Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)

XI. The third class of arguments also has a great affinity with the preceding. For they produce passages in which God reproaches an ungrateful people, that it was wholly owing to their own fault that they did not receive blessings of all kinds from his indulgent hand. Of this kind are the following passages: “The Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword; because ye are turned away from the Lord.”704 “Because I called you, but ye answered not, therefore will I do unto this house as I have done to Shiloh.”705 Again: “This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth correction: the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath.”706 Again: “They obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law; they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them.”707 How, say they, could such reproaches be applicable to those who might immediately reply, It is true that we desired prosperity and dreaded adversity; but our not obeying the Lord, or hearkening to his voice, in order to obtain good and to avoid evil, has been owing to our want of liberty, and subjection to the dominion of sin. It is in vain, therefore, to reproach us with evils, which we had no power to avoid. In answer to this, leaving the pretext of necessity, which is but a weak and futile plea, I ask whether they can exculpate themselves from all guilt. For if they are convicted of any fault, the Lord justly reproaches them with their perverseness, as the cause of their not having experienced the advantage of his clemency. Let them answer, then, if they can deny that their own perverse will was the cause of their obstinacy. If they find the source of the evil within themselves, why do they so earnestly inquire after extraneous causes, that they may not appear to have been the authors of their own ruin? But if it be true that sinners are deprived of the favours of God, and chastised with his punishments, for their own sin, and only for their own, there is great reason why they should hear those reproaches from his mouth; that if they obstinately persist in their crimes, they may learn in their calamities rather to accuse and detest their iniquity, than to charge God with unrighteous cruelty; that if they have not cast off all docility, they may become weary of their sins, the demerits of which they see to be misery and ruin, and may return into the good way, acknowledging in a serious confession the very thing for which the Lord rebukes them. And that those reproofs, which are quoted from the Prophets, have produced this beneficial effect on the faithful, is evident from the solemn prayer of Daniel, given us in his ninth chapter. Of the former use of them we find an example in the Jews, to whom Jeremiah is commanded to declare the cause of their miseries; though nothing could befall them, otherwise than the Lord had foretold. “Thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee.”708 For what purpose, then, it will be asked, did they speak to persons that were deaf? It was in order that, in spite of their disinclination and aversion, they might know what was declared to them to be true; that it was an abominable sacrilege to transfer to God the guilt of their crimes, which belonged solely to themselves. With these few solutions, we may very easily despatch the immense multitude of testimonies, which the enemies of the grace of God are accustomed to collect, both from the precepts of the law, and from the expostulations directed to transgressors of it, in order to establish the idol of free will. In one psalm the Jews are stigmatized as “a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation that set not their heart aright.”709 In another, the Psalmist exhorts the men of his age to “harden not their hearts;”710 which implies, that all the guilt of rebellion lies in the perverseness of men. But it is absurd to infer from this passage that the heart is equally flexible to either side; whereas “the preparation” of it is “from the Lord.”711 The Psalmist says, “I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes;”712 because he had devoted himself to the service of God without any reluctance, but with a cheerful readiness of mind. Yet he boasts not of being himself the author of this inclination, which in the same psalm he acknowledges to be the gift of God.713 We should remember, therefore, the admonition of Paul, when he commands the faithful to “work out” their “own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in” them “both to will and to do.”714 He assigns them a part to perform, that they may not indulge themselves in carnal negligence; but by inculcating “fear and trembling,” he humbles them, and reminds them that this very thing, which they are commanded to do, is the peculiar work of God. In this he plainly suggests that the faithful act, if I may be allowed the expression, passively, inasmuch as they are furnished with strength from heaven, that they may arrogate nothing at all to themselves. Wherefore, when Peter exhorts us to “add to” our “faith, virtue,”715 he does not allot us an under part to be performed, as though we could do any thing separately, of ourselves; he only arouses the indolence of the flesh, by which faith itself is frequently extinguished. To the same purpose is the exhortation of Paul: “Quench not the Spirit;”716 for slothfulness gradually prevails over the faithful, unless it be corrected. But if any one should infer from this, that it is at his own option to cherish the light offered him, his ignorance will easily be refuted; since this diligence which Paul requires, proceeds only from God. For we are also frequently commanded to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness,”717 whilst the Spirit claims the office of sanctifying us exclusively to himself. In short, that what properly belongs to God is, by concession, transferred to us, is plain from the words of John: “He that is begotten of God, keepeth himself.”718 The preachers of free will lay hold of this expression, as though we were saved partly by the Divine power, partly by our own; as though we did not receive from heaven this very preservation which the Apostle mentions. Wherefore also Christ prays that his Father would “keep” us “from evil;”719 and we know that the pious, in their warfare against Satan, obtain the victory by no other arms than those which are furnished by God. Therefore Peter, having enjoined us to “purify” our “souls, in obeying the truth,” immediately adds, as a correction, “through the Spirit.”720 Finally, the impotence of all human strength in the spiritual conflict is briefly demonstrated by John when he says, “Whosoever is born of God cannot sin; for his seed remaineth in him:”721 and in another place he adds the reason, that “this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”722

XII. There is also a testimony cited from the law of Moses, which appears directly repugnant to our solution. For, after having published the law, he makes the following solemn declaration to the people: “This commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off: it is not in heaven: but the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”723 If these expressions be understood merely of the precepts, I grant that they have much weight in the present argument. For although we might easily elude their force, by saying that they treat of the facility and promptitude, not of observance, but of knowledge, yet still perhaps they might leave some doubt. But the Apostle, in whose expositions there is no ambiguity, removes all our doubts, by affirming that Moses here spake of the doctrine of the gospel.724 But if any one should obstinately contend, that Paul has violently perverted the passage from its genuine meaning, by applying it to the gospel, although his presumption could not be acquitted of impiety, yet there is enough to refute him, independently of the authority of the Apostle. For, if Moses spoke only of the precepts, he was deceiving the people with the vainest confidence. For would they not have precipitated themselves into ruin, if they had attempted the observance of the law in their own strength, as a thing of no difficulty? What, then, becomes of the very obvious facility with which the law may be observed, when there appears no access to it but over a fatal precipice? Wherefore nothing is more certain, than that Moses in these words comprehended the covenant of mercy, which he had promulgated together with the precepts of the law. For in a preceding verse he had taught that our hearts must be circumcised by God, in order that we may love him.725 Therefore he placed this facility, of which he afterwards speaks, not in the strength of man, but in the assistance and protection of the Holy Spirit, who powerfully accomplishes his work in our infirmity. However, the passage is not to be understood simply of the precepts, but rather of the promises of the gospel, which are so far from maintaining an ability in us to obtain righteousness, that they prove us to be utterly destitute of it. Paul, considering the same, proves by this testimony that salvation is proposed to us in the gospel, not under that hard, difficult, and impossible condition, prescribed to us in the law, which pronounces it attainable only by those who have fulfilled all the commandments, but under a condition easily and readily to be performed. Therefore this testimony contributes nothing to support the liberty of the human will.

XIII. Some other passages also are frequently objected, which show that God sometimes tries men by withdrawing the assistance of his grace, and waits to see what course they will pursue; as in Hosea: “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face.”726 It would be ridiculous, they say, for the Lord to consider, whether Israel would seek his face, unless their minds were flexible, capable of inclining either way, according to their own pleasure; as if it were not very common for God, in the Prophets, to represent himself as despising and rejecting his people, till they should amend their lives. But what will our adversaries infer from such threats? If they maintain, that those who are deserted by God, are capable of converting themselves, they oppose the uniform declarations of Scripture. If they acknowledge that the grace of God is necessary to conversion, what is their controversy with us? But they will reply, that they concede its necessity in such a sense as to maintain that man still retains some power. How do they prove it? Certainly not from this or any similar passages. For it is one thing to depart from a man, to observe what he will do when forsaken and left to himself, and another to assist his little strength in proportion to his imbecility. What, then, it will be inquired, is implied in such forms of expression? I reply, that the import of them is just as if God had said, Since admonitions, exhortations, and reproofs, produce no good effect on this rebellious people, I will withdraw myself for a little while, and silently leave them to affliction. I will see whether, at some future period, after a series of calamities, they will remember me, and seek my face. The departure of the Lord signifies the removal of his word. His observing what men will do, signifies his concealing himself in silence, and exercising them for a season with various afflictions. He does both to humble us the more; for we should sooner be confounded than corrected with the scourges of adversity, unless he rendered us docile by his Spirit. Now, when the Lord, offended, and, as it were, wearied by our extreme obstinacy, leaves us for a time, by the removal of his word, in which he is accustomed to manifest his presence with us, and makes the experiment, what we shall do in his absence, – it is falsely inferred from this, that there is some power of free will, which he observes and proves; since he acts in this manner with no other design than to bring us to a sense and acknowledgment of our own nothingness.

XIV. They argue also from the manner of expression which is invariably observed, both in the Scripture and in the common conversation of mankind. For good actions are called our own, and we are said to perform what is holy and pleasing to the Lord, as well as to commit sins. But if sins be justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, certainly some share ought to be, for the same reason, assigned to us also in works of righteousness. For it would be absurd that we should be said to do those things, to the performance of which, being incapable of any exertion of our own, we were impelled by God, as so many stones. Wherefore, though we allow the grace of God the preëminence, yet these expressions indicate that our own endeavours hold at least the second place. If it were only alleged, that good works are called our own, I would reply, that the bread which we pray to God to give us, is called ours. What will they prove by this term, but that what otherwise by no means belongs to us, becomes ours through the benignity and gratuitous munificence of God? Therefore let them either ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord's prayer, or no longer esteem it ridiculous, that good works are denominated ours, in which we have no propriety but from the liberality of God. But there is rather more force in what follows; that the Scripture frequently affirms that we ourselves worship God, work righteousness, obey the law, and perform good works. These being the proper offices of the understanding and will, how could they justly be referred to the Spirit, and at the same time be attributed to us, if there were not some union of our exertions with the grace of God? We shall easily extricate ourselves from these objections, if we properly consider the manner in which the Spirit of the Lord operates in the saints. The similitude with which they try to cast an odium on our sentiments, is quite foreign to the subject; for who is so senseless as to suppose that there is no difference between impelling a man, and throwing a stone? Nor does any such consequence follow from our doctrine. We rank among the natural powers of man, approving, rejecting; willing, nilling; attempting, resisting; that is, a power to approve vanity, and to reject true excellence; to will what is evil, to refuse what is good; to attempt iniquity, and to resist righteousness. What concern has the Lord in this? If it be his will to use this depravity as an instrument of his wrath, he directs and appoints it according to his pleasure, in order to execute his good work by means of a wicked hand. Shall we, then, compare a wicked man who is thus subservient to the Divine power, while he only studies to gratify his own corrupt inclination, to a stone which is hurled by an extrinsic impulse, and driven along without any motion, sense, or will of its own? We perceive what a vast difference there is. But how does the Lord operate in good men, to whom the question principally relates? When he erects his kingdom within them, he by his Spirit restrains their will, that it may not be hurried away by unsteady and violent passions, according to the propensity of nature; that it may be inclined to holiness and righteousness, he bends, composes, forms, and directs it according to the rule of his own righteousness; that it may not stagger or fall, he establishes and confirms it by the power of his Spirit. For which reason Augustine says, “You will reply to me, Then we are actuated; we do not act. Yes, you both act and are actuated; and you act well, when you are actuated by that which is good. The Spirit of God, who actuates you, assists those who act, and calls himself a helper, because you also perform something.” In the first clause he inculcates that the agency of man is not destroyed by the influence of the Spirit; because the will, which is guided to aspire to what is good, belongs to his nature. But the inference which he immediately subjoins, from the term help, that we also perform something, we should not understand in such a sense, as though he attributed any thing to us independently; but in order to avoid encouraging us in indolence, he reconciles the Divine agency with ours in this way; that to will is from nature, to will what is good is from grace. Therefore he had just before said, “Without the assistance of God, we shall be not only unable to conquer, but even to contend.”

XV. Hence it appears that the grace of God, in the sense in which this word is used when we treat of regeneration, is the rule of the Spirit for directing and governing the human will. He cannot govern it unless he correct, reform, and renovate it; whence we say that the commencement of regeneration is an abolition of what is from ourselves; nor unless he also excite, actuate, impel, support, and restrain it; whence we truly assert, that all the actions which proceed from this are entirely of the Spirit. At the same time, we fully admit the truth of what Augustine teaches, that the will is not destroyed by grace, but rather repaired; for these two things are perfectly consistent – that the human will may be said to be repaired, when, by the correction of its depravity and perverseness, it is directed according to the true standard of righteousness; and also that a new will may be said to be created in man, because the natural will is so vitiated and corrupted, that it needs to be formed entirely anew. Now, there is no reason why we may not justly be said to perform that which the Spirit of God performs in us, although our own will contributes nothing of itself, independently of his grace. And, therefore, we should remember what we have before cited from Augustine, that many persons labour in vain to find in the human will some good, properly its own. For whatever mixture men study to add from the power of free will to the grace of God, is only a corruption of it; just as if any one should dilute good wine with dirty or bitter water. But although whatever good there is in the human will, proceeds wholly from the internal influence of the Spirit, yet because we have a natural faculty of willing, we are, not without reason, said to do those things, the praise of which God justly claims to himself; first, because whatever God does in us, becomes ours by his benignity, provided we do not apprehend it to originate from ourselves; secondly, because the understanding is ours, the will is ours, and the effort is ours, which are all directed by him to that which is good.

XVI. The other testimonies, which they rake together from every quarter, will not much embarrass even persons of moderate capacities, who have well digested the answers already given. They quote this passage from Genesis: “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him;”727 or, as they would translate the words, “Subject to thee shall be its appetite, and thou shalt rule over it;” which they explain to relate to sin, as though the Lord promised Cain, that the power of sin should not obtain dominion over his mind, if he would labour to overcome it. But we say that it is more agreeable to the tenor of the context, to understand it to be spoken concerning Abel. For the design of God in it is to prove the iniquity of that envy, which Cain had conceived against his brother. This he does by two reasons: first, that it was in vain for him to meditate crimes in order to excel his brother in the sight of God, with whom no honour is given but to righteousness; secondly, that he was extremely ungrateful for the favours God had already conferred on him, since he could not bear his brother, even though subject to his authority. But that we may not appear to adopt this explanation, merely because the other is unfavourable to our tenets, let us admit that God spake concerning sin. If it be so, then what the Lord there declares, is either promised or commanded by him. If it be a command, we have already demonstrated that it affords no proof of the power of men: if it be a promise, where is the completion of the promise, seeing that Cain fell under the dominion of sin, over which he ought to have prevailed? They will say, that the promise includes a tacit condition, as though it had been declared to him that he should obtain the victory if he would contend for it; but who can admit these subterfuges? For if this dominion be referred to sin, the speech is doubtless a command, expressive, not of our ability, but of our duty, which remains our duty even though it exceed our ability. But the subject itself, and grammatical propriety, require a comparison to be made between Cain and Abel; in which the elder brother would not have been placed below the younger, if he had not degraded himself by his own wickedness.

XVII. They adduce also the testimony of the Apostle, who says, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;”728 whence they conclude, that there is something in the will and endeavour, which, though ineffectual of itself, is rendered successful by the assistance of the Divine mercy. But if they would soberly examine the subject there treated by Paul, they would not so inconsiderately pervert this passage. I know that they can allege the suffrages of Origen and Jerome in defence of their exposition; and in opposition to them, I could produce that of Augustine. But their opinions are of no importance to us if we can ascertain what was the meaning of Paul. He is there teaching, that salvation is provided for them alone, whom the Lord favours with his mercy; but that ruin and perdition await all those whom he has not chosen. He had shown, by the example of Pharaoh, the condition of the reprobate; and had confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the testimony of Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” His conclusion is, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” If this be understood to imply that our will and endeavour are not sufficient, because they are not equal to so great a work, Paul has expressed himself with great impropriety. Away, therefore, with these sophisms: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth;” therefore there is some willing and some running. For the meaning of Paul is more simple – It is neither our willing nor our running, which procures for us a way of salvation, but solely the mercy of God. For he expresses here the same sentiment as he does to Titus, when he says, “that the kindness and love of God towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy.”729 The very persons, who argue that Paul, in denying that it is of him that willeth or of him that runneth, implies that there is some willing and some running, would not allow me to use the same mode of reasoning, that we have done some good works, because Paul denies that we have obtained the favour of God by any works which we have done. But if they perceive a flaw in this argumentation, let them open their eyes, and they will perceive a similar fallacy in their own. For the argument on which Augustine rests the dispute is unanswerable: “If it be said, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, merely because neither our willing nor our running is sufficient, it may, on the contrary, be retorted, that it is not of the mercy of God, because that does not act alone.”730 The latter position being absurd, Augustine justly concludes the meaning of this passage to be, that there is no good will in man, unless it be prepared by the Lord; not but that we ought to will and to run, but because God works in us both the one and the other. With similar want of judgment, some pervert this declaration of Paul, “We are labourers together with God;”731 which, without doubt, is restricted solely to ministers, who are denominated “workers with him,” not that they contribute any thing of themselves, but because God makes use of their agency, after he has qualified them and furnished them with the necessary talents.

XVIII. They produce a passage from Ecclesiasticus, which is well known to be a book of doubtful authority. But though we should not reject it, which, nevertheless, if we chose, we might justly do, what testimony does it afford in support of free will? The writer says, that man, as soon as he was created, was left in the power of his own will; that precepts were given to him, which if he kept, he should also be kept by them; that he had life and death, good and evil, set before him; and that whatever he desired, would be given him.732 Let it be granted, that man at his creation was endowed with a power of choosing life or death. What if we reply, that he has lost it? I certainly do not intend to contradict Solomon, who asserts that “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”733 But man, by his degeneracy, having shipwrecked both himself and all his excellences, whatever is attributed to his primitive state, it does not immediately follow that it belongs to his vitiated and degenerated nature. Therefore I reply, not only to them, but also to Ecclesiasticus himself, whoever he be: If you design to teach man to seek within himself a power to attain salvation, your authority is not so great in our estimation as to obtain even the smallest degree of credit, in opposition to the undoubted word of God. But if you only aim to repress the malignity of the flesh, which vainly attempts to vindicate itself by transferring its crimes to God, and you therefore reply, that man was originally endued with rectitude, from which it is evident that he was the cause of his own ruin, I readily assent to it; provided we also agree in this, that through his own guilt he is now despoiled of those ornaments with which God invested him at the beginning; and so unite in confessing, that in his present situation he needs not an advocate, but a physician.