Justice in Punishment - Whitby's Argument Four
V. ARGUMENT FOUR
If men are purely passive in the whole work of their conversion, and so are utterly void of all power of believing, living to God, or performing any acceptable obedience to his commands, is it righteous to consign them to eternal misery for their disability to do that which God sees them unable to do when he lays these commands upon them? Is not this to require brick where he affords no straw? Yea, ' to require much where nothing is given,' and then to punish eternally the not-doing that which is so unreasonably required? Yea, is not this equal to an absolute decree to damn them for nothing? It being in effect, and in the necessary event and consequence the same thing to damn then for nothing, and to damn them for not doing what they never could do, or for not abstaining from what they never could avoid.
If God makes laws which we cannot without his assistance observe, and then denies that assistance, He by so doing makes obedience to such men impossible, and what sin is it — not to obey beyond possibility?
If it be said " this disability is their sin," I answer, then by the definition of St. John, it must be a transgression of some law of God, and then some law of his must be produced requiring fallen man to do, on pain of damnation, without divine assistance, what he knows he can no more do than he can create a world; that is, a law declaring it is his will that they should do what it is his will they never should have power to do, or that it is his will we should exert an act without the power of acting.
(2.) Either this divine law is positive or moral: if it be only positive, then all the heathen world must necessarily be ignorant of it, and therefore not obliged by it, God having given them no positive laws, and so their state must be, as to this particular, much better than that of Christians, they being under no obligation to do anything which they cannot do.
If it be moral, how comes it to pass that all the Heathen world should be not only ignorant of it, but possessed with a contrary principle, impossibe ilium nulla est obligatio, ' that there can be no obligation to a thing impossible,' " which is," says Bishop Saunderson, " a thing self-evident, and needs no proof ;" e :aud that 'there can be no fault in doing that which we cannot avoid, or not doing that which we have no power to do; and that God could not produce or nourish that, which, when it had done its utmost, must fall into eternal misery;' and that quod omnibus neceste-est id tie miserum ase uni potest. ' that which is necessary to all, can be the ground of misery to none.'
(3.) Either this a sin is avoidable or it is not; if it be not avoidable, must it not unreasonably be required under this dreadful penalty that men should avoid it? If it be avoidable, then is there no such disability as is pretended in us, for we are not disabled from avoiding that which we have power to avoid.
VI. If it still be said, that "it is just to condemn us for what we are now disabled to perform, because this disability came upon us by a guilt which is truly our own, because it came upon us by the sin of our first parents, in whose loins we then were ;" this miserable refuge, and first-born of absurdities, hath been sufficiently confuted in the state of this question.
It hath been also baffled by many plain and cogent arguments in the discourse concerning the extent of Christ's death. And because it is the foundation of the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation, and the whole system of these men must fall together with it, I shall here show farther the inconsistency of this imagination, both with the tenor of the holy scripture, and with the principles of reason.
First, this vain imagination seems plainly contrary to the whole tenor of the scripture, and even to ridicule God's dealings in them with the sons of men. If, as I have largely proved in the state of 'the question, God deals with lapsed man, suitably to the faculties he still retains, endeavoring to excite him to the performance of his duty by hopes and fears, by promises and threats, by prospect of the advantages he will receive by his obedience, and of the miseries to which he will be subject by his disobedience, requiring him to consider and lay to heart these things, that he may turn from the evil of his ways, and do that which is lawful and right;' by all these things he manifestly declares he is not under such a disability by reason of the fall of Adam, as renders it impossible for him to be moved by all or any of these induce merits to the performance of his duty.
For then he might as well have used them to persuade a blind man to see, or a cripple to walk, or a new-born babe to speak, or a fool to understand mathematics, they both equally wanting or having lost the power to do what is required of them; and though one man should have lost his sight by whoring, another the use of his feet, a third die use of his reason by drinking; though they may be punished for whoring and drinking, they cannot afterwards be justly punished for not seeing, not walking, or not making use of their reason; this being to punish them for not using that which they have not to use. So in like manner, though if the sin of Adam were properly our own, we might be punished for that sin, yet could we not be justly, punished for not having the ability we had lost by it, that being equally to punish for not using that ability which we have not in use.
Secondly, God plainly seems, by his dispensations with the sons of men in order to their reformation, to declare He does not look upon them as lying under this supposed disability to become better; to hearken to his calls and invitations to return and live; to be drawn to him by the cords of love; to learn wisdom by His rod, or be convinced of their duty to believe, and to obey Him, by His miraculous operations.
For, 1. God represents it as matter of great admiration and astonishment, and an argument of brutish stupidity, that the Jews were not restrained from their rebellions against him by the consideration of his great goodness to them, speaking thus to them by his prophet, ' Hear, Oh heavens, and give ear, Oh earth, for I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib, but Israel doth not know, my people does not consider:' (Isaiah 1:2-3) enquiring thus, 'Ah foolish people and unwise, do you thus requite the Lord? Is he not the Lord that made you? Hath he not created and established you'? (Deuteronomy 32:6) and saying, 'they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies, but were disobedient at the sea, even at the Red sea; they forsook the Lord; when he led them in the way, they walked after vanity, (Psalm 106:7) neither said they, Where is the Lord that led us through the wilderness, and brought us out of Egypt into a plentiful country to eat the fruits thereof’ (Jeremiah 2:5-7) Again, 'this people, says he, has a revolting and rebellious heart, neither say they, Let us now fear the Lord, who gives us the former and the latter rain in its season, and reserveth to us the appointed weeks of harvest.'(Jeremiah 5:23-24) And on the other hand He promises, that in the latter days they shall fear the Lord and His goodness.' (Hosea 3:5) The apostle also represents it as the effect of their hard and impenitent heart, that they ' despised the riches of God's goodness, patience, and long-suffering, and were not led by them to repentance.' (Romans 2:4)
Now if they lay under an utter inability to be restrained by all this goodness from their rebellions and their disobedience, and from walking after vanity, what matter of admiration and astonishment, what indication of folly and stupidity could it be in them, that they were not induced by it to abstain from that which they were not able to avoid? Or what sign was it of a rebellious and revolting, hard and impenitent heart, that being under this disability to be moved by this goodness to repent and fear him, they did not do it? Surly He who designed these means to their respective ends, and does thus aggravate the sin of them who do not improve them to those ends, did not conceive these all were vain and insufficient inducements without that supernatural aid He was not pleased to vouchsafe to move them to those duties.
2. The scripture is more frequent in representing God's punishments and chastisements as sufficient to engage men to fear him, and to depart from their iniquity. 'Thou shalt, says Moses, consider in thy heart, that as a man chastens his son, so the Lord chastens thee; thou shall therefore keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him’. (Deuteronomy 8:5-6) God himself declares, that 'by the Spirit of judgment, and of burning he Would wash away the filth of the daughter of Zion, and purge out the blood of Jerusalem;' (Isaiah 4:4) and speaks of it as a thing certain, that 'when his judgments are upon the earth, the inhabitants of it will learn righteousness, and that in their affliction they will seek him early. (Isaiah 26:9, 59:18-19, Hosea 5:15) And when they had not this effect upon them, he complains grievously against them, saying, ' this people turns not to him that smites them, neither do they seek the Lord. In vain have I smitten them, they have received no correction;' (Isaiah 9:13, Jeremiah 2:30) and having mentioned a variety of judgments he had inflicted upon Israel, he still concludes thus, ' yet have ye not returned to me, saith the Lord;'and then adds, (verse 12,) 'therefore will I do thus unto you.' (Amos 4:6-12)
His prophets also complain thus: ' O Lord, thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they refused to receive correction; they have made their faces harder than a rock, they refused to return.' (Jeremiah 5:3) And again, ' this is a nation that obeys not the voice of the Lord nor receives correction.' (Jeremiah 7:28). Yea, when these judgments do not prevail upon them to return to him, he looks upon them as incorrigible, saying to them ' Why should you be smitten any more, you will revolt more and more (Isaiah 1:5) and are only fit to be punished seven times more. Thus having threatened to 'set his face against them, and give them up to be slain by their enemies, who would not hearken to him to do all his commandments; he adds, ' and if you will not yet for all this hearken to me, I will punish you seven times more for your sins. And if you will not be reformed by these things, but will walk contrary to me, then wilt I also walk contrary to you, and will punish you yet seven times' more for your sins. And if ye still not for all this hearken to me, but will walk contrary to me, I will walk contrary to you in fury." (Leviticus 26:14-28)
Now seeing all these judgments and chastisements were only moral motives, and all men through the fall of Adam' are utterly incapable of being moved by them without that supernatural and unfrustratable operation, which the event shows God was not pleased to vouchsafe to these lapsed persons, why does God himself represent them as means proper and by him designed, and sometimes efficacious, to produce these ends? Why does He speak as if they certainly would do it? Why doth he complain so much against them, and' denounce such dreadful judgment on them who were not thus reformed by them, seeing these things, without that aid He was not pleased to vouchsafe, were as unable to produce these effects as to make a blind man see, or a deaf man hear? Why is the one more punishable on this account than the other? Why, lastly, does he represent them as incorrigible who were not thus reformed by them, since it was impossible they should be so without that supernatural aid he was not pleased to vouchsafe? Surely these things are demonstrations of the falsehood of this vain opinion.
3. God does continually represent his calls and invitations, and his messages sent to them by his prophets, as sufficient inducements to procure their reformation and repentance, and looks upon them as incorrigible and past all remedy, and worthy of his heaviest judgments, when these things could not engage them to return to him; so we read, (2 Chronicles 36:15-16) 'he sent to them his messengers, rising up betimes and sending them, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place; but they mocked his messengers, despised his word, and misused his His prophets, till the wrath of the Lord came upon them, and there was no remedy' So Jeremiah 25:4-5, 'the Lord sent to you his prophets, rising up early and sending them, but you have not hearkened, nor inclined your ear to hear, when) they said, Turn ye again everyone from his evil ways.' Hence God speaks thus of them, Jeremiah 29:18-19, "I will persecute them with the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the families of the earth, because they hearkened not to my words, when I sent to them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, but ye would not hear." See also Jeremiah 7:13-15. Again, "I will bring upon Judah," saith God" and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have threatened, because I have spoken to them, but they have not heard, I have called unto them, but they have not answered." (Jeremiah 35:17)
So also Isaiah 65:11, 66:4 Wisdom is also introduced by the preacher crying " in the chief places of concourse, Turn ye at my reproof, (and) I will pour out my Spirit upon you, I will make known my words to you;’ (Proverbs 1:23-28) and at last thus concluding, "because I. have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh. In a word, all these things seem to be put together in those words of the prophet Ezekiel, 'because I have purged thee (that is, I have done what was sufficient to have purged thee, by my mercies and judgments, my calls, my threats, my promises, and by my prophets, and what should have purged thee,) and thou were not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee' (Ezekiel 24:13)
Now could that God who sent these messengers to his people, 'because he had compassion on them, 'have decreed from eternity never to have compassion on them in reference to their eternal interests? Could He see them under an utter disability through the fall of Adam to comply with the requests of his messengers and prophets, and not vouchsafe that aid without which he well knew his messengers and prophets must be sent in vain? And when, after all that they had said, there was no remedy of this fatal disability afforded, did the good God threaten thus to persecute with sword and famine, and banishment, his own beloved people, for not hearkening to his words, and not turning from their evil ways, when they were no more able so to do than to remove a mountain? Might He not as well have threatened thus the man who by temperance had lost his sight and limbs, because he did not see and walk? Especially if we consider that he contracted this disability by his own personal sin, they only had theirs by the transgression of another, long before they had a being, and so before they could be capable of any personal transgression. To what purpose did wisdom say to them who were thus disabled, "turn you at my reproof?" Or could she, without insulting over the misery of fallen man, thus laugh at the calamity they never could prevent?
Or lastly, could God truly say 'He would have purged them,' when he withheld that aid, without which it was impossible they should be purged or threaten that " they should be purged no more,' who never were in a capacity of being purged at all?
4. God throughout the whole book of the law, and our blessed Savior in the gospel, still represent the mighty works done for and before the eyes of, the Jews, as strong and sufficient obligations to believe and obey him. "Ask now of the days of old, did ever people hear the voice of God out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live? Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation out of the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great terrors, as the Lord did for you in Egypt before your eyes? (Deuteronomy 4:32-34)
Thou shall keep therefore his statutes and his commandments, which I command ye this day. (Verse 40) And chapter 11:2, you have seen the chastisements of the Lord, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched-out arm, and his miracles, and his acts which he did in the midst of Egypt; your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord that he did, therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day. (Verse 8) And chapter 29:2-3, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs and the great miracles; keep therefore the words, of this covenant, and do them." (Verse 9) So also our Lord proves the obligation the Jews had to believe in him, because of the mighty works which he had done among them, saying " the works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me; (John 5:36) and ye have not his words abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, ye believe not". (Verse 38) See also John 8:18, 24. And when the Jews came to him saying, "If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly;" his answer is, (John 10:25, 26) "The works that I do in my Father's name, bear witness of me; but ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep; and, verse 37, if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; and chapter 15:24, if I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father, and so they have no cloak for their sin." (Verse 22)
Now if the consideration of this mighty hand of God, and stretched-out arm, was not sufficient to induce them to observe his statutes, why doth he so often say, "therefore thou shall keep my statutes," that is, why does he use a reason winch he knew was insufficient to produce that effect?
If all Christ's miracles, without that supernatural and unfrustrable act of God, which he would not vouchsafe to the Jews, were insufficient to produce faith in them, why doth Christ tell them, that "if they did not believe in him they should die in their sins?" Why doth he represent their infidelity as an act of hatred to him and his Father, and an evidence that they were not his sheep, nor had the word of God abiding in them? Why, lastly, does he say, ' they had no cloak for their sin,' who had this remediless disability to plead in their behalf?
5. This will be farther evident from God's supposition, that it might be that the methods he and his prophets used would prevail for the producing of the designed effects. Thus when God bids Jeremiah ' take the roll of his intended judgments, and read it in their ears; he adds, it may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil that I purpose to do to them, that they may return every man from his evil way, and I may forgive their iniquity and their sin; and verse 7, it may be they will present their supplication before me, and will return everyone from his evil way.' (Jeremiah 26:3,7)
To his prophet Ezekiel he says this, "Prepare ye stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; it may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house.'(Ezekiel 12:3) So in the parable of the vineyard, when God sends his Son to the Jews, He says, "it may be they will reverence my Son." (Luke 20:13)
Now what room is there for any of these suppositions, where the effects depends upon God's immediate acting upon the heart, and not upon any hearing, or consideration of man without it, or any dispositions, or any means that they can use to move him to enable them to do it? If indeed they lay under this disability by the fall of Adam, it might as reasonably be expected they should move a mountain, as be induced by these considerations to return every man from his evil ways.
6. God complains of his own people, that they were "a rebellious people, because they had eyes to see and saw not, they had ears to hear and heard not; (Ezekiel 12:2) my people, says He, is foolish, they have not known me, they are silly children, and have not understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.’ (Jeremiah 4:22) And again, 'to whom shall I speak and give warning'?
Behold their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hear: (Jeremiah 6:10) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, and the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good who are accustomed to do evil.' (Jeremiah 13:23) And Christ speaks thus to the Scribes and Pharisees, 'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can t/e escape the damnation of hell!' (Matthew 23:33)
Now if this were the sad estate of all the lapsed sons of Adam, that ' they had eyes and saw not, and ears and heard not, that to do good they had no knowledge,' and no power, whatever motives God should offer to engage them so to do, why is this represented as the peculiar state only of the worst of men? If none of them could be induced by all the arguments the gospel offers to do good, why is this made the effect of a long custom to do evil,' and an evidence of 'silly children’.
If this be the sad state of all that are not of the number of the elect, that they cannot escape eternal misery, why is it said, peculiarly of the Scribes and Pharisees, that they could not 'escape the damnation of hell’? And more particularly concerning Judas, that ' it had been better for him that he had not been born'? (Matthew 26:24) In a word, all God's commands and prohibitions, promises and threat's, and all his exhortations to lapsed men to consider and lay them to heart, in order to their reformation, are demonstrations of the falsehood of this vain imagination.
If men are purely passive in the whole work of their conversion, and so are utterly void of all power of believing, living to God, or performing any acceptable obedience to his commands, is it righteous to consign them to eternal misery for their disability to do that which God sees them unable to do when he lays these commands upon them? Is not this to require brick where he affords no straw? Yea, ' to require much where nothing is given,' and then to punish eternally the not-doing that which is so unreasonably required? Yea, is not this equal to an absolute decree to damn them for nothing? It being in effect, and in the necessary event and consequence the same thing to damn then for nothing, and to damn them for not doing what they never could do, or for not abstaining from what they never could avoid.
If God makes laws which we cannot without his assistance observe, and then denies that assistance, He by so doing makes obedience to such men impossible, and what sin is it — not to obey beyond possibility?
If it be said " this disability is their sin," I answer, then by the definition of St. John, it must be a transgression of some law of God, and then some law of his must be produced requiring fallen man to do, on pain of damnation, without divine assistance, what he knows he can no more do than he can create a world; that is, a law declaring it is his will that they should do what it is his will they never should have power to do, or that it is his will we should exert an act without the power of acting.
(2.) Either this divine law is positive or moral: if it be only positive, then all the heathen world must necessarily be ignorant of it, and therefore not obliged by it, God having given them no positive laws, and so their state must be, as to this particular, much better than that of Christians, they being under no obligation to do anything which they cannot do.
If it be moral, how comes it to pass that all the Heathen world should be not only ignorant of it, but possessed with a contrary principle, impossibe ilium nulla est obligatio, ' that there can be no obligation to a thing impossible,' " which is," says Bishop Saunderson, " a thing self-evident, and needs no proof ;" e :aud that 'there can be no fault in doing that which we cannot avoid, or not doing that which we have no power to do; and that God could not produce or nourish that, which, when it had done its utmost, must fall into eternal misery;' and that quod omnibus neceste-est id tie miserum ase uni potest. ' that which is necessary to all, can be the ground of misery to none.'
(3.) Either this a sin is avoidable or it is not; if it be not avoidable, must it not unreasonably be required under this dreadful penalty that men should avoid it? If it be avoidable, then is there no such disability as is pretended in us, for we are not disabled from avoiding that which we have power to avoid.
VI. If it still be said, that "it is just to condemn us for what we are now disabled to perform, because this disability came upon us by a guilt which is truly our own, because it came upon us by the sin of our first parents, in whose loins we then were ;" this miserable refuge, and first-born of absurdities, hath been sufficiently confuted in the state of this question.
It hath been also baffled by many plain and cogent arguments in the discourse concerning the extent of Christ's death. And because it is the foundation of the doctrine of absolute election and reprobation, and the whole system of these men must fall together with it, I shall here show farther the inconsistency of this imagination, both with the tenor of the holy scripture, and with the principles of reason.
First, this vain imagination seems plainly contrary to the whole tenor of the scripture, and even to ridicule God's dealings in them with the sons of men. If, as I have largely proved in the state of 'the question, God deals with lapsed man, suitably to the faculties he still retains, endeavoring to excite him to the performance of his duty by hopes and fears, by promises and threats, by prospect of the advantages he will receive by his obedience, and of the miseries to which he will be subject by his disobedience, requiring him to consider and lay to heart these things, that he may turn from the evil of his ways, and do that which is lawful and right;' by all these things he manifestly declares he is not under such a disability by reason of the fall of Adam, as renders it impossible for him to be moved by all or any of these induce merits to the performance of his duty.
For then he might as well have used them to persuade a blind man to see, or a cripple to walk, or a new-born babe to speak, or a fool to understand mathematics, they both equally wanting or having lost the power to do what is required of them; and though one man should have lost his sight by whoring, another the use of his feet, a third die use of his reason by drinking; though they may be punished for whoring and drinking, they cannot afterwards be justly punished for not seeing, not walking, or not making use of their reason; this being to punish them for not using that which they have not to use. So in like manner, though if the sin of Adam were properly our own, we might be punished for that sin, yet could we not be justly, punished for not having the ability we had lost by it, that being equally to punish for not using that ability which we have not in use.
Secondly, God plainly seems, by his dispensations with the sons of men in order to their reformation, to declare He does not look upon them as lying under this supposed disability to become better; to hearken to his calls and invitations to return and live; to be drawn to him by the cords of love; to learn wisdom by His rod, or be convinced of their duty to believe, and to obey Him, by His miraculous operations.
For, 1. God represents it as matter of great admiration and astonishment, and an argument of brutish stupidity, that the Jews were not restrained from their rebellions against him by the consideration of his great goodness to them, speaking thus to them by his prophet, ' Hear, Oh heavens, and give ear, Oh earth, for I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master's crib, but Israel doth not know, my people does not consider:' (Isaiah 1:2-3) enquiring thus, 'Ah foolish people and unwise, do you thus requite the Lord? Is he not the Lord that made you? Hath he not created and established you'? (Deuteronomy 32:6) and saying, 'they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies, but were disobedient at the sea, even at the Red sea; they forsook the Lord; when he led them in the way, they walked after vanity, (Psalm 106:7) neither said they, Where is the Lord that led us through the wilderness, and brought us out of Egypt into a plentiful country to eat the fruits thereof’ (Jeremiah 2:5-7) Again, 'this people, says he, has a revolting and rebellious heart, neither say they, Let us now fear the Lord, who gives us the former and the latter rain in its season, and reserveth to us the appointed weeks of harvest.'(Jeremiah 5:23-24) And on the other hand He promises, that in the latter days they shall fear the Lord and His goodness.' (Hosea 3:5) The apostle also represents it as the effect of their hard and impenitent heart, that they ' despised the riches of God's goodness, patience, and long-suffering, and were not led by them to repentance.' (Romans 2:4)
Now if they lay under an utter inability to be restrained by all this goodness from their rebellions and their disobedience, and from walking after vanity, what matter of admiration and astonishment, what indication of folly and stupidity could it be in them, that they were not induced by it to abstain from that which they were not able to avoid? Or what sign was it of a rebellious and revolting, hard and impenitent heart, that being under this disability to be moved by this goodness to repent and fear him, they did not do it? Surly He who designed these means to their respective ends, and does thus aggravate the sin of them who do not improve them to those ends, did not conceive these all were vain and insufficient inducements without that supernatural aid He was not pleased to vouchsafe to move them to those duties.
2. The scripture is more frequent in representing God's punishments and chastisements as sufficient to engage men to fear him, and to depart from their iniquity. 'Thou shalt, says Moses, consider in thy heart, that as a man chastens his son, so the Lord chastens thee; thou shall therefore keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him’. (Deuteronomy 8:5-6) God himself declares, that 'by the Spirit of judgment, and of burning he Would wash away the filth of the daughter of Zion, and purge out the blood of Jerusalem;' (Isaiah 4:4) and speaks of it as a thing certain, that 'when his judgments are upon the earth, the inhabitants of it will learn righteousness, and that in their affliction they will seek him early. (Isaiah 26:9, 59:18-19, Hosea 5:15) And when they had not this effect upon them, he complains grievously against them, saying, ' this people turns not to him that smites them, neither do they seek the Lord. In vain have I smitten them, they have received no correction;' (Isaiah 9:13, Jeremiah 2:30) and having mentioned a variety of judgments he had inflicted upon Israel, he still concludes thus, ' yet have ye not returned to me, saith the Lord;'and then adds, (verse 12,) 'therefore will I do thus unto you.' (Amos 4:6-12)
His prophets also complain thus: ' O Lord, thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they refused to receive correction; they have made their faces harder than a rock, they refused to return.' (Jeremiah 5:3) And again, ' this is a nation that obeys not the voice of the Lord nor receives correction.' (Jeremiah 7:28). Yea, when these judgments do not prevail upon them to return to him, he looks upon them as incorrigible, saying to them ' Why should you be smitten any more, you will revolt more and more (Isaiah 1:5) and are only fit to be punished seven times more. Thus having threatened to 'set his face against them, and give them up to be slain by their enemies, who would not hearken to him to do all his commandments; he adds, ' and if you will not yet for all this hearken to me, I will punish you seven times more for your sins. And if you will not be reformed by these things, but will walk contrary to me, then wilt I also walk contrary to you, and will punish you yet seven times' more for your sins. And if ye still not for all this hearken to me, but will walk contrary to me, I will walk contrary to you in fury." (Leviticus 26:14-28)
Now seeing all these judgments and chastisements were only moral motives, and all men through the fall of Adam' are utterly incapable of being moved by them without that supernatural and unfrustratable operation, which the event shows God was not pleased to vouchsafe to these lapsed persons, why does God himself represent them as means proper and by him designed, and sometimes efficacious, to produce these ends? Why does He speak as if they certainly would do it? Why doth he complain so much against them, and' denounce such dreadful judgment on them who were not thus reformed by them, seeing these things, without that aid He was not pleased to vouchsafe, were as unable to produce these effects as to make a blind man see, or a deaf man hear? Why is the one more punishable on this account than the other? Why, lastly, does he represent them as incorrigible who were not thus reformed by them, since it was impossible they should be so without that supernatural aid he was not pleased to vouchsafe? Surely these things are demonstrations of the falsehood of this vain opinion.
3. God does continually represent his calls and invitations, and his messages sent to them by his prophets, as sufficient inducements to procure their reformation and repentance, and looks upon them as incorrigible and past all remedy, and worthy of his heaviest judgments, when these things could not engage them to return to him; so we read, (2 Chronicles 36:15-16) 'he sent to them his messengers, rising up betimes and sending them, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place; but they mocked his messengers, despised his word, and misused his His prophets, till the wrath of the Lord came upon them, and there was no remedy' So Jeremiah 25:4-5, 'the Lord sent to you his prophets, rising up early and sending them, but you have not hearkened, nor inclined your ear to hear, when) they said, Turn ye again everyone from his evil ways.' Hence God speaks thus of them, Jeremiah 29:18-19, "I will persecute them with the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the families of the earth, because they hearkened not to my words, when I sent to them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them, but ye would not hear." See also Jeremiah 7:13-15. Again, "I will bring upon Judah," saith God" and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have threatened, because I have spoken to them, but they have not heard, I have called unto them, but they have not answered." (Jeremiah 35:17)
So also Isaiah 65:11, 66:4 Wisdom is also introduced by the preacher crying " in the chief places of concourse, Turn ye at my reproof, (and) I will pour out my Spirit upon you, I will make known my words to you;’ (Proverbs 1:23-28) and at last thus concluding, "because I. have called, and ye refused, I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when your fear cometh. In a word, all these things seem to be put together in those words of the prophet Ezekiel, 'because I have purged thee (that is, I have done what was sufficient to have purged thee, by my mercies and judgments, my calls, my threats, my promises, and by my prophets, and what should have purged thee,) and thou were not purged, thou shalt not be purged from thy filthiness any more, till I have caused my fury to rest upon thee' (Ezekiel 24:13)
Now could that God who sent these messengers to his people, 'because he had compassion on them, 'have decreed from eternity never to have compassion on them in reference to their eternal interests? Could He see them under an utter disability through the fall of Adam to comply with the requests of his messengers and prophets, and not vouchsafe that aid without which he well knew his messengers and prophets must be sent in vain? And when, after all that they had said, there was no remedy of this fatal disability afforded, did the good God threaten thus to persecute with sword and famine, and banishment, his own beloved people, for not hearkening to his words, and not turning from their evil ways, when they were no more able so to do than to remove a mountain? Might He not as well have threatened thus the man who by temperance had lost his sight and limbs, because he did not see and walk? Especially if we consider that he contracted this disability by his own personal sin, they only had theirs by the transgression of another, long before they had a being, and so before they could be capable of any personal transgression. To what purpose did wisdom say to them who were thus disabled, "turn you at my reproof?" Or could she, without insulting over the misery of fallen man, thus laugh at the calamity they never could prevent?
Or lastly, could God truly say 'He would have purged them,' when he withheld that aid, without which it was impossible they should be purged or threaten that " they should be purged no more,' who never were in a capacity of being purged at all?
4. God throughout the whole book of the law, and our blessed Savior in the gospel, still represent the mighty works done for and before the eyes of, the Jews, as strong and sufficient obligations to believe and obey him. "Ask now of the days of old, did ever people hear the voice of God out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live? Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation out of the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great terrors, as the Lord did for you in Egypt before your eyes? (Deuteronomy 4:32-34)
Thou shall keep therefore his statutes and his commandments, which I command ye this day. (Verse 40) And chapter 11:2, you have seen the chastisements of the Lord, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched-out arm, and his miracles, and his acts which he did in the midst of Egypt; your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord that he did, therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command you this day. (Verse 8) And chapter 29:2-3, Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs and the great miracles; keep therefore the words, of this covenant, and do them." (Verse 9) So also our Lord proves the obligation the Jews had to believe in him, because of the mighty works which he had done among them, saying " the works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me; (John 5:36) and ye have not his words abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, ye believe not". (Verse 38) See also John 8:18, 24. And when the Jews came to him saying, "If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly;" his answer is, (John 10:25, 26) "The works that I do in my Father's name, bear witness of me; but ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep; and, verse 37, if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; and chapter 15:24, if I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father, and so they have no cloak for their sin." (Verse 22)
Now if the consideration of this mighty hand of God, and stretched-out arm, was not sufficient to induce them to observe his statutes, why doth he so often say, "therefore thou shall keep my statutes," that is, why does he use a reason winch he knew was insufficient to produce that effect?
If all Christ's miracles, without that supernatural and unfrustrable act of God, which he would not vouchsafe to the Jews, were insufficient to produce faith in them, why doth Christ tell them, that "if they did not believe in him they should die in their sins?" Why doth he represent their infidelity as an act of hatred to him and his Father, and an evidence that they were not his sheep, nor had the word of God abiding in them? Why, lastly, does he say, ' they had no cloak for their sin,' who had this remediless disability to plead in their behalf?
5. This will be farther evident from God's supposition, that it might be that the methods he and his prophets used would prevail for the producing of the designed effects. Thus when God bids Jeremiah ' take the roll of his intended judgments, and read it in their ears; he adds, it may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil that I purpose to do to them, that they may return every man from his evil way, and I may forgive their iniquity and their sin; and verse 7, it may be they will present their supplication before me, and will return everyone from his evil way.' (Jeremiah 26:3,7)
To his prophet Ezekiel he says this, "Prepare ye stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; it may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house.'(Ezekiel 12:3) So in the parable of the vineyard, when God sends his Son to the Jews, He says, "it may be they will reverence my Son." (Luke 20:13)
Now what room is there for any of these suppositions, where the effects depends upon God's immediate acting upon the heart, and not upon any hearing, or consideration of man without it, or any dispositions, or any means that they can use to move him to enable them to do it? If indeed they lay under this disability by the fall of Adam, it might as reasonably be expected they should move a mountain, as be induced by these considerations to return every man from his evil ways.
6. God complains of his own people, that they were "a rebellious people, because they had eyes to see and saw not, they had ears to hear and heard not; (Ezekiel 12:2) my people, says He, is foolish, they have not known me, they are silly children, and have not understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.’ (Jeremiah 4:22) And again, 'to whom shall I speak and give warning'?
Behold their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hear: (Jeremiah 6:10) Can the Ethiopian change his skin, and the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good who are accustomed to do evil.' (Jeremiah 13:23) And Christ speaks thus to the Scribes and Pharisees, 'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can t/e escape the damnation of hell!' (Matthew 23:33)
Now if this were the sad estate of all the lapsed sons of Adam, that ' they had eyes and saw not, and ears and heard not, that to do good they had no knowledge,' and no power, whatever motives God should offer to engage them so to do, why is this represented as the peculiar state only of the worst of men? If none of them could be induced by all the arguments the gospel offers to do good, why is this made the effect of a long custom to do evil,' and an evidence of 'silly children’.
If this be the sad state of all that are not of the number of the elect, that they cannot escape eternal misery, why is it said, peculiarly of the Scribes and Pharisees, that they could not 'escape the damnation of hell’? And more particularly concerning Judas, that ' it had been better for him that he had not been born'? (Matthew 26:24) In a word, all God's commands and prohibitions, promises and threat's, and all his exhortations to lapsed men to consider and lay them to heart, in order to their reformation, are demonstrations of the falsehood of this vain imagination.
Comments