Page images
PDF
EPUB

innocent, and without sin; whereas it is certain our nature · never had so.".... But if we have not power to continue inno

[ocr errors]

cent and without sin, then sin is consistent with 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 inconsist ent 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 imperfect sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall.”

Now, how can these things be made consistent? I would ask, what law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach of? If they are a breach of no law that we were ever under, then they are not sins. And if they be not sins, what

need of Christ's dying to satisfy for them? But if they are sins, and the breach of some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law; for that requires no other than imperfect obedience, or obedience with imperfections: And therefore to have obedience attended with imperfections, is no breach of it; for it is as much as it requires. And they cannot be a breach of their old law; for that, they say, is entirely abolished; and we never were under it. They say, it would not be just in God to require of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just to require more than we can perform, or to punish us for failing of it. And therefore, by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not deserve to be punished. What need therefore of Christ's dying, to satisfy for them What need of his suffering to satisfy for that which is no fault, and in its own nature deserves no suffering? What need of Christ's dying, to purchase, that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, when, according to their scheme, it would be unjust in itself, that any other obedience, than imperfect should be required? What need of Christ's dying to make way for God's accepting such an obedience, as it would be unjust in him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ's dying, to prevail with God not to do unrighteously? If it be said, that Christ died to satisfy that old law for us, that so we might not be under it, but that there might be room for our being under a more mild law; still I would inquire, what need of Christ's dying, that we might not be under a law, which (by their principles) it would be in itself unjust that we should be under, whether Christ had died or no, because, in our present state, we are not able to keep it?

So the Arminians are inconsistent with themselves, not only in what they say of the need of Christ's satisfaction to atone for those imperfections, which we cannot avoid, but also in what they say of the grace of God, granted to enable men to perform the sincere obedience of the new law. “I grant, (says Dr. Stebbing*) indeed, that by reason of original sin, we are utterly disabled for the performance of the condition,

*Treatise of the Operations of the Spirit, second edition, page 112, 113.

without new grace from God. But I say then, that he gives such grace to all of us, by which the performance of the condition is truly possible: And upon this ground he may, and doth most righteously require it." If Dr. Stebbing intends to speak properly, by grace he must mean, that assistance which is of grace, or of free favor and kindness. But yet in the same place he speaks of it as very unreasonable, unjust and cruel, for God to require that, as the condition of pardon, that is become impossible by original Sin. If it be so, what grace is there in giving assistance and ability to perform the condition of pardon? Or why is that called by the name of grace, that is an absolute debt, which God is bound to bestow, and which it would be unjust and cruel in Him tɔ withhold, seeing he requires that, as the condition of pardon, which we cannot perform without it.

SECTION IV.

Command and Obligation to Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey.

IT being so much insisted on by Arminian writers, that necessity is inconsistent with Law or Command, and particularly, that it is absurd to suppose God by his command should require that of men which they are unable to do; not allowing in this case for any difference that there is between natural and moral Inability; I would therefore now particularly consider this matter.

And, for the greater clearness, I would distinctly lay down the following things.

I. The Will itself, and not only those actions which are the effects of the Will, is the proper object of precept or Command. That is, such or such a state or acts of men's

Wills, is in many cases, properly required of them by Com mand; and not those alterations in the state of their bodies or minds only that are the consequences of volition. This is most manifest; for it is the soul only that is properly and directly the subject of precepts or commands; that only being capable of receiving or perceiving commands. The motions or state of the body are matter of command, only as they are subject to the soul, and connected with its acts. But now the soul has no other faculty whereby it can, in the most direct and proper sense, consent, yield to, or comply with any command, but the faculty of the Will; and it is by this faculty only, that the soul can directly disobey, or refuse compliance; for the very notions of consenting, yielding, accepting, complying, refusing, rejecting, &c. are, according to the meaning of the terms, nothing but certain acts of the Will. Obedience, in the primary nature of it, is the submitting and yielding of the Will of one to the Will of another. Disobedience is the not consenting, not complying of the Will of the commanded to the manifested Will of the commander. Other acts that are not the acts of the Will, as certain motions of the body and alterations in the soul, are obedience or disobedience only indirectly as they are connected with the state or acts of the Will, according to an established law of nature. So that it is manifest, the Will itself may be required, and the being of a good Will is the most proper, direct and immediate subject of command; and if this cannot be prescribed or required by command or precept, nothing can; for other things can be required no otherwise than as they depend upon, and are the fruits of a good Will.

Corol. 1. If there be several acts of the Will, or a series of acts, one following another, and one the effect of another, the first and determining act is properly the subject of command, and not the consequent acts only, which are dependent upon it. Yea, it is this more especially, which is that, which command or precept has a proper respect to; because it is this act that determines the whole affair: In this act the obedience or disobedience lies, in a peculiar manner; the consequent acts being all subject to it, and governed and deter

mined by it. This determining, governing act must be the proper subject of precept, or none.

Corol. 2. It also follows, from what has been observed, that if there be any sort of act, or exertion of the soul, prior to all free acts of the Will or acts of choice in the case directing and determining what the acts of the Will shall be; that act or exertion of the soul cannot properly be subject to command or precept, in any respect whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, immediately or remotely. Such acts cannot be subject to commands directly, because they are no acts of the Will; being by the supposition prior to all acts of the Will, determining and giving rise to all its acts: They not being acts of the Will, there can be in them no consent to, or compliance with, any command. Neither can they be subject to command, or precept indirectly or remotely; for they are not so much as the effects or consequences of the Will, being prior to all its acts. So that if there be any obedience in that original act of the soul, determining all volitions, it is an act of obedience wherein the Will has no concern at all; it preceding every act of Will. And therefore, if the soul either obeys or disobeys in this act, it is wholly involuntarily; there is no willing obedience or rebellion, no compliance or opposition of the Will in the affair: And what sort of obedience or rebellion is this?

And thus the Arminian notion of the freedom of the Will consisting in the soul's determining its own acts of Will, instead of being essential to moral agency, and to men's being the subjects of moral government is utterly inconsistent with it. For if the soul determines all its acts of Will, it is therein subject to no command or moral government, as has been now observed; because its original determining act is no act of Will or choice, it being prior, by the supposition, to every act of Will. And the soul cannot be the subject of command in the act of the Will itself which depends on the foregoing determining act, and is determined by it; inasmuch as this is necessary, being the necessary consequence and effect of that prior determining act, which is not voluntary. Nor can the man be a subject of command or government in his VOL. V.

Z

« PreviousContinue »