A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…

Dr. Whitby's Notions of Liberty, Obligation, Virtue, Sin, &c. lead Him into another great Inconsistence. He abundantly insists, that Necessity is inconsistent with the Nature of Sin or Fault. He says in the forementioned Treatise, P. 14. Who can blame a Person for doing what he could not help? and P. 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.

Dr. Whitby's Notions of Liberty, Obligation, Vertue, Sin, &c. lead Him into another great Inconsistence. He abundantly insists, that Necessity is inconsistent with the Nature of Sin or Fault. He says in the foremention'd Treatise, P. 14. Who can blame a Person for doing what he could not help? and P. 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 haven't Power to continue innocent 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 can't 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 blame-worthy. 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?