Taken from Reformed For His Glory: Be forewarned that this will be no light reading for some. Toplady is responding to Wesley's objection that if all things happen by "necessity" (the sovereign decree of God) then that takes away human responsibility and accountability ("moral good or evil"). In lay-mans terms, it is the same line of thinking in today's society, from objectors to predestination and divine unconditional election, that believe to deny "free-will" is to say God has made us "puppets" (what Wesley terms "clock-work") and therefore we are not responsible for our actions since they cannot be "morally" good or evil if He decreed it. To this assertion that for "moral good and evil" to be real and exist with humans, then it cannot be from "necessity" (God's decree that something take place and that it cannot but take place). Toplady responds: Mr. Wesley is, or pretends to be, of this number. Let us give a concise hearing to the difficulties, which, in his estimation, clog the scheme of evangelical and philosophical fate: though they are such as have been refuted again and again. 1. “There can be no moral good or evil; no virtue, and no vice.” So thought Aristotle (a); and his disciples, the Peripatetics, Hence, they defined moral virtue to be an elective habit, flowing originally from freewill, and rendered easy by repeated acts. It is no wonder, that proud heathens should thus err; seeing they know not the scriptures, nor the power of God. But Mr. Wesley should remember, that he has read, and professes to believe, a book which tells him, that a man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven (b); that we cannot even think a good thought (c), unless God breathe it into our hearts; and that it is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who must work in us that which is well pleasing in his sight (d). Nor should his lordship of Moorfields forget, that he has solemnly subscribed (to omit all present mention of articles and homilies) a certain liturgy: in which liturgy, among a thousand other passages equally excellent, God himself is addressed, as the sole being, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels [or sincerely devout intentions], and all just works, do proceed. The supreme is, likewise, in the same “Calvinistical and Antinomian Prayer-book,” declared to be the almighty and everlasting God, who maketh us both to will and to do those things that be good, and acceptable to his divine majesty. And, in absolute harmony with this necessitating principle, the said book beseeches the blessed Father and governor of men, that by his holy inspiration, we may think those things that are good; and that we may, by his merciful guidance, faithfully perform the same. If this is being, what Mr. Wesley terms, “a fine piece of clock-work;” I heartily wish and pray, that I may every hour of my life, be so wound up. But still, says the objector, “moral good or evil,” cannot (a) consist with necessity. I, on the contrary, say, that it both can, and does. Mr. Wesley does not consider the tremendous consequences, which unavoidably flow from his position. For, if necessary virtue be neither moral, nor praise worthy; it will follow, that God himself (who, without all doubt, is necessarily and unchangeably good) is an immoral being, and not praise worthy for his goodness! On the same horrible Arminian principle, it would also follow, that Christ’s most perfect obedience (which was necessary: for he could not but obey perfectly) had no morality in it, was totally void of merit, and entitled him to neither praise, nor reward: The axiom, therefore, which dares to affirm, that “necessity and moral agency are irre-concileable things;” lays at once the axe to the root both of natural and revealed religion, and ought to be hissed back again by all mankind to the hell from whence it came. The crucifiers of the Son of God perpetrated the most immoral act, that ever was, or ever will be, committed. And yet I am expressly assured, by the written testimony of the Holy Ghost, entered on a record which will continue to the end of time, that Herod, and Pontius Pilate, and the people of the Jews, were gathered together against Jesus, for to do whatsoever God’s band and God’s counsel had fore-determined to be done (a). So that, upon-Christian principles at least, necessity and moral evil (by the same rule also, necessity and moral good) may walk (b) hand in hand together. If Mr. Wesley prefers Aristotle and the other gentlemen of the Lycæum, to the inspired writers; and chooses the peripatetic scheme of free-will, rather than the Bible scheme of necessity; he must, for me, go on to hug an idol that cannot save. ~ Toplady, A. M. (1825). The Works of Augustus M. Toplady, Volume 6 (27–30). London; Edinburgh: William Baynes and Son;H. S. Baynes. “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it." (Is 46:8–11) Soli Deo Gloria!
You sure are on a Crusade to convert the Forum to Reformed theology, aren't you brother? I happen to find Wesley's objections very compelling, despite Toplady's attempt at refutation. Implying that Wesley was sympathizing with paganism was a pretty dirty tactic, at the least.
It was not a "dirty tactic," it was rhetoric. And if you feel uneasy by Toplady's language, you would be shocked by Wesley's condescension. In any case, that's immaterial to the point at hand.