ascribing it to God, and glorieth in it, we being ascertained that God taketh all this to himself clearly and plentifully in the word of truth.

The sum of what our author gives in to make good his charge upon the “common doctrine of perseverance” is, that it affirmeth “That though saints and believers fall into the same sins of adultery, and idolatry, and the like, with other men, yet they are not dealt withal as other men, but continued in the love and favour of God.” To waive the consideration of the false impositions, by the way, on the doctrine opposed (as that is, that it teacheth the saints to fall into and to continue in them, to the significancy of that expression “Never so long,” under abominations), and to join issue upon the whole of the matter, I say, —

1. That in and with this doctrine, and in perfect harmony and consistency therewith, we maintain that the judgment of God is the same in respect of every sin, in whomsoever it is, that he that doth it on that account is “worthy of death,” Rom. i. 32. And, —

2. That the sentence of the law is the same towards all, cursing every one that continueth not in all things written in the book thereof to do them, Deut. xxvii. 26.

3. That in and under the gospel, wherein a remedy is provided in reference to the rigour and severity of both the former apprehensions, yet the Judge of all dealeth with all men equally, according to the tenor of it, “He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” Men in the same condition shall have the same recompense of reward. But you will say, “Do not the same sins put men into the same condition, and deserve the same punishment in one as in another?”

Ans. 1. They do deserve the same punishment. God is equally provoked; and had not Christ answered for the sins of believers, they could not, they should not, have escaped the wrath due to them. 2. That the same sins do not argue men always, under the gospel, to be in the same condition, as shall be afterward fully manifested; for, First, they do not find them in the same state. Some are in a state of death and sin, others of life and grace, being translated from the one to the other, having a title to the promise of mercy in Christ. Secondly, and chiefly, as there is a twofold justification, of the person and of the fact, and the one may be without the other, so there is a twofold condemnation, of disapprobation of the fact and of the person. As to the particular disapprobation of God in respect of any sinful act, it is the same in reference unto all persons, believers and unbelievers. As to their persons, there are in the gospel other ingredients to the judgment of them beside particular facts or acts, in answer to the law or the rule of righteousness, — namely, faith and repentance, — which alter the case of the person, even before the judgment-seat of God. To suppose the saints to fall into the same sins with other men in the same manner, and to continue in them without faith and repentance, is to beg the thing in question. Suppose them to have (what we affirm God hath promised) those conditions of evangelical mercy, and Mr Goodwin himself will grant it no acceptance of persons to deal otherwise with them than with others who have committed like sins with them in whom those conditions are not wrought or found; that is, “He that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned.” This is all we say in this thing. But of the difference between believers and unbelievers in their sinning we shall speak afterward at large, to the full removal of this and another objection. For the present this shall suffice: Though believers fall, or may fall, into the same sins with other men, yet they fall not into them in the same manner with them, and they have a relief provided to prevent the deadly malignity of sin, which those who believe not have no interest in nor right unto.

Mr Goodwin’s second argument is that which, of all others in this case, he seemeth to lay most weight upon, and which he pursueth at large in seventeen pages and as many sections, treating in it concerning the ministry of the gospel, and the usefulness of the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof. For an entrance into the consideration of it, I must needs say, “Non venit ex pharetris ista sagitta tuis.” For besides that Mr Goodwin hath taken very little pains in the improvement of it (considering how it was provided to his hand by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, and that which he hath done farther consisting in a mere useless and needless stuffing of it with sundry notions taken out of their first argument and fifth, “De modo conversionis,” of the manner of the Spirit’s operation in and upon the soul in its first conversion to God), it was the old song of the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians in their dealing with Austin, Fulgentius, Hilarius, Prosper, and by them at large confuted; renewed by Castalio and Erasmus against Luther, after it had been sifted and rejected by the more learned schoolmen in former ages. Whatever it be, and however it is now come to hand, being taught to speak our language, and that in the best fashion, the consideration of it must not be declined. And thus it is proposed:—

“If the common doctrine of perseverance rendereth the ministry of the gospel, so far as it concerneth the perseverance of the saints, vain, impertinent, and void, then is it not a doctrine of God, but of men, and consequently that which opposeth it is truth; but certain it is that the said doctrine is of this unchristian tendency and import: ergo.” The first part of the consequent of the major is granted. The work of the ministry being for the “perfecting of the saints, and the edification of the body of Christ,” Eph. iv. 12, 13, that which frustrateth the end whereunto of Christ himself it is designed can be no truth of his. Of the farther inference, that the doctrine which opposeth it, or is set up in opposition to it, is the truth, more will be spoken afterward. For the present, I cannot but insist upon the former observation, that, notwithstanding Mr Goodwin’s pretence of proving and arguing for the doctrine he maintains, yet upon the matter he hath not any thing to say in the carrying on of that design, but instantly falls to his old work of raising objections, — in their very setting up prepared to be cast down, for the most part, — which with all his might he labours to remove.

The stress of the whole, as far as we are concerned in it, lieth on the minor, which is thus farther attempted to be made good. The minor proposition is demonstrated thus: “The doctrine which rendereth the labour and faithfulness of a minister, in pressing such exhortations, threatenings, and promises, which tend to the preservation of the saints in faith and holiness to the end, useless, rendereth the ministry of the gospel, as far as it concerneth the encouragement or enabling of the saints to persevere, needless and vain; but guilty of such a tendency as this is the commonly received doctrine of perseverance: ergo.”

Ans. This labour might have been saved, and both these syllogisms very easily reduced to one; but then another seeming argument, afterward, as we shall find, insisted on, would have been prevented. Our trade in such cases as this is by weight, and not by number. The minor, then, is still to be confirmed, which he laboureth thus to do:—

“The common doctrine of perseverance requireth and commandeth all saints or believers to be fully persuaded, and this with the greatest and most indubitable certainty of faith, that there is an absolute and utter impossibility either of a total or a final defection of their faith, — that though they should fall into ten thousand enormous and most abominable sins, and lie wallowing in them, like swine in the mire, yet they should remain all the while in an estate of grace, and that God will, by a strong hand of irresistible grace, break them off from their sins by repentance before they die; but the doctrine which requireth and commandeth all this, and much more of like import, to be confidently believed by true believers, rendereth the pressing of all exhortations, threatenings, promises upon them, in order to prevail with them, or to make them carefully to persevere, bootless and unnecessary: ergo.”

Ans. What weight Mr Goodwin, with all those with whom, as to his undertaking under consideration, he is in fellowship, doth lay upon this argument is known to all. The whole foundation of what is afterward at large insisted on, for the establishment of it, being laid upon the proof of the minor proposition formerly denied, here laid down, it will easily be granted that it was incumbent on him to make sure work here, and not to leave any thing liable to any just exception. An error or a mistake in the foundation is not easily recoverable All that is afterward heaped up beareth itself on a supposition of the truth of what is here delivered. If this fail in the least, we may spare our labour as to any farther consideration of what followeth. Now, the main of the proof here insisted on lieth in the declaration of that which he calleth the “common doctrine of perseverance;” and concerning this he informeth his reader, —

“That it commandeth all saints to be fully persuaded, and that with the greatest and most indubitable certainty of faith, that there is an absolute and utter impossibility either of a total or final defection of their faith.”

Ans. What is the intendment of these aggravating expressions of “Fully persuaded,” “Greatest and most indubitable certainty of faith,” I know not. Will it please you if it should require them to be persuaded, but not fully persuaded; to believe it, but with little and dubitable certainty of faith, or uncertainty rather? Full persuasion, greatest certainty, without doubting or staggering, are all of them perfections of faith and of the saints in believing; which without doubt they are, in all that they are to believe, to press after. So that all this is no more but that this doctrine requireth men to believe what it affirmeth God to have promised. It requireth men to mix the promises of God with faith, crimen inauditum. “But though the manner of believing which it requireth be not blamable, yet the thing which it proposeth to be believed is false.” What is that? “That there is an absolute or utter impossibility either of a total or final defection of the faith of true believers.” Its requiring this to be believed is the bottom and also cornerstone of Mr Goodwin’s ensuing argument. If it doth not do this, he hath nothing in this place to say to it. Let him, then, produce any one that hath ever wrote in the defence of it, that hath in terms, or by just consequence, delivered any such thing, and, en herbam! there shall be an end of this dispute. I presume Mr Goodwin knoweth what is meant by “an absolute and utter impossibility.” An absolute repugnancy unto being, in the nature of the things themselves concerning which any affirmation is, and not any external or foreign consideration, doth entitle any thing to [be called] an absolute and utter impossibility. Did ever any one affirm that, in the nature of the thing itself, the defection of the saints is absolutely impossible? Is it not by them that believe the perseverance of the saints constantly affirmed that in themselves they are apt, yea, prone to fall away, and their faith to decay and diet which in itself possibly may be done, though Mr Goodwin cannot tolerably show how. The whole certainty of their continuance in, and of the preservation of, their faith, depends merely on supposition of something that is extrinsical in respect of them and of their state, which, as to their condition, might or might not be. Farther, the perseverance of the saints is by the same persons constantly affirmed to be carried on and to be perfected in and by the use of means. It is their keeping by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” And can, then, an absolute impossibility of their defection be asserted, or only that which is so upon supposition, — namely, of the purpose of God, etc.? There was no absolute impossibility that the hones of Christ should be broken, they being in themselves as liable to be broken as his flesh to be pierced; yet in respect of the event it was impossible they should be so. I cannot well imagine that Mr Goodwin is not fully persuaded, with the greatest and most indubitable certainty that a persuasion in things of this kind will admit, that the “common doctrine of perseverance” doth not require saints to believe that there is “an absolute impossibility of their defection,” but only that God hath promised to preserve them from that which in themselves and in respect of any thing in them they are obnoxious unto, in and by the use of the means suited and appointed by him to the carrying on of that work and compassing of the end proposed. But yet it pleaseth him here to make show of a contrary apprehension; and to show his confidence therein he aggravates it with this annexed supposition and case: “It doth so,” saith he, “though they should fall into ten thousand enormous and most abominable sins, and lie wallowing in them like swine in the mire, yet that they shall remain all the while in an estate of grace.”

Ans. Truly this is such an enormous and an abominable calumny that I cannot but admire how any sober and rational man durst venture upon the owning of it. The question now is, what faith the doctrine insisted on ingenerates in particular persons, that should enervate and make void the exhortations, etc., of the ministry? Now, though the doctrine should teach this indefinitely, that though men did sin so and so, as is here expressed, yet they should be kept in state of grace, as is mentioned (which yet is loudly and palpably false, as hath been declared), yet that it doth require particular men to believe for themselves, and in reference to the guidance of their own ways, that they may “lie and wallow in their sin, like swine in the mire, and yet continue in a state of grace and acceptation with God,” is so notoriously contrary to the whole tenor of the doctrine, the genius and nature of it, with all the arguments whereby it is asserted and maintained, that if conscience had but in the least been advised withal in this contest, this charge had been without doubt omitted. All that is produced for the confirmation of this strange imposition on the persuasion under consideration is his own testimony that makes the charge, “that it is the known voice of the common doctrine of perseverance;” and that being said is laid as a foundation of all that follows, the whole discourse still relating to a supposition that this is the doctrine which it opposeth, from the very next words to the end! Nor is there the least farther attempt for the confirmation of this grand assertion. But is this “the known voice” of our doctrine of perseverance? Who ever heard it but Mr Goodwin, and men of the like prejudicate spirit against the truth? The worst that can be charged with looking this way is its asserting the promised efficacy of the grace of God for the preserving of believers, by the use of means, from such wallowing in abominable sins as is supposed that it affirms they may be exposed unto. In brief, it says not, — first, That all believers are certain of their perseverance; nor, secondly, That any one can be certain of it upon such supposals as are here mentioned, — such a persuasion would not be from Him that calls them; nor, thirdly, That the end can be obtained without the use of means, though by them it shall certainly be so; but, fourthly, That all the hope of their perseverance is built on the promises of God to preserve them by and in the use of means. So that, in truth, there is no need of any farther process for the removing of the argument insisted on but only a disclaimer of the doctrine by it opposed, if it be that which is here expressed.

That, indeed, which Mr Goodwin hath to dispute against, if he will deal fairly and candidly in the carrying on of his design, is this:— “That the certainty of an end, to be obtained by means suited thereunto, doth not enervate nor render vain the use of those means appointed for the accomplishment of that end.” The perseverance of the saints is the thing here proposed to be accomplished. That this shall be certainly effected and brought about, according to the promises of God for the effecting of it, God hath appointed the means under debate, to be managed by the ministry of the gospel. That the promise of God concerning the saints’ perseverance, to be wrought and effected, as by others, so by these means in their kind, doth not invalidate or render useless and vain the use of those means, but indeed establishes them, and ascribes to them their proper efficacy, is that which in this doctrine is asserted, and which Mr Goodwin ought to have disproved if he would have acquitted himself as a fair antagonist in this cause. The promise, we say, that Hezekiah had of the continuance of his life, did not make useless, but called for, the “plaster of figs” that was appointed for the healing of his sore, Isa. xxxviii. 5, 21.

I might then, as I said, save myself the labour of farther engaging for the casting down of this fabric, built on the sandy foundations of falsehood and mistake; but because something may fall in of that which followeth, — more indeed to the purpose than an orderly pursuit of those assertions laid down in the entrance would require, — that may more directly rise up against the cause in whose defence I am engaged, I shall consider the whole ensuing discourse; which, without doubt, will administer farther occasion for the illustration or confirmation of the truth in hand. He proceeds, then:—

“The reason of the minor is, because a certain knowledge and persuasion that God will, by an irresistible hand of power, preserve a man in the state of grace, how desperately careless, negligent, or wicked soever he shall be, clearly dissolves the usefulness and necessity of all other means whatsoever in reference to this end. If know certainly that the corn which I have sown in my field will, whether I wake or sleep, grow and prosper, would it not be a very impertinent address for any man to come to me, and admonish me in a serious and grave manner to take heed I sleep not, but keep myself waking, lest my corn should not grow and prosper, or that it may grow and prosper? If my corn grows, thrives, and prospers, by the irresistible hand of God, by the course of a natural and standing providence, my watchfulness in order to a procurement of these things is absolutely vain,” etc.

Ans. That this is not the doctrine which Mr Goodwin hath undertaken to oppose, hath been more than once already declared. That he is not able with any colour of reason to oppose it, unless he first impose his own false and vain inferences upon it, and them upon his reader, for the doctrine itself, from his constant course of proceeding against it, is also evident. What advantage this is like in the close to prove to his cause, in the judgment of considerate men, the event will discover. The assertion of the stability of the promises of God in Jesus Christ given to believers, concerning his effectual preserving them to the end from such sins as are absolutely inconsistent with his grace and favour according to the tenor of the new covenant, or such continuance in any sin as is of the same importance, by his Spirit and grace, in the use of means, doth no way tend to the begetting in any a certain knowledge, assurance, and persuasion, that God will continue them in a state of grace, “how desperately careless or wicked soever they shall be.”

What is intended by the frequent repetition of this gross sophistry, or what success with the intelligent Christian ponderers of things he can hope for thereby, I am not able to guess; neither is any improvement in the least given to what the intendment of this argument is, so far as the “common doctrine of perseverance” is concerned therein, from the comparison ensuing instituted between the growth of corn and the walking of believers in obedience before God: for notwithstanding the identity in respect of the comparison of that expression “irresistible,” which indeed is proper to neither, there is a wide difference between the growing of corn in a mere natural way, and the moral actings of an intelligent, rational creature. Whatever operations of God are about and in the one or the other, yet they are suited to the subjects about which they are. God carries on the growth of corn by a way of natural and necessary causes; but his acting of rational agents is by such ways and means as may entirely preserve their liberty, — that is, preserving them in their being, and leaving them to be such agents. As, then, God causeth the corn to grow by the shining of his sun and the falling of his rain, so he causeth believers to persevere in obedience by exhortations, promises, and threatenings, and such ways and means as are suited to such agents as they are. The fallacy of this discourse lies in an insinuation that God, by his effectual (or, as they are called, “irresistible”) operations for the preservation of believers in gospel obedience (a thing he hath undertaken over and over to perform) doth change their nature, and render them, not free and intelligent agents, fit to be wrought upon by the proposal of suitable and desirable objects to their understandings, but mere brute and natural principles of all operations flowing from them; a conceit as gross and ridiculous as certainly destructive to all the efficacy of the grace of God. All the rest of this section, as far as it concerns us, is only an affirming, this way and that, that an assurance of the end to be obtained by the use of means renders those means altogether useless; which when he proves, the controversy may be nearer to an issue than otherwise he hath any reason to hope that it is, or will be to his advantage.