Efficacious Grace (Controversies Notebook)
“Controversies” Notebook
efficacious grace From the initial entry in this section of the “Controversies” notebook,1
we know that its contents were written after the three notebooks on “Moral Agency,” later entitled “Efficacious Grace” by Edwards after he had used the notebooks to compose Freedom of the Will. In addition, Edwards makes an internal reference to William Warburton’s Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, published in 1753. It is safe, therefore, to assign this portion of the “Controversies” to the period after the spring of 1753, when Edwards completed his treatise on the will.2 Much of it is sketchy and is interspersed with Edwards’ directions to himself (“Here to show,” “Observe here,” and the like) for writing out his ideas in a more complete form. But it contains significant discussions of the role of habit in saving virtue and also lays out Edwards’ differences with Arminians (primarily Daniel Whitby and George Turnbull, though Warburton and Joseph Butler are cited as well) on the doctrine of efficacious grace. This section in the “Controversies” supplements the work on efficacious grace he had stored in the three notebooks on the subject. The entries are written in pp. 170–79 and 127–28 of the manuscript. The first group of entries (up to MS p. 175d) is written in a gray ink dating from the early 1750s; the remaining entries are in a dark brown ink that Edwards used in the last years of his life.
Edwards’ central argument is that true grace, or “saving virtue,” is obtained through a supernatural, determinative act of God. True grace is different “in degree and kind from common grace” and is not acquired by “contracted habits, “custom,” or “gradual contraction,” that is, simply by studied application to a godly life and sheer accumulation of good works. Sinners, Edwards contends, cannot be “the determining causes of their own virtue.” Those who claim that “habits of virtue” are the result of “gradual culture” only contribute to human “presumption,” even “despair.”
Notes
1. For a description of this MS, see “Note to the Reader,” p. xi. 2. Works, 1, 7.
“controversies” notebook:
efficacious grace From the initial entry in this section of the “Controversies” notebook,1
we know that its contents were written after the three notebooks on “Moral Agency,” later entitled “Efficacious Grace” by Edwards after he had used the notebooks to compose Freedom of the Will. In addition, Edwards makes an internal reference to William Warburton’s Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, published in 1753. It is safe, therefore, to assign this portion of the “Controversies” to the period after the spring of 1753, when Edwards completed his treatise on the will.2 Much of it is sketchy and is interspersed with Edwards’ directions to himself (“Here to show,” “Observe here,” and the like) for writing out his ideas in a more complete form. But it contains significant discussions of the role of habit in saving virtue and also lays out Edwards’ differences with Arminians (primarily Daniel Whitby and George Turnbull, though Warburton and Joseph Butler are cited as well) on the doctrine of efficacious grace. This section in the “Controversies” supplements the work on efficacious grace he had stored in the three notebooks on the subject. The entries are written in pp. 170–79 and 127–28 of the manuscript. The first group of entries (up to MS p. 175d) is written in a gray ink dating from the early 1750s; the remaining entries are in a dark brown ink that Edwards used in the last years of his life.
Edwards’ central argument is that true grace, or “saving virtue,” is obtained through a supernatural, determinative act of God. True grace is different “in degree and kind from common grace” and is not acquired by “contracted habits, “custom,” or “gradual contraction,” that is, simply by studied application to a godly life and sheer accumulation of good works. Sinners, Edwards contends, cannot be “the determining causes of their own virtue.” Those who claim that “habits of virtue” are the result of “gradual culture” only contribute to human “presumption,” even “despair.”
A brief, almost negligible reference under the heading “Method,” leading the reader back to an earlier page and a different section (on original sin) in the “Controversies,” provides some clues to Edwards’ intentions for publishing these new materials. In the passage, he envisions a treatise in three parts, beginning with true virtue and the end for which God created the world, then original sin, then “infused habits” and the difference of saving and common grace (perhaps incorporating materials from here and from the “Treatise on Grace”), and finally returning to moral taste and its relation to true virtue. Under this original plan, then, discussions of true virtue were to have framed this massive work, which indicates the importance the topic had assumed in Edwards’ mind.
Edwards moves on to delineate the differences between “us” (Calvinists) and Arminians on efficacious grace. The grace of God is “determining and decisive” in giving saving virtue, and saving virtue is “given by a supernatural and sovereign operation of the Spirit of God” above and beyond common assistance and natural law. In four succinct questions, Edwards summarizes what for him are the central issues of saving versus common virtue, the nature of “a holy disposition of heart,” the instantaneous or gradual nature of conversion, and whether God gives assistance arbitrarily or according to “stated rules.”
Following a lengthy paraphrase of a passage from Thomas Goodwin’s Exposition on the Epistle to the Ephesians on the power of God in conversion, the section concludes with an excursus on “sincerity of endeavors” and its role in obtaining saving grace. Edwards contends that there is “but one sort of sincerity in religion, and that is a truly pious or holy sincerity,” a “true and saving piety of heart.” Any other sincerity, he states, is an “undetermined condition” to which God cannot promise grace. What is crucial is the reality of will and not the mere goodness of will. Edwards then asks, If we allow the Arminians’ premise, how great a degree of sincerity is necessary for a person to be entitled to the promise? All come short of the perfect degree, all suffer from a “continual defect of sincerity,” and so are unworthy. The title to the benefit, Edwards points out, is not to be calculated mathematically but is dependent on the nature of the sincerity. He finishes up the essay by employing the force of his logic to bring his opponents to an argumentum ad absurdum and affirming that “the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of the condition of the promises.”
Some of these entries were published in Remarks on Important Theological Controversies (Edinburgh, 1796) as §§ 1–14 in pp. 176–96, and reprinted in the Worcester rev. ed., 2, §§ 1–16, pp. 547–57. Edwards never assigned section numbers. In the notebook, Edwards, Jr., circled for deletion or omission his father’s cross-references to other entries in the book or to other manuscripts, rewrote passages that he thought were unclear, and bracketed and labeled various sections as “No. 1” up through “No. 5.” The significance of this numbering system bears no obvious correlation to what is published in Remarks, so its meaning remains unclear.
See the remainder of the Papers on Free Will, what was written there on efficacious grace.3
’Tis manifest that the Scripture supposes that if ever men are turned from sin, God must undertake it and he must be the doer of it, and that his doing that must determine the matter; that all that others can do will [be] nothing without, and never will determine the point. Jer. 31:18–19, “turn thou me, and I shall be turned; thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh,” etc. Lam. 5:21, “Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned.” Ps. 80:3, “Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.” The same in vv. 7 and 19. Jer. 17:14, “Heal me, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.”
According to Dr. Whitby’s notion of the assistance of the Spirit, the Spirit of God does nothing in the hearts or minds of men beyond the power of the devil, nothing but what the devil can [do] and nothing showing any greater power in any respect than the devil shows and exercises in his temptations. For he supposes that all the Spirit of God does is to bring moral maxims and inducements to mind, and to set ’em before the understanding, etc.4
Efficacious grace. See back, pp. 92–93, under the head of Original Sin.5
3. JE refers to the three MS notebooks on “Moral Agency” and possibly to the MS entitled “Of Free Will.”
4. Whitby, Discourse [on the Five Points], III, ch. 1, “Of Sufficient and Effectual, Common and Special Grace.” See esp. pp. 225–27 (in 2nd corr. ed.), in which Whitby argues that in the assistance of the Holy Spirit “the Action is truly Physical,” the individual is “wholly passive,” and the “Operations are irresistible in their Production.”
“controversies” notebook:
efficacious grace
Turnbull’s explanation [of] Phil. 2:12–13, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure,” is this (Christian Philosophy, pp. 96– 97): “Give all diligence to work out your salvation, for it is God, the Creator of all things, who by giving you of his good pleasure the power of willing and do[ing], with a sense of right and wrong, and reason to guide and direct you, hath visibly made it your end so to do. Your frame shows, that to prepare yourselves for great moral happiness, arising from a wellcultivated and improved mind suitably placed, is your end appointed to you by your Creator. Consider therefore that by neglecting this your duty, this your interest, you contemn and oppose the good will of God towards you, and his design in creating you.”6
from common grace, and that it is infused and men are made saints in an instant, then by way of COROLLARY observe that that virtue which has been obtained only by contracted habits, by custom, is not saving virtue. Here acknowledge a certain virtue may be obtained this way. Observe particularly after what manner. But then show wherein this differs from saving virtue. Also here allow that ’tis possible that God infuses grace at some instant into the minds of such persons as are striving to obtain it in the other way, and they may not observe it, and may not know that it is not obtained by gradual contraction. But if a man has indeed sought it only in that way, and with as much dependence on himself and with as much neglect of God in his endeavors and prayers, as such a doctrine naturally leads [to], ’tis not very likely that he should obtain saving grace by the efficacious mighty power of God. Observe in what way it is most likely that God should bestow this gift, {viz.} in a way of earnest seeking of it by prayer to him together with the use of the means of grace, with reflection on one’s own sinfulness and in a way of being more and more convinced of sinfulness and total corruption, and need of the divine power to restore the heart, to infuse goodness, and in becoming more and more sensible of his own impotence and helplessness and inability to obtain goodness by his own strength. And if he has obtained no other virtue than what seems to have been wholly in that gradual way, to have been by little and little advanced in that insensible way that might be expected from use and custom in the exercise of his own strength, he has reason to think, however bright his attainments may seem to be, that he has no saving virtue.
Observe how great a part of the gospel is denied by them who deny such efficacious grace. They deny that wherein actual salvation and the application of redemption mainly consists, and how little likely such are to be succeeded in their endeavors after actual salvation. JE then deletes: “After having shown that there is NO TRUE VIRTUE in natural men, then observe how many ways virtue is resembled in them and sure [sic] of the ways of working of natural CONSCIENCE. Show the great difference between the dictates of conscience and divine taste. Here observe what that is which is commonly called MORAL TASTE and supposed to be natural to all men.”
If we look through all the examples we have of conversion in Scripture, the conversion of the apostle Paul and of the Corinthians—“And such were some of you: but ye are washed,” etc. [I Cor. 6:11]—and all others that the apostles wrote [to]: how far were they from this gradual way {of conversion} by contracted habits by Greek culture, as Turnbull speaks of.
Here it is to be noted that Turnbull, Christian Philosophy, p. 470c, seems to think that the sudden conversions that were in the apostles’ days were instances of their miraculous power, in these words: “they appealed to the works they wrought, to the samples they gave of their power to foretell future events; their power to cure instantaneously all diseases of the body; their power to cure in the same extraordinary manner all diseases of the mind, or to convert bad into good dispositions.” See again, to the like purpose, 472c. See, to the like purpose, Warburton’s Sermons, pp. 234–35.7
Now I would inquire whether those who had the diseases of their mind [cured], and their bad converted into good dispositions, had any virtue, or whether these good dispositions of theirs were virtues or anything praiseworthy; and whether, when they were thus converted, they became
296 “Controversies”: Efficacious Grace
7. Turnbull, Christian Philosophy, p. 470. On p. 472, Turnbull states that the evidence which Christ gave for the truth of his doctrine concerning the Governor and government of the world, must be a full and proper evidence of its truth; or it must be said, either that he did not give sufficient samples of his benevolence to mankind, his regard to truth, honesty, and sincerity, which was never asserted, such an uninterrupted series of generosity, benevolence, and sincerity was his life: or that the many works he wrought of the kinds above mentioned, were not samples of a very large insight into, and power in nature; which will be to affirm that samples of power to see into men’s minds, and foretell their future actions; power to change men[‘]s minds; power to deliver from evils of all sorts, corporeal and mental; power to confer gifts of all sorts, bodily and spiritual; power to raise the dead; power to transfer to others this same extensive power he himself was possessed of, did not shew a very large and extensive knowledge of nature, and power in nature. William Warburton, Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, Occasionally Opened & Explained; in a course of sermons (2 vols. London, 1753), 1, 234–35. The passage JE refers to is in Sermon VI, “The Office and Operation of the Holy Spirit.” The pages in question begin a section considering the Holy Spirit “as the COMFORTER, who rectifies and supports the will.”
And here again his divine power manifests itself in as miraculous an operation. Sacred antiquity is very large and full in its accounts of the sudden and entire change the Holy Spirit made in the dispositions and manners of those it inlightened; instantaneously effacing all their evil habits, and familiarizing their practice to the performances of every good and virtuous action.
To this illustrious and triumphant Truth, the very enemies and persecutors of our holy faith have been forced to subscribe: not only in the serious accounts which some of them give of the virtue and innocence of PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY; but even in the ironical declamations of others concerning the boasted virtue of water-baptism.”
good men and such as were the heirs of salvation. As Turnbull himself allows, all that are not good men were called the children of the devil in Scripture; and he asserts that nothing is virtue but what is obtained by our own culture: no habit is virtuous but a contracted one, one that is owing to our own selves, our own diligence, etc. Yet [he] also holds that none are good men but the virtuous, none other the heirs of future happiness.8
What God [wrought] for the apostle Paul and other primitive Christians was intended for a pattern to all future ages, for their instruction and excitement (Eph. 2:7, I Tim. 1:16). ’Tis natural to expect that the first fruits of the church, especially recorded in history [in] that Book which is the standing rule of the church in all things pertaining to their salvation, should be a pattern to after-ages in those things, those privileges, which equally concern all.
Or if it be said that, as soon as men take up a strong resolution, they are accepted and looked upon by God as penitents and converts: but if [so], is there a good man without good habits, or principles of virtue and goodness, in his heart? Turnbull speaks of good men as “born again,” i.e. changed by culture (Christian Philosophy, p. 282).9 Is there a good man without such principles as love to God and man, or charity, humility, etc.? How comes that resolution to be so good, if no principle of virtue be exercised in it? If it be said, Paul was a good man before {he was converted}: but he did not believe in Christ, and therefore was in a state of condemnation; besides, he speaks of himself as being then a wicked man.
Consider the supposition advanced by Bp. Butler, and Turnbull in his Christian Philosophy, that all that God does, and even miracles themselves, is according to “general laws,” such as are called the laws of nature, to us, “though unknown to us” (p. 183, and before and after; see the contents
8. Turnbull, Christian Philosophy, p. 282: If we reflect, in the first place, that, though some few may, through the good influence of virtuous example, and of a wise and happy education, be said to be sanctified from the womb, so liberal, so generous, so virtuous, so truly noble is their cast of mind; yet generally speaking, men are so corrupt, the whole world always hath, and still lieth in such wickedness, that with respect to the far greater part of mankind the study of virtue is beginning to reform, and is a severe struggle against bad habits early contracted, and deeply rooted. It is therefore putting off an old inveterate corrupt nature, and putting on a new form and temper: it is moulding ourselves anew: it is being born again, and becoming as children, to be formed into a right shape; becoming docile, tractable, and pliable, as little children, in order to be instructed in, and formed to the temper which becomes rational creatures . . . 9. Turnbull, Christian Philosophy, p. 282 (see preceding note).
at the end of that volume).1 Turnbull supposes it may be done by angels acting by general laws. Here to show how unreasonable that is. If they work those works acting only by general laws, then they must do them without any immediate special interposition at all, even so much as to give any intimations at all of the divine Mind what to do, or upon what occasion God would have the thing to be done. And what will this doctrine bring inspiration to, which is one kind of miracle? According to this, all signification of the divine Mind, even to the prophets and apostles, must be according to general laws without any special interposition at all of the divine agency.
Acts 12:23. God was so angry with Herod for not giving God the glory of his eloquence, that the angel of the Lord smote him immediately, and he died a miserable death; “he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” But if it be very sinful for a man to take to himself the glory of such a qualification as eloquence, how much more man’s taking to himself the glory of divine grace, Gods own image, and that which is infinitely God’s most excellent, gracious and glorious gift, and man’s highest honor, excellency and happiness, whereby he is partaker of the divine nature and becomes
298 “Controversies”: Efficacious Grace
1. Joseph Butler, The analogy of religion, natural and revealed, to the constitution and course of nature (London, 1736), esp. pp. 144–48, in which he considers Christianity as “a Republication of natural Religion.”
Turnbull, Christian Philosophy, pp. 183–84:
[T]hat miraculous powers should be exerted at such times, upon such occasions, in such degrees and manners, and with regard to such persons rather than others; that the affairs of the world, being permitted to go on in their natural course so far, should just at such a point have a new direction given them by miraculous interpositions; that these interpositions should be exactly in such degrees and respects only; all this may have been by general laws. These laws are indeed unknown to us: but no more unknown than several other laws from whence certain effects proceed are, though it is taken for granted, they are as much reducible to general ones as gravitation. . . . This reasoning from analogy is certainly very just. But it is not from analogy merely, that we have reason to conclude, that the whole of the divine government must be by general laws; and consequently, that even miraculous interpositions must be all along carried on by general laws, tho’ unknown to us. . . . It cannot therefore be a scheme which frequently requires interpositions, at certain points, till then never thought of by the ruler of the world, and maker of all things. . . . But if miraculous interpositions cannot mean such extemporary, unpremeditated or casual interpositions, pro re nata; ’tis plain, miraculous interpositions can be in no other sense miraculous to us, than any other effects are really such, whose laws are unknown to us, tho’ we do not call all such miraculous. The larger section of Turnbull’s discourse to which JE is referring, as described in the table of contents, is section II, “The Scripture doctrine concerning providence more fully explained, etc.,” proposition III (pp. 173–92), “The divine, infinitely wise, just, faithful, good providence governs the whole universe by general laws; nor is what is said in Scripture of special, miraculous interpositions of providence inconsistent with such government.”
a godlike creature? If God was so jealous for the glory of so small a gift, how much more for so high an endowment, this being that, above all other things, by which man becomes like God? If man takes the glory of it to himself, he thereby will be in greatest danger of taking the glory to himself that is due to God, and setting up himself a standing in competition with God, as vying with the Most High, and making himself a god and not a man. If not giving God the glory of that which is less honorable provokes God’s jealousy, much more not giving God the glory of that which is infinitely the most honorable. ’Tis allowed, the Apostle insists upon it that the primitive Christians should be sensible that the glory of their gifts belonged to God, and that they made not themselves to differ [I Cor. 4:7]. But how small a matter is this, if they make themselves to differ in that which the Apostle says is so much more excellent than all gifts?
How much more careful has God shown himself that men should not be proud of their virtue than [of] any other gift? See Deut. 9:4 and innumerable other places; Luke 18:9. And the Apostle plainly teaches us to ascribe the glory not only of our redemption to God but of our wisdom, righteousness and sanctification, and that no flesh should glory in themselves in these things (I Cor. 1:29–31). Again, the Apostle plainly directs that all that glory in their virtue should glory in the Lord, in II Cor. 10:17. ’Tis glorying in virtue and virtuous deeds he is there speaking of, and ’tis plain that the Apostle uses the expression of “glorying in the Lord” in such a sense as to imply ascribing the glory of our virtue to God.
This doctrine of men’s being the determining causes of their own virtue teaches ’em not to do so much as even the proud Pharisee, who thanked God for making him to differ from other men in virtue (Luke 18). See Gen. 41:15–16, Job 11:12, Dan. 2:25, etc., II Cor. 3:5–6, II Cor. 4:7, II Cor. 10:17.
Prov. 20:12, “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them,” compared with many parallel places that speak about God’s giving eyes to see, and ears to hear, and hearts to understand, etc.2
The Arminian doctrine and the doctrine of our new philosophers concerning habits of virtue being only by custom, discipline and gradual culture, joined with the other doctrine, that the obtaining these habits in those that have time for it is in every man’s powers, according to their doc- trine of the freedom of will, tends exceedingly to cherish presumption in sinners while in health and vigor, and to their utter despair in sensible approaches of death by sickness or old age.
Method. See under the head of Original Sin, p. 102.3
Observe that the question with some is whether the Spirit of God doth anything at all in these days since the Scriptures have been completed. With those that allow that it is not so, the question can’t be whether his influence be immediate, for if he does anything at all, his influence must be immediate; nor can the question be whether his influence, with regard to what he intends to do, be efficacious.
See what is left of Papers on Free Will, no. 8, p. 13.4 The questions relating to efficacious grace controverted between us and the Arminians are two:
I. Whether the grace of God, in giving us saving virtue, be determining and decisive.
II. Whether saving virtue be decisively given by a supernatural and sovereign operation of the Spirit of God, or whether it be only by such divine influence or assistance as is imparted in the course of common providence, either according to established laws of nature or established laws of God’s universal providence towards mankind. I.e. either, 1. assistance which is given in all natural actions, wherein men do merely exercise and improve the principles of nature and laws of nature, and come to such attainments as are connected with such natural exercises by the mere laws of nature. For there is an assistance in all such natural actions, because ’tis by a divine influence that the laws of nature are upheld, and a constant concurrence of divine power is necessary in order [to] our living, moving or having a being. (This we may call a natural assistance.). Or 2. that as-
3. The entry, from an earlier section in the “Controversies,” which is also referred to in the section on The Nature of True Virtue, proposes the construction of multi-part work: “Perhaps in more volumes than one, a treatise, the first part concerning the nature of true virtue, and in this treat of God’s end in creating the world; and in the next part concerning original sin, an inquiry into the truth of the doctrine, both as to corruption of nature and imputation, and in the next place concerning the manner in which man’s nature came to be corrupt and its total corruption; and then concerning infused habits, and concerning saving grace’s differing from common grace in nature and kind, and concerning that moral taste that natural men [have], to show that there is nothing of true virtue in it.”
sistance, which though it be something besides the upholding the laws of nature which take place in other affairs of life, is yet by a divine universal constitution in this particular affair of religion so connected with these voluntarily exercises that are by this natural assistance, that by this constitution it indiscriminately extends to all mankind, is certainly connected with such exercises and improvements as were just mentioned, by a certain established known rule, as much as any of the laws of nature. This kind of assistance, though many Arminians call it a supernatural assistance, differs little or nothing from that natural assistance that is established by a law of nature. The law so established is only a particular law of nature; as some of the laws of nature are more general, others are more particular. But this establishment, which they suppose to be by divine promise, differs nothing at all from many other particular laws of nature, but only in that circumstance of the established constitution’s being revealed in the Word of God, and others are left to be discovered only by experience.
The Calvinists suppose otherwise. They suppose that divine influence and operation, by which saving virtue is attained, is entirely different from and above common assistance, or that which is given in a course of ordinary providence, according to universally established laws of nature. They suppose a principle of saving virtue is immediately imparted and implanted by that operation which is sovereign and efficacious in that respect, that its effect is not from any established laws of nature.
I mention this as an entirely different [question] from the other, viz. whether the grace of God, by which we obtain saving virtue, is determining and decisive; for that it may be, if it be given wholly in a course of nature, or by such an operation as is limited and regulated perfectly according to established invariable laws. For none will dispute that many things are brought to pass by God in this manner that are decisively ordered by him, and are brought to pass by his determining providence.
The controversy, as it relates to efficacious grace in this sense, includes in it these four questions:
1. Whether saving virtue differs from common virtue, or such virtue as they [have] that are not in a state of salvation, in nature and kind or only in degree and circumstances?
3. Whether conversion, or the change of a person from being a vicious or wicked man to a truly virtuous character, be instantaneous or gradual?
4. Whether the divine assistance or influence by which men obtain true and saving virtue be sovereign and arbitrary, or whether God, in giving this assistance and its effects, limits himself to certain exact and stated rules revealed in his Word and established by his promises?
Eph. 1:19–20, “what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward, according to the working of his mighty power,” or “the effectual working,” as the word signifies. These words, “according to the effectual working of his power,” we shall find applied to conversion, to growth in grace, and to raising us up at last. You have it applied to conversion. Eph. 3:7, “Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effectual working of his power.” So likewise for growth in grace. Eph. 4:16, “the whole body” increaseth with the increase of God by “the effectual working in the measure of every part.” And to the resurrection to glory at the last day. Phil. 3:21, he will change our vile bodies “according to the effectual working” of his mighty power, “whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.”
And that the power of God in conversion, or in giving faith, and the spiritual blessings that attend it, is partly meant, may be argued from the Apostle’s change of phrase; that whereas in the foregoing verse he speaks of “the riches of the glory” of Christ’s inheritance in the saints, he don’t go on to say, “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards them” (i.e. the saints), which surely would have been most natural, if he still had respect only to the power of God in bestowing the inheritance of future glory. But instead of that, we see he changes the phrase, “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe,” plainly intimating some kind of change of the subject or a respect to the subject of salvation with regard to something diverse; that whereas before he spoke only of saints in their future [state only],5 now he speaks of something that the saints—we that dwell in this world that believe—are the subjects of. And as the Apostle includes himself, so ’tis the more likely he should have the mighty power of God in conversion in his thought, his conversion having been so visible and remarkable an instance of God’s marvelous power. Again, the Apostle in praying that they know6 “the exceeding greatness of God’s power,” etc., he prays for such a knowledge and conviction of the power of God to bring them to life and glory, which was a most special remedy against such doubts as the church in their then present state were most exposed to; which was of their being preserved to glory and salvation through all their trials, persecutions and the great opposition that was made by the enemies of Christ and their souls. Therefore, after mentioning the glory of their inheritance, he, for their comfort and establishment, mentions the power of God to bring ’em to the possession of their inheritance, as the apostle Peter does, I Pet. 1:4–5, “To an inheritance incorruptible . . . who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” He speaks to their hearts, for here was their difficulty and temptation to doubting. But if the keeping them in faith showed such great power, much more the first bringing them from heathenism and the power of sin, darkness and spiritual death and ruin into a state of faith and salvation, quickening them when “dead in trespasses and sins” [Eph. 2:1]. As ’tis a greater instance of divine power to raise the dead than to maintain life that is exposed, a greater work to reconcile us, being enemies, than to keep us friends, being reconciled. It was natural for the Apostle to put them in mind of the power of God manifested in their conversion, as he would strengthen their faith in his power to raise ’em at the last day and glorify ’em to eternity. Dr. Goodwin says he finds most of the Greek Fathers ran this way in interpreting the place. He mentions Theophylact and Chrysostom,7 and cites these words of Chrysostom: “‘The Apostle’s scope is to demonstrate by what already was manifested in them, viz. the power of God in working faith; to raise up their hearts to believe what was not manifested, viz. the raising of them from death to life: it being’ (saith he) ‘a far more wonderful work to persuade a soul to believe in Christ, than to raise up a dead man, a far more admirable work of the two.’” Besides, what the Apostle says in the continuation of his discourse explains his meaning, and puts the matter of his intending to include the power of God manifested in their conversion out of all doubt, as in very next sentence: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” [Eph. 2:1]. And every word that follows, to the end of the second chapter, confirms the same thing. I shall mention a few of them. V. 2, “Wherein in time past ye walked . . . according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh effectually in the children of disobedience.” This shows the exceeding greatness of power in their being delivered from such a state, wherein they were held by the great power of so strong an enemy. Vv. 5–6, “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, [. . .] and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” These things are to show how the power of God in their conversion, and happy, honorable, glorious change of their state by it, was according to the power that wrought in Christ when he was quickened, raised up and made to sit in heavenly places, as ch. 1:19–21.
Now to back this with a parallel place. As here in this place the Apostle speaks of the greatness of God’s power in working faith, and parallels it with the power that raised up Christ from the dead, so we find he says the very same thing in Col. 2:12–13. “Ye are buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” In that text in Ephesians, the Apostle speaks of faith, “the power that works in us that believe”; so in this text in Colossians, “ye are risen through faith.” Again, secondly, in Ephesians, together with what there followeth, ch. 2, he compareth believing to a rising from the dead; so here in Colossians, “ye are risen with him through faith.” Thirdly, as in Ephesians the Apostle speaks of the work of God in giving faith as parallel with his work in raising Christ, so he does here in Colossians: “ye are risen with him through faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Fourth, as we in Ephesians are said to believe according to the efficacious working of God, the word energeia is also used here in Colossians: it is called “faith of the operation,” or effectual working of God. And as there God is said to be the author, the same that raised up Christ did work faith in them, so here it is “the faith of the operation of God, who raised Christ from the dead.” So that every way, one place is parallel with the other.
Some pretend that in that expression, “through the faith of the operation of God,” here is no respect to God’s operation as the efficient cause of faith, but [to] the operation of God that raised Christ as the object of faith which believes that power and operation, as it was manifested in raising Christ, and which is believed to be sufficient to raise us up also. That the Apostle means the operation of God in giving faith appears by v. 11, which introduces these [words],8 where the Apostle says, “In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” This phrase, “made without hands,” in Scripture always notes God’s immediate power and [its being] above the course of nature, above second causes. Thus when he speaks of heaven, II Cor. 5:1, he call it “an house not made with hands”; and in Heb. 9:11, the human nature of Christ, which was formed by so wonderful and supernatural a power of the Holy Ghost, is said to a tabernacle made without hands.
Note: the things above concerning those texts in Eph. 1:19–20 and in Col. 2:11–13 are taken chiefly from Dr. Goodwin’s Works, vol. 1, pp. 298, etc.9
See concerning god’s natural and arbitrary operations, “Miscellanies” no. 1263.1
’Tis a doctrine mightily in vogue, that God has promised his saving grace to man’s sincere endeavors in praying for it and using proper means to obtain it, and so that ’tis not God’s mere will that determines the matter whether we shall have saving grace or not, but that matter is left with us to be determined by the sincerity of our endeavors.
But there is vast confusion in all talk of this kind, for want of its being well explained what is meant by sincerity of endeavors, and through men’s deceiving themselves by using words without a meaning. I think the Scripture knows of but one sort of sincerity in religion, and that is a truly pious or holy sincerity. The Bible suggests no notion of any other sort of sincere obedience, or any other sincerity of endeavors, or any doings whatsoever in religion, than doing from love to God and true love to our duty. As to those that endeavor and take pains (let ’em do never so much), that yet do nothing freely, or from any true love to or delight in God, or free inclination to virtue, but wholly for by-ends and from sinister or mercenary views, as being driven and forced against their inclination, or induced by a regard to things foreign: I say, as to such as these, I find nothing in Scripture that should lead us to call them honest and sincere in their endeavors.
I doubt not but that the Scripture promises supernatural, truly divine and saving blessings to such a sincerity of endeavors as this. But then, as I apprehend, this is only to promise more saving grace to him that seeks it in the exercise of saving grace, agreeable to that repeated saying of our
9. Thomas Goodwin, Works (5 vols. London, 1681–1704),1, Pt. 1, 298–304. JE paraphrases from An Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, with the exception of the quote from Chrysostom, which appears on p. 301.
Savior, “To him that hath, shall be given, and he shall have more abundance” [Matt. 13:12]. Persons in seeking grace with this sincerity, ask in faith; they seek these blessing in the exercise of a saving faith, the great condition of the covenant of grace. And I suppose promises are made to no sincerity but what implies this. And whoever supposes that divine promises are made to any sincerity than this, I imagine they never will be able to make out their scheme, and that for two reasons:
I. On such a supposition, the promises must be supposed to be made to an undetermined condition; and,
II. Even on this supposition that the promises are made to some other sincerity than a truly pious sincerity, the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of condition of the promises, and so still the whole must depend on God’s determining grace.
I. On the supposition [that] the promises of saving grace are made to some other sincerity of endeavors than that which implies true and saving piety of heart, they must be made to an undetermined condition, and so be in effect no promises at all.2
If there be anything else worthy to be called sincerity in endeavors after holiness but a free, pious inclination or true regard and love to holiness, nothing else can be mentioned better than this, viz. endeavors after holiness from a real willingness of heart to be of those endeavors for its own sake, yet for such ends as are innocent, and such as prudence would propose—such as our own eternal interest, salvation from everlasting misery, etc.
So that by sincerity here is not meant any holy freedom or virtuous disposition of desire, but it signifies no more than reality of disposition and will to endeavor for some end, only provided the end be innocent. But the thing that truly in this case denominates the endeavor sincere, is the reality of the will or disposition of heart-endeavor, and not the goodness of the will or disposition.
Now if this be the sincerity of endeavors which is meant when men talk of its being the condition of peremptory and decisive promises of saving grace, then it never has (as I know of) yet been told, and I suppose never will or can be told, what the condition of the promise is.
The thing that needs to be determined in order to know the condition, is how great a degree of this sort of sincerity or real willingness of heart to endeavor a man must have in order to be entitled to the promise. For there can be no question but that multitudes that live in gross wickedness, and are men of a very debauched flagitious behavior, have some degree of it; and there are none, even those that are the most strict and painful in religion, but what have it in a very imperfect degree and in many things fail of this sincerity of endeavor: for it must be kept in mind that all the sincerity of heart we are speaking of attending religious duties, is only a reality of willingness to use endeavors. And every man whatsoever that uses any endeavors at all in the least for his salvation, or even performs any religious duty to that end, that he may go to heaven and not to hell, has this sincerity: for whatever men do voluntarily for this end, they do from a real willingness and disposition of heart to do it; for if they were not willing to do it, they would not do it. There surely are no voluntary actions performed without men’s being willing to perform ’em. And is there anybody that will assert that God has absolutely or peremptorily promised his saving grace to every man that ever stirs hand or foot, or thinks one thought, in order to his salvation?
And on the other hand, as to those that go furthest in their endeavors, yet they fail in innumerable things of exercising this kind of sincerity consisting in reality of will: for such are guilty of innumerable [sins], and every man that commits sin, therein instead of being sincerely willing to do his duty, he sincerely wills the contrary; for so far as any actions of his are his sin, so far his will is in what he does. No action is imputed to us any further than it is voluntary and has the real disposition of the heart on his side. And this painful endeavorer also fails of his duty, or (which is the same thing) of perfect obedience, continually; and so far as he does so, he fails of sincerity of endeavors. No man is any further defective in his obedience than he is defective in sincerity, for there the defect lies, viz. in his will and the disposition of his heart. If men were perfect in these, that would be the same thing as to be perfect in obedience, or complete in holiness. Nothing either of omission or commission is sin any further than it has the real disposition and will on its side. And therefore, no men are any further sinful than they are sincere in sinning; and so far as they are sincere in sinning, so far they are deficient of sincerely endeavoring their duty.
Now, therefore, where is the bounds to which men must come in order to be entitled to the promise? Some have some sincerity of endeavor, that none do suppose are entitled; and those that have most sincerity of endeavor, do greatly fail of that degree of sincerity of endeavor that they ought to have, [fall] short of that which God requires—and there are in- finite degrees between these two sorts. And if every degree of sincerity of endeavor is [not] sufficient, and yet some certain degree of it, greatly short of that which God requires, is sufficient, then let it be determined what that degree is.
Some have determined thus, that if men sincerely endeavor to do what they can, God has promised to help ’em to do more, etc. But this question remains to be resolved: Whether the condition of the promise be, that he shall sincerely endeavor to do what he can constantly, or only sometimes. For there is no man that sincerely endeavors to [do] his duty to the utmost constantly, with this sort of sincerity consisting in reality of will so to do: for if he did, he would perfectly do his duty at all times; for as was observed before, nothing else is required but the will, and [men] never fail of their duty, or commit sin, but their real will is to sin. But if the condition of the promise be sincerely doing what they can sometimes, then it should be declared how often or how great a part of the time of man’s life he must exercise this sincerity. It is manifest that men fail of their duty every day, yea, continually; and therefore that there is a continual defect of sincerity of endeavors in the practice of duty.
If it should be said that the condition of the promise of saving grace is that, take one time with another and one duty with another, the sincerity of their will should be chiefly in favor of their duty; or in other words, that they should be sincere in endeavors to do more than half their duty, though they sincerely neglect the rest: I would inquire where they find such promises as these in the Bible. I think it can be demonstrated that there is not a man on earth that ever comes up half-way to what the law of God requires of him, and consequently that there is in all more want of sincerity than there is of sincerity. But whether it be so or no, how does it appear that if men are sincere in endeavors with respect to3 more than half their duty, God has promised them saving mercy and grace, though through a defect of their sincerity the rest be neglected?
If we suppose the sincerity to which divine promises are made to consist in freedom of the heart in religious endeavors and performances, consisting in love to God and holiness, inclining our heart to our duty for its own sake, here is something determinate and precise—though a title to the benefit promised [is] not depending on any particular degree of sincerity to be found on the difficult and unteachable rules of mathematical calculation, but on the nature of it, this sincerity being a thing of an entirely distinct nature and kind from anything that is to be found in others that have no interest in the promises. If men know they have this sincerity, they may know the promises are theirs, though they may be sensible they have very much of a contrary principle in their hearts, the4 operations of which are [as] real as of this. This is the only sincerity in religion that the Scripture makes any account of. According to the Word of God, then, and then only, is there a sincere universal obedience, when persons love all God’s commands and love all those things wherein holiness consists, and endeavor after obedience to every divine precept from love and of free choice. Otherwise, in Scripture account, there is nothing but sincere disobedience and rebellion without any sincerity of the contrary: for their disobedience is of free choice, from sincere love to sin and delight in wickedness, but their refraining from some sins and doing some external duties is without the least degree of free choice or sincere love.5
If here it should be said that men that have no piety of heart in a saving degree yet may have some degree of love to virtue, and should insist that all mankind are born with moral [sense] which implies a natural approbation of and love to virtue; and therefore men that have not the principles of love to God and virtue established to that degree as to be truly pious men and entitled to heaven, yet they may have such degrees of them as to engage ’em with a degree in ingenuous sincerity and free inclination, to seek after further degrees of virtue and so with a sincerity above that which has been mentioned, viz. a real willingness to use endeavors from fear and self-interest:
But here it may be replied, If this be allowed, it will not at all help the matter, for still the same question returns, viz. What degree of this sincerity is it that is the precise condition of the promise? It is supposed that all mankind have this moral sense. But yet it is not supposed that all mankind are entitled to promises of saving mercy. Therefore the promises depend, as before, on the degree of sincerity under the same difficulties, and with the same intricacies and all the forementioned unfixed-
“Controversies”: Efficacious Grace 309
4. MS: “whose.” In this sentence, which JE emended incompletely, JE, Jr., changed the word to “the” in order to make this part of the sentence agree with JE’s insertion of “of which,” and also inserted “as,” indicated here in brackets.
5. JE deletes the following passage with a vertical line through the middle of the page: “When any talk of men’s sincerely endeavoring after anything in religion as pertaining to that virtue or holiness required in Scripture with any other sort of sincerity than this, they talk of they know not what. With regard to the sincerity consisting in true love to God and holiness, men may have such a principle in their hearts and yet have much of the contrary opposing it, occasioning a constant inward warfare in their souls, the flesh boasting against the spirit; and yet the flesh, the inclination to sin, may in many instances prevail. But if by sincerity be meant reality of will, it is absurd to talk of any sincerity of endeavors for any degree of virtuous practice, or of the exercise of holiness.”
ness and uncertainty. And other things concerning this sincerity, besides the degree of it, are undetermined, viz. how constant this degree of sincerity of endeavors must be, how long it must be continued, and how early it must be begun.
Thus it appears that, on the supposition of God’s having made any promises of saving grace to the sincere endeavors of ungodly men, it will follow that these promises are made to an undetermined condition.6 But a supposed promise to an undetermined condition is truly no promise at all. It is absurd to talk of positive determinate promises made to something not determined, or to a condition that is not fixed in the promise. If the condition ben’t decided, there is nothing decisive in the affair. If the master of a family should give forth such a pretended promise as this to his servants, “I promise that if any of you will do something, though I tell you not what, that I will surely give him an inheritance among my children,” would this be truly any promise at all? I proceed now to observe,
II. On the supposition that the promises of saving grace are made to some other sincerity of endeavors than that which implies truly pious sincerity: the sovereign grace and will of God must determine the existence of the condition of the promises, and so still the whole must depend on God’s determining grace. And that of whatever kind this sincerity, short of truly pious and saving sincerity, is supposed to be: whether it consists only in a reality of will arising from foreign motives for a certain degree of endeavors or use of means; or whether it [be] a certain sincerity or reality of willingness to use endeavors arising from a natural love of virtue. For all suppose the sincerity to which the promises are made, is that in which some are distinguished from others; none supposing that all mankind, without exception, have that sincerity which [is] the condition of the promises. Therefore this sincerity must be a distinguishing attainment: and how is it that some attain to it, and not others? It must be thus, one of these two ways: either the sovereign gift of God’s will, or by their endeavors. To say the former is to give up the point and to own that the sovereign grace and will of God determines the existence of the condition of the promises. But if it be said that that distinguishing sincerity of endeavor is obtained by man’s own endeavors, then I ask, What sort of endeavors is it attained by, sincere endeavors or insincere? None will be so absurd as to say that this great condition of saving promises is attained to by insincere endeavors: for what tendency, either natural or moral, can the exercise of insincerity have to produce or attain to sincerity? But if it be said that distinguishing sincerity of endeavors is attained by distinguishing sincere endeavors, this is [to] run round in a ridiculous circle. And still the difficulty remains, and the question returns, How the distinguishing sincerity that first of all took place in the affair came to have existence otherwise than by the determining grace of God?
And if it be said that there is no need of supposing any such thing as any previous habitual sincerity, or any such sincerity going before as shall be an established principle, but that ’tis sufficient that the free will does sincerely determine itself to endeavors after holiness:
Whether we suppose the sincerity that first entitles to the promises to be a settled habit or established principle or not, it don’t in the least remove the difficulty, as long as it is something in which some men are distinguished from others, that precedes the distinguishing endeavors that entitle to the promises, and is the source and spring of those endeavors. This first distinguishing sincerity, that is the spring of the whole affair, must have existence by some means or other: and it must be either from some sincere endeavor of the man’s own foregoing, which is a contradiction; or it must be from God, which is the point required; or it must be from chance, which is to be from nothing.
If we suppose that distinguishing sincerity of endeavors, by which some men are interested in the promises of saving grace, and not others, be some certain degree of love to virtue, or anything else in the disposition or exercise of the heart; yet it must be owned that all men either are alike by nature as to love to virtue, or they are not. If they are not, but some have naturally a greater love to virtue than others, and this determines some rather than others to the requisite sincerity of endeavors after saving grace, then God determines the affair by his sovereign will: for ’tis he, and not men themselves, that determines all distinguishing qualifications or advantages that men are born with. Or if there be no difference naturally, but one man is born with the same love to virtue as another, then how do some men first attain to more of this love to virtue than others, and so to have that distinguishing sincerity of endeavors that consist in it? To say it is from a previous distinguishing sincerity of endeavors, attempts, desires or will, is a contradiction. Therefore it must be from the determining grace of God, which, if it be allowed, the grand point in dispute is allowed.
Notes
1. For a description of this MS, see “Note to the Reader,” p. xi. 2. Works, 1, 7.
5. The passage, from a previous section of the “Controversies,” reads: After [I] have proved that true grace differs not only in degree but nature and kind
6. George Turnbull, Christian Philosophy; or, the Christian Doctrine of God, Providence, Virtue, and a Future State, Proved to be Agreeable to True Philosophy (London, 1740), pp. 96–97. Anita Johnson, Librarian of the Clifford E. Barbour Library at Pittsburgh Theological Library, kindly verified JE’s references to this work and provided photocopies of relevant pages.
2. E.g. Deut. 29:4, Is. 6:10, Jer. 5:21, Ezek. 12:2, Matt. 13:15.
4. A reference to a missing notebook, one of the series on “Moral Agency” and later retitled “Efficacious Grace,” of which only the first three (included above) are extant.
2. Whether a holy disposition of heart, as an internal governing principle of life and practice, be immediately implanted or infused in the soul, or only be contracted by repeated acts and obtained by human culture and improvements?
5. JE, Jr.’s insert. 6. MS: “knowing.”
7. Theophylact, late 11th–century Abp. of Achrida; John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), Bp. of Constantinople.
8. JE, Jr.’s insert.
1. See “Miscellanies,” no. 1263, “God’s Immediate and Arbitrary Operation,” in which JE presents arguments for God’s “continuing immediate operation” in creation and against limiting God to “invariable laws fixed from the beginning of the creation.”
2. JE deletes: “But whether it be so or no, if we should suppose there is some other sort of sincerity that may, agreeably to Scripture and reason, be called a sincere and honest [course] in religious endeavors, yet I imagine it will not help this notion of divine promises of saving grace to the sincere endeavors of ungodly men. If I should suppose there be any [such] thing.”
3. MS: “the.” JE, Jr., deleted the word and inserted “to.”
6. MS p. 179 ends at this point; the text continues, at JE’s direction, on p. 127.