Efficacious Grace — Book III
efficacious grace, book iii As with the other two notebooks on efficacious grace, Edwards originally titled this “Moral Agency.” Having used whatever materials he needed from them for Freedom of the Will, Edwards thereafter shifted to a discussion of efficacious grace, which he decided would be featured in a larger work on the divine decrees.
The manuscript consists of scraps of fan paper with some pieces of foolscap interspersed, bound in a cover of coarse brown paper, cut in a semicircle (the only notebook in the Edwards Collection to be so shaped).1
The pages are numbered 1–23, 38–71, 76–83, 88–105, 114–17, and 122–47, with some entries deleted with vertical use lines. Lacunae are indicated by line spaces and bracketed ellipses. The notebook dates from no earlier than 1748, since Edwards cites John Beach’s work of that year. As in the previous books in the series, Edwards here makes wide use of Henry Stebbing’s book on the Holy Spirit to represent the Arminian position. A considerable part of this notebook functions as a catalogue for proof texts on the subject of efficacious grace.
Excerpts were first printed in Miscellaneous Observations (1793), §§ 52– 62, 67–72, and 74–92, pp.226–35, 337–40, 342, 344, 352–72; and later in the Worcester rev. ed., 2, §§ 51–60, 62, 64–82, and 84–91, pp. 570– 73, 575–77, 579–85, and 588–90. These editions are based on the transcription of Edwards, Jr. (who wrote “Tr. *” beside the chosen entries), and reflect his emendations in the notebook, including word changes, supplied words and cues, and directions such as to “Quote” a text that Edwards, Sr., cites.
1. The physical makeup of this notebook was the subject of an article on “Curious Bindings” by Jane Greenfield in the Yale University Library Gazette 68(Oct. 1993), 71–73. There she assumes that Sarah Pierpont Edwards stitched JE’s MS notebooks, but all indications are that he did it himself.
efficacious grace, book iii Scriptures. Efficacious Grace. God is said to give true virtue and piety of heart, to work it in us, to create it, to form it; yea, with regard to it, we are said to be his workmanship. Yea, that there may be no room to understand it in some improper sense, ’tis often declared as the peculiar character of God. He makes it his character to be the author and giver of this, in his being called the sanctifier, he that sanctifieth us [Heb. 2:11]— “I am he that sanctifieth you”—spoken of as a great prerogative of God, Lev. 20:8 and other parallel places.
He declares expressly the effect shall be connected with his act or what he shall do in order [to it]. “I will sprinkle clean water [upon you], and you shall be clean” [Ezek. 36:25].2 What God does is often spoken [of] as thoroughly effectual, and the effect as infallibly consequent: “Turn us, and we shall be turned” [Lam. 5:21].
Jesus Christ has the character of a Savior on this account, because he saves his people from their sin. See Rom. 11:26–27.
God [says], “I will put my fear into their heart,” “I will write my law in their inward parts,” “and they shall not depart away from me” [Jer. 32:40, 31:33]; “I will take away the heart of stone, and give them an heart of flesh” [Ezek. 11:19]; “I will give them an heart to know me” [Jer. 24:7]; “I will circumcise their heart to love me” [Deut. 30:6]. God says, “O that there were such an heart in them!” and it is spoken of as his work to give, to cause, to excite such a heart, to put it in them. God is said not only to give statutes, but to incline their heart to his statutes.
Moses speaks of the great moral means that God had used with the children of Israel to enlighten them and convince and persuade them, but of their being yet unpersuaded and unconvinced; and gives this as a reason,
First two pages of “Efficacious Grace,” Book III, showing the unusual semi-circular shape of the manuscript. Courtesy of Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
that God had not given them “eyes to see, and ears to hear” [Deut. 29:4]. See Stebbing’s answer, pp. 205, etc.3
3. Stebbing, A Treatise Concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit. On pp. 205–07, Stebbing considers Deut. 29:4: “But it is plain from the Context that the reason intended in this Place why they did not perceive, was not because they wanted that Grace which was necessary to enable them to perceive, but because of their own Perverseness, who might have perceived, and would not. . . . Nothing seems plainer than that Moses designed to expostulate with the Israelites about their unreasonable Unbelief, and so lays before them the Inexcusableness of their Murmuring and Disobedience. . . . The Sense of the Place therefore must necessarily be this: That notwithstanding God had done so much for them, as that it was not only possible for them to perceive, but even a marvelous thing if they should not, yet all this while they did not perceive, i.e. they did not consider and lay to Heart those Instances of the Divine Power and Mercy towards them, so as thereby to be wrought up to a firm Reliance and Dependance upon him.”
The Scripture plainly makes a distinction between exhibiting light, or means of instruction and persuasion, and giving eyes to see, circumcising the heart, etc.
Why should [Christ]4 teach us to pray in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven,” when it is not God’s work to bring that effect to pass, but is left to men’s free will and can’t be otherwise? Because otherwise [it] is no virtue and none of their obedience in doing God’s will; and God does what he can, oftentimes consistent with [man’s]5 liberty, and those that enjoy the means he uses generally neglect and refuse to do his will. He does so much, that he can well say, “What could I have done more?” And yet almost all are at the greatest distance from doing his will. See Col. 1:9–10.6
The virtuous actions of men that are rewardable are not left to men’s indifference without divine ordering and efficacy so as to be possible to fail. They are often in the Scripture the matter of God’s promises.
How often does God promise reformations. How often does he promise that great revival of religion in the latter days.
If it be as the Arminians suppose, all men’s virtue is of the determination of their own free will, independent on any prior determining, deciding and disposing the event; that ’tis no part of the ordaining of God whether there be many virtuous or few in the world, whether there shall be much virtue or little, or where it shall be, in what nation [or] country, or whether in what generation or age, or whether there shall be any at all. These things [do] not belong to God’s disposal, and therefore surely it don’t belong to him to promise ’em: for it does not belong to him to promise in an affair concerning which he has not the disposal.
And how can [God] promise, as he oftentimes does in his Word, glorious times when righteousness shall generally prevail and his will shall generally be done, and yet it is not an effect that it belongs to him to determine? ’Tis not left to his determination, but to the sovereign arbitrary determination of others, independent on any determination of him. And therefore surely they ought [not] to be promises. For him to promise that
4. JE, Jr.’s insert. 5. JE, Jr.’s insert. 6. The next two paragraphs are moved here from “Efficacious Grace, Bk. I” according to JE’s directions; see above, p. 206, n. 1.
has it not in his hands to dispose and determine is a great absurdity. And yet God oftentimes in promising speaks of himself as the sovereign disposer of the matter, using such expressions as abundantly imply it. Is. 60:22, “I the Lord do hasten it in its time.” Surely this is the language of a promise, and not merely a prediction.
God promises Abraham that all the families of the earth shall be blessed in him. God swears that every knee should bow and every tongue confess. And it is said to [be] given to Christ that every nation {and language} should serve and obey him (Dan. 7:14).
After what manner they shall serve and obey him is abundantly declared in other prophecies, as Is. 11 and innumerable others. They are spoken of in the next chapter, ch. 12, as the “excellent things” that God does.
There are no sort of benefits that are so much the subject of the promises of Scripture, as this sort, the bestowment of virtue or benefits that imply it.
Stebbing owns that, on their principles, conversion depending on the determination of free will, it is possible in its own nature that none should ever be converted (p. 235).7
How often is the faith of the Gentiles, or their coming into the Christian church, promised to Christ in the Old Testament (Is. 49:6 and many other places); and he has promised it to his church (ch. 49:18–21 and innumerable other places). See Rom. 15:12–13.
If God is not the disposing author of virtue, then he is not the giver of it. The very notion of a giver implies a disposing cause of possession of the benefit. I John 4:4, “Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them” (i.e. have overcome your spiritual enemies) “because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world”; i.e. plainly, he is stronger and his strength overcomes. But how can this be a reason, if God don’t put forth any overcoming effectual strength in the case, but leaves it to free will to get the victory, to determine the point in the conflict?
7. This paragraph is inserted from MS p. 132 at JE’s directions; he also instructs it to be inserted below, p. 245. On p. 235 of his Treatise, Stebbing allows that one of the consequences of his principles is “That if the Grace of God may be resisted, it is, and ever was possible, in the nature of the thing, that none should ever be converted.” At the end of the paragraph, JE, Jr., adds: “Then all the promises of virtue, of the revival of religion &c. are nothing.”
What a promise have we, Is. 60:21, “Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hand, that I may be glorified”; compared with the next chapter, third verse, “That they may be called the tree of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.” See also v. 8. of the same ch. 61. See also ch. 60:17–18, “I will make thy officers peace, and thy exactors righteousness. Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders.” Here it is promised that the rulers shall be righteous, and then in the twenty-first verse following, ’tis promised that the people shall be so.
The change of men to be of a peaceable disposition, as in places innumerable. So in Is. 11:6–11.8
Is. 55:5, “Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that know not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.”
Is.9 57:17–18, “For the iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was wroth, and he went on frowardly in the way of his heart. I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also and restore comforts to him and to his mourners.” Here the word “heal” is evidently used: to “heal him” of his iniquity and froward and evil way spoken of.
Jer. 3:15, “And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” This implies a promise that there should be such pastors in being and that they should be faithful to feed them with knowledge and understanding. Jer. 10:23, “The way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.”
Jer. 31:18, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned,” compared with Jer. 17:14, “Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.” Which shows the force of such a phraseology, the meaning being that God alone can be the doer of it, and that if he undertakes it, it will be effectually done. So ’tis in Jer. 31, in the next words, v. 19: “Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded.”
See Lam. 5:21 and Ps. 80:3, 5, 7, 19. Jer. 31:23, “As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.” See also Zech. 8:2–3. Jer. 31:32–35, “Which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant, that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest.” The Prophet elsewhere tells what he means by knowing God, viz. doing judgment and justice, showing mercy, etc. (ch. 22:16). Here compare Is. 11.1
Jer. 32:39–40, “And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and their children after them: and I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me.”
Jer. 33:2, “Thus saith the Lord the maker thereof, the Lord that formed it.” V. 8, “And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me.”
Stebbing owns that, on their principles, conversion depending on the determination of free will, it is possible in its own nature that none should ever be converted (p. 235).2
Ezek. 11:18–20, “And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abomination thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give them an heart of flesh: that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” See Stebbing’s answer, pp. 200, etc.3
Efficacious Grace, Book III 245
1. MS: “See p. 7. a little past the middle” (see above, p. 244, n. 8). 2. This is one of two places in which JE refers to this note, which is taken from MS p. 132 by his direction. See above, n. 7.
3. In the Treatise, pp. 200–203, Stebbing considers Ezek. 36:26: “That the Meaning of this Promise was not that God would do all himself, and leave nothing for them to do, is plain, because (as I have before observed) these Men were required to make THEMSELVES a new Heart and a new Spirit. From whence it is evident, that notwithstanding God’s giving them a new Heart, it was necessary for them to renew their own Hearts; and what can this signify but that the promise was not absolute, but supposed the Concurrence of their own Endeavours; or else if it were ab-
Ezek. 36:25–33, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give unto you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall by my people, and I will be your God. And I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more the reproach of famine among the heathen. Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loath yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations. Not for your selves do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel. Thus saith the Lord; In the day that I have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.” And then the whole is concluded, v. 36, “I the Lord have spoken it, and I will do it.” (See the continuation of texts, p. 252.)4
Definition.5 I shall [not] pretend to enter [a] full and large inquiry into the nature of the soul and the distinction of its faculties, shall say no more than is requisite to a proper distinct understanding of terms used in the controversies before us.
I speak the sentiment of my heart when I say there are not more inconsistencies and direct self-repugnances in the doctrine of transubstantiation, or any or any other popish doctrine whatsoever, than in their doctrine of liberty, moral agency, virtue and vice.
Or express it thus: The doctrine of transubstantiation has not more, nor greater, nor more demonstrable absurdities than the Arminian doctrine of liberty and moral agency, and perhaps no other doctrine that ever was taught by Papists, Mahometans and pagans. But let the matter be judged of by clearly viewing the thing as it is.
solute, that the Meaning of it was no more than this, viz. that God would do every thing that was proper to be done on his Part to bring them to Repentance, leaving it still to their own Choice whether they would actually repent or not?” Stebbing cites Francis Turretin on this topic, whose system, he states, is the “Standard of the Doctrines of that Party of Men for whom he has engaged” (p. vi).
By disposing or determining cause of a benefit, I mean a cause that disposes, orders or determines whether we shall6 be actually possessed of the benefit or [not].7 And the same cause may be said to be an efficacious or effectual cause. That cause only can be said to an efficacious cause, whose efficiency determines, reaches and produces the effect. Definition.
Let8 the whole work be divided into parts, each part into chapters, some of the longer chapters into sections, with titles to each part, chapter and section.
At the beginning of each part and chapter, or at least where there is occasion, have definitions and positions laid down. method.
Note:9 A being may be determiner and disposer of an event, and not properly an efficient or efficacious cause; because though he determines the futurity of the event, yet there is no positive efficiency or power of the cause that reaches and produces the effect, but only a withdrawing or withholding of efficiency or power.
Concerning the term arminians: some of those that hold these doctrines go vastly beyond Arminians, are Socinians, Pelagians, Arians and of new schemes of divinity of their own inventing; and some, it may be, in some points, don’t go so far as Arminians. Preface.
Definition. Define what is meant by contingence, chance: sometimes a thing’s happening without the desire of the subject of it, and without foresight or knowing any connection with causes that are seen. But some mean something else, viz. happening without any proper dependence upon or fixed connection with any antecedent cause.
They1 use those metaphysical terms of contingency and self-determination, sovereignty of the will, etc. that are without any consistent meaning, or any meaning of distinct consistent ideas to answer ’em; perhaps as far from it as any of the terms and phrases of the schools in their greatest
6. Conjecture for where the MS is damaged. 7. Conjecture for where the MS is damaged. 8. JE drew a vertical line through the next two paragraphs. 9. JE placed a cue mark before the following paragraph, indicating that he wanted to insert it elsewhere; however, there is no corresponding mark that appears earlier, so the passage has been kept here.
jargon or any of the abstruse and perplexed phrases of the peripatetic philosophers. Yea, it can be demonstrated that these phrases are nothing but pure metaphysical sound without any possible proper notion in the mind to answer them, because it may be demonstrated there cannot be any notion in the mind consistent with these expressions: for no notion that implies self-contradiction, and so self-destruction—and that a great many ways—can subsist in the mind. That idea which, if it be supposed, must be supposed to abolish itself, cannot subsist, or truly there can be no such idea; as there can be no idea of a whole that [is less than]2 any of its parts, or of a number four that is made up of 3 and 3, or of solid extension without dimensions, because these contradictions and the notion abolishes itself. The common people have no such notion of contingency, any thing’s happening without a cause or reason. They have no such notion of freedom, etc. (See p. 274.)3 Metaphysics.
Concerning the giver being a disposer or a determiner, consider that objection that when a man gives [to] a beggar, he does but offer and leaves it with the determination of the beggar’s will whether he will be possessed.4
In answer to this, observe that in order to a gift, in the denomination of a giver, the very thing given is the fruit of the bounty of the giver. The thing given is virtue, and that consists in the determination of the inclination and will. Therefore the determination of the will is the gift of God, otherwise virtue is not his gift, and it is an inconsistence to pray to God to give it to us. Why should we pray to God to give us such a determination of will, when that is what is not from him but ourselves?
Metaphysics.5 Here is, as I apprehend, no use of any abstruse metaphysical phrases without any distinct meaning, like those of the school divines.
Consider the objection from the expressions used in Scripture concerning satan’s operations in man, which is only in a moral way. Such as, “The spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, ful- filling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” [Eph. 2:2–3].
God is praiseworthy on the account of his virtue, though necessary. If it be denied that God is worthy of that sort of praise or commendation that virtuous men [are], let it be considered what they mean by praise or commendation. Don’t let us have words here without any distinct notions to answer them. If they mean anything by praise or commendation, they must mean the testimony of some sort of esteem and respect and honorable regard. And will any say that men on the account of their virtue are worthy of some esteem and respect that God is not; and that their virtue and the excellency that is in them6 in some respect has a worthiness of esteem, respect and honor that God’s excellency has not; and in some respect beyond any excellency in the divine nature, because their excellency is from themselves, of their own free choice, but his is necessary? And is not God a being worthy of all possible respect, and worthy of the utmost esteem and honor that we are capable of rendering to him by any means and in any respect whatsoever?
Efficacious Grace. Everything in the Christian scheme argues that man’s title to and fitness for heaven depends on some great divine influence at once causing a vast change, and not any such gradual change as is supposed to be brought to pass by men themselves in the exercise of their own power. The exceeding diversity of the states of men in another world argues it.
Concerning7 our scheme being agreeable to hobbes and the stoics. Inquire who shows theirs ben’t agreeable to the opinion of Lucretius and his followers, and to the Mahometans, and to all Arians, Socinians, Pelagians, etc. [. . .]
[. . .] in8 it, or influence from it, and so without any relation to it; which is the same thing as producing itself immediately from an equilibrium.
Arminians make a great ado about the phrase, irresistible grace, but the grand point of controversy really, [is] what is that which determines, disposes and decides the matter whether there shall be saving virtue in the heart or not. Much more properly whether the grace of God in the affair be determining grace, than whether it be irresistible.
Our case is indeed extremely unhappy, if we have such a book to our grand and only rule, our light and directory, that are so extremely perplexed, dark, paradoxical and hidden everywhere in the manner of expressions as the scriptures must be to make them consistent with their opinions, by whatever means this is come to pass, if it be through the distance of ages, and diversity of instances, or whatever. It is to be considered this is given for the rule of all ages, and not only of the most learned, accurate and penetrating critics and men of vast inquiry and skill in antiquity, but for all sorts of persons, of every age and nation, learned and unlearned. If this be, how unequal and unfit is the provision that is made, how improper to answer the end designed.
If men will take subterfuge in pretenses of a vast alteration of phrase through diversity of ages and nations, what may not men hide themselves from under such a pretense? No words will hold and secure. ’Tis not in the nature of words to do it. Language9 is a sort of thing that, in its own nature, has no sufficiency to communicate ideas.
Definition.1 The Arminians speak often of the will’s determining itself, which is improper speaking, because actions are to be ascribed to agents and not properly to the powers of those agents. But yet, concerning this, I will not debate with them. I suppose by the will’s determining itself, they mean the soul’s willing. When they speak of the will in this case as the determiner, I suppose they mean the soul, in the exercise of a power of willing—or the soul’s determining by an act of will or voluntary act— determines the will; or the soul voluntarily, or in the exercise of the faculty of will, determines the will. Or, which is the same thing, the soul by an act of the will determines the acts of the will.
Afterwards show the absurdity of this. If I say love seeks the object loved, I mean the soul loving; if I say love delights in the object, I mean the soul loving, or in the exercise of love; or if I say hatred delights in the misery of the person hated, {I mean the person hating, or in the exercise of hate}.
Definition. The will’s determining anything is the same with choosing or refusing. Or, these two may be reduced to one, viz. choosing for a refusal of a choice. A choosing a negative, a choosing not to have, or not to be, or not to do the will’s determining, is a voluntary determining be- tween two. But that is the same thing as making a choice. So every act of the will whatsoever is choosing or refusing; there is no other act, no act of commanding, forbidding, determining, accepting, rejecting, directing, cleaving, flying from, or whatever terms we use to signify any act of the will. For the soul to act voluntarily, is to act electively.
Efficacious grace. We are not merely passive in it, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest, but God does all and we do all. God produces all and we act all. For that is what he produces, our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects wholly passive and wholly active.
There2 the same things are represented as from God and us. So God is said to convert, and men are said to convert, or turn. God makes a new heart, and we are commanded to make us a new heart. God circumcises the heart, and we are commanded to circumcise [our hearts]. Not merely because we must use the means in order to the effect, but the effect itself is our act and our duty.
These things are agreeable to that text, “God worketh in you both to will and to do” [Phil. 2:13].
Show how the term irresistible is improperly used, and on what account.
Self-determining. If the will determines the will, then choice determines its choice, conducts and orders the choice, and choice follows the direction and conduct of some act of choice, or follows some act of the soul acting voluntarily and electively.
Self determining. If the will determines itself, it determines it in a way of willing, or by a voluntary determination.
Definition. These definitions, I think, are clear and, I suppose, cannot be disputed to be real and proper explanations of words and phrases. And therefore I shall lay them as foundations in this dispute as points fixed and settled, and shall refer to ’em from time to time as things granted and beyond dispute.
Definition. Show that as there [is] a natural and moral necessity, so there is also a natural and moral propensity that approaches to ne- cessity, and a natural and moral difficulty that approaches to impossibility. Show wherein these consist.
(Here is a continuation of the catalog of texts from p. 246.)3
Ezek. 37:23–24, “Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments.”
Dan. 7:14 (see Rev. 11:15–17, ch. 12:7–10), “And there was given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.” V. 27, “And all dominions shall serve and obey him,” together with the oath in the latter part of Is. 45. And Is. 53:10, “He shall see his seed, and the pleasure of the land shall prosper in his hands.” Hosea 14:8, “From me is thy fruit found,” with the foregoing context, beginning with v. 4.
Zech. 8:2–3, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the Lord; I am returned unto Zion, and I will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; the mountain of the Lord of hosts the holy mountain.”
Zech. 12:10 to the end,
I will pour out upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; all the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
So the next chapter, at the beginning: “I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered.”
Mal. 3:3–4, “And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant, as in the days of old, and as in the former years.”
Catalog of texts beginning from the beginning of the Bible: Deut. 29:4, “Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” See Stebbing’s answer, pp.205, etc.4
I Sam. 2:35, “I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.”
I Kgs. 8:58, “That he may incline our hearts unto him, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, which he commanded our fathers.”
I Chron. 29:18–19, “O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee; and give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes, and to do all these things.”
We are told, Job 28:28, that “the fear of the Lord is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.” The same is also abundantly declared in other places (look [up] other places at leisure). But it is abundantly declared, that God is the author and giver of wisdom, and that he is the author wholly and only. ’Tis denied of other things. ’Tis in the twenty-eighth chapter of Job abundantly declared that it cannot be obtained of any creature by any means. And ’tis implied there, in the end of the chapter, that ’tis God that gives wisdom, as is asserted, Prov. 2:6.
Ps. 19:12–14, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.”
Ps. 51:5–7, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: in the hidden parts thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”
V. 10, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew in me a right spirit [within me].”
’Tis the promise of God the Father, Ps. 110:3, “Thy people shall be willing.”
Ps. 119:35, “Make me to go in the way of thy commandments.” V. 36, “Incline my heart unto thy testimonies.” V. 37, “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity.” Ps. 119:133, “Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me.”
Ps. 141:3–4, “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips. Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties.”
Ps. 143:10, “Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.”
Ps. 5:8, “Lead me in thy righteousness, O God, because of mine enemies; make thy way strait before my face.” Ps. 139:24, “See if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”
We are directed earnestly to pray and cry to God for wisdom and the fear of the Lord, for that reason, because it is he that giveth wisdom (Prov. 2, at the beginning; compare Job 28). Prov. 21:1, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Here it is represented as though the will of God determined the wills of men, and that when God was pleased to interpose, he ever directs them according to his pleasure without fail in any instance. This shows that God has not left men’s hearts so in their own hands as to be determined by themselves alone, independent on any antecedent determination.
Prov. 28:26, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” A man is to be commended for making a wise improvement of his outward possessions, for his own comfort, but yet ’tis the gift of God. Eccles. 2:24–26, “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.” [V.] 26, “For God giveth to a man that which is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that may give to him that is good before God.” Eccles. 3:13, “And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labor, it is the gift of God.” Ch. 5:18, “I beheld that which I have seen: it is good and comely for a man to eat and drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.” V. 20, “God answers him in the joy of his heart.”
Ch. 6:1–2, “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: a man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honor, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof.”
Eccles. 7:29, “God hath made man upright.” See5 the scriptures they allege against efficacious grace. Stebbing, pp. 165, etc.6
Borrow mr. beach’s last book.7
John 1:12–13, “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God.” See John 3:8 and Jas. 1:18.
Luke 3:8, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
John 3:3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” [V.] 5, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [V.] 6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” [V.] 8, “The wind bloweth where is listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” Jas. 1:18.
What Christ meant by being born again, we may learn by the abundant use of the like phrase by the same disciple that wrote this gospel, in his first epistles; who doubtless learned his language from his master, and particularly from those sayings of his concerning the new birth which he took more special notice of and left the deepest impression on his mind, which we may suppose are those he records when he writes the history of his life.
Matt. 4:19, “I will make you fishers of men.” So Mark 1:16, 20, together
5. JE drew a vertical line through the next two paragraphs. 6. Stebbing, Treatise, pp. 165–80. The texts that Stebbing cites to prove that the grace of God may be resisted include Is. 5:1–8, Ezek. 12:2, Matt. 23:37–38, John 5:34, 40, Acts 7:51, Matt. 11:20–23, Ezek. 18:24, II Pet. 1:10, 12–13, II Cor. 11:2–3, I Cor. 9:27, and Deut. 30:19. 7. John Beach, An Attempt to Prove the Affirmative Part of that Question, Whether There be any Certainty that A Sinner under the Advantages of the Gospel and Common Grace, Striving with all His Might and Persevering to the Last in his Utmost Endeavours to Please God, Shall Obtain Such a Measure of Divine Assistance as is Necessary to Fit Him for Eternal Salvation? Containing Some Remarks upon a Late Piece Intitled A Vindication of Gospel-Truth, and Refutation of Some Dangerous Errors, Etc. Done in a Letter to Mr. Jedidiah Mills (Boston, 1748).
with Luke 5:10, “From henceforth thou shalt catch men,” compared with the foregoing story of Christ’s giving them so great a draught of fishes, which was wholly his doings and was ascribed to him.
Matt. 6:10, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”
Matt. 11:25–27, “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” So Luke 10:21–22.
John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me.” V. 44, “No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”
V. 45, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” V. 65, “Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given him of my Father.”
Matt. 16:17, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father.”
John 8:34, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” V. 36, “If the Son therefore make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
V. 47, “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”
Luke 15: the parables of the good shepherd seeking his lost sheep till he find it, and bringing it home on his shoulders; and of the woman giving8 her last piece of silver. The application in those words, “There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth” [v. 10].
Matt. 19:24–26, “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” So Mark 10:25–27, Luke 18:25–27.
John 10:16, “Other sheep I have, which is not of this fold: them also I must bring; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” And vv. 26– 29, “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, [is greater than all].”
John 12:23–24, “Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit”; with v. 28, “Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Vv. 31–32, “Now is the judgment of this world: now is the prince of this world cast out. And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me”; together with Ps. 2:8, “I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,” and Ps. 110:3, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Compare John 17:1–3. Acts 14:27, “They rehearsed all that God had done with them.”
Acts 15:3–4, “Declaring the conversion of the Gentiles . . . and they declared all things that God had done with them.” [V.] 9, “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Therefore ’tis not probable that the heart is first purified to fit it for faith.
John 14:12, “Greater works than these shall he do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” The meaning of it confirmed from John 12:23– 24, 28, 31–32; and John 17:1–3; and Is. 49:3, 5 and 26:15; Is. 16:14; Is. 19:3–5, 16–17, and 22, 24 (especially Is. 55:4–5); Jer. 30:19. Rom. 9:16, “’Tis not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” By such an expression in the Apostle’s phraseology from time to time is meant the use of endeavors, whereby they seek the benefit they would obtain. So what he says is agreeable to what he says, ch. 11:4–7, where he particularly shows that ’tis God that preserves the remnant, and that it [is] of the election of his grace or free kind[ness], and not of their works, but in such a way of freedom as is utterly inconsistent with its being of their works; and in v. 7, that it is not determined by their seeking but God’s election. If the Apostle here, as Mr. Taylor says,9
9. Taylor, A Paraphrase with Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 269, on Rom. 9:16: “I conclude therefore . . . that the making or continuing any Body of Men the peculiar People of God, is righteously determined, not by the Judgment, Hopes or Wishes of Men, but by the Will and Wisdom of God alone. For ABRAHAM judged the Blessing ought, and desired it might, be given to his eldest Son Ishmael; and ISAAC also designed it for his First-born ESAU; and Esau, wishing and hoping it would be his, readily went a hunting for Venison, that he might receive it. But they were all frustrated . . . And when, by this Apostacy, they had forfeited this Priviledge, it was not MOSES’ Willing, nor any prior Obligation God was under, but his own sovereign mercy, which continued the Enjoyment of it.”
has respect to bodies of men, to the posterity of Esau and Jacob, etc. yet this he applies to distinctions made in these days of the gospel, and that distinction made between those that were in the Christian church and those that were not—particularly some of the Jews that were in the Christian [church] and others of the same nation that were not—which [is] made by some believing and accepting Christ and others’ rejection, [by]1
that faith which they professed to be with all their hearts, that faith which was a mercy and virtue, and the want of which was a fault, as by the objection the Apostle supposes, v. 19, “Why doth he yet find fault”; the want of which argued hardness of heart (v. 18), exposed ’em to wrath and destruction as a punishment of sin (v. 22), and exposes persons to be like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 29).
Rom. 11:4–7, “But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (II Tim. 2:9, Eph. 2:9, Tit. 3:5.) “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded.”
Rom. 11:17–18, “If some of the branches are broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree: boast not against the branches.”
Rom. 11:25–27, “Blindness is in part happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto them, when I still take away their sins”; together with vv. 35–36, “Who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever and ever.”
That expression Rom. 1:7, and I Cor. 1–2 and elsewhere, “called to be saints,” implies that God makes the distinction. Compare this with what Christ says (see I Cor.2 2:2, 9), John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” [V. 16], “Other sheep have I, which are not of this fold: them also must I bring in, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
I Cor. 1:26 to the end, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” Rom. 11, latter end; Heb. 13:20–21.
I Cor. 3:5–9, “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. . . . We are laborers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” According to the Arminian scheme it ought to have been, “I have planted, and Apollos watered, and God hath planted and watered more especially: for we have done it only as his servants. But you yourselves have given the increase; the fruit has been left to your free will,” according to what the Arminians from time to time insist, in what they say upon the parable of the vineyard which God planted in a fruitful hill, etc. and “looked that it should bring forth grapes,” and says, “What could I have done more to my vineyard?”
II Cor. 3:3, “Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.” They were the epistle of Christ as the effect of the Spirit of God in their hearts held forth the light of the truth, of gospel truth, with its evidence to the world, as the church is compared to a candlestick, and called the pillar and ground of truth. This is agreeable to those scriptures in the Old Testament that speak of writing God’s law in their hearts, etc. Add to this ch. 4:6, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
II Cor. 5:14–18, “If one died for all, then were all dead: that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. . . . Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God.”
II Cor. 8:16–17, “Thanks be to God, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.”
So the next chapter speaks of the Corinthians’ forwardness [and] readiness in their bounty to the poor saints, not as of necessity, but with freedom and cheerfulness, according to the purpose of their own hearts or wills; but yet speaks of their charity as just cause of much thanksgiving to God, and speaks expressly of thanksgiving to him for such a subjection of them to the gospel and liberal distribution to them.
Gal. 1:15–16, “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the Gentiles,” compared with II Cor. 4:6–7 and the account which he himself gives of his conversion (Acts 26:16–18).
Gal. 2:19–20, “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
Gal. 5:22–23, “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.”
Eph. 1:18–20, “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ Jesus, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places.” The Apostle repeats the same thing in substance again in the third chapter, fourteenth and following verses, and tells us what sort of knowledge he desired and so earnestly prayed that they might receive, and what is the power that he speaks of: that they “may be able to comprehend with all saints the length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge”; and tells by what means God would “dwell in their hearts by faith, being rooted and grounded in love” (vv. 16–17); and he tells us there what is the power of God he speaks of, v. 20: “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us.” See note on Phil. 3:10.3 The Apostle, in Eph. 1:19–20, speaks of some exceeding great work of power by
3. Blank Bible note on Phil. 3:10: “It seems to me that by ‘the power of Christ’s resurrection,’ the Apostle here means the power that wrought that effect of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. He sought that he might experience the same power in himself, raising him to newness of life, agreeable to Eph. 1:18–20. . . . The Apostle expresses the same in the next verse in other words. What this Apostle says, Rom. 6:3–11, clearly explains what the Apostle means by being ‘made conformable to his death,’ that he might also be to his resurrection.”
which they that believe are distinguished; but a bodily resurrection is no such distinguishing work of power. See Rom. 15:13, I Pet. 1:3–5. See II Thess. 1:11–12. See also what the Apostle speaks of as an effect of God’s glorious power, Col. 1:11. Taken4 with the words that follow in the beginning of the next chapter [Eph. 2], which is a continuation of the same discourse, where the Apostle evidently explains himself in those words. There is as it were a rendition of what had before been more figuratively represented. He here observes that those that believe are the subjects of a “like exceeding greatness of power” that Christ was [of] “when he was raised from the dead, and set at his own right hand in heavenly places” [Eph. 1:19–20]; and then in the prosecution of the discourse shows how, viz. in our being raised from the dead, having been dead in trespasses and sins, raised as Christ was, and “made to sit together in heavenly places” [Eph. 2:6]. And this he speaks of not only as the fruit of the exceeding greatness of his power, but of the riches of his mercy and “exceeding riches of his grace”; by grace in opposition to works; that ’tis by faith, which is “the gift of God.” The Apostle repeats it over and over, that it is by grace, and then explains how, “not of works”; and that even faith itself, by which it is, is not of ourselves, but is God’s gift; and that we are wholly God’s workmanship; and that all is owing to God’s foreordaining that we should walk in them. I know not what the Apostle could have said more. Here rehearse particularly the whole of the passage, Eph. 2:1–10.
Perhaps first mention that passage in the second [chapter] of Ephesians, and then in explaining and confirming the sense of it, and showing by it that the Apostle means to declare the efficacious determining grace of God, bring in the eighteenth, nineteenth [and] twentieth verses of the foregoing chapter and show how evidently he is there speaking of the same thing as here.
In Eph. 3, ’tis spoken of as a glorious mystery of God’s will, contrived of old and determined from the foundation of the world, and his “eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord,” that God would bring the “fellow heirs, and of the one body, and partakers of the promise in [Christ] by the gospel”; which confirms the promises of the Old Testament. Show that they were not foretold only as foreseen, but foredetermined as what God would bring to pass. This is often elsewhere spoken of as the fruit of God’s eternal purpose, his election, etc. as our adversaries acknowledge.
Sincerity itself is spoken of as being from God. Phil. 1:10, “That ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense in the day of Christ.” And elsewhere God is represented as creating a clean heart, renewing a right spirit, giving an heart of flesh, etc.
Phil. 2:13, “For ’tis God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.”
The Apostle gives thanks for the faith and love of the Colossians, and being delivered from the power of darkness, etc. and prays that they may “be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom,” and might, agreeable to their knowledge, “being fruitful in every good work,” and for their perseverance, be made meet for the reward of the saints (Col. 1:3–4, 9– 13). This argues all to be from God as the giver. Their first faith, and their love that their faith was attended with; and their knowledge, spiritual wisdom and prudence; and walking worthy of the Lord, and universal obedience, and doing every good work; and increasing in grace, and being strengthened in it; and their perseverance and cheerfulness in their obedience, and being made meet for their reward: all are from God; they are from God as the determining cause. Or why does the Apostle pray that God would bestow it or effect it, if it ben’t at his determination whether they shall have it or not? And he speaks of God’s glorious power as manifested in it (II Thess. 3:3–5). See here, I Thess. 1:2 to the end; ch. 5:23– 24; and ch. 2:13–14; and ch. 3:9–10, 12–13; II Thess. 1:3–4, 11–12 and 2:17–18. Col. 2:13, “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him.”
Col. 3:10, “Have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”
See how many things the Apostle gives thanks to God for in the Thessalonians, and prays for for them. II Thess. 1:3–4, 11–12, and 2:17–18 and 3:3–5; I Thess. 1:2 to the end, and ch. 2:13–14 and ch. 3:9–10, 12– 13; ch. 5:23–24. I Thess. 3:12, “The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one towards another, and towards all men, even as we do toward you.”
I Thess. 4:9–10, “But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I should write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. And indeed ye do it towards all the brethren.”
I Thess. 5:23–24, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that has called you, who also will do it.”
II Thess. 1:3–4, “We are bound to thank God always for you . . . because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity [of] every one of you all toward each5 other aboundeth. So that we glory in you . . . for your faith and patience in all your persecutions and tribulations.”
Vv. 11–12, “Wherefore we pray always for you, that God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power: that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
II Thess. 2:16, “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.”
Ch. 3:3–5, “But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil. And we have confidence in the lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things we command you. And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and patient waiting for Christ.”
The Apostle thanks God for his own prayers for others (II Tim. 1:3). If they are from God, then doubtless also our prayers for ourselves, our very prayers for the Spirit. The Prophets ascribe persons’ prayers to their having the Spirit of grace and supplication. True acceptable prayer [is] spoken of in Rom. 8 as being the language of the Spirit. Not that I suppose that the very words are indited, but the disposition given.
II Tim. 1:7, “God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”
II Tim. 1:9, “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”
II Tim. 2:25–26, “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
Tit. 2:11–13, “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared.” [V.] 14, “Our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” And ch. 3:3–5, “For we ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward men appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
Phil. 1:4–5, “I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus Christ, and towards all saints.”
Heb. 13:2–21, “Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever and ever. Amen.” See Eph. 1:19–20 and I Cor. 1, latter end.
Heb. 12:2, “Jesus the author and finisher of our faith,” compared with Phil. 1:5.
Jas. 1:5–8, “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, that giveth liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For that he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven of the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall obtain any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” So that in order to a man’s having any reason to expect to be heard, he must first have faith and a sincere single heart. And what that is which the Apostle calls wisdom, may be learned from ch. 3:17–18, “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and with hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”
Here God is spoken of as the giver of this wisdom, and in the following part of the chapter he is spoken of as the giver of this and every benefit of that kind, everything that contains anything of the nature of light or wisdom or moral good, and that ’tis the fruit of his mere will and pleasure. Vv. 16–18, “Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, nor shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (vid. John 1:13 and 3:8). The scope of the Apostle, and connection of his discourse, plainly shows that the Apostle means to assert that [. . .]6 all moral good [is from God].7 In the preceding verses, he was warning those he wrote to not to lay their sins or fruits of their lusts to God; and on that occasion would have ’em be sensible that every good gift is from God, and no evil; that God is the Father of light, and only of light, and that no darkness is from him, because there [is] no darkness in him, no change from light to darkness, no, not the least shadow. What he says is plainly parallel to what the Apostle John says, when he would signify God’s perfect holiness without any sin (I John 1:5–6). But if all moral good is from God, cometh down from him and is his gift, then the very first good determination of the will, and every good improvement of assistance, is so.
I Pet. 1:2–5, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope” (or “a living hope,” i.e. from the dead— to be begotten from the dead,8 in the phrase of the New Testament, is the same as to be raised from the dead; see Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5) “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, reserved in9 heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” See Eph. 1:18–20 and [ch.] 2 at the beginning.
Rev. 13:3, “And all the world wondered after the beast.” Vv. 7–8, “And power was given over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” And then observe ch. 14:3–5, “The 194,000, which were redeemed from the earth. Those were they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from amongst men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.”
Rev. 17:14, “They that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.”
Natural1 notions. common sense. As to the supposition that ’tis contrary to men’s natural notions of things that moral agency, blame or praise, should be without this kind of liberty: I would observe that mankind have no natural notions about it, for they have no notion of any such kind of liberty, it being entirely diverse from the common notion of liberty; such an use of the words being invented de nouveau by philosophers and metaphysicians, which don’t in the least belong to any natural notions mankind have about liberty and moral agency. And indeed, there are no such notions among merited2 philosophers. There are indeed such words that are explained by such other words, but without any ideas or any real, true, distinct notions in the mind to answer to ’em. (See “Miscellanies,” no. 657.)3
If any one should coin a word that they should see cause to explain thus, that it signified a certain number that was equal to two and two, and yet did [not] amount to four, it would not follow that anyone had any notion or idea of such a number. [. . .]
[. . .] To prove that by many scriptures, both in the Old Testament and New, is meant his church, his present or future church, and not all in the world that are of a meek teachable spirit, though not of his church; which Stebbings supposes is meant by his sheep in John 10.4
Christ says that no other than those whom the Father draws will come to him, and Stebbing supposes none but whom the Father draws in this sense, viz. first gives them [a] teachable spirit, etc. But show this to be false in fact in the apostle Paul and others: at least he did not give it in answer to prayer, as their scheme supposes, and must suppose, or efficacious grace is established and the liberty of the will, in their sense of it, overthrown.
When Christ says, John 10:16, “Other sheep have I, which are not of the fold,” ’tis unreasonable to suppose he means all in the world that were then of a teachable disposition. Many of them would be dead before the gospel was spread among the Gentiles, and many of the Gentiles were doubtless brought in that at that time were not of a teachable disposition. And unless God’s decrees and efficacious grace made a difference, ’tis unreasonableness to suppose any other than that multitudes in countries where the apostles never preached were as teachable as in those countries where they did go, and so they never were brought in, according to the
2. Conjectural reading. 3. See Works, 18, 197. 4. Stebbing, Treatise, p. 32: “Accordingly, our Saviour mentions the want of this teachable Disposition as the main Reason why some of the Jews believed not in him, John x. 25. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my Sheep; where by Sheep cannot be meant actual Disciples, (for then the Sense were, Ye believe not, because ye believe not) but such as were by a teachable Spirit disposed to be so, and would hear his Voice.”
words of Christ: “Those whom the Father hath given me shall come to me” [John 6:37]. Christ speaks of the Father’s giving them as a thing past. John 10:29, “My Father, which gave them me.”
When Christ speaks of men’s being drawn to him, he don’t mean any preparation of disposition antecedent to their hearing the gospel, but a being converted to Christ by faith in the gospel, revealing Christ cruci- fied; as appears by John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.” Acts 15:9, “Purifying their hearts by faith.” Therefore we are not to suppose God first purifies the heart with the most excellent virtues to fit it for faith.
The Apostle says, without faith ’tis impossible to please God. Therefore ’tis not probable that persons have first those virtues that are peculiarly amiable to Christ, as Stebbing supposes, before faith. The apostle James tells us that if we don’t pray in faith, we have no reason to expect to receive anything, and particularly not to receive divine wisdom; and therefore ’tis unreasonable to suppose with Stebbing that persons first pray, even before they have a spirit of meekness and teachableness and humility, faith or repentance, and that God has promised to answer these prayers.
Christian virtue being everywhere spoken of as the special effect of grace, and often called by the name of grace, by reason of its being the peculiar fruit of grace, don’t well consist with the Arminian notion of assistance, viz. that God is obliged to give us assistance sufficient for salvation from hell, because, forsooth, it is not just to damn us for the want of that which we han’t sufficient means to escape; and then after God has given these sufficient means, our improving them well is wholly from ourselves, our own will, and not from God; and the thing where the Christian virtue itself consists, is wholly and entirely from ourselves.
Efficacious grace not inconsistent with freedom. This appears by II Cor. 8:16–17, “Thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the invitation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you.” So that his forwardness being put into his heart by God, and his being forward of his own accord, are not inconsistent one with the other. [. . .]
[. . .] antecedent5to any good endeavors and prayers of their own. I answer, by this they contradict themselves another way: for then there is some virtue that is not from them, that don’t arise from any of their free endeavors, being from grace that prevents all endeavors, and that is the fountain whence all good endeavors arise, and so is, by their principles, no virtue.
According to their principles, men have a good and honest heart—the very thing that is the grand requisite in order to God’s acceptance, and so the proper grand condition of salvation, and is often spoken of in Scripture as such—before they have the proper condition of salvation (see Stebbing, p.48and thereabouts).6 This good and honest, meek and humble, sincere heart, they suppose they have before they have faith, repentance or obedience. Yea, they themselves hold this previous qualification to be the grand and essential requisite in order to God’s acceptance and salvation by him, that they greatly insist that if men have it they shall surely be saved, though they live and die in ignorance of the gospel, faith, repentance and holiness, necessary in order to salvation, according to them (Stebbing, p. 13).7
Self-determiningPower.8If our free acts of will are all self-determined, i.e. if our will be the cause of their particular determination, then such a particular determination of our will is the fruit of some voluntary endeavor of the mind in order to bring to pass that effect. Everything that I am properly the voluntary cause of, is the effect of some voluntary endeavor or effort of mine, and if every free determination of my will be the effect of some voluntary effort of mine, then that effort is properly antecedent to this effect; and as the effort, by the supposition, is voluntary, here was an act of the will antecedent to the determination of the will, and this prior act of the will must be free, too, otherwise they will not suppose the act that is consequent and dependent on it must be free. And this prior act being free, must also be self-determined, i.e. it must in like manner be the effect of some voluntary effort: and so there is another third act of the will which also must be free, and so on; and so we must go on in infinitum, or we shall come to a first act that is the first link in the chain; and this also
6. In the Treatise, pp. 48–50, Stebbing argues that “a meek and teachable Disposition” and “a serious Concern for Eternal Life” are the two things “that do fully make up that honest and good Heart spoken of by our Saviour.”
must be free, and consequently must be the fruit of a voluntary effort of the mind and of an antecedent act: which is a contradiction.
I would ask how is it possible for us to come by virtue at first, according to Arminian principles, or how we come by our first virtue. Is it natural? Is there some virtuous disposition with which we come into the world? But how is that virtue? That which we bring into the world is necessary, and what we had no opportunity to prevent, and it is not at all from our free will. How, then, can there be any virtue in it, by their principles? Or is our first virtue wholly from the influence of the Spirit of God, without any endeavor or effort of ours to be partly the cause of it? This, to be sure, can’t be by their principles: for according to them, that which is not at all from us, or that we are not the causes of, is no virtue of ours. Is it wholly from our endeavors, without any assistance at all of the Spirit? This is contrary to what they pretend to hold: for they assert that without divine assistance there can be no virtue (Stebbing, pp. 27–28 and pp. 20–21 and other places).9 If they say it is1 partly from the influence of the Spirit of God and partly from our own endeavors, I would inquire whether those endeavors that our first virtue partly arises from be good endeavors, at all virtuous. If the answer be in the affirmative, this contradicts the supposition: for I am now inquiring what the first virtue is. The first virtue we have certainly don’t arise from virtuous endeavors preceding that first virtue, for that is to suppose virtue before the first virtue. If the answer be that they are no good endeavors, they have nothing at all of the nature of the exercise of any good disposition, or any good aim or intention, or any virtuous sincerity, I ask, what tendency can such efforts of the mind as are wholly empty of all goodness [have]2 to produce true moral goodness in the heart? Can an action that in its principles and ends has no degree of moral good, have a tendency to beget an habit of acting from good principles and good ends? For instance, can a man’s doing something purely to sat-
Efficacious Grace, Book III 269
9. Stebbing, Treatise, pp. 27–28: “[H]e who believes in Christ, and sincerely keeps his Commandments, hath the Spirit of God; for it is the Effect of his Grace, and to say that Man may do this, and yet be void of Grace, is to contradict the Scriptures, which ascribe Faith and Obedience, in whomsoever they are, to the Operations of the Holy Spirit . . . . This Change does necessarily suppose that we have Grace, because it is the Effect of Grace.”
Pp. 20–21: “But that the Assistance of the Spirit is needful (even to the Degree of Necessity) to enable us to obey the Will of God, need not be proved by way of Consequence, seeing our Saviour has asserted it in express Terms.”
isfy some sensitive appetite of his own, or to increase his own worldly profit, have any kind of tendency to beget a habit of doing something from true disinterested benevolence, or to excite to any act from such a principle? Certainly an act perfectly void of benevolence has no more tendency to produce either an habit or act of benevolence than nothing has a tendency to produce something.
Stebbing supposes the assistance God gives, or the operation of the Spirit in order to faith, is to give a good and honest heart, prepared to receive and well improve the Word, as particularly meekness, humility, teachableness, etc. and supposes that these effects of the Spirit are to obtained by prayer; but yet allows that the prayer must be acceptably made (p. 106).3 Which supposes that some degree of virtue must be exercised in the prayer, for surely they don’t suppose anything else in a prayer, or in any other part of religion, is acceptable to God. I suppose they will not deny that there must be at least some virtuous respect to the Divine Being, as well as some virtuous concern for the good of their own souls, to make any external act of religion in them at all acceptable to God, who is a Spirit and the searcher of hearts. And it may also be presumed that they will allow that there are multitudes of men who at present are so wicked, so destitute of virtue, that they han’t virtue enough for acceptable prayer to God. They han’t now so much respect to God or their own souls as to incline ’em to pray at all, but they live in a total neglect. Now I would inquire how these men shall come by virtue in order to acceptably praying to God, or how is [it] within their reach by virtue of God’s promise, or how can they come by it but by God’s sovereign arbitrary grace? Shall they pray to God for it, and so obtain it? But this is contrary to the supposition: for that is supposed, that they now have not virtue enough to pray acceptably, and this is the very thing inquired, How they came by virtue necessary in order to their making an acceptable prayer? Or shall they work the virtue in themselves wholly without God’s assistance? But this is contrary to what they pretend, viz. that all virtue is from God. Or by the grace and assistance of God, which they allow to be evident by that Scripture, “without me ye can do nothing”? Or is God obliged to give it, or to assist ’em to obtain it, without their praying for it or having virtue enough to ask it of him? That they don’t pretend: for they suppose the condition of our obtaining the Holy Spirit is our seeking, asking, etc. And then if God gives it without their first seeking of it, that will make God the first determining efficient, yea, the mere and sole author of it, without their doing anything towards it, without their so much as seeking or asking for it; which would be entirely to overthrow their whole scheme, and would, by their principles, make the virtue no virtue at all, because not at all owing to them or any endeavors of theirs.
If they reply they must in the first place consider they are capable of consideration, and if they would consider as they ought and may, they would doubtless pray to God and ask his help; every man naturally has some virtue in him which proper consideration would put into exercise so far as to cause him to pray in some measure acceptably without any new gift from God: I answer, this [is] inconsistent with many of their principles, that men should naturally have some virtue in them; for what is natural is necessary, is not from themselves and their own endeavors and free acts, but prevents them all and therefore can’t be the man’s virtue. If they say, no, consideration won’t stir up any virtue that is naturally in them to cause ’em [to] pray virtuously, but God has obliged himself to give virtue enough to enable ’em to pray and seek acceptably, if they will consider, I answer, this is more than they pretend: they don’t pretend that God has promised any new grace to any man on any lower conditions than asking, seeking, knocking, etc.; and if they should think best at last to pretend any promise on lower terms, they had best to produce the promises and tell us what and where they be. If they say serious consideration itself is some degree of seeking their own good, and there is an implicit prayer in it to the Supreme Being to guide ’em into the way to their happiness, I answer, if this be supposed, there is an implicit prayer in their consideration. Still, they allow that prayer must be in some measure acceptable prayer in order to its being entitled to an answer, and consequently must have some degree of virtuous respect to God, etc. And if so, then the same question returns with all the forementioned difficulties over again, viz. how came the profane, thoughtless, vain, inconsiderate person by this new virtue, this new respect to God that he now exercises in this serious consideration and implicit prayer?
If they say there is no necessity of supposing any implicit prayer in the first consideration, and yet if the wicked, profane, careless person makes a good improvement of what grace he has, in proper consideration or otherwise, God has obliged himself to give him more, in that general promise, “To him that hath shall be given, and he shall have more abundance”: then I answer, here is new virtue in his making a good improvement of what common assistance he has, which before he neglected and made no good improvement of. How came he by this new virtue? Here again, all the forementioned difficulties return. Was it wholly from themselves? This is contrary to what they pretend. Or is God obliged to give new assistance in order to this new virtue by any promise? If he be, what is the condition of the promise? ’Tis absurd to say making a good improvement of what assistance they have, for that is the thing we are inquiring after, viz. how he came by that new virtue, making a good improvement of what he has, that before had not virtue enough to make such an improvement.
Of whatever kind this assistance is, if it be some afflictive dispensation of providence or some other outward dispensation or inward influence, the difficulty is the same: how comes God [to be] obliged to give this assistance, and what is the condition of the promise?
That4 which makes the grand difference between [the] difference between natural and moral necessity in this controversy, is this: that in the former kind of necessity the will is not at all concerned as cause or effect; yea, oftentimes it is against the will.
Definition. (See Dr. Watts, p. 7, § 2.)5 ’Tis not called natural necessity in distinction from moral necessity because the nature of things is not as much concerned in moral necessity as the other, or that the connection don’t result as much from the nature of things; but only that men’s nature is concerned without anything of choice. For language, which is a very arbitrary [thing], depends chiefly on custom—which is not always foreordered on very clear reason—often uses the word “nature” in opposition to “choice.”
272 Efficacious Grace, Book III
4. JE directs that this paragraph be inserted on MS p. 86, but the page is no longer in the notebook, so the passage has been kept here. JE drew a vertical line through the next two paragraphs.
5. Isaac Watts, An Essay on the Freedom of Will in God and in Creatures (London, 1732), pp. 7–8: “I know some great Writers distinguish here between a natural and a moral Necessity, and call all those Actions of the Will which are really natural, as well as constant, certain and universal, such as Acts of Truth, and Justice in God, morally necessary; and will allow scarce any thing to be naturally necessary but what belongs to Matter, or to the meer passive or perceptive Powers of a Spirit: I grant indeed, that the Will, which is influenced by rational Motives, is not under such a sort of influence in its Actions as Bodies are, because Bodies are mechanically moved; yet the Necessity may be as strong and unalterable: and if it be the very Nature of God to act justly and faithfully, so that he cannot Will nor Act otherwise, it may be called (I think) a Natural Necessity, since it springs from his Nature; as well as it may be called a Moral one, because ’tis the Action of an intelligent and free Agent.”
Either he is blind [and] stupid that shall say thus, and believes what he says, or I must confess myself to be so with a witness.
This is the common way of the Arminians in their solution of difficulties and in the account they give of things, which they pretend are so much more consistent with reason and common sense than the doctrines of the Calvinists; do really give no account at all, make no proper answer to the inquiries made, but only put the difficulty further out of sight, and do as Mr. Locke says of the Indian philosopher, who when asked what the earth stood upon, answered, etc.6 None of their accounts will bear to be traced. The first link of the chain, and fountain of the whole stream, must not be inquired after. If it be, it brings all to a gross absurdity and self-contradiction.
And yet when they have done, [they] look upon others as stupid bigots and void of common sense, or at least going directly counter [to it], and worthy of contempt and indignation because they won’t agree with them.
The answer must be that this new virtue is without any new assistance given, and is from God no otherwise than as the former neglected assistance or grace subserves it. But the question is, whence came the virtue of not neglecting but improving that former assistance? Is that proper to say, that a man is assisted to improve assistance by the assistance improved? Supposing a number of men were in the water in danger of drowning, and a friend on shore throws out a cord amongst them, but all of them for a while neglect [it]. At length, one of them takes hold of it and makes improvement of it: and [if] any should inquire how that man came by the prudence and virtue of improving the cord, when others did not, and when he before had neglected it, would it be a proper answer to say that he [that] threw out the rope assisted him wisely to improve the rope, by throwing out the rope to him? This would be an absurd answer. The question is not how he came by his opportunity, but how he came by the virtue and discretion of improvement of [the rope]. His friend on shore gave him the opportunity, and this is all the man’s virtue in improving it; [it] was not at all from him. Would it be exceeding impertinent in such a case to set forth from time to time how this man’s virtue and prudence
6. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Bk. II, ch. XIII, § 19: “Had the poor Indian Philosopher (who imagined that the Earth also wanted something to bear it up) but thought of this word Substance, he needed not to have been at the trouble to find an Elephant to support it, and a Tortoise to support his Elephant: The word Substance would have done it effectually.”
was the gift of his friend on the shore, his mere gift, the fruit of his purpose and mere good pleasure, and of his power; that it was of his own will, etc.?
Men’s virtue, by Arminian [principles],7 must consist wholly and entirely in improving assistance: for in that only consists the exercise of their free will in the affair, and not in their having the assistance; and therefore their virtue must be, by their principles, entirely from themselves, and God has no hand in it.
From the latter part of the above discourse, it appears that, according to Arminian principles, men’s virtue is altogether of themselves, and god has no hand at all in it.
Stating question. determining grace. When I say that the acts and influences of the Spirit determine the effects, ’tis not meant that man has nothing to do to determine in the affair. The soul of man undoubtedly, in every [instance],8 does voluntarily determine with respect to his own consequent actions; but this determination of the will of man, or voluntary determination of the soul of man, is the effect determined. This determining act of the soul is not denied, but supposes,9 as in the effect we are speaking of, that the influences of God’s Spirit determines.
If they say, ’tis no act at all if it be thus disposed and absolutely determined by another cause, I answer, ’tis no more an act if it be supposed to come to pass accidentally, or in pure contingence, without a cause. ’Tis no more caused by the soul for coming to pass in the soul without any cause.
But1 then this don’t at all enter into the vulgar and common notion of an act, that it be a thing uncaused. ’Tis only their subtil, abstruse and inconsistent metaphysics that has brought in this notion. (See p. 248.)2
Self-determining power.3 The question is whence the free acts of the will first begin or take their first rise. To say they begin of themselves is a contradiction: for to say they take their beginning or rise from themselves is a contradiction, for this supposes that these acts are causes before they
7. JE, Jr.’s insert. 8. JE, Jr.’s insert. 9. MS: “supposed.” 1. JE drew a vertical line through the following paragraph. 2. Here (MS p. 103) JE refers back to MS p. 19. 3. JE drew a vertical line through the next four paragraphs.
began, and that implies that they exist before they begin. To say they begin from antecedent free acts [is] a contradiction; for the inquiry is after the first source of free acts, and that implies whence the first free act in the whole train or succession begins. To say that that begins from antecedent free acts is a contradiction.
Contingency. That anything new should begin to be without a cause, is what is inconcileably repugnant to common sense. God has put that natural sense into the minds of all mankind that is invincibly opposite to a new thing, of any sort whatsoever, starting into existence without a cause.
To suppose that an act of will should be without a cause, is as repugnant to reason as to suppose a mind with a faculty of will and other faculties should come into being without a cause.
Definition. by moral necessity, I mean a necessity arising from the strength of inclination, or strength of motives and inducement, and the certain connection that there is in many cases between these and such and such acts of the will. [. . .]
Metaphysics.4 The propositions that demonstrate it are no more metaphysical, and no more abstruse, than those by which we demonstrate the falsity of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Definition. stating the question. To endeavor to make it5 very plain, that the main thing in debate, [is] who is the determining Disposing cause of virtue.
The Scripture speaks of that as the reason that good men have virtue, that God hath given it to them, and the reason why bad men have it not, that God hath not given it to them. These two together clearly prove that god is the determining or disposing cause of the virtue or goodness in men.
To show in what sense the grace of God is irresistible. If the grace of god be determining or disposing, then it is in this sense irresistible. See Stebbing’s state of the question concerning irresistible grace, p. 129.6
Dr. Stebbing insists upon it, that conversion is the effect of God’s Word, and therefore supposes it to be7 demonstrably evident that it must needs be the effect of man’s free will, and not the necessary effect of the Spirit of God.8 But I say that, by their doctrine of self-determination, it can’t be the effect of the Word of God in any proper sense at all. ’Tis as inconsistent with their scheme, as they suppose it to be with ours, and is also utterly inconsistent with its9 being at all the effect of either Word or Spirit.
They say that commands, threatenings, promises, invitations, counsels, etc. are to no purpose on our scheme; but indeed they have no place in their scheme, for their scheme excludes all motive.
To enumerate many particulars wherein their scheme contradicts common sense. It is contrary to common sense that a being should continually meet with millions of millions of real proper disappointments and crosses to his proper desires, and not continually live on a distressed and unhappy life. ’Tis contrary to common sense that God should know that to be contingent, will certainly come to pass, whose nonexistence he at the same time knows is not impossible; that a thing should be the cause of itself, or that a thing not necessary in its own nature should come to pass without any cause; that the more indifferent, the more virtuous, etc.
If the grace of god is not disposing and determining, then a gracious man’s differing in this respect from another is not owing to the goodness [of God].1 He owes no thanks to God for it, and so owes no
276 Efficacious Grace, Book III
either converted or not converted?” Stebbing goes on to say that the “Patrons of absolute Personal Decrees” advocate “That Conversion is the Effect of such an Operation of the Spirit upon the Mind, as makes it impossible for a Man not to be converted; and withal that Conversion is impossible without such an irresistible Operation” (p. 130).
7. MS: “& supposes that therefore supposes it to be.” 8. In discussing the manner of the Spirit’s operation, Stebbing asserts, “That such is the Manner of the Spirit’s Operations, that Faith, Obedience, together with Improvement in Holiness, are nevertheless the proper and genuine Effects of the Revelation of the Gospel” (p. 122). P. 142: “The Word of God can be the Cause of Conversion no otherwise than as it moves the Heart to Faith and Repentance, by those Arguments or rational Grounds of Conviction which it proposes to us. Now as this immediate Almighty Act of the Spirit exerts it self, and the Mind thereby becomes regenerate, all Arguments and Persuasions must necessarily be fruitless and ineffectual. Upon this Hypothesis then the Word of God can have no Force till Conversion be actually wrought; and therefore to say after this that Conversion is the Effect of God’s Word, is to make the Effect antecedent to the Cause.”
thanks to God that he is saved, and no others. Show how contrary this is to Scripture.
When the Scripture speaks of giving it,2 it speaks of the possession of it as a fruit of God’s bounty.
See what the Arminians say concerning those Scripture that speak of sinners as dead in sin, blind, having a heart of stone, etc. Stebbing, pp. 181, etc.3
If the effect4 is partly owing to assistance or motive: if the effect has ten degrees, and ’tis in some measure owing to foreign assistance—suppose five degrees—then only the remaining five degrees is to be ascribed to the man himself, and therefore there are but five degrees of virtue or vice.
Dr. Stebbing says that a man is indeed passive and active both in his own conversion, and he represents God as partly the cause of man’s conversion, and man himself partly the cause (p. 208).5
Again Stebbing says, p. 254, “Faith and regeneration are our works, as well as his gifts, i.e. they arise partly from God, and partly from ourselves.”6
Contingence,7 things coming to pass without cause. If there be no absurdity or difficulty in supposing one thing to start out of nothing into
Efficacious Grace, Book III 277
2. JE, Jr., takes this to mean “the gift of virtue.” 3. In Ch. 11 of the Treatise, Stebbing considers arguments in favor of irresistible grace and the state of man before conversion. In regard to the metaphors of “deadness,” “blindness,” and the like, he summarizes his answers (p. 183): “[F]irst, that it is absurd to argue from the whole Latitude of these Metaphors, so as to conclude every thing to be true of the Unconverted, &c. which may be affirmed of the Dead, &c. Secondly, That there are other Respects, and those very obvious and plain ones, in which the Resemblance between the Unoonverted and the Dead or Blind, and between the Converted and the raised up or enlightened, will justify the Use of these Metaphors, without supposing that Conversion must be wrought by an irresistible Operation. Thirdly, . . . the Impossibility of being converted, otherwise than by an irresistible Operation, cannot be argued from these Expressions, whatever else may be argued from them.”
4. JE, Jr., deletes the beginning of the sentence and inserts: “A man’s conformity to the rule of duty.”
5. Stebbing, Treatise, p. 208: “Man is indeed passive, but not merely passive in the Work of Conversion. For if Man were not at all passive, it could not be said of GOD, that he worketh in us both to will and to do, that he gives us a new Heart, a new Spirit, and the like; and if Man were merely passive, i.e. if he were not at all the Cause of his own Conversion, it would be absurd to exhort him to work out his own Salvation, to make himself a new Heart and a new Spirit. Wherefore there is no other way to make the Scriptures consistent with themselves, but by saying that Conversion is the Work of God and of Man too.”
being, then there is no more difficulty in supposing8 a million millions: for nothing multiplied by nothing don’t increase the number. If there be nothing of difficulty in one instance, there is nothing [. . .]
[. . .] or9 motion, or figure, or some perception, or sensation, or act of will; and also something that divides and exactly limits the time, place and subject in which it shall come into existence. This shows that the thing don’t come into existence of itself, but from a cause, and so the supposition is an absurdity.
Supposing1 the sort of existence that was wont to start into existence of itself, without any cause, were diamonds; and those came into being of themselves by millions of millions, and in a very constant manner all over the world; and no other effects came into being of themselves but those: this would show there was some cause, and so the supposition would be an absurdity. And if the sort of existence be motion, or color, or some perception of the mind or act of the will, the case is the same. It cannot be the nature of the effect itself that shall have influence in this matter.
See2 to that there be no seeming inconsistence here with anything that may be said in the definitions concerning the different kinds of necessity, as though there was no real difference between natural and moral necessity.
Concerning the glory of our conversion and salvation being due to ourselves on Arminian principles, see Stebbing, pp. 209, etc.3
278 Efficacious Grace, Book III
8. MS: “suppose.” 9. JE drew a vertical line through the next three paragraphs. 1. JE directs that the following paragraph, through which he drew a vertical line, should be inserted on the “last p.,” i.e. MS p. 121, which is missing. The passage has therefore been kept here.
2. JE directs that this paragraph be moved to MS p. 119, which is missing. 3. Ch. XII, pp. 209–28, is entitled, “Of The Evil Consequences which are Supposed to Follow From Maintaining the Grace of God to be Resistible; and First, that it Ascribes the Glory of Conversion to Ourselves.” On pp. 210–11, Stebbing writes: “I say, ’tis no consequence from our Principles, that we must ascribe the whole Glory of Conversion to our selves, and none to the Grace of God. . . . We do in great Part ascribe Conversion to the Grace of God merely upon this Account, viz. Because we say and believe that it is truly and properly the Effect of God’s Word revealed to us in the Gospel.” P. 215: “Seeing then that the Promise of eternal Life and Happiness cutteth off all Pretence of glorying before God, when for his Sake we suffer the sharpest Persecutions, much more will it make the Praise of all other Acts of Obedience, as not being so difficult, become due to him in the first place, who hath by the Offer of such inestimable Rewards, induced us thereunto.” P. 218: “Finally, we do not ascribe the whole Glory of Conversion to our selves, because we
Men’s salvation is attributed wholly and entirely to men in their scheme, and none at all of the praise of it due to God, as will most evidently appear if the matter be considered with a little attention. For, first, they hold that men’s salvation is given as a reward of men’s virtue; so is pardon of sin, deliverance from hell, and eternal life and glory in heaven. All is for men’s virtue. Second, rewardable virtue wholly consists in the exercise of a man’s own free will. They hold that a man’s actions are no further virtuous nor rewardable than they are from man himself. If they are partly from some foreign causes, so far they are not rewardable in the man. It being so, that that virtue which is rewardable in man is entirely from man himself, hence ’tis to himself wholly that he is to ascribe his obtaining the reward. If the virtue, which is that thing, and that thing only, which obtains the reward, be wholly from man himself, then it will surely follow that his obtaining the reward is wholly from himself.
All their arguments suppose that men’s actions are no further virtuous or rewardable than they are from themselves the fruits of their own free will and self-determination. And therefore men’s virtue, they say, is the only condition of salvation, and so must be the only thing by which salvation is obtained. And this being only of themselves, it surely follows that their obtaining salvation is only of themselves.
They say their scheme gives almost all the glory to God. That matter, I suppose, may easily be determined, and it may be made [to] appear beyond all contest how much they do ascribe of the man and how much they do not.
By them, salvation is so far from God that ’tis God that gives opportunity to obtain salvation, ’tis God that gives the offer and makes the promise; but the obtaining the thing promised is of men. The being of the promise is of God, but their interest in it is wholly of themselves, of their own free will.
And furthermore, it is to be observed that even God’s making the offer and giving the opportunity to obtain salvation—at least that which consists in salvation from eternal misery—is not of God so as to owing to any proper grace or goodness of his: for they suppose he was obliged to make the offer, and it would have been a reproach to his justice if he had not given an opportunity. For they hold ’tis unjust for God to make men miserable for Adam’s sin, and that it is unjust to punish ’em for that sin that they can’t avoid, and that therefore it is unjust for God not to preserve or
do acknowledge that there is a Variety of other Means besides these which have been already mentioned, whereby God traineth us up to his Fear.”
save all men that do what they can or use their sincere endeavors to do their duty. And therefore it certainly follows that ’tis unjust in God not to give all opportunity to be saved or preserved from misery, and consequently it is no fruit at all of any grace or kindness in him to give such opportunity as to make the offer of it. So that all that is the fruit of God’s kindness in men’s salvation, is the positive happiness that he brings to salvation. But neither of these two things are in any respect whatsoever the fruit of God’s kindness, neither his deliverance from sin nor his deliverance from misery, nor his virtue and holiness. When hereafter they see the misery of the damned, they will have it to consider that ’tis in no respect owing to God that they are delivered.
And that good men differ from others that shall burn in hell to all eternity, is wholly owing to themselves. When they at the day of judgment behold . . .4 and see how they differ, they may and ought, as they would act according to truth, take all the glory of it to themselves. And therefore the glory of their salvation belongs to them: for it is evident that a man’s making himself to differ with regard to any great spiritual benefit; and his not receiving it from another, but his having it in distinction from others, being from himself, is ground of a man’s boasting and glorying in himself with respect [to it] and boasting of it: I say ’tis evident by the Apostle’s words, “Who maketh thee to differ from another? Why boastest thou, as though thou hadst not received it?” [I Cor. 4:7], these words plainly imply it. (See the next §.)
(See the last §.) It is evident that ’tis God’s design to exclude man’s boasting in the affair of his salvation.
Now let us consider what does give ground for boasting in the Apostle’s account, and what is it that, in his account, excludes boasts or cuts off occasion for it.
’Tis evident by what the Apostle says, I Cor. 1, latter end, that the entire[ness]5 and universality of our dependence on God, is that which cuts off occasion [for boasting].
And that such an universal dependence is what takes away occasion of taking glory to ourselves, and is a proper ground of an ascription of all glory of things belonging to man’s salvation to God, is manifest from Rom. 11:35–36, “Or who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” The words are remarkable and very significant if we look into all the foregoing discourse, from the beginning of ch. 9, of which this is the conclusion. By not giving to God, but having all this wholly from, through and in God, is intended that these things, these great benefits forementioned, are thus from God without being from or through us. That some of the Jews were distinguished from others in enjoying the privileges of Christians, was not of themselves: “Not of him that willeth, nor him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” ’Tis of him who has “mercy on whom he will have mercy.” ’Tis of God, whom makes of the same lump a vessel of honor and a vessel unto dishonor. ’Tis not of us nor our works, but of the calling of God, or “of him that calleth” (ch. 9:11, 16, 21). Not first of our own choice, but of God’s election (ch. 9:11, 27 and ch. 11:5). All of the grace of God in such a manner as not to be of our works at all, yea, and so as to be utterly inconsistent with its being of our works (ch. 11:5–7). In such a manner as not firstly to be of their seeking; their seeking don’t determine, but God’s election (ch. 11:7). ’Tis of God, and not of man, that some were grafted in that were wild olive branches in themselves, and were unlikely as to any[thing]6 in themselves to be branches than others (v. 17). Their being grafted in is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness, while he was pleased to use severity towards others (v. 22). Yea, God has so ordered it on purpose that all should be shut up in unbelief, be left to be so sinful, that he might have mercy on all, so as more visibly to show the salvation of all to be merely dependent on mercy. Then the Apostle fitly concludes all this discourse with, “Who hath first given to him, [and it shall be recompense unto him again? For] of him, through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”
{That our dependence on God cuts off all boasting is further evident from the Apostle}, as our receiving our wisdom, our holiness and our redemption through Christ and not through ourselves; that Christ is made to us wisdom, holiness and redemption; and not only so, but that ’tis of God that we have any part in Christ: “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus.”
And not only so, but that it is from God that we receive those benefits of wisdom, holiness, etc. through the Savior that we are interested in. The import of all these things, if we may trust to Scripture representations, is that God has contrived to exclude our glorying, that we should be wholly and every way dependent on God for the moral and natural good that belongs to salvation, and that we have all from the hand of God by his power and grace. And certainly this is wholly inconsistent with our holiness being wholly of ourselves, and our being interested in the benefits of Christ rather than others, being wholly of our own decision.
Again, in the Apostle’s account, a benefit being of our works gives occasion for boasting, and that therefore God has contrived that our salvation shall not be [of] our works but of mere grace (Rom. 3:27, Eph. 2:9); and that both the salvation and condition of it, neither of them be of our works, but that with regard to all we are God’s workmanship and his creation antecedent to our works; and his grace and power in producing this workmanship, and his determination or purpose with regard to ’em, are all prior to our works, and the cause of ’em. See also Rom. 11:4–6.
And ’tis evident man’s having it from himself and not receiving it from another, and making himself to differ with regard to great spiritual benefits, does so,7 by the words of the Apostle in [Rom. 3:27];8 and that is allowed by these men in spiritual gifts. And if so in them, more so in greater things; more so in that which in itself is a thousand times more excellent, and of ten thousand times greater importance and benefit. So that by the Apostle’s suppositions, man’s receiving spiritual benefits of himself and not from another, being the author of his own distinction in them, as9that which gives ground of boasting, can be excluded by the scheme of those, in the Apostle’s notion of an occasion for [boasting]. For by them, that which is infinitely the most excellent thing, viz. virtue and holiness, which the Apostle himself sets forth as being so infinitely the most honorable, and will bring ’em infinitely to the greatest and highest honor, [is] that which is infinitely the highest dignity of man’s nature of all things that belong to man’s salvation, in comparison of which all other things belonging to that salvation are nothing; that which does infinitely more than anything else constitute the difference between them and others as more excellent, more worthy, honorable and happy: not only that which is in- finitely the most honorable, but which men, on the supposition of their being possessed of [it], are more apt to glory in than anything else whatsoever. For what are men so apt to glory in as their own supposed excellency, and that sort of glory which, it is evident in fact, the Scriptures do chiefly guard against. ’Tis glorying in their own righteousness, their own holiness, their own works.
How1 apparent is it that God, in the whole series of his dealings with his people from the beginning of the world, has greatly guarded against men’s glorying in benefits as though they were of themselves.
This is from themselves with regard to this: they have not received it from another. With regard to this great thing, they, and they only, make themselves to differ from others, not at all from the power or grace of God.
Again, in the Apostle’s account, it2 will give occasion to have a great benefit that appertains to salvation, [not]3 of grace but of works.
That, in the Apostle’s account, ’tis a proper consideration to prevent our boasting, that our distinction from others is not of ourselves, not only in being distinguished in having better gifts and better ministers; but in our being made partakers of the great privileges of Christians, such as being ingrafted into Christ and partaking of the fitness of that olive tree. Rom. 11:17–18, “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches.” Here ’tis manifest, ’tis the distinction that was made between some and others that is the thing insisted on by the Apostle. Others were broken off; they were grafted in. And the Apostle, v. 22, calls upon them to consider this great distinction, and to ascribe it only to the distinguishing goodness of God: “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness.” And its being owing not to them but to God and his distinguishing goodness, is the thing the Apostle urges as a reason why they should not boast but magnify God’s grace or distinguishing goodness. And if it was a good reason, and the scheme [of] our salvation be anyway so contrived (as the Apostle elsewhere signifies) that all occasion of boasting should be precluded and all reasons given to ascribe all to God’s grace, then doubtless ’tis so ordered that the greatest privileges, excellency, honor and happiness of Christians should be that wherein they don’t distinguish themselves, but the distinction is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness.
Stebbing strongly asserts that God is not the author of that difference that is between some and others, that some are good and others bad (p. 232).4
2. JE, Jr., deletes “it” and inserts “this scheme.” 3. JE, Jr.’s insert. 4. JE’s statement is confusing in light of the fact that, on p. 232 of his Treatise, Stebbing asserts that God is the author of the difference. Stebbing writes on I Cor. 4:7: “After all, I do not say that there was no Difference between these Teachers [Paul and Apollos], nor yet that God was not the Author of that Difference. . . . It is likewise true, that this Difference was of God’s making. For it depended not at all upon the Will of Man whether he should be thus or thus qualified by extraordinary Gifts, but merely upon the good Pleasure of God, who divided these Gifts to every Man several as he would, I Cor. 12.11.” Perhaps JE’s use of the negative “not” is a mistake on his part.
Arminians differ among themselves. Dr. Whitby supposes what God does is only proposing moral motives, but that our attending and adverting and considering is that wherein we exercise our liberty. But Stebbing supposes that the attention and consideration itself is the thing owing to the Spirit of God (p. 217).5
Stebbing changes the question, [pp.] 223–24. He was considering who has the chief glory of our conversion or of our virtue, and there, in answering objections, endeavors to prove the affirmative of another question, viz. Who is the author of pardon and that salvation of which conversion and virtue are the condition?6
See the scriptures they allege against efficacious grace. Stebbing, pp. 165, etc.7
Supercilious, magisterial, castigatory airs.
Stebbing supposes that one thing wherein the assistance of the Spirit consists, [is] in giving a meek, teachable, disinterested temper of mind, to prepare ’em for faith in Christ (pp. 217, 259); and that herein consists the drawing of the Father ( John 6:44), viz. in giving such a temper of mind.8
284 Efficacious Grace, Book III
5. Stebbing, Treatise, p. 217: “What I have hitherto said, must not be interpreted as if I though that the bare proposal of these Motives in the holy Scripture, or by the Ministry of Men, is of it self sufficient for Conversion. For all that I affirm is, that if this were sufficient, the Glory of Conversion ought still to be ascribed chiefly unto God, and consequently, we who acknowledge Conversion to be the Effect of God’s Word, as one Cause or Means of it, are for this reason, unjustly charged with giving the whole Glory of Conversion to our selves. . . . [W]e do moreover ascribe Conversion to the internal Operations of the holy Spirit, applying the Motives of Religion to our Minds, and with them perswading us to be converted.”
6. On p. 222 of the Treatise, Stebbing states the objection that “that which LEAST conduceth to Man’s Salvation is attributed to God, and that which conduceth MOST is ascribed to MAN HIM- SELF. . . .” To this Stebbing replies: “1. That ’tis Nonsense to say that the Power which we have to believe and repent is from God, and at the same time to say that the Act of Conversion is from our selves, i.e. from our selves only. . . . 2. The Meaning of this Objection, to make Sense of it, must be this: ‘That we suppose the Act of Conversion to be so much from our selves, that it depends upon the Use of our own Liberty.’ Which indeed is very true; but then I deny that it follows from hence that Man contributes more to his own Conversion than God; for this Conclusion is grounded upon a most false Proposition, viz. That that Cause, without which the Effect cannot be produced, is always the principal Cause; whereas nothing can be more plain, than that many Causes may be necessary for the producing of an Effect.”
This he calls the preventing grace of God, that goes before conversion [p. 259]. He several times speaks of a part that we do, and a part that God does; and he speaks of this, as that part which God does. Therefore this, if it be the part which9 God does in distinction from the part which we do (for so he speaks of it), is wholly done by God; and consequently here is virtue wholly from God and not at all from the exercise of our own free will, inconsistent with his own and all other Arminians’ principles.
Stebbing speaks of these preparatory dispositions as virtue (pp. 30– 32), yea, as that wherein virtue does in a peculiar manner consist (p. 31).1
And he there also, viz. [p.] 259, talks inconsistently with himself: for he supposes that this meek and teachable temper is given by God by his preventing grace, and also supposes that all that have this shall surely come to the Father. He says, p. 256: “’Tis certainly true of the meek, disinterested man, that [as] he will not reject the gospel at first, so he will not be prevailed on by any worldly considerations to forsake it afterwards.” “He who is under no evil bias of mind, by which he may be prejudiced against the truth [. . .] (which is the notion of a meek and disinterested man), such a one, I say, cannot possibly fail of being wrought upon by the preaching of the Word, which carries in it all that evidence of truth which reason requires,” etc.
And his words, pp. 259–60, are: “John 6:37, 39, ‘All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me’; for to be given of the Father signifies the same thing with being drawn of the Father, as has been already shown. And to be drawn of the Father signifies to be prepared or fitted for the reception of the gospel by the preventing grace of God, as has also been proved. Now this preparedness consisting, as has likewise been shown, in being endued with a meek and disinterested temper of mind, those who are given of the Father will be the same with Christ’s sheep, and the sense of the place the same with the preceding, where our Savior says, that his sheep hear his voice and follow him, i.e. become his obedient disciples. This text therefore being no more than a declaration what will be certain, and (morally speaking) the necessary effect of that disposition, upon the
Efficacious Grace, Book III 285
drawn of the Father signifies to be prepared or fitted for the Reception of the Gospel by the preventing Grace of God . . . Now this Preparedness consisting . . . in being endued with a meek and disinterested Temper of Mind, those who are given of the Father will be the same with Christ’s Sheep.”
9. MS: “which is.” 1. P. 31: “That these [Moral] Endowments being once found out, if it can be proved that they are also sufficient to lead us to Faith and Obedience, it will then follow, that they must make up the whole of what our Saviour means by an honest and good Heart, because otherwise these Endowments would not be sufficient, something else included under an honest and good Heart being still supposed to be necessary.”
account of which men are said to be given of the Father (to wit, that it will lead em to embrace the gospel when once proposed to ’em).” By these things, the preventing grace of God, the part that God does in distinction from the part that we do, and that which prevents or goes before what we do, thoroughly decides and determines the case as to our conversion, or our faith and repentance and obedience; notwithstanding all the hand our free will is supposed to have in the case, and which he supposes is what determines men’s conversion, and insists upon it most strenuously and magisterially through his book, and abundantly professed condemnation of the contrary.
Stebbing supposes the influences of the Spirit necessary to prepare men’s hearts (pp. 15–18).2
He (pp. 17–18) speaks of this as what the Spirit does, and as being his preventing grace, and speaks of it as always effectually, so that all such,3
and only such, will believe. See also pp. 28–30.4
That these dispositions must be effectual, see pp. 46–48.
This teachable, humble, meek Spirit is what Stebbing speaks of everywhere as what the Spirit of God gives antecedent to obedience. He insists upon it, that God’s assistance is necessary in order to obedience.
In [pp.] 20–21, he plainly asserts that it is necessary in order to our obedience, and declares that our Savior has asserted it in express terms in those words, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing”; i.e. as he says, no good thing.5 Hence it follows that this teachable, humble, meek disposition, [this]6 good and honest heart, is not the fruit of any good thing
286 Efficacious Grace, Book III
2. On p.15, answering the inquiry, “Whether it be needful in order to our Attainment of these Qualifications [needful in order to salvation], that we have the Assistance of the Spirit,” Stebbing replies in part “That the Mind be prepared, fitted, or disposed to discern, and be wrought upon by this Evidence.” He goes on, pp. 16–18, to “undertake to prove, that the Assistance of the Spirit is necessary to prepare Men’s Hearts, and put them into a fit Temper and Disposition to embrace the Gospel, when proposed to them with sufficient Evidence.”
3. JE, Jr., adds: “as have it.” 4. Stebbing, Treatise, p. 18: “[T]he preventing Grace of God, i.e. the Assistance of the Divine Spirit, fitting and disposing our Minds to be wrought upon by that Evidence which the Gospel carries along with it, is necessary to believing.” In pp. 28–30, the beginning of Ch. III, “What the Spirit does towards producing the foregoing Effects,” Stebbing states: “Now the Work of the Spirit in bringing us to Faith and Obedience, in general, I take to be this, viz. the enduing us with certain Moral Qualifications, necessary to dispose, fit, or prepare us thereunto.”
we do in the exercise of our free will, but is merely the fruit of divine operation.
Here observe well what Stebbing says concerning God’s giving grace sufficient for obedience in answer to prayer, pp. 103–06.
No reason in the world can be given why a meek humble spirit and sense of the importance of eternal things should not be as requisite in order to acceptable prayer as hearing and believing the Word. As much [is] so spoken of. A praying without a good spirit, in these and other respects, is represented as no prayer, ineffectual, what we have no reason to expect will be answered.
If that meekness, etc. depends on some antecedent self-determined act of theirs, and be determined by that, then their being Christ’s, being his sheep, and therein distinguished from others that are not his sheep, is not properly owing to the Father’s gift but to their own gifts. The Father’s pleasure is not the thing it is to be ascribed to at all, for the Father does nothing in the case decisively. He acts not at all freely in the case, but acts on an antecedent firm obligation to the persons themselves. But their own pleasure, undetermined by God, is that which disposes and decides this matter. How impertinent would it be to mention the gift of the Father in this case, when the thing he speaks of is not from thence, etc.
Stebbing interprets that, Luke 19:16–17—which speaks of our being little children, and receiving the kingdom of God as little children—of that meekness, humility, etc. that is antecedent, whereas ’tis apparent Christ elsewhere speaks of it as consequent on conversion, as Matt. 18. So that there is nothing left for the great First and Last, no glory for either Father, Son or Holy Ghost in the affair. This is not carrying things too far, but is a consequence truly and certainly to be ascribed to their scheme of things.
That the assistance that God gives in order to obedience is giving this good and honest heart, see pp. 46–47, together with pp. 40, 45. And therefore this good and honest heart is not the fruit of our own obedience, but must be assistance, that prevents our good works, as he often calls it “the preventing grace of God.” Therefore if this grace determines the matter, and will certainly be followed with faith and obedience, then all Arminianism and all his own scheme comes to the ground.
Definition.7 Explain what I mean by being antecedent or prior in the order of nature.
Axiom. That which [is] antecedent in the order of nature is as truly distinct from the other thing to which it is antecedent, as that which is antecedent in order of time.
Borrow mr. beach’s last book.8
He may be said to be the giver of mercy,9 that offers it to us, without being the proper determiner of our acceptance of it. But if the acceptance of an offer itself be the thing which is supposed to be the thing given, he can’t, in any proper sense whatsoever, be properly said to be the giver of this who is not the determiner of it. But ’tis in the acceptance of offers, the proper improvement of opportunities, wherein consists virtue. He may be said to be the giver of mercy or goods that don’t determine the wise [choice];1 but if the wise and good choice itself be said to be [the] thing given, that supposes the giver determines the existing of such a wise [choice]. But now this is the thing that God is represented as the giver of, when he is spoken [of] as the giver of virtue, holiness, etc.: for virtue and holiness (as all our opponents in these controversies allow and maintain) is the thing wherein virtue consists.
Common sense. Abuse of words.2The word irrefutableis a relative term. It has reference to resistance made, or that might be made, yea, the utmost resistance, and that the thing resisted cannot be overcome. So the word impossible has reference to power exerted in endeavors, yea, the utmost power we have, and yet that the thing endeavored cannot be accomplished.
Perhaps it would be best to write the last part, to oviate objections that may be made, dialogue-wise.
Moral inability. Impossibility. Necessity. Definition. A wicked disposition may make it impossible for a man to do well. ’Tis acknowledged that a wicked disposition may make it exceeding difficult to do well, by reason of the evil inclination and habits being so strong. Therefore if more were added to the strength of the evil disposition to a certain de- gree, it would make the difficulty so great that it would be impossible, for this plain reason: because men’s power to surmount difficulties is finite and limited, and so goes not beyond certain limits. And therefore if difficulty be increased beyond those limits, then difficulty goes beyond men’s power and overcoming, and it is therefore impossible that he should overcome them.
Stern and supercilious domineering airs.3
Borrow Stackhouse.4
They5call the acts of free will, contingentthings, in opposition to necessary. If they are contingent in this sense, they are without a cause. If we suppose ’em caused by the will itself, still here is something without a cause, viz. that the will should happen to cause itself to act in such a manner, that it should, without being determined by any cause, happen to determine itself as it does. And here on this occasion show:
1. That whatsoever has a cause is necessary with a necessity of connection and consequence. If the acts of the will be caused by the will itself, still those determined acts are necessary, they being necessarily connected with the antecedent determination or determining act. And if that determining act be from some cause, then that also is necessary. If it be from some cause, that it comes to pass that the will does determine such an act of itself as it does, then that event is necessary. And if nothing besides the first cause and what is necessarily existent is without a cause, then all things are necessary, and all things besides that which is self-existent necessary, with a necessity of connection and consequence.
2. Show the absurdity of supposing anything not necessarily existent should be without a cause.
See under the proper heads in “miscellanies.” See the Table.6
Irresistible. ’Tis apparent the power of God overcomes resistance, and great resistance, of some sort, otherwise there would be no peculiar greatness of power as distinguishing it from the power of creatures man- ifested in bringing men to be willing; which it is apparent there is, by Matt. 19:26.
Their scheme naturally and by necessary consequence leads men to take all the gloryof all spiritual good (which is immensely the chief, most important and excellent thing in the whole creation) to ourselves, as much as if we, with regard to these effects, were the supreme, the first cause, self-existent and independent and absolutely sovereign disposers. We have the glory only of the meaner part of the creation of God, and take all the glory of that which is properly the life, beauty and glory of the creation, without which it is all worse than nothing.
Self-determining.7 It being before in the order of nature, and the cause of it, proves as much that it must be distinct from it and independent of it, as if it were before in the order of time. Thus, that which is the cause of the direction of the motion of a natural body, must be something entirely distinct from that motion, and independent of it, in no sense from that motion, though perhaps the effect and cause may not have any distance as to time.
So that which is the cause of the preponderation of one of two scales must be entirely distinct from that preponderation, and can’t be dependent on it, or determined, or in any respect caused by it. It must be as distinct from it and as independent on it as that which gives existence to anything else, as much as a carpenter is to a house or a father to a son.
Title of one of the sections: “Arminians’ Notion of Assistance Unscriptural, Unreasonable and Inconsistent.”
See two sheets concerning free will and efficacious grace in the drawer.8
290 Efficacious Grace, Book III
7. With the exception of the very last memorandum, which is written on the inside of the back cover, the remaining entries all have JE’s vertical line through them.
8. Referring to the MS notebook, “Of Free Will.”
Notes
2. JE, Jr., here inserts a cue symbol and reference to MS p. 8, where JE’s corresponding symbol and reference to MS p. 1 occur. However, JE’s symbol does not appear on MS p. 1. The text on MS p. 8 where the cue appears discusses Jer. 31:18, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned.” In light of the absence of JE’s cue, the original order of the text has been preserved in this instance.
8. MS: “See p. 9. about middle” (see below, n. 1). 9. JE drew a vertical line through the following paragraph.
4. JE refers (on MS p. 11) to MS p. 44. 5. JE drew a vertical line through the next three paragraphs.
1. JE notes regarding the following paragraph: “Add this to B. 2. p. 79 at the place marked.” Since the page in “Efficacious Grace, Bk. II” is missing, the text has been kept here. JE drew a vertical line through the paragraph.
2. MS: “no Idea of a Part that is Less whole that.” The editorial interpolation is based upon JE’s deletion earlier in the sentence.
3. JE refers (on MS p. 19) to MS p. 103. 4. JE, Jr., adds: “of the thing offered.” 5. JE drew a vertical line through the next three paragraphs.
6. MS: “them is.” 7. JE drew a vertical line through the next paragraph. 8. JE drew a vertical line through the remainder of this paragraph.
9. JE, Jr., rewrote the beginning of the sentence to read, “At this rate, language . . .” 1. JE drew a vertical line through the next four paragraphs.
2. I.e. in Scripture.
3. Continued on MS p. 44 from MS p. 11.
4. See above, p. 241, n. 3.
8. MS: “seeking,” an obvious confusion with the previous part of the sentence.
1. JE, Jr.’s insert. 2. JE does not indicate a book; I Corinthians seems to best fit his reference.
4. I.e. Eph. 1:18–20. The interruption is caused by the insertion of passages from elsewhere in the MS at JE’s directions.
5. MS: “&.” The scripture reads “each.”
6. JE, Jr. heavily deletes nearly a whole line of text, obliterating JE’s words. 7. JE, Jr.’s insert.
8. MS: “said.” 9. MS: “from.” The scripture reads “in.” 1. JE drew a vertical line through the next two paragraphs.
5. JE drew a vertical line through the following paragraph.
7. In his Treatise, Stebbing enumerates the four things necessary to salvation: faith in Jesus Christ, knowledge of Christian doctrines, the virtues of practical Christianity, and perseverance.
8. JE drew a vertical line through the following paragraph.
1. MS: “Is it.” 2. JE, Jr.’s insert.
3. P. 106: “[S]eeing every Man may, if he pleases, pray to God for that Grace which he stands in need of, it is evident that sufficient Grace, and consequently Obedience, is possible to all that have embraced the Gospel. But can a Man (you will perhaps ask) pray acceptably without the Grace of God? I answer, No.”
4. JE drew a vertical line through this paragraph. 5. MS: “tis.” 6. P. 129: “The Question therefore is this, Whether supposing all the Operations of Grace, which God makes use of in order to Conversion, Conversion be still so far in the Power of Man, as that he may be
9. JE, Jr., replaces “its” with “conversion.” 1. JE, Jr.’s insert.
6. JE, Jr., adds: “But if so, on his scheme, they imply virtue so far only as they are our works.” 7. JE drew a vertical line through the following paragraph.
4. JE, Jr., inserts: “some set on the left hand of the judge, while they are on his right hand.” 5. JE, Jr.’s insert.
6. JE, Jr.’s insert.
7. JE, Jr., deletes “so” and inserts “give ground for boasting.” 8. JE, Jr., supplied the text. 9. MS: “is.” 1. JE drew a vertical line through the following paragraph.
7. These include Is. 5:1–8, Ezek. 12:2, Matt. 23:37–38, John 5:34, 40, Acts 7:51, Matt. 11:20– 21, 23, Ezek. 18:24, Heb. 6:4–5, II Cor. 11:2–3, I Cor. 9:27, and Deut. 30:19. 8. On p. 217 of his Treatise, Stebbing writes that one of the “internal operations” of the Holy Spirit is to give “a serious and considerate Temper.” On p. 259, he writes on John 6:44: “[T]o be
5. Pp. 20–21, “But that the Assistance of the Spirit is needful (even to the Degree of Necessity) to enable us to obey the Will of God, need not be proved by way of Consequence, seeing our Saviour has asserted it in express Terms. For thus he speaks to his Disciples, John 15. 5. Without me ye can do nothing, i.e. no good thing.”
6. JE, Jr.’s insert.
7. JE drew a vertical line through the following two paragraphs.
8. Beach, An Attempt (see above, p. 255, n. 7). 9. Miscellaneous Observations (p. 272) reads “money.” 1. JE, Jr.’s insert. 2. JE drew a vertical line through the next two paragraphs.
3. JE drew a vertical line through this entry. 4. Possibly Thomas Stackhouse, A Complete Body of Divinity . . . Extracted from the Best Ancient and Modern Writers (London, 1729).
5. JE drew a vertical line through the next four paragraphs. 6. Works, 13, 125–50.