Jonathan Edwards · 283 of 409

CHAPTER IV. Concerning Efficacious Grace · Part 6

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 aforementioned difficulties return. Was it wholly from himself? 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? It is absurd to say, making a good improvement of what assistance they have; for that is the thing we are inquiring after, viz. how comes he by that new virtue, making a good improvement of what he has, when before he had not virtue enough to make such an improvement?

Of whatever kind the assistance is, whether it be some afflictive dispensation of Providence, or some other outward dispensation or inward influence, the difficulty is the same. How becomes God obliged to give this assistance; and what is the condition of the promise?

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 comes the virtue of not neglecting, but improving, that former assistance? Is it proper to say that a man is assisted to improve assistance by the assistance improved? Suppose 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 awhile neglect it; at length one of them takes hold of it, and makes improvement of it; and any should inquire, how that man come by the prudence and virtue of improving the cord, when others did not, and 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 bean absurd answer. The question is not, how he came by his opportunity, but how he came by the virtue and disposition of improvement. His friend on shore gave him the opportunity, and this is all. The man’s.virtue in improving it was not at all from him.

Would it not be exceedingly impertinent, in such a case, to set forth from time to time, how this man’s discretion, and virtue, and prudence, was the gift of his friend on (he shore, his mere gift, the fruit of his purpose and mere good pleasure, and of his power; and yet that it was of his own will?

Man’s virtue, according to Arminian principles, 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, although 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.

§ 72. When I say that the acts and influences of the Spirit determine the effects, it is not meant that man has nothing to do to determine in the affair. The soul of man undoubtedly, in every instance, 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 supposed, as it is the effect we are speaking of, that the influence of God’s Spirit determines.

§ 73. The Scripture speaks of this 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 virtue or goodness in men.

§ 74. Dr. Stebbing insists upon it, that conversion is the effect of God’s word; and supposes that therefore it is demonstratively evident, that it must needs be the effect of men’s free will, and not the necessary effect of the Spirit of God. But I say, that by their doctrine of self-determination it cannot be the effect of the word of God in any proper sense at all. That it should be the effect of the word, is as inconsistent with their scheme, as they suppose it to he with ours. Self-determination is utterly inconsistent with conversion’s being at all the effect of either the word or Spirit.

§ 75. They say that commands, threatenings, promises, invitations, counsels, &c. are to no purpose in our scheme. But indeed they can have no place in their scheme: for their scheme excludes all motives.

§ 76. In many particulars 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 lead a distressed and Unhappy life. It is contrary to common sense, that God should know that an event will certainly come to pass, whose non-existence he at the same time knows is not impossible. It is contrary to common sense that a thing should be the cause of itself; and that a thing not necessary in its own nature should come to pass without any cause: that the more indifferent a man is in any moral action, the more virtuous he is, &c.

§ 77. 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. He owes no thanks to God for it; and so owes no thanks to God, that he is saved, and not others.

But how contrary is this to Scripture! Seeing the Scripture speaks of the gift of virtue, and of the possession of it, as a fruit of God’s bounty.

§ 78. A man’s conformity to the rule of duty, is partly owing to assistance or motive; if his conformity be to ten degrees; and it is in some measure, v. g. to the amount of five degrees, owing to sovereign assistance; then only the remaining five degrees are to be ascribed to the man himself, and therefore there are but five degrees of virtue.

§ 79. Dr. Stebbing says, ” that a man is indeed both passive and active in his own conversion,” and he represents God as partly the cause of man’s conversion, and man himself as partly the cause, p. 208.

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.” But if so, on this scheme, they imply virtue so far only as they are our works.

Men’s salvation is attributed wholly and entirely to men in their scheme, and none of the praise of it is due to God, as will most evidently appear, if the matter be considered with a little attention. For, 1. They hold that man’s salvation is given as a reward of man’s virtue; so is pardon of sin, deliverance from hell, and eternal life and glory in heaven; all is for man’s virtue. 2. Rewardable virtue wholly consists in the exercise of a man’s own free will. They hold that a man’s actions are no farther virtuous nor rewardable, than as they are from man himself. If they are partly from some foreign cause, so far they are not rewardable. It being so, that that virtue which is rewardable in man, is entirely from man himself; hence it is 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 farther virtuous and rewardable, than as they are from themselves, the fruits of their own free will and self-determination. And men’s own virtue, they say, is the only condition of salvation, and so must be the only thing by which salvation is obtained. And this being of themselves only, it surely follows, that their obtaining salvation is of themselves only.

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 to the man, and how much they do not.

By them, salvation is so far from God, that it is God that gives opportunity to obtain salvation; it is God that gives the offer and makes the promise: but the obtaining of, 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 be 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 to obtain salvation. For they hold, it is unjust for God to make men miserable for Adam’s sin; and that it is unjust to punish them for that sin that they cannot avoid; and that, therefore, it is unjust for God not to preserve or save all men that do what they can, or use their sincere endeavours to do their duty; and therefore it certainly follows, that it is unjust in God not to give all opportunity to he saved or preserved from misery; and consequently, it is no fruit at all of any grace or kindness in him to give such opportunity, or to make the offer of it. So that, all that is the fruit of God’s kindness in man’s salvation, is the positive happiness that belongs 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 from misery in his virtue and holiness; and when hereafter he shall see the misery of the damned, he will have it to consider, that it is owing in no respect to God that he is delivered from that misery. 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, shall behold some set on the left hand of the Judge, while they are on his right hand, and shall see how they differ, they may, and, as they would act according to truth, they ought to take all the glory of it unto 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 that benefit, and of boasting of it: I say, it is evident by the apostle’s words, “Who maketh thee to differ? Why boastest thou, as though thou hadst not received it? ” These words plainly imply it.

It is evident, that it is 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 it is that in his account excludes boasting, or cuts off occasion for it. It is evident by what the apostle says, 1 Cor. i. latter end, that the entireness and universality of our dependence on God, is that which cuts off occasion of boasting; as, our receiving our wisdom, our holiness, and redemption through Christ, and not through ourselves; that Christ is made to us wisdom, justification, holiness, and redemption; and not only so, out that it is of God that we have any part in Christ; Of him are ye in Christ Jesus: nay, further, that it is from God we receive those benefits of wisdom, holiness, &c. through the Saviour 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 the idea that our holiness is wholly from ourselves; and that we are interested in the benefits of Christ rather than others, is wholly of our own decision. And that such a universal dependence is what takes away occasion of taking glory to ourselves, and is a proper ground of an ascription of all the glory of the things belonging to man’s salvation to God, is manifest from Rom. xi. 35, 36.“Or who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and to him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

The words are remarkable, and very insignificant. If we look into all the foregoing discourse, from the beginning of chapter ix. 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 ourselves. 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 of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. It is of him who has mercy on whom he will have mercy. It is of God who makes of the same lump, a vessel to honour and a vessel unto dishonour. It is not of us, nor our works, but of the calling of God, or of him that calleth, chap. ix. 11. and 23, 24. Not first of our own choice, but of election, chap. ix. 11-27. and chap. xi. 5. It is 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; chap. xi. 5, 6, 7. In such a manner as not first to be of their seeking; their seeking does not determine, but God’s election; chap. xi. 7. It is of God, and not of man, that some were gathered in, that were wild olive branches in themselves, and were more unlikely as to any thing in themselves to be branches, than others, verse 17. Their being grafted in, is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness, while he was pleased to use severity towards others, ver. 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, Rom. xi. 35, 36. “Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again? For of him, and to him, and through him, are all things; to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

Again, in the apostle’s account, a benefit’s being of our works, gives occasion for boasting, and therefore God has contrived that our salvation shall not be of our works, but of mere grace, Rom. iii. 27. Eph. ii. 9. And that neither the salvation, nor the condition of it, shall be of our works, but that, with regard to all, we are God’s workmanship and his creation antecedently to our works; and his grace and power in producing this workmanship, and his determination or purpose with regard to them, are all prior to our works and the cause of them. See also Rom. xi. 4, 5, 6.

And it is evident, that man ‘shaving virtue from himself, and not receiving it from another, and making himself to differ with regard to great spiritual benefits, does give ground for boasting, by the words of the apostle in Rom. iii. 27. And this is allowed by those 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.

By the Arminian scheme, that which is infinitely the most excellent thing, viz. virtue and holiness, which the apostle sets forth as being infinitely the most honourable, and will bring the subjects of it to infinitely the greatest and highest honour, 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 things belonging to that salvation are nothing; that which does infinitely more than any thing else constitute the difference between them and others, as more excellent, more worthy, more honourable and happy; this is from themselves. With regard to this they have not received of another. With regard to this great thing, they, and they only, make themselves to differ from others; and this difference proceeds not at all from the power or grace of God.

Again, in the apostle’s account, this scheme will give occasion to have a great benefit, that appertains to salvation, not of grace, but of works.

Virtue is not only the most honourable attainment, but it is that which men, on the supposition of their being possessed of it, are more apt to glory in, than in any thing else whatsoever. For what are men so apt to glory in as their own supposed excellency, as in their supposed virtue? And what sort of glorying is that, which, it is evident in feet, the Scriptures do chiefly guard against? It is glorying in their own righteousness, their own holiness, their own good works.

It is manifest, that in the apostle’s account, it is 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 principles, but in our being made partakers of the great privileges of Christians, such as being engrafted into Christ, and partaking of the fatness of that olive-tree. Rom. xi. 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 it is manifest, it is the distinction that was made between some and others, that is the thing insisted on; and the apostle, verse 22. calls upon them to consider this great distinction, and to ascribe it to the distinguishing goodness of God only. “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which fell, severity; but toward 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 be a good reason, and the scheme of our salvation be every way 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 it is doubtless so ordered, that the greatest privileges, excellency, honour, and happiness of Christians, should be that wherein they do not distinguish themselves, but the difference is owing to God’s distinguishing goodness.

Stebbing strongly asserts, God is not the author of that difference that is between some and others, that some are good, and others bad.

§ 80. The Arminians differ among themselves. Dr. Whitby supposes what God does, is only proposing moral motives; but that in attending, adverting, and considering, we exercise our liberty. But Stebbing supposes, that the attention and consideration is itself the thing owing to the Spirit of God; p. 217.

§ 81. Stebbing changes the question, pages 223, 224. He was considering who was the chief glory of our conversion, or of our virtue; and there, answering objections, endeavours to prove the affirmative of another question, viz. whether God is the author of that pardon and salvation, of which conversion and virtue are the condition.

§ 82. Stebbing supposes that one thing wherein the assistance of the Spirit consists, is the giving of a meek, teachable, disinterested temper of mind, to prepare men for faith in Christ; pages 217, 259, and that herein consists that drawing of the Father, John vi. 44. viz. in giving such a temper of mind.

This he calls the preventing grace of God, that goes before conversion. He often speaks of a part that we do, and a part that God does. And he speaks of this as that pan which God does. Therefore this, if it be the part which 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; which is inconsistent with his own, and all other Arminian principles. Stebbing speaks of these preparatory dispositions as virtue, p. 30, 31, 32. yea, as that wherein virtue does in a peculiar manner consist, p. 31. And he there also, viz. page 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, page 256. “It is 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 foil of being wrought upon by the preaching of the word, which carries in it all that evidence of truth which reason requires,” &c. and his words, page 259. are,John vi. 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 is the same with the preceding, where our Saviour says that his sheep hear his voice and follow him, ». e. become his obedient disciples. This text, therefore, being no more than a declaration of what will be certain, and (morally speaking) the necessary effect of that disposition, upon the account of which men are said to be given of the Father, (to wit, that it will lead them to embrace the gospel, when once proposed to them). 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 man’s conversion; and insists upon it most strenuously and magisterially through his whole book. Stebbing supposes the influence of the Spirit necessary to prepare men’s hearts, pages 15-18. He (pages 17,18.) speaks of this as what the Spirit does, and as being his preventing grace; and speaks of it as always effectual; so that all such, and only such as have it, will believe. See also pages 28-30.

That these dispositions must be effectual; see pages 46-48.

This teachable, humble, meek spirit is what Stebbing speaks of every where 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 pages 20, 21. he plainly asserts that it is necessary in order to our obedience, and declares that our Saviour has asserted it in express terms in these words, John xv. 5.“Without me ye can do nothing;” i. e. as he says, no good thing. Hence it follows, that this teachable, humble, meek disposition, this good and honest heart, is not the fruit of any good thing 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. Pages 103-106.

§ 83. No reason in the world can be given, why a meek, humble spirit, and sense of the importance of Christian things, should not be as requisite in order to acceptable prayer, as in order to acceptable hearing and believing the word. It is as much so spoken of. A praying without a good spirit in these and other respects, is represented as no prayer, as ineffectual, and what we have no reason to expect will be answered.

§ 84. If that meekness, &c. depends on some antecedent, self-determined act of theirs, and they 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 gift. 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 in the matter. How impertinent would it be to insist on the gift of the Father in this case, when the thing he speaks of is not from thence!

& 85. He supposes that the assistance that God gives in order to obedience is giving this good and honest heart; see p. 46, 47. together with p. 40. 45,; and therefore, this good and honest heart is not the fruit of our own obedience, but must be the fruit of assistance that precedes our good works, as he often calls it the preventing grace of God. And therefore, if this grace determines the matter, and will certainly be followed with faith and obedience, then all Arminianism, and his own scheme, comes to the ground.

§ 86. Stebbing interprets that passage, Luke xix. 16, 17. which speaks of our being little children, and receiving the kingdom of God as little children, of that meekness and humility, &c. that is antecedent to conversion, which it is apparent Christ elsewhere speaks of as consequent on conversion, at Matt. xviii.

§ 87. It is manifest 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, manifested in bringing men to be willing to be virtuous; which it is apparent there is, by Matt. xix. 26. “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

§ 88. The Arminian scheme naturally, and by necessary consequence, leads men to take all the glory of 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 those effects, were the supreme, the first cause, self-existent, and independent, and absolutely sovereign disposers. We leave the glory of only the meaner part of creation to God, and take to ourselves all the glory of that which is properly the life, beauty, and glory of the creation, and without which it is all worse than nothing. So that there is nothing left for the great First and Last; no glory for either the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, in the affair. This is not carrying things too far, but in a consequence truly and certainly to be ascribed to their scheme of things.

§89. He may be said to be the giver of money 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 given, he cannot, in any proper sense whatsoever, be properly said to be the giver of this, who is not the determiner of it. But it is the acceptance of offers, and the proper improvement of opportunities, wherein consists virtue. He may be said to be the giver of money or goods that does not determine the wise choice; but if the wise and good choice itself be said to be the thing given, it supposes that 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, &c. for virtue and holiness (as all our opponents in these controversies allow and maintain) is the thing wherein a wise and good choice consists.