Wherein is Inquired, Whether any Such Liberty of Will as Arminians Hold, be Necessary to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Praise and Dispraise, etc.

SECTION 1.

GOD’S MORAL EXCELLENCY NECESSARY, YET VIRTUOUS AND PRAISEWORTHY.

HAVING considered the first thing that was proposed to be inquired into, relating, to that freedom of will which Arminians maintain; namely, whether any such thing does, ever did, or ever can exist, or be conceived of; I come now to the second thing proposed to be the subject of inquiry, viz. Whether any such kind of liberty be requisite to moral agency, virtue and vice, upraise and blame, reward and punishment, etc.

I shall begin with some consideration of the virtue and agency of the supreme moral Agent, and Fountain of all agency and virtue.

Dr. Whitby, in his discourse on the “Five Points,” p. 14, says, “If all human actions are necessary, virtue and vice must be empty names; we being capable oft nothing that is blame-worthy, or deserveth praise; for who can blame a person for doing only what he could not help, or judge that he deserveth praise only for what he could not avoid?” To the like purpose he speaks ifs places innumerable; especially in his discourse on the “Freedom of the Will;” constantly maintaining, that a freedom not only from coaction, but necessity, is absolutely requisite, in order to actions being either worthy of blame, or deserving of praise. And to this agrees, as is well known, the current doctrine of Arminian writers, who, in general, hold, that there is no virtue or vice, reward or punishment, nothing, to he commended or blamed, without this freedom. And yet Dr. Whitby, p. 300, allows, that God is without this freedom; and Arminians, so far as I have had opportunity to observe, generally acknowledge that God is necessarily holy, and his will necessarily determined to that which is good.

So that, putting these things together, the infinitely holy God, who always used to be esteemed by God’s people not only virtuous, but a Being in whom is all possible virtue, and every virtue in the most absolute purity and perfection, and in infinitely greater brightness and amiableness than in any creature: the most perfect pattern of virtue, and the fountain from whom all others, virtue is but as beams from the sun; and who has been supposed to be, on the account of his virtue and holiness, infinitely more worthy to be esteemed, loved, honored, admired, commended, extolled, and praised, than any creature: and he who is thus every where represented in Scripture; I say, this Being, according to this notion of Dr. Whithy, and other Arminians, has no virtue at all: virtue, when ascribed to him, is but an empty name; and he is deserving of no commendation or praise; because he is under necessity, he cannot avoid being holy and good as he is; therefore no thanks to him for it. It seems, the holiness, justice, faithfulness, etc. of the Most High, must not be accounted to be of the nature of that which is virtuous, and praiseworthy They will not deny, that these things in God are good; but then we must understand them, that they are no more virtuous, or of the nature of any thing commendable, than the good that is in any other being that is not a moral agent; as the brightness of the sun, and the fertility of the earth, are good, but not virtuous, because these properties are necessary to these bodies, and not the fruit of self-determining power.

There needs no other confutation of this notion of God’s not being virtuous or praiseworthy, to Christians acquainted with the Bible, but only stating and particularly representing of it. To bring texts of Scripture, wherein God is represented as in every respect in the highest manner virtuous and supremely praise-worthy, would be endless, and is altogether needless to such as have been brought up in the light of the Gospel.

It were to be wished that Dr. Whitby, and other divines of the same sort, had explained themselves, when they have asserted, that that which is necessary, is not deserving of praise; at the same time that they have owned God’s perfection to be necessary, and so in effect representing God as not deserving praise. Certainly, if their words have any meaning at all, by praise they must mean the exercise or testimony of some sorts of esteem, respect, or honorable regard And will they then say, that men are worthy of that esteem, respect, and lookout, for their virtue, small and imperfect as it is, which God is not worthy of, for his infinite righteousness, holiness, and goodness) If so, it must be because of some sort of peculiar excellency in the virtuous man, which is his prerogative, wherein he really has the preference; some dignity that is entirely distinguished from any excellency, amiableness, or honourableness in God; not in imperfection and dependence, but in pre-eminence; which therefore, he does not receive from God, nor is God the fountain or pattern of it; nor can God, in that respect, stand in competition with him as the object of honor and regard; but man may claim a peculiar esteem, commendation, and glory, that God can have no pretension to. Yea, God has no right, by virtue of his necessary holiness, to intermeddle with that grateful respect and praise due to the virtuous man, who chooses virtue in the exercise of a freedom ad utrumque, any more than a precious stone, which cannot avoid being, hard and beautiful.

And if it be so, let it be explained what that peculiar respect is that is due to the virtuous man, which differs in nature and kind, in some way of preeminence, from all that is due to God. What is the name or description of that peculiar affection? Is it esteem, love, admiration, honor, praise, or gratitude? The Scripture every where represents God as the highest object of all these: there we read of the soul’s magnifying the Lord, of loving him with all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind, and with all the strength; admiring, him, and his righteous acts, or greatly regarding them as marvelous and wonderful; honoring, glorifying, exalting, extolling, blessing, thanking, and praising him; giving unto him all the glory of the good which is done or received, rather than unto men, that no flesh should glory in his presence; but that he should he regarded as the Being to whom all glory is due. What, then, is that respect? What passion, affection, or exercise, is it, that Arminians call praise, diverse from all these things which men are worthy of for their virtue, and which God is not worthy of in any degree?

If that necessity which attends God’s moral perfection’s and actions be as inconsistent with a being worthy of praise, as a necessity of co-action, as is plainly implied in, or inferred from, Dr. Whitby’s discourse; then why should we thank God for his goodness, any more than if he were forced to be good or any more than we should thank one of our fellow-creatures who did us good, not freely, and of good will, or from any kindness of heart, but from were compulsion or extrinsical necessity? Arminians suppose that God is necessarily a good and gracious being; for this they make the ground of some of their main arguments against many doctrines maintained by Calvinists; they say these are certainly false, and it is impossible they should be true, because they are not consistent with the goodness of God. This supposes, that it is impossible but that God should be good: for if it be possible that he should be otherwise, then that impossibility of the truth of these doctrines ceases, according to their own argument.

That virtue in God is not, in the most proper sense, rewardable, is not for want of merit in his moral perfection’s and actions, sufficient to deserve rewards from his creatures; but because he is infinitely above all capacity of receiving any reward or benefit from the creature; he is already infinitely and unchangeably happy, and we cannot be profitable unto him. But still he is worthy of our supreme benevolence for his virtue; and would be worthy of our beneficence, which is the fruit and expression of benevolence, if our goodness could extend to him. If God deserves to be thanked and praised for his goodness, he would, for the same reason, deserve that we should also requite his kindness, if that were possible. “What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits?” is the natural language of thankfulness: and so far as in us lies, it is our duty to recompense God’s goodness, and render again accordions to benefits received. And that we might have opportunity for so natural an expression of our gratitude to God as beneficence, notwithstanding, his being infinitely above our reach, he has appointed others to be his receivers, and to stand in his stead as the objects of our beneficence; such are especially our indigent brethren.

SECTION THE ACTS OF THE WILL OF THE HUMAN SOUL OF JESUS CHRIST NECESSARILY HOLY, YET TRULY VIRTUOUS, PRAISEWORTHY, REWARDABLE, ETC.

IHAVE already considered how Dr. Whitby insists upon it, that a freedom, not only from co-action, but necessity, is “requisite either to virtue or vice, praise or dispraise, reward or punishment.” He also insists on the same freedom as absolutely requisite to a person’s being the subject of a law, of precepts, or prohibitions; in the book before mentioned, (pp. 301, 314, 328, 339), 340, 341, 349, 347, 361, 373, 410.) And of promises and threatenings, (pp. 298, 301, 305, 311, 339, 340, 363.) And as requisite to a state of trial, (p. 297, etc.)

Now, therefore, with an eye to these things, I would inquire into the moral conduct and practices of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he exhibited in his human nature here in his state of humiliation. And, first, I would show, that his holy behavior was necessary; or that it was impossible it should be otherwise than that he should behave himself polity, and that he should be perfectly holy in each individual act of his life. And, secondly, that his holy behavior was properly the nature of virtue, and mans worthy of praise; and that he was the subject of law, precepts, or commands, promises, and rewards; and that he was in a state of trial. 1. It was impossible that the acts of the will of the human soul of Christ should, in any instance, degree, or circumstance, be otherwise than holy, and agreeable to God’s nature and will. The following, things make this evident. 1. God had promised so effectually to preserve and uphold him by his Spirit, under all his temptations, that he could not fail of reaching the end for which he came into the world; which he would have failed of, had he fallen into sin. We have such a promise, Isaiah 42:1,2,3,4, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. — He shall bring, forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law.”

This promise, of Christ’s having God’s Spirit put upon him, and his not crying and lifting, up his voice, etc. relates to the time of Christ’s appearance on earth, as is manifest from the nature of the promise, and also the application of it in the New Testament, Matthew 12:18. And the words imply a promise of his being so upheld by God’s Spirit, that he should be preserved from sin; particularly from pride and vain-glory, and from being overcome by any of the temptations he should be under to affect the glory of this world, the pomp of an earthly prince, or the applause and praise of men: and that he should be so upheld, that he should by no means fail of obtaining the end of his coming into the world, of bringing forth judgment unto victory, and establishing his kingdom of grace in the earth, — and in the following verses this promise is confirmed, with the greatest imaginable solemnity: “Thus saith the Lord, HE that created the heavens and stretched than out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold shine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to brie,, out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. I amJEHOVAH, that is my name,” etc.

Very parallel with these promises is that, Isaiah 49:7,8,9, which also has an apparent respect to the time of Christ’s humiliation on earth: “Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee. Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, etc.

And Isaiah 50:5,6, we have the Messiah expressing, his assurance that God would help him, by so opening his ear, or inclining, his heart to God’s commandments, that he should not be rebellious, but should persevere, and not apostatize or turn his back: that through God’s help, he should be immovable, in a way of obedience, under the great trials of reproach and suffering he should meet with; setting his face like a flint: so that he may be sold not be ashamed, or frustrated in kits design; and finally should be approved and justified, as leaving, done his work faithfully: “The Lord hath opened mine ear; so that I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For the Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore leave I set my face as a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? Let us stand together. Who is mine adversary?

Let him come near to me. Behold, the Lord God will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? Lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up.” 2. The same thing is evident from all the promises which God made to the Messiah, of his future glory, kingdom and success, in his office and character of a Mediator; which glory could not have been obtained it his holiness had failed, and he had been guilty of sin. God’s absolute promise of any things makes the things promised necessary and their failing to take place absolutely impossible: and in like manner it makes those things necessary in which the thing promised depends and without which it cannot take effect. Therefore it appears that it was utterly impossible that Christ’s holiness should fail, from such absolute promises as those, “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.” ( <19B004> Psalm 110:4) And from every other promise in that psalm, contained in each verse of it.

And Psalm 2:7,8, “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,” etc. Psalm 45:3,4, etc. “gird thy sword on they thigh, I mist Mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty and in thy majesty ride prosperously.” And so every thing that is said from thence to the end of the psalm. And those promises Isaiah 52:13,14,15; and 53:10, 11, 12. And all those promises which God makes to the Messiah, of success, dominion, and glory, in the character of a Redeemer, in Isaiah, chapter 49. 3. It was often promised to the church of God of old, for their comfort that God would five them a righteous, sinless Savior, Jeremiah 23:5,6, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise up unto David a righteous Branch, and King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby he shall be called, the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.” So, Jeremiah 23:15. “I will cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.” Isaiah 9:6,7. “For unto us a child is born; — upon the throne of David and of his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and justice, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will do this.” Chapter 11 at the beginning: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord. With righteousness shall be judge the poor, and reprove with equity. Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.” Chapter 53:13, “My servant shall deal prudently.”

Chapter 53:9, “Because he had done no violence, neither was guile found in his mouth.” If it be impossible that these promises should fail, and if it be easier for heaven and earth to pass away, thank one not or little of these promises of God to pass away, then it was impossible that God should commit any sin. Christ himself signified, that it was impossible but that the things which revere spoken concerning him should be fulfilled. Luke 14:44, “That all things must be fulfills, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalm, concerning me.” Matthew 26:5,64, “But how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” Mark 14:49, “But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

And so the Apostle, Acts 1:16 17, “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled. 4. All the promises, which were made to the church of old, of the Messiah as a future Savior, from that made to our first parents in Paradise, to that which was delivered by the prophet Malachi, show it to be impossible that Christ should not have persevered in perfect holiness. The ancient predictions given to God’s church, of the Messiah as a Savior, were of the nature of promises, as is evident by the predictions themselves, and the manner of delivering them. But they are expressly, and very often, called promises in the New Testament; as in Luke 1:54,55,72,73; Acts 13:32,33; Romans 1:1,2,3; and chapter 15:8, Hebrews 6:13, etc. These promises were often made with great solemnity, and confirmed lavish an oath; as in Genesis 22:16,17, “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed a; the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore: and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Compare Luke 1:72,73; and Galatians 3:8,15,16. The apostle, in Hebrews 6:17,18, speaking, of this promise to Abraham, says: “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show to the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two\parIMMUTABLE things, in which it wasIMPOSSIBLE for God to lie, we might have strong consolation.” In which words the necessity of the accomplishment, or (which is the same thing) the impossibility of the contrary, is fully declared. So God confirmed the promise of the great salvation of the Messiah, made to David, by an oath, “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant: Thy seed will I establish for ever; and build up thy throne to all generations.” ( Psalm 89:3,4) There is nothing that is so abundantly set forth in Scripture as sure and irrefragable, as this promise and oath to David. See Psalm. 89:34, 35, 36; 2 Samuel 23:5; Isaiah 55:4; Acts 2:29,30; and 13:34. The Scripture expressly speaks of it as utterly impossible that this promise and oath to David, concerning the everlasting dominion of the Messiah of his seed, should fail. Jeremiah 33:15, etc. “In those days, and at that time, I will cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David. For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.” verse 20, 21, “If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that should not have a son to reign upon his throne.” So in verse 25, 20.

Thus abundant is the Scripture in representing how impossible it was, that the promises made of old concerning the great salvation and kingdom of the Messiah should fail; which implies, that it was impossible that this Messiah, the second Adam, the promised seed of Abraham and of David should fall from his integrity, as the first Adam did. 5. All the promises that were made to the church of God under the Old Testament, of the great enlargement of the church, and advancement of her glory, in the class of the gospel, after the coming of the Messiah; the increase of her light, liberty, holiness, joy, triumph over her enemies, etc. of which so great a part of the Old Testament consists; which are repeated so often, are so variously exhibited, so frequently introduced with great pomp and solemnity, and are so abundantly sealed with typical and symbolical representations; I say, all these promises imply, that the Messiah should perfect the world of redemption; and this implies that he should persevere in the work which the Father had appointed him, being in all things conformed to his will. These promises were often confirmed by an oath. (See Isaiah 54 with the context; chapter 62:18.) And it is represented as utterly impossible that these promises should fail. ( Isaiah 49:15, with the context; chapter 54:10, with the context; chapter 54:4-8; chapter 40:8, with the context.) And therefore it was impossible that the Messiah should fail, or commit sin. 6. It was impossible that the Messiah should fail of persevering in integrity and holiness, as the first Adam did, because this would have been inconsistent with the promises which God made to the blessed virgin his mother, and to her husband, implying that “he should save his people from their sins;” that “God would give him the throne of his father David;” that “he should reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and that “of his kingdom there shall be no end.” These promises were sure, and it was impossible they should fail. And therefore the virgin Mary, in trusting fully to them, acted reasonably, having an immovable foundation of her faith; as Elisabeth observes, “And blessed is she that believed; for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.” ( Luke 1:45) 7. That it should leave been possible that Christ should sin, and so fail in the work of our redemption, does not consist with the eternal purpose and decree of God, revealed in the Scriptures, that he would provide salvation for fallen man in and by Jesus Christ, and that salvation should be offered to sinners through the preaching of the Gospel. Such an absolute decree as this Arminians do not deny. This much at least (out of all controversy) is implied in such Scriptures as 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:4,5; and chapter 3:9, 10, 1 Peter 1:19,20. Such an absolute decree as this, Arminians allow to be signified in these texts. And the Arminians’ election of nations and societies, and general election of the Christian church, and conditional election of particular persons, imply this. God could not decree before the foundation of the world, to save all that should believe in, and obey Christ, unless he had absolutely decreed that salvation should be providers, and effectually wrought out by Christ. And since (as the Arminians themselves strenuously maintain) a decree of God infers necessity; hence it became necessary, that Christ should persevere, and actually work out salvation for us, and that he should not fail by the commission or sin. 8. That it should have been possible for Christ’s holiness to fail, is not consistent with what God promised to his Son, before all ages. For, that salvation should be offered to men, through Christ, and bestowed on all his faithful followers, is what is at least implied in that certain and infallible promise spoken of by the apostle, “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.” ( Titus 1:2) This does not seem to be controverted by Arminians. 9. That it should be possible for Christ to fail of doing his Father’s will, is inconsistent with the promise made to the Father by the Son, by the Logos that was with the Father from the beginning, before he took the human nature: as may be seen in Psalm 40:6,7,8, (compared with the apostle’s interpretation, Hebrews 10:5-9:) “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire: mine ears hast thou opened (or bored); burnt-offering and sin-offering thou hast not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy law is within my heart,” where is a manifest allusion to the covenant, which the willing servant, who loved his master’s service, made with his master, to be his servant for ever, on the day Herein he had his ear bored; which covenant was probably inserted in the public records, called the “volume of the book,” by the judges, who were called to take cognizance of the transaction, Exodus 21. If the Logos, who was with the Father before the world, and who made the world, thus engaged in covenant to do the will of the Father in the Herman nature, and the promise was as it were recorded, that it might be made sure, doubtless it was impossible that it should fail; and so it was impossible that Christ should fail of doing the will of the Father in the human nature. 10. If it was possible for Christ to have failed of doing the still of his Father, and so to have failed of effectually working out redemption for sinners, then the salvation of all the saints, who were saved from the beginning of the world to the death of Christ, was not built on a firm foundation. The Messiah, and the redemption which he was to work out by his obedience unto death, was the foundation of the salvation of all the posterity of fallen man that ever were saved. Therefore, if when the Old Testament saints had the pardon of their sins and the favor of God promised them, and salvation bestowed upon them, still it was possible that the Messiah, when he came, might commit sin, then all this was on a foundation that was not firm and stable, but liable to fail; something which it was possible might never be. God did as it were trust to what his Son had engaged and promised to do in future time; and depended so much upon it, that he proceeded actually to save men on the account of it, as though it had been already done. But this trust and dependence of God, on the supposition of Christ’s being liable to fail of doing his will, was leaning on a stay that was weak, and might possibly break. The saints of old trusted on the promises of a future redemption to be wrought out and completed by the Messiah, and built their comfort upon it: Abraham saw Christ’s day, and rejoiced; and he and the other patriarchs died in the faith of the promise of it, ( Hebrews 11:13.) But on this supposition, their faith, and their comfort, and their salvation, was built on a moveable, fallible foundation; Christ was not then a tried stone, a sure foundation, as in Isaiah 28:16. David entirely rested on the covenant of God with him, concerning the future glorious dominion and salvation of the Messiah, of his seed; says it was “all his salvation, and all his desire;” and comforts himself that this covenant was an “everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure,” 2 Samuel 23:5. But if Christ’s virtue might fail, he was mistaken: his great comfort was not built so sure as he thought it was, being founded entirely on the determinations of the free-will of Christ’s human soul, which Divas subject to no necessity, and might be determined either one way or the other. Also, the dependence of those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem, and waited for the consolation of Israel, ( Luke 2:25, 38,) and the confidence of the disciples of Jesus, who forsook all and followed him, that they might enjoy the benefits of his future kingdom, was built on a sandy foundation. 11. The man Christ Jesus, before he had finished his course of obedience, and while in the midst of temptations and trials, was abundant in positively predicting his own future glory in his kingdom, and the enlargement of his church, the salvation of the Gentiles through him, etc., and in promises of blessings he would bestow on his true disciples in his future kingdom; on which promises he required the full dependence of his (John 14.) But the disciples would have no ground for such dependence, if Christ had been liable to fail in his work: and Christ himself would have been guilty of presumption, in so abounding in peremptory promises of great things, which depended on a mere contingence, viz., the determinations of his free-will, consisting in a freedom ad utrumque, to either sin or holiness, standing. In indifference, and incident, in thousands of future instances, to go either one way or the other.

Thus it is evident, that it was impossible that the acts of the will of the human soul of Christ should be otherwise than holy, and conformed to the will of the Father; or, in other words, they were necessarily so conformed.

I have been the longer in the proof of this matter, it being a thing denied by some of the greatest Arminians by Episcopius in particular; and because I look upon it as a point clearly and absolutely determining the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians, concerning the necessity of such a freedom of will as is insisted on by the latter, in order to moral agency, virtue, command or prohibition, promise or threatening, reward or punishment, praise or dispraise, merit or demerit. I now therefore proceed, II. To consider whether Christ, in his holy behavior on earth, was not thus a moral agent, subject to commands, promises, etc.

Dr. Whitby very often speaks of what he calls a freedom ad utrumlibet, without necessity, as requisite to law and commands; and speaks of necessity as entirely inconsistent with injunctions and prohibitions. But yet we read of Christens being the subject of the commands of his Father, John 10:18, and 15:10. And Christ tells us, that every thing that he said or did was in compliance with “commandments he had received of the Father,” John 12:48,50, and 14:31. And we often read of Christ’s obedience to his Father’s commands, Romans 5:19; Philippians 2:18; Hebrews 5:8.

The fore-mentioned writer represents “promises offered as motives” to persons to do their duty, or “a being moved and induced by promises,” as utterly inconsistent with a state wherein persons has not a liberty and utrumlibet, but are necessarily determined to one. (See particularly, pp and 311.) But the thing, which this writer asserts, is demonstrably false, if the Christian religion be true. If there be any truth in Christianity or the Holy Scriptures, the man Christ Jesus had his will infallibly, unalterably, and unfrustrably determined to good, and that alone; but yet he had promises of glorious rewards made to him, on condition of his persevering in, and perfecting, the work which God had appointed him; Isaiah 52:10,11,12; Psalm 2 and 110; Isaiah 49:7,8,9. In Luke 22:28,29, Christ says to his disciples, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me.” The word most properly signifies to appoint by covenant or promise. The plain meaning of Christ’s words is this: “As you have partook of my temptations and trials, and have been steadfast, and have overcome, I promise to make you partakers of my reward, and to give you a kingdom; as the Father hath promised me a kingdom for continuing steadfast, and overcoming in those trials.” And the words are well explained by those in Revelation 3:21, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne; even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

And Christ hath not only promises of glorious success, and rewards made to his obedience and sufferings, but the Scriptures plainly represent him as using these promises for motives and inducements to obey and suffer; and particularly that promise of a kingdom which the Father had appointed him, or sitting with the Father on his throne; as in Hebrews 12:1,2 “Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down on the right hand of the throne of God.”

And how strange would it be to hear any Christian assert, that the holy and excellent temper and behavior of Jesus Christ, and that obedience which he performed under such great trials, was not virtuous or praiseworthy, because his will was not free ad utrumque, to either holiness or sin, but was unalterably determined to one; that, upon this account, there is no virtue at all in all Christ’s humility, meekness, patience, charity, forgiveness of enemies, contempt of the world, heavenly-mindedness, submission to the will of God, perfect obedience to his commands, (though he was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,) his great compassion to the afflicted, his unparalleled love to mankind, his faithfulness to God and man under such great trills, his praying for his enemies, even when nailing him to the cross; that virtue, when applied to these things, is but an empty name; that there was no merit in any of these things; that is, that Christ was worthy of nothing at all on account of them, worthy of no reward, no praise, no honor or respect from God or man, because his will was not indifferent, and free either to these things or the contrary; but under such a strong inclination or bias to the things that were excellent, as made it impossible that he should choose the contrary, that, upon this account, (to use Dr. Whitby’s language,) “it would be sensibly unreasonable” that the human nature should be rewarded for any of these things.

According to this doctrine, that creature who is evidently set forth in Scripture as the “first-born of every creature,” as having “in all things the pre-eminence,” and as the highest of all creatures in virtue, honor, and worthiness of esteem, praise, and glory, on the account of his virtue, is less worthy of reward or praise than the very least of saints; yea, no more worthy than a clock or mere machine, that is purely passive, and moved by natural necessity.

If we judge by Scriptural representations of things, we have reason to suppose that Christ took on him our nature, and dwelt lavish us in this world, in a suffering state, not only to satisfy for our sins but that he, being in our nature and circumstances, and under our trials, might be our most fit and proper example, leader, and captain, in the exercise of glorious and victorious virtue, and might be a visible instance of the glorious end and reward of it; that we might see in him the beauty, amiableness, and true honor and glory, and exceeding benefit, of that virtue which it is proper for us human beings to practice; and might thereby learn, and be animated, to seek the like glory and honor, and to obtain the like glorious reward. See Hebrews 2:9-14; with 5:8, 9; and <431201> 12:1, 2, 3. John 15:10. Romans 8:17. 2 Timothy 2:11,12. 1 Peter 2:19,20; and 4:13.

But if there was nothing of any virtue or merit, or worthiness of any reward, glory, praise, or commendation at all, in all that he did, because it was all necessary, and he could not help it, then how is there any thing so proper to animate and incite us, free creatures, by patient continuance in well-doing, to seek for honor, glory, and virtue?

God speaks of himself as peculiarly well pleased with the righteousness of this servant of his. “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake.” ( Isaiah 42:21) The sacrifices of old are spoken of as a sweet savor to God, but the obedience of Christ as far more acceptable than they. Psalm 40:6,7, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ear hast thou opened (as thy servant performing willing obedience): burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come (as a servant that cheerfully answers the calls of his master): I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy law is within my heart.” Matthew 17:5, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And Christ tells us expressly, that the Father loves him for that wonderful instance of his obedience, his voluntary yielding himself to death, in compliance with the Father’s command; John 10:17,18, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself. This commandment received I of my Father.”

And if there was no merit in Christ’s obedience unto death, if it was not worthy of praise and of the most glorious regards, the heavenly hosts were exceedingly mistaken, by the account that is given of them in Revelation 5:8-12: “The four beasts and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours.

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou artWORTHY to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain. And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice,WORTHY is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.”

Christ speaks of the eternal life which he was to receive as the reward of his obedience to the Father’s commandments; John 12:49,50, “I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” God promises to divide him a portion with the great, etc. for his being his righteous servant, for his glorious virtue under such great trials and afflictions; Isaiah 53:11,12, “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death. “The Scriptures represent God as rewarding him far above all his other servants; Philippians 2:7,8,9, “He took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name.” Psalm 14:7, “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”

There is no room to pretend that the glorious benefits bestowed in consequence of Christ’s obedience are not properly of the nature of a reward. What is a reward, in the most proper sense, but a benefit bestowed in consequence of something morally excellent in quality or behavior, in testimony of well-pleasedness in that moral excellency, and respect and favor on that account? If we consider the nature of a reward most strictly, and make the utmost of it, and add to the things contained in this description proper merit or worthiness, and the bestowment of the benefit in consequence of a promise; still it will be found there is nothing belonging to it, but that the Scripture is most express as to its belonging to the glory bestowed on Christ after his sufferings, as appears from what has been already observed; there was a glorious benefit bestowed in consequence of something morally excellent, being called righteousness and obedience; there was great favor, love, and well-pleasedness, for this righteousness and obedience, in the bestowed; there was proper merit, or worthiness of the benefit, in the obedience; it was bestowed in fulfillment of promises made to that obedience; and was bestowed therefore, or because he had performed that obedience.

I may add to all these things, that Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, was manifestly in a state of trial. The last Adam, as Christ is called, Corinthians 15:45; Romans 5:14, taking, on him the human nature, and so the form of a servant, and being under the law, to stand and act for us, was put into a state of trial, as the first Adam was. Dr. Whitby mentions these three things as evidences of persons being in a state of trial (on the Five Points, pp. 298, 299): namely, their afflictions being spoken of as their trials or temptations, their being the subjects of promises, and their being exposed to Satan’s temptations. But Christ was apparently the subject of each of these. Concerning promises made to him, I have spoken already.

The difficulties and afflictions he met with in the course of his obedience, are called his temptations or trials; Luke 22:28, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations, (or trials.)” Hebrews 2:18, “For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted (or tried), he is able to succor them that are tempted.” And chapter 4:15, “We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” And as to his being tempted by Satan, it is what none will dispute.

SECTION THE CASE OF SUCH AS ARE GIVEN UP OF GOD TO SIN, AND OF FALLEN MAN IN GENERAL, PROVES MORAL NECESSITY AND INABILITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH BLAME-WORTHINESS.

DR.WHITBY asserts freedom, not only from co-action, but necessity, to be essential to any thing deserving the name of sin, and to an action’s being culpable, in these words (Discourse on the Five Points, edit. 3, p. 348): “If they be thus necessitated, then neither their sins of omission or commission could deserve that name; it being essential to the nature of sin, according to St. Austin’s definition, that it be an action ‘a quo liberum est abstinere’.

Three things seem plainly necessary to make an action or omission culpable: 1. That it be in our power to perform or forbear it; for, as Origen and all the fathers say, no man is blameworthy for not doing what he could not do.” And elsewhere the Doctor insists, that “when any do evil of necessity, what they do is no vice, that they are guilty of no fault, are worthy of no blame, dispraise, or dishonor, but are unblameable.

If these things are true, in Dr. Whitby’s sense of necessity, they will prove all such to be blameless who are given up of God to sin, in That they commit after they are thus given up. That there is such a thing, as men’s being judicially given up to sin, is certain, if the Scripture rightly informs us, such a thing beings often there spoken of; as in Psalm 81:12, “So I gave them up to their own hearts’ lust, and they walked in their own counsels.” 7:42, “Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven.” Romans 1:24, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.” Verse 26, “For this cause God gave them up to vile affections.” Verse 28, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave then over to a reprobate mind, to do those things that are not convenient.”

It is needless to stand particularly to inquire what God’s “giving men up to their own hearts’ lusts” signifies; it is sufficient to observe, that hereby is certainly meant God’s so ordering or disposing things, in some respect or other, either by doing or forbearing to do, as that the consequence should be men’s continuing in their sins. So much as men are given up to, so much is the consequence of their being given up, whether that be less or more. If God does not order things so, by action or permission, that sin will be the consequence, then the event proves that they are not given up to that consequence. If good be the consequence, instead of evil, then God’s mercy is to be acknowledged in that good; which mercy must be contrary to God’s judgment in giving ups to evil. If the event must prove that they are given up to evil as the consequence, then the persons who are the subjects of his judgment must be the subjects of such an event, and so the event is necessary.

If not only co-action, but all necessity, will prove men blameless, then Judas was blameless, after Christ had given him over, and had already declared his certain damnation, and that he should verily betray him. He was guilty of no sin in betraying his Master, on this supposition; though his so doing is spoken of by Christ as the most aggravated sin, more heinous than the sin of Pilate in crucifying him. And the Jews in Egypt in Jeremiah’s time, were guilty of no sin, in their not worshipping the true God, after God had “SWORN by his great names that his name should be no more named in the mouth of any man of Judah, in all the land of Egypt,” Jeremiah 44:26.

Dr. Whitby (Disc. on the Five Points, pp. 302, 303) denies that men, in this world, are ever so given up by God to sin, that their wills should be necessarily determined to evil; though he owns, that hereby it may become exceeding difficult for men to do good, having a strong bent and powerful inclination to what is evil. — But if we should allow the case to be just as he represents, the judgment of giving up to sin will no better agree with his notions of that liberty which is essential to praise or blame, than if we should suppose it to render the avoiding of sin impossible. For if an impossibility of avoiding sin wholly excuses a man, then, for the same reason, its being difficult to avoid it excuses him in part, and this just in proportion to the degree of difficulty. If the influence of moral impossibility or inability be the same, to excuse persons in not doing, or not avoiding any thing, as that of natural inability, (which is supposed,) then undoubtedly, in like manner, moral difficulty has the same influence to excuse with natural difficulty. But all allow that natural impossibility wholly excuses, and also that natural difficulty excuses in part, and makes the act or omission less blameable in proportion to the difficulty. All natural difficulty, according to the plainest dictates of the light of nature, excuses in some degree, so that the neglect is not so blameable, as if there had been no difficulty in the case: and so the greater the difficulty is, still the more excusable, in proportion to the increase of the difficulty. And as natural impossibility wholly excuses and excludes all blame, so the nearer the difficulty approaches to impossibility, still the nearer a person is to blamelessness in proportion to that approach. And if the case of moral impossibility or necessity be just the same with natural necessity or coaction, as to influence to excuse a neglect, then also, for the same reason, the case of natural difficulty does not differ in influence, to excuse a neglect, from moral difficulty, arising from a strong bias or bent to evil, such as Dr. Whitby owns in the case of those that are given up to their own hearts lusts. So that the fault of such persons must be lessened, in proportion to the difficulty, and approach to impossibility. If ten degrees of moral difficulty make the action quite impossible, and so wholly excuse, then if there be nine degrees of difficulty, the person is in great part excused, and is nine degrees in ten less blameworthy than if there had been no difficulty at all; and he has but one degree of blameworthiness. The reason is plain, on Arminian principles, viz. because as difficulty, by antecedent bent and bias on the will, is increased, liberty of indifference, and self-determination in the will, is diminished: so much hindrance and impediment is there in the way of the will’s acting freely, by mere selfdetermination.

And if ten degrees of such hindrance take away all such liberty, then nine degrees take away nine parts in ten, and leave but one degree of liberty. And therefore there is but one degree of blameableness, cateris paribas, in the neglect; the man being no further blameable in what he does or neglects than he has liberty in that affair: for blame or praise (say they) arises wholly frown a good use or abuse of liberty.

From all which it follows, that a strong bent and bias one way, and difficulty of going the contrary, never cause a person to be at all more exposed to sin, or any thing blameable: because, as the difficulty is increased, so much the less is required and expected. Though in one respect exposedness to sin or fault is increased, viz. by an increase of exposedness to the evil action or omission, yet it is diminished in another respect to balance it, namely, as the sinfulness or blameableness of the action or omission is diminished in the same proportion So that, on the whole, the affair, as to exposedness to guilt or blame, is left just as it was.

To illustrate this, let us suppose a scale of a balance to he intelligent, and a free agent, and indued with a self-moving power, by virtue of which it could act and produce effects to a certain degree, ex. gr. to move itself up or down with a force equal to a weight of ten pounds; and that it might therefore be required of it, in ordinary circumstances, to move itself down with that force, for which it has power and full liberty, and therefore would be blameworthy if it failed of it. But then let us suppose a weight of ten pounds to be put in the opposite scale, which in force entirely counterbalances its self: moving power, and so renders it impossible for it to move down at all; and therefore wholly excuses it from any such motion.

But if we suppose there be only nine pounds in the opposite scale, this renders its motion not impossible, but yet more difficult; so that it can now only move down with the force of one pound; but, however, this is all that is required of it under these circumstances; it is wholly excused from nine parts of its motion: and if the scale, under these circumstances, neglects to move, and remains at rest, all that it will be blamed for, will be its neglect of that one-tenth part of its motion; which it had as much liberty and advantage for, as in usual circumstances it has for the greater motion which in such a case would be required. So that this new difficulty does not at all increase its exposedness to any thing blameworthy.

And thus the very supposition of difficulty in the way of a man’s duty, or proclivity to sin, through a being, given up to hardness of heart, or indeed by any other means whatsoever, is an inconsistence, according to Dr.

Whitby’s notions of liberty, virtue and vice, blame and praise. The avoiding sin and blame, and the doing want is virtuous and praisewrorthy, must be always equally easy.

Dr. Whitby’s notions of liberty, obligation, virtue, sin, etc. lead him into another inconsistence. He abundantly insists that necessity is inconsistent with the nature of sin or fault. He says, in the fore-mentioned treatise, p. 14, “Who can blame a person for doing what he could not helps?” And page 15, “It being sensibly unjust to punish any man for doing that which it was never in his power to avoid?” And in p. 341, to confirm his opinion, he quotes one of the fathers, saying, “Why doth God command, if man hath not free will and power to obey?” And again, in the same and the next page, “Who will not cry out, that it is folly to command him that hath not liberty, to do what is commanded; and that it is unjust to condemn him that has it not in his power to do what is required?” And in p. 373, he cites another, saying, “A law is given to him that can turn to both parts; i.e. obey or transgress it; but no law can be against him who is bound by nature.”

And yet the same Dr. Whitby asserts, that fallen man is not able to perform perfect obedience. In p. 165, he has these words: “The nature of Adam had power to continue innocent and without sin; whereas it is certain our nature never had so.” But if we have not power to continue innocent and without sin, then sin is inconsistent faith necessity, and we may be sinful in that which we have not power to avoid; and those things cannot be true, which he asserts elsewhere, namely, “That if we be necessitated, neither sins of omission nor commission would deserve that name,”(p. 348.) If we have it not in our power to be innocent, then we have it not in our power to be blameless; and if so, we are under a necessity of being blameworthy.

And how does this consist with what he so often asserts that necessity is inconsistent with blame or praise? If we have it not in our power to perform perfect obedience to all the commands of God, then we are under a necessity of breaking some commands, in some degree; having no power to perform so much as is commanded. And if so, why does he cry out of the unreasonableness and folly of commanding beyond what men have power to do?

And Arminians in general are very inconsistent with themselves in what they say of the inability of fallen man in this respect. They strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require any thing of us beyond our present power and ability to perform; and also hold, that we are now unable to perform perfect obedience, and that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, and has made way, that our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect; wherein they seem insensibly to run themselves into the grossest inconsistence. For (as I have observed elsewhere) “they hold, that God, in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution or law that they were under originally; and instead of it, has introduced a more mild constitution, and put us under a new law, which requires no more than im