181

INTRODUCTION.

MR. Voltaire, at the head of the Deists abroad; President Edwards and Mr. Toplady, at the head of the Calvinists in America and Great Britain; and Dr. Hartley, seconded by Dr. Priestley and Mr. Hume, at the head of many ingenious philosophers; have of late years joined their literary forces to bind man with what Mr. Topludy calls 66 INELUCTABILIS ORDO RERUM"- -or" the extensive series of adamantine links," which form the chain of ABSOLUTE NECESSITY;" -An invisible chain this, by which if their scheme is true, God and Nature irresistibly bind upon us all our thoughts and actions; so that no good man can absolutely think or do worse- -no wicked man can at any time think or do better than he does, each exactly filling up the measure of unavoidable virtue or vice, which God, as the first cause or the predestinating and necessitating author of all things, has allotted to him from all eternity.

Mr. Toplady triumphs in seeing the rapid progress, which this doctrine makes by the help of the above-mentioned authors, who shine with distinguishing lustre in the world. Mr. Westley,' says he, laments, that Necessity is "The scheme, which is now adopted by not a few of the most sensible men in the nation." "I agree with him, as to the fact. But I cannot deplore it as a calamity. The progress, which that doctrine has of late years made, and is still making in the kingdom, has a most happy and promising symptom," &c.

I flatter myself, that I have already shewn, upon theological principles, the mischievous absurdity of that spreading doctrine, in my Answer to Mr. Toplady's Vindication of the Decrees. But, as he has lately published a book entitled " The scheme of christian and philosophical necessity, asserted in proposition to Mr. J. WESLEY'S Tract on that subject;" and as he has advanced in that book some more arguments taken from philosophy and scripture, I cannot do my subject justice without taking notice of them also.To defend truth effectually, error must be entirely demolished. So without any farther apology, I present the lovers of truth with the following supplement to my refutation of the grand error, which supports the Calvinian and Voltairian gospels.

A

REPLY, &c.

SECTION 1.

CONTROVERTISTS frequently accuse their opponents of holding detestable or absurd doctrines, which they never advanced, and which have no necessary connexion with their principles. That I may not be guilty of so ungenerous a proceeding. I shall, first, present the reader with an account of Necessity and her pedigree, in Mr. Toplady's own words.

Scheme of christian and philosophical Necessity, page 13, 14, "If we distinguish accurately, this seems to have been the order in which the most judicious of the ancients considered the whole matter. First, God:-then, his Will:-then Fate; or the solemn ratification of his Will, by passing and establishing it into an unchangeable decree: -then Creation then Necessity; i. e. such an indissoluble concatenation of secondary causes and effects, as has a native tendency to secure the certainty of all events, as one wave is IMPELLED by another:*-then Providence; i. e. the omnipresent, omnivigilant, all-directing" [he might have added ALL-IMPELLING]" superintendency of divine wisdom and power, carrying the whole pre-concerted scheme into actual execution, by the subservient mediation of second causes, which were created for that end."

This is a full view of the doctrine, which the Calvinists, and the better sort of Fatalists defend. I would only ask a few questions upon it.-(1) If all our actions, and consequently all our sins compose the seventh link of the chain of Calvinism;-If the first link is God; the second, his Will; the third, his Decree; the fourth, Creation; the fifth, Necessity; the sixth, Providence; and the seventh, Sin; is it not as easy to trace the pedigree of Sin, through Providence, Necessity, Creation, God's Decree, and God's Will, up to God himself; as it is to trace back the genealogy of the Prince of Wales, from George III. by George II. up to George I? And upon this plan, is it not clear, that Sin is as much the real offspring of God, as the Prince of Wales is the real offspring of George the first? (2) If this is the case, does not Calvinism, [or if you please Fatalism or Necessitarianism] absolutely make God the AUTHOR OF SIN by means of his WILL, his DECREE, his CREATION, his NECESSITATION, his IMPELling Providence? And, horrible to think! does it not unavoidably follow, that the monster sin, is the offspring of God's Providence-the offspring of God's Necessitation-the offspring of God's Creation-the offspring of God's Decree-the offspring of God's Will- the offspring of GOD HIMSELF? (3) If this Manichean doctrine is true, when Christ came to destroy sin, did he not come to destroy the work of God, rather than the work of the devil? And when Preachers attack sin, do they not attack God's providence— God's necessitation-God's creation-God's decree-God's willand God himself ?— (4) To do God and his oracles justice, ought we not to give the following scriptural genealogy of sin?A sinful act

* Mr. T. puts this clause in Latin: Velut unda impellitur ur ta.

is the offspring of a sinful choice ;-a sinful choice is the offspring of self-perversion ;-and self-perversion may or may not follow from FREE-WILL put in a state of probation, or under a practicable law. When you begin at Sin, you can never ascend higher than Free-will: And when you begin at God, you can never descend lower than Freewill: thus, (1) God;-(2) His will to make free-willing, accountable creatures;-(3) His putting his will in execution by the actual Creation of such creatures; −(4) Legislation on God's part ;— (5) Voluntary, unnecessitated obedience, on the part of those who nake a good use of their free-will-Aud (6) Voluntary unnecessitated disobedience on the part of those who make a bad use of it. Hence it is evident, that, by substituting necessity for free-will, and absolute decrees for righteous legislation, Mr. Toplady breaks the golden chain, which our gracious Creator made, and helps Manes, Augustin, Calvin, Hobbes, Voltaire, Hume, Dr. Hartley, and Dr. Priestley, to hammer out the iron-clay chain, by which they hang sin upon God himself.—(5) If all our sins, with all their circumstances and aggravations, are only a part of "the whole PRECONCERTED scheme," which “divine wisdom and power" absolutely and irresistibly carry into actual execution, by the subservient mediation of second causes, which were created FOR THAT END?" who can rationally blame sinners for answering THE END for which they were absolutely created? Who can refuse to exculpate and pity the reprobates, whom all-impelling omnipotence carries into sin, and into hell, as irresistibly as a floating cork is carried towards the shore by tossing billows which necessarily impel one another? And who will not be astonished at the erroneous notions, which the consistent Calvinists have of their God?A God this, who necessitates, yea impels men to sin by his will-his decree-his necessitation-and his providence: then gravely weeps and bleeds over them for sinning:and after having necessitated and impelled the non-elect to disbelieve and despise his blood, will set up a judgment-seat to damu them for necessarily carrying his preconcerted scheme into actual execution, as “second causes which were created for that end?"

66

"Oh! but they do it voluntarily, as well as necessarily, and therefore they are accountable, and judicable.”—This calvinian salvo makes a bad matter worse. For, if all their sins are necessarily brought about by God's all-impelling decree, their WILLING and bad choice are brought about by the same preconcerted, irresistible means; one of the ends of God's necessitation, with respect to the reprobate, being to make them sin with abundantly GREATER freedom and choice, than if they were not necessitated and impelled by God's predestinating, efficacious, irresistible decree. This Mr. Toplady indirectly asserts in the following argument.

Page 15. "They" [man's actions-man's sins] may be, at one and the same time, free and necessary too. When Mr. Wesley is very hungry and tired, he is necessarily, and yet freely, disposed to food or rest. His will is-concerned in sitting down to dinner, or in courting repose, when necessity impels to either.-Necessarily biassed as he is to those mediums of recruit; he has recourse to them as freely (i. e. as voluntarily, and with as much appetite, choice, desire, and relish (as if necessity was quite out of the case; nay, and with abundantly GREATER freedom and choice, than if he was not so necessitated and impelled."

Is not this as much as to say ? "As necessitation, the daughter

of God's decree, impels Mr. Wesley to eat, by giving him an appetite to food: So it formerly impelled Adam, and now it impels all the reprobates to sin, by giving them an appetite to wickedness: And necessarily biassed as they are to adultery, robbery, and other crimes, they commit them "as freely, i. e. with as much appetite and choice, as if necessity were quite out of the case: Nay, and with ABUNDANTLY GREATER freedom and choice, than if they were not so necessitated and impelled?"-Is not this reviving one of the most impious tenets of the Manichees? Is it not confounding the Lamb of God with the old dragon, and coupling the celestial dove with the infernal serpent?

If you ask, "Where is the flaw of Mr. Toplady's argumentative illustration?" I answer, It has two capital defects: (1) That God's will, his decree, and his providence, impel Mr. Wesley to eat when he is hungry, is very true; because eating, in such a case, fs, in general, Mr. Wesley's duty, and reminding him of his want of nourishment, by the sensation which we cali hunger, is a peculiar favour, worthy of the Parent of good to bestow. But the question is, whether God's will, decree, and provideuce impelled Adam to chuse the forbidden fruit rather than any other, and excited David to go to Uriah's wife, rather than to his own wives? How illogical, how detestable is this conclusion! God necessitates and impels us to do wickedness! -But (2) The greatest absurdity belonging to Mr. Toplady's illustration is, his pretending to overthrow the doctrine of free-will, by urging the hunger, which God gives to Mr. Wesley, in order to necessitate and impel him to eat, according to the decree of calvinian necessitation, which is absolutely irresistible. Mr. T. says [page 13] "We call that NECESSARY, which CANNOT BE OTHERWISE than it is.” Now Mr. Wesley's eating when he is hungry, is by no means calvinistically necessary: for he has an hundred times reversed the decree of his hunger by fasting; and if he were put to the sad alternative of the woman, who was to starve, or to kill and eat her own child, he both could and would go full against the necessitation of his hunger, and never eat more. Mr. Toplady's illustration therefore, far from proving, that God's necessitation irresistibly impels us to commit sin, indirectly demonstrates, that God's necessitation does not so much as absolutely impel us to do those things, which the very laws of our constitution and nature itself bind upon us, by the strong necessity of self-preservation. For some people have so far resisted the urgent calls of nature and appetite, as not only to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, but even literally to starve themselves to death.

I once saw a man who played the most amazing tricks with a pack of cards. His skill consisted in so artfully shuffling them, and imperceptibly substituting one for another, that when you thought you had fairly secured the king of hearts, you found yourself possessed only of the knave of clubs. The defenders of the doctrine of necessity are not less skilful. I have shewn in another tract, with what subtilty Mr. T.-uses "permission" for efficacy,-" no salvation due" for eternal torments ensured;-"not enriching," for absolute reprobation ;—and “passing by" for absolutely appointing to remediless sin, and everlasting burnings. Let us now consider the grand, logical substitution which deceives that gentleman, and by which he misleads the admirers of his scheme.

Page 14. "I acquiesce in the old distinction of necessity [a dis

tinction adopted by Luther and others] into a necessity OF COMPULSION, and a necessity OF INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY.-We may say of the earth, for instance, that it circuits the sun by COMPULSORY necessity. The necessity of INFALLIBLE certainty is of a very different kind, and only renders the event INEVITABLY future, without any compulsory force on the will of the agent."-If Mr. T. had said, "The necessity of the prophecy, or of truly certain futurity, considers an event as certainly future; but puts no calvinian, irresistible bias on the will of the agent;" I would have subscribed to his distinction. But instead of the word TRULY certain, or CERTAINLY future, which would have perfectly explained what may improperly be called necessity of prophecy, and what should be called certain futurity;-instead of those words, I say, he artfully substitutes, first " INFALLIBLY certain," and then "INEVITABLY future." The phrase INFALLIBLY certain may be admitted to pass, if you understand by it that which DOES NOT FAIL to happen: but if you take it in a rigid sense, and mean by it, that which CANNOT ABSOLUTELY FAIL to happen, you get a step out of the way, and then you may easily go on shuffling your logical cards, till you have imposed fatalism upon the simple, by making them believe that certainly future, infallibly future, and inevitably future, are three phrases of the same import; whereas the difference between the first and the last phrase is as great as the difference between Mr. Wesley's scriptural doctrine of freewill, and Mr. T-'s Manichean doctrine of absolute necessity.

It is the property of error to be inconsistent. Accordingly, we find that Mr. T.-, after having told us (p. 14) that the necessity of infallible certainty, which renders the event inevitably future, lays no compulsory force on the will of the agent, tells us in the very same page, that his calvinian necessity is "such an INDISSOLUBLE CONCATENATION of secondary causes- [CREATED FOR THAT END]and of effects, as has a native tendency to secure the certainty of all events" [i. c. of all volitions, murders, adulteries, and incests]" sicut undâ IMPELLITUR unda ;”—as one wave IMPELS another—or, as the first link of a straight chain, which you pull, draws the second-the second, the third-and so on. Now, if all our volitions are PUSHED FORWARD by God through the means of his absolute will-his irresistible decree-his efficacious creation-and his all-conquering necessitation, which is nothing but an adamantine chain of second causes created by Providence, in order to produce absolutely all the effects which are produced, and to make them impel each other, as one wave IMPELS another;" we desire to know, how our volitions can be thus irresistibly IMPELLED upon us, "without any COMPULSORY force on our will?" I do not see how Mr. T- can get over this contradiction, otherwise than by saying, that, although God's necessitation is irresistibly impulsory, yet it is not at all compulsory; although it absolutely impels us to will, yet it does not in the least compel us to be willing. But would so frivolous, so absurd a distinction as this, wipe off the foul blot, which the scheme of necessity fixes on the Father of lights, when it represents him as the first cause, and the grand contriver of all our sinful volitions?

66

Mr. T-[p. 133, 134] among other particulars of Manicheism, gives us the following account of that strange religion. "There are two independent Gods, or infinite Principles: viz.-light, and-darkThe first is the author of all good: and the second, of all evil. -The evil God made sin.-The good God and the bad God wage 2 B VOL. II.

ness.