Walter Marshall on Monergistic Sanctification: A Puritan Case Study

In my last post, I tried to start a discussion around the question “is sanctification monergistic, synergistic, or neither?” Instead of attempting a direct answer, I asked a number of other clarifying questions. I hoped this would be used as a good discussion starter on this topic. In this post, I will once again defer to answer the question myself, but instead will seek to enlist the help of a puritan to answer it for me.

Many seem to have the impression that the puritans were all in basic agreement on most everything (I know I grew up thinking so) and therefore if one of them makes a statement on a subject then that is what the Puritans believed in general. To put it lightly, this is a mistake. In fact, historians have difficulty in defining a well agreed on set of distinctives that make puritans puritans. For instance, you may be surprised to hear that there were Arminian puritans. I wish to avoid this mistake myself and thus I term this a “case study.” I do not not want to overstate the matter, but I do believe this puritan and his book clearly affirm a monergistic sanctification as will be demonstrated.

The Puritan

Walter Marshall, the puritan in question, is most famous for the book The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification (the edition I read is edited by Jeffrey Perry and is available here ). Although I do not want to over generalize and say that “the puritans would answer the question in this way…”, it is worth noting that some believed that this is the definitive, not only puritan, but protestant work on the subject. John Murray went further and said that this book was the “most important book on sanctification ever written,” so I think it should carry some weight in this discussion.

The story goes that Marshall had long struggled with the power and guilt of indwelling sin and desired to be furthered in sanctification. He first sought help from the famed Richard Baxter but his teaching seemed to worsen rather than help his condition. Afterward, he went to another famous puritan, Thomas Goodwin, and found great comfort in his advice (an example of the puritans not always being of the same mind). The culmination of this journey was the writing of his book.

The Book

I wish I could do a full review of this work, but for the time being, I will limit it to the question at hand. Nevertheless, I must say a few words about the general flow of the book. It is organized as 14 practical directions “suited especially for those who labor under the power and guilt of indwelling sin” as the subtitle puts it. The heart of his argument are directions two through four. He starts with the assertion that it is not sufficient to know that we ought to walk in a holy way and to try by mere will power to do so, but we must be endowed and qualified to this task. How we are endowed and qualified is by the mystic union that we have with Christ. Finally, the instrument by which we have this all important union with Christ is by faith in the gospel. Therefore, if we would be more holy, we must more fully lean into believing the good news of Jesus being our whole salvation. The remainder of his directions build on this foundation.

The Answer

In what follows, I will attempt to provide key passages from the book that relate to the question under consideration. For the most part, I will let Marshall speak for himself, but I will give the needed context and some limited commentary as well.

An imputed sanctification?

His third direction reads

The way to get holy endowments and the qualifications necessary to frame and enable us for the immediate practice of the law, is to receive them out of the fullness of Christ, by fellowship with Him; and in order that we may have this fellowship, we must be in Christ, and have Christ Himself in us, by a mystical union with Him. (p. 62)

This mystical union with Christ is the essence of what he is referring to in the title of the book: “The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.” This union is mystical not in the sense of Mysticism necessarily, but because it is a mystery to us of finite understanding (Eph 5:32), being beyond what we can understand.

The assertion of the author is that one of the benefits of this mystical union with Christ is the imputation of the sanctification that enables us to the immediate practice of the law. I will quote at length.

Just as we are justified by a righteousness wrought out in Christ and imputed to us, so we are sanctified by such a holy frame and qualifications as are first wrought out and completed in Christ for us, and then imparted to us.

And, as our natural corruption was produced originally in the first Adam, and propagated from him to us, so our new nature and holiness is first produced in Christ, and derived from Him to us, or as it were propagated.

So that we are not at all to work together with Christ, in making or producing that holy frame in us, but only to take it to ourselves, and use it in our holy practice, as made ready to our hands. Thus, we have fellowship with Christ, in receiving that holy frame of spirit that was originally in Him. (p. 63) [emphasis mine]

No doubt there are many points in which justification and sanctification agree and differ. For instance, the former is a one-and-done act while the latter is a progressive work. However, according to Marshall, one way they are the same is that they both are imputed to us by union with Christ. For him, this implies, a denial in as many words of synergism in sanctification, seeing synergism refers to working together.

Marshall recognizes that this assertion is contrary to our intuition and inclination. Again, I will quote at length.

This mystery is so great that notwithstanding all the light of the gospel, we commonly think that we must get a holy frame by producing it anew in ourselves and by forming and working it out of our own hearts.

Therefore, many that are seriously devout take a great deal of pains to mortify their corrupt nature and beget earnestly to master their sinful lusts, and by pressing vehemently on their hearts many motives to godliness, and laboring unrelentingly to squeeze good qualifications out of them, as oil out of a flint. They account that, though they be justified by a righteousness wrought out by Christ, yet they must be sanctified by a holiness wrought out by themselves.

And though, out of humility, they are willing to call it infused grace, yet they think they must get the infusion of it by the same manner of working, as if it were wholly acquired by their own endeavors. (pp. 64-65). [Emphasis mine].

As Reformed folk, we should not be allergic to the idea of infused grace. Indeed, whatever true practice of the law we perform, we must give God the glory for originating that practice. Nevertheless, Marshall still finds fault with calling sanctification infused grace but insists that sanctification is an imputed grace only. Our works that are an infused grace by the Spirit are the fruit of the imputed grace of sanctification.

Sanctification by works = salvation by works

The next section deals with those the author calls “late refiners of the Protestant religion” (p. 97). Knowing the author’s own history with Richard Baxter, Baxter is likely the preeminent “refiner” in view. He says

Some will allow that faith is the sole condition of our justification and the instrument to receive it, according to the doctrine maintained formerly by the Protestants against the Papists; but they account that it is not sufficient or effectual to sanctification, but that it rather tends to licentiousness, if it is not joined with some other means that may be powerful and effectual to secure a holy practice.

…

Their common antidote or corrective is that sanctification is necessary to salvation, as well as justification; and though we are justified by faith, we are sanctified by our own performance of the law. So, they set up salvation by works, and make the grace of justification to be of no effect, and not at all comforting. (p. 96) [emphasis mine]

The syllogism is simple: P1. Sanctification is a necessary part of our salvation; P2. We are sanctified by our works; C. Therefore, in part we are saved by our works. Every protestant should be able to affirm premise one, but if we are to remain protestant, we must reject premise two. Marshall is exactly correct, there is no comfort in saying justification is apart from works, if in the end our final salvation hinges on the works we produce out of ourselves. In the end, there would be something we could boast in. Listen to Marshall on this point.

Paul proves the doctrine of justification, and sanctification, and salvation by grace through faith to be of God, because it excludes all boastings of the creature (Rom. 3:27,28; 1Cor. 1:29,30,31; Eph. [2]:8,9) (p. 470)

Note that the logic that excludes boastings in our justification holds just as well for sanctification.

Ultimately, he lumps those who think we must be sanctified, even in part, by our own works with the Papists

Hereby it appears that the Papists and all others that think to justify, sanctify, and save themselves by any of their own works, rites or ceremonies whatever, do walk in a carnal way… (p.365) [emphasis mine]

But what about works!

Even the most stalwart reformed reader my start wondering if Marshall is a rank antinomian (one who would deny that it is necessary in any sense for the Christian to pursue and/or produce good works). However, Marshall is no antinomian, but his question has always been, how can we produce good works?

We do so by faith in the Son of God and do “… not act for life, but from life.” (p.364).

Our willing, resolving and endeavoring must be to do the best, not that lies in ourselves, or in our own power, but that Christ and the power of His Spirit shall be pleased to work in us; for ‘in us (that is, in our flesh) there dwells no good thing’ (Rom. 7:18). (p.361)

And elsewhere,

God enables us to act, not by ourselves, as He does others, but by Himself. The wicked are supported in acting only according to their own nature, so they act wickedly; thus, all are said to live, move and have their being in God (Acts 17:28). But God enables us to conquer sin, not by ourselves, but by Himself (Hos. 1:7); and the glory of enabling us does not only belong to Him, which the Pharisees could not but ascribe to him (Luke 18:11), but also the glory of doing all in us.

And yet we work as one with Christ, even as He works as one with the Father, by the Father working in Him. We live as branches by the juice of the vine, act as members by the animal spirits of the head, and bring forth fruit by marriage to Him as our husband, and work in the strength of Him as the living bread that we feed on. He is all in the new man (Col. 3:11), and all the promises are made good in Him (2Cor. 1:2o). (p. 472)

I get the idea from those who espouse synergistic sanctification that God’s part in sanctification is to work the enabling and our part is to work the works. However, the Word saturated logic above rejects this in whole.

Gospel Sanctification

In giving the summary of the doctrine he set forth in the book, Marshall argues that this doctrine accords best with the gospel we all should agree on. He says of his doctrine

It confirms us in the true doctrine of justification and reconciliation with God by faith, relying on the merits of Christ’s blood, without any works of our own, and without considering faith as a work to procure favor by the righteousness of the act, but only as a hand to receive the gift, or as the very eating and drinking of Christ actually, rather than any kind of condition entitling us to Him as our food.

This doctrine of the gospel many hate, as breaking the strongest [bonds] of holiness and opening a way to all licentiousness; for they reckon that the conditionality of works to attain God’s favor and avoid His wrath, and the necessity of them to salvation are the most necessary and effectual impulses to all holiness; and they account that the other doctrine opens the flood gates to licentiousness.

…

But I have already shown that a man, being a guilty dead creature, cannot be brought to serve God out of love by the force of any of these motives; and that we are not sanctified by any of our own endeavors to work holiness in ourselves, but rather by faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, even the same whereby we are justified; and that the urging of the law stirs up sin; and that freedom from it is necessary to all holiness, as the apostle teaches (Rom. 6:11,14; 7:4,5).

…

The great objection and reason of so many controversies and books written about it is because they think that men will trust to be saved, however they live. But sanctification is an effect of justification, and flows from the same grace.

And we trust them both by the same faith, and for the latter [justification], in order, to the former [sanctification]. And such a faith, be it ever so confident, leads not to licentiousness, but to holiness; and we agree that justification by grace destroys holiness by legal endeavors, but not by grace (pp. 477-479) [emphasis mine]

Conclusion: this puritan affirmed monergisitic sanctification

Perhaps I have erred on the side of over quoting, but I think the above quotations leave little question about where this puritan, Walter Marshall, stood on the question of who works our sanctification. With the catechism, he would answer, “It is a work of God’s grace….”

Another reason I have quoted at such length, is because the quotes were too good to cut short. I know not everyone who reads this will get to read his book, at least not immediately, so I wanted you to share the same kind of gold I have had the chance to partake of in reading his book. However, there is more gold in the book than just what I have quoted, both on this subject and many others, so I urge you, whoever you are, to read this masterpiece on “the Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.”