GOD, and conducted triumphantly to glory. On a review of JEHOVAH's adorable fovereignty in his conduct toward his people, we may fay, as of old, "There is none like the GOD of Jefhurun who "rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his "excellency on the sky. The eternal GoD is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms; " and he fhall thruft out the enemy from before "thee; and fhall fay, Deftroy them. Ifrael then "fhall dwell in fafety alone: the fountain of Ja"cob fhall be upon a land of corn and wine; also " his heaven fhall drop down dew. Happy art "thou, O Ifrael: who is like unto thee, O people "faved by the Lord, the fhield of thy help, and "who is the fword of thy excellency! and thine "enemies fhall be found liars unto thee; and thou "fhalt tread upon their high places."* * Deut. xxxiii. 26—29. CHAP. CHA P. IV. Containing an Examination of the fundamental principles of the Arminian System, particularly Dr. WHITBY'S Discourse on the Five Points, and Mr. FLETCHER'S controversial Writings, SECT. I. Whether a perfect moral agent, in a state of original probation, has INHERENT power, according to Equity, to preferve himself in a course of active unfinning obedience. § 1. Introduction. § 2. Whitby's Preface refpecting original fin. $3. Remarks on it, § 4. His conduct in claffing the orthodox with the ancient Hereticks, and himfelf with the Fathers. § 5-8. The creature's abfolute dependence. § 9, 10. The origin of evil, what. § 11. No creature has inherent power to keep itfelf perfect, if dealt with according to ftrict equity. § 12—17. Objections anfwered. § 18, 19. Corollaries. § 20. Recapitulation. § 1. EVERY fyftem depends on fome fundamental fupport, and the Arminian fystem seems to me to be supported principally by three pillars. (1) That (1) That a moral agent, at least when perfect, has a power to do good as well as evil of himself. (2) That the antiremonftrant or Calviniftic fide of the difputed points is inconfiftent with equity. (3) That the certainty, (or, as they choofe to express it, the neceffity) of future events is not confiftent with that freedom which is effential to moral agency. If these pillars are fhaken, the anticalvinistic fyftem falls. Let us now, by impartial investigation and fair argument, try their ftrength. § 2. In the first of thefe pillars (which is the fubject of the prefent Section) Dr. WHITBY must have placed great confidence, because, though he does not fo much defend it in form, a great part of his book is built upon it. And I own it appears to me not a little furprising that the learned Dr. GILL, in all his voluminous answer to WHITEY, does not once attempt to examine the fentiment, but rather takes it for granted that Adam (though not his fallen pofterity) had power to love, fear, and obey GOD," in an unqualified fenfe. Let us hear how Dr. WHITBY prefaces his work: "They who have known my education 66 may remember, that I was bred up feven years "in the University under men of the Calvinifti"cal perfuafion, and fo could hear no other "doctrine or receive no other inftructions from "the men of those times, and therefore had once tr "firmly entertained all their doctrines." By the bye, we may remark that, independently of the illiberal infinuation that the univerfity men of those times confined their learned inftructions and debates to one fide of the question, fo as to keep the other out of fight, we may justly queftion the former Calvinifm of the Dr. from the reafon he affigns for it. Because he had no other inftruction, therefore he firmly entertained it. It may be fairly fufpected that the orthodoxy of many other Doctors and Mafters, who afterwards quitted it, was no more than opinion taken upon truft, in a fimilar way, of fubjects they never understood. He proceeds; "Now that which first moved me to fearch into "the foundation of thefe doctrines, viz. The imputation of Adam's sin to all his pofterity, " was the ftrange confequences of it; this made "me fearch more exactly into that matter. "-After fome years ftudy I met with one "who feemed to be a deift, and telling him "that there were arguments fufficient to prove "the truth of chriftian faith, and of the holy fcriptures, he fcornfully replied, Yes; and you will prove your doctrine of the imputa«tion of original fin from the fame fcripture; in"timating that he thought that doctrine, if con"tained in it, fufficient to invalidate the truth and "the authority of the fcripture. And by a little "reflection I found the ftrength of his argument <<< ran thus: That the truth of holy fcripture could "no otherwise be proved to any man that doubted " of it, "it, but by reducing him to fome abfurdity or "the denial of fome avowed principle of reason. "Now this imputation of Adam's fin to his pof terity, fo as to render them obnoxious to God's "wrath, and to eternal damnation, only because they were born of the race of Adam, feemed to "him as contradictory to the common reafon of "mankind, as any thing could be, and fo contained "as ftrong an argument against the truth of fcrip"ture, if that doctrine was contained in it, as any "could be offered for it. And upon this account "I again fearched into the places ufually alledged "to confirm that doctrine, and found them fairly "capable of other interpretations." + §3. One cannot help wondering that a perfon of Dr. WHITBY's abilities fhould be at a lofs to answer this deistical objection, without giving up the doctrine of original fin. What is there in revelation, and peculiar to it, that the Doctor himself would call an important article, to which a Deist would not raise an objection equally plaufible? To answer objections by difcarding every thing objected to by Deifts, is not the way to defend but rather to betray the truth. The objection of a Deift, therefore, (cat. par.) to the doctrine of original fin, or any other fcriptural doctrine, is impertinently adduced against it. Who would ever expect that perfons of deiftical principles fhould Dr. WHITBY's Difcourfe on the Five Points. Pref. p. i, ii. N. B. I always refer in this Work to the Second Edition. |