{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_28401/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_28401","id":"gutenberg_28401","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28401","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Theology, Doctrinal -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Keith G. Richardson\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFree _and_ Impartial\n\nTHOUGHTS,\n\nON THE\n\nSovereignty _of_ God,\n\nTHE\n\nDOCTRINES\n\nOF\n\nElection, Reprobation,\n\nAND\n\nOriginal Sin:\n\nHumbly Addressed\n\nTo all who Believe and Profess those\n\nDOCTRINES.\n\n\nThe Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged.\n\n\n_LONDON:_\n\nPrinted for J. ROBINSON, at the _Golden-Lion_, in _Ludgate-Street._\n\nM.DCC.XLV.\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nPREFACE\n\n_I Cannot find, upon the most impartial Retrospection of the\nArgument, any Reason to alter my Sentiments concerning it; and as it\nis a Matter of the greatest Importance, 'tis hoped that those who\nmaintain the Doctrines of_ Election, &_c. will afford it all the\nWeight and Consideration it deserves. But, if there be any among\nthem, who will hear no Reason or Argument whatever, and are_ sure,\nonly because they are sure, _I Have_ little _or_ no Hopes _to\nprevail with them, to give me a fair Hearing, or to think_ candidly\n_and_ impartially _about it. But as there are among them, some, who\nno doubt will allow the_ Possibility _of their being in an Error; to\nall such I address my self, and beseech them, as much as possible to\nlay aside Prejudice and Partiality; wisely considering, that many of\ntheir Fore-fathers maintained some erroneous Doctrines, with as much\nZeal, and Integrity, as they their Descendants now do the Doctrines\nof_ Election, &_c. and yet saw Occasion to renounce them\nafterwards._\n\n_There is Reason to fear, the just Liberty I have taken with the_\nDoctrines of Election, &_c. may, by some, be deem'd Blasphemy\nagainst_ God _himself; but I am far from intending any such thing.\nThese Doctrines (I think) on the contrary, are_ in them selves\n_nothing better than_ blasphemous, _tho' the Intentions of some who\nmaintain them, be ever so devout and sincere: And if an Impeachment\nof Doctrines, which, instead of preserving_ God's Moral Character,\n_robs him of all that is dear and valuable, or that can render him\nlovely and adorable to Man, be accounted_ Blasphemy, _the Ignorance\nand Bigotry of those, who judge after that Manner, ought much to be\nlamented. It is a melancholy Truth, that where Prejudice, in favour\nof false Principles, has had early and frequent Access to the Mind,\nit too often shuts the Ear against Reason and Truth; and 'tis very\nhard to persuade such People to enter at all, and much less\nimpartially, into the Merits of an Argument advanced against them;\nnor indeed is the Liberty of Thought on_ Religious Subjects, duly\ninculcated _in Religious Assemblies: For, the_ Teachers of\nChristianity, _tho' they are seldom averse to give us the Compliment\nof a_ just Liberty of thinking for ourselves, _are but too apt_ to\nset the Terrors of the Lord in array against Unbelievers; _tho'\nperhaps_ their Dissent _may sometimes be only the_ innocent Effect,\n_of the best Examination they are able to make. And if there be any\nthing worthy of Notice, in what I have advanced, I hereby intreat\nall, into whose Hands this Treatise may come, not to be terrified,\nby any such popular Arts, from making a thorough Examination for\nthemselves; on the other hand, I am altogether as willing to set\nright, in whatever I may have erred, or been mistaken._\n\n_'Tis well known, the 17th Article of our own_ National Church,\n_greatly favours the_ Doctrines _of_ Election _and_ Reprobation;\n_and it is also generally believed, that the_ Better Part _of our\nClergy entirely disapprove these Doctrines, and would very readily\nassist in expunging them out of their_ Creed; _which would render\ntheir Consciences much easier, than now they are, or can be, under a\nSubscription in a Sense so_ very qualified _and_ remote _from the_\nnatural Intent _and_ Meaning _of the_ Article.\n\n_Experience makes it evident, that Education is able to retain Men\nof the_ Brightest Understanding, _in the Belief of the_ Greatest\nAbsurdities. _But, that Men of Learning, Ingenuity and Experience,\nwho have lived perhaps to the Age of fifty, in the Disbelief of the_\nDoctrines _of_ Election, &_c. should after that sincerely embrace\nthem, is to me Matter of great Astonishment; yet this I am inform'd\nis really the Case, with regard to one of the most ingenious_\nDivines, _our Metropolis has to boast of. One Reason may perhaps be\nalledged, for such an unexpected Alteration of Sentiment_, viz.\n_That tho' we disbelieve these Doctrines, because they are_ absurd,\n_yet we hold at the same time, others_, equally repugnant _to\nReason, and to Common Sense; and certainly we may as reasonably_\nembrace _the one as_ retain _the other. Besides, with what\nreasonable Expectation of Success could such a Man as this sit down\nto argue with_ another _of_ absurd Principles, _when_ he himself\n_might be so easily abash'd and put to Silence, by an Appeal to_\nother Principles, _of_ his own, _equally absurd and inexplicable.\nThe best way then, instead of embracing a_ fresh, _absurd, Principle\nof Faith, is, to renounce the_ old. _I would not willingly Offend_\nAny, _by a special Application to_ particular Societies _and_\nDoctrines: _let but every Man make an honest Application to himself,\nand the Articles of Faith he professes, and the Work of Reformation\nwill, I am persuaded, gain something thereby. And that, not only\nthese Doctrines, but every other absurd Principle of Faith, which\neither Ignorance, or Design, may have introduced into the Christian\nchurch, to the_ Dishonour _of_ God, _the_ Burthen _and_ Reproach _of\nHuman Nature, may be_ utterly exploded, _is the incessant Wish, and\nearnest Desire, of_\n\nThe Author.\n\n\n\nFree _and_ Impartial\n\nTHOUGHTS, &_c_.\n\n_CHRISTIANITY_ having been instituted, by its great Author and\nPublisher, for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind, it is pity we\nshould so greatly differ, concerning what _Genuine Christianity_ is;\nif the _Holy Bible_, as we generally agree, was designed to lead us\nto the true Knowledge of God, and to be a standing and perpetual\nRule of _Faith_ and _Manners_ to Men, it must surely have been\ngreatly corrupted since the primitive Times of the Gospel, or the\n_Explication_ of it designedly left to a more excellent and superior\nDirector: For the seeming Contradictions, and Multiplicity of\nobscure Passages, wherewith it abounds, shew plainly it could never,\nin its present Condition, be a Rule of Faith, &_c_. becoming an\nall-wise and perfect Being, to give to rational Creatures. Every _good\nMan, Society_, and _State_, study Perspicuity in all their _Rules,\nOrders, and Statutes,_ dispensed to their _Families, Members,_ and\n_Subjects:_ and can we suppose, that He, who is perfect in\nKnowledge, would, in the Dispensation of his Laws, take less care of\nthe everlasting State of his immortal Creature _Man?_ Yet it is\nplain, we differ in our Sentiments of Religion, and greatly too, for\nwant, as I sincerely hope, of the Knowledge of better Helps, to\ndirect our Inquiries, in Matters, the true Knowledge whereof, is of\nso considerable Moment. Therefore,\n\nI intend, in the Course of this Debate, to descant _freely_, on the\nDoctrines of _Divine Sovereignty, Election, Reprobation_, and\n_Original Sin;_ and also, on the Arguments which some ingenious\nGentlemen have used to support them. But I hope (with regard to the\n_Authors_ I may possibly name) to be perfectly decent, and to treat\nthem with all becoming Respect and Deference, as I think Men of\nIntegrity, Learning and Abilities deserve; who, though in some\nPoints they may err, and hold Doctrines in their own Nature and\nTendency altogether subversive of Religion and Morality, do\nnevertheless not perceive them to have these Tendencies, and are\ntherefore by _no Means_ chargeable with them. Yet, as touching the\n_Doctrines_ themselves, I shall presume to speak freely, both in\nregard to their Nature, and what appears to me to be their genuine\nFruits and Effects.\n\nIt is with me an establish'd Truth, that the mistaken Notion of some\n_learned Men_, concerning the _Sovereignty_ of the _Deity_, has\ngiven these Doctrines a more favourable Acceptance in the World,\nthan otherwise they would, or could, ever have met with; and\nnotwithstanding all the Pains and Arguments these Gentlemen have\nbestowed, to reconcile their Doctrines to our common Sense of\n_Right_ and _Wrong_, it is plain, that, at _bottom_, this is the\ngrand governing Principle. For, when their Attempts to reconcile\nthese Doctrines with common Sense and Equity fail, they have\nimmediate Recourse to God's _Sovereignty_, and even go so far, at\nleast in Effect, as to deny there is _any_ intrinsick Difference in\nThings themselves, as shall be made appear from their most approved\nWriters, whenever they are pleased to demand it: But as this\nPrinciple of _Sovereignty_ is most certainly their strong Hold, I\nshall therefore endeavour to go to the Depth of this Argument; and\nshew, in the first Place, how greatly they misapprehend the Nature\nof this _Attribute;_ and, in the second Place, granting it to be as\nthey say, I shall then shew the _precarious_ and _miserable_\nCondition of all Mankind, not excepting the Elect themselves, under\nthe Government of such an arbitrary Being.\n\nTo begin with the first. That God is a _Sovereign_, we readily\nallow: But it will not therefore follow, he is _morally capable_ of\ndoing any thing, in its _own Nature_, immoral or unjust. All\nreligious Debates are allowed to be best determinable by the divine\nAttributes; and yet nothing is more common, than to single out, and\nlay the greatest Stress on, that Attribute alone, which appears best\nto suit our own particular Opinions: which, however innocent our\nIntention may be, is, I think, in itself, a very erroneous and\nunwarrantable Procedure; for as God is _all-wise_ and _good_, as\nwell as _almighty_ and _independent_, it is, in the Nature of\nThings, impossible (and therefore we should never admit it possible)\nhe should be capable (in a moral Sense, I mean) of exerting any one\nparticular Attribute in _Opposition_ to, or _Diminution_ from,\nanother. A _Sovereign_ he is, nor can any Creature whatever dispute\nhis _unlimited_ and _uncontroulable_ Power over his _whole\nCreation_. But Power alone, without Wisdom and Goodness to make a\nright Use and Application of it, may be perfect _Frenzy_, and run\ninto the greatest Latitude of _Folly_ and _Tyranny_. It is, if I may\nbe allowed the Comparison, like a _Vessel_ that has lost its Helm,\ncontinually exposed to the tossing of Winds and Waves. To talk,\ntherefore, of _mere Sovereign Pleasure_, without Regard to the\nproper Reason or Fitness of Things, so far operating and bring in\nthe _Divine Mind_ (and which is nothing more than the Presence and\nOperation of his own Wisdom) in order to prefer what, in its own\nNature, is _best_, and _fittest_ to be done, is excluding from the\nDeity, those _more_ blessed and _valuable Perfections_ of _Wisdom_\nand _Goodness_, and establishing in their room, and at their\nExpence, mere Sovereign Power alone. _Physically speaking_ indeed,\nwe allow God can do Evil itself; but the moral Perfections of his\nNature, are to us an _infallible_ and _unshaken Security_, that he\n_never will_ do it. _Man_ being an impotent and fallible Creature,\nliable, not only to mistake the true Nature and importance of\nThings, but when he does understand his Duty rightly, liable also,\nthro' the Prevalence of _Habit_ and _Passion_, to be very backward\nand defective in performing it, must necessarily be subject to such\nLaws, as contain in them Rewards and Punishments, proper to\ninfluence his _Hopes_ and his _Fears_.\n\nBut as God, on the contrary, is a Being of all possible and infinite\nPerfections; an exact Knowledge of what we call _Right_ and _Wrong_,\n_Just_ and _Unjust_, ever hath, and always will exit in the _Divine\nMind_, and be to him a perfect, constant, and invariable Rule of\nAction, in relation to his Creatures. He that is _infinite_ in\nKnowledge, cannot but know, at all Times, and under the most (to us)\ndifficult and perplex'd Circumstances of Things, what in its _own\nNature_ is _best_, and _fittest_ to be done; and, being void of all\nBias, Prejudice, and Passion, cannot but approve of what is _right_\nand _best;_ and being likewise _Almighty_, no Power can possibly\ninterrupt, or prevent what he determined to accomplish: So that it\nis _morally impossible_, that God should do an evil Thing, These\nTruths are so deducible from each other, and in themselves so\nevident, to all unbiassed and inquisitive Minds, that one would\nwonder to find Men, of Learning and Integrity, give into the\ncontrary Sentiments; which, in Effect they do, who hold Doctrines\n_naturally subversive_ of these fundamental Truths, as all certainly\ndo, who depart from the moral Good and Fitness of Things, and\nresolve all into _mere sovereign Pleasure_ alone, _independent_ of\nWisdom and Goodness; which must ever be at hand to _cooperate_ with,\nand govern the Exertion of, their favourite Attribute, _sovereign\nPower_ itself; or, if they do not expressly affirm this, they do by\nanother Method the very same thing; and that is, by denying, in\nEffect, the _intrinsick Difference_ of Good and Evil, which,\naccording to them, has no Foundation in the _Nature_ and Relations\nof Things, but takes its Rise, only, from the mere Will and\nAppointment of the _Deity_. But if all Things are in themselves\nequally Good, where is the Use to _appoint_, or the Sense of talking\nabout it? Wisdom and Goodness must, according to this Notion, be\nidle and unmeaning Sounds, without Sense or Service. But alas! the\nnatural Consequence of maintaining Tenets, so repugnant to common\nSense, is seldom less than running into and embracing other\nAbsurdities, in themselves equally great with what they are brought\nto defend, And here, as some of these Gentlemen are exalted, and I\nhope deservedly, to the Dignity of Teachers in the _Christian\nChurch_, they will, I hope, permit me to ask them a Question or two,\nwhich I should, on almost any other Occasion, blush to ask any\nrational Man, _viz_. If they do not perceive an intrinsic Beauty and\nExcellence in Virtue, as opposed to Vice; independent of all\n_positive_ or arbitrary Appointment, tho' of the _Deity_ itself; and\nwhether, besides the Commands of God, (which to be sure are of high\nImportance, and ought ever to be urged with great Strength and\nEnergy) they do not also _press_ upon their Hearers, the Practice of\nVirtue, and endeavour to recommend, and inforce it on the Mind, from\nits _own_ native Charms? But to make this Matter, still, if\npossible, more evident; let us suppose the present excellent Order\nof Things inverted, and that God, of his own mere Pleasure, had\ngiven Mankind quite contrary Laws, and commanded _Rebellion, Murder,\nIngratitude_, and all Manner of Intemperance and Debauchery, instead\nof their _opposite virtues;_ would the same Fitness, Beauty, and\nPropriety, appear to these Gentlemen, as there now does, in\n_Virtue?_ If not, from whence the Difference arises, let them\nanswer.\n\nAs God is an infinite Mind or Spirit, perfectly acquainted, at every\nInstant of Time, with whatever _hath been, is_, or _shall be;_ and\nall Things _possible to be;_ 'tis evident, that all possible\nRelations of Persons and Things are fully known to him; and that all\n_moral_ and _divine_ Obligations, arising from the Relation we stand\nin to God, and to each other, did, in their own Nature, _previous_\nto actual Law or Commandment, exist; because the one was in Time,\nand the other Eternal; one commenced only (at best) with the _Being_\nand _Beginning_ of Creatures, the other was from all Eternity,\n_co-existent_ with the _Divine Wisdom_ itself; and such an inseparable\nConcomitant therewith, that, in regard to the _Divine Being_,\nhimself, it was absolutely impossible, but that, on his creating\nsuch a Rank of Beings as we are, _moral_ and _religious_ Obligations\nmust have been _invariably_ and _unalterably_ the same; and if, as\nthese Men teach, God's having commanded the Practice of Virtue, be\nits peculiar Sanction, and that _alone_ which distinguishes it from\nVice or Evil; then, by the same or as good an Argument, his\ncommanding Light in the Beginning, is all the Reason we have for\nesteeming Light and Darkness different, (as they really are) the one\nbeing the actual Pretence of a real Body, and the other a mere Name,\nto signify its Absence; not that Vice is therefore a mere Name, to\nsignify the Absence of Virtue, for Comparisons seldom hold good in\n_every_ minute Particular; but there is a Parity between the two\nCases, sufficient to justify my bringing in the one, as an\nIllustration of the other. There is no Knowledge _more certain_,\nthan what Mankind commonly have of Good and Evil; and he who, in\norder to serve any private Scheme of Religion, goes about to\ndepreciate this Knowledge, robs Mankind of all Truth and Certainty\nwhatever, and in the End subjects his own darling Schemes to the\nsame Uncertainty; for if we cannot judge of the Fitness, of plain\nmoral Truth and Duty, neither can we of any Scheme of Religion;\nespecially such as hang together more by Art and human Contrivance,\nthan by Reason or Revelation.\n\nBeing very desirous to get all the Information I could, concerning\nthe Matter in Debate; I have attentively read over Mr. _Cole's_\nTreatise on the _Sovereignty_ of God. I know 'tis thought an\nunanswerable Performance; and, so far as it regards general\nChristianity, it is worth every Christian's serious Notice: But as\nto the Doctrine it was wrote to support, it leaves it (in my\nJudgment) no better than it found it; but is miserably weak, and\ndefective, as to any Thing that looks like sound Reason, or true\nArgument; and amounts to no more than this _poor Assertion, That\nbecause God is a Sovereign, he may do what he pleases:_ And, from\nthe Instances he brings from Scripture, 'tis plain, that Mr. _Cole_\nhimself pays as _little_ Regard to the intrinsick Worth and\nExcellence of Things, as is done by many of his Brethren. The manner\nin which he has been pleased to give us the Story of _Jacob_ and\n_Esau_, proves the Truth of this Observation, I have no great\nInclination to spend Time in explaining _hard Passages_ of\nScripture, (tho' if any thing of that kind can be serviceable, or\ndeem'd excellent, 'tis Mr. _Taylor_ of _Norwich_ his Book on\n_Original Sin_,) or to trespass on the Reader's Patience, by\nthrowing one Text of _hard_ and _uncertain_ Meaning against another;\nfor by this means the Controversy hath been needlessly prolonged.\nWhere the Scriptures are _plain_, _positive_ and _reasonable_, their\nAuthority ought to be conscientiously adhered to: But as this is not\nalways the Case, the _next_ Thing to knowing what is the _true\nMeaning_ of any particular Text of Scripture is, to know what it\nneither _does_ nor _can_ possibly mean; in which Case, the Divine\nAttributes, and the Nature and Reason, or (if you please) Fitness of\nThings, is the best Rule. We _cannot_, it is impossible we _should_,\nunderstand the certain determinate Meaning of any Text of Scripture\n_better_, if altogether _so well_, as we do _know_ certainly, that\nGod is _just_ and _good_, and _know_ also as clearly, what _Justice_\nand _Goodness_ mean, when applied to the _Deity_, as we do, when we\napply them to _ourselves_. And this Rule, if duly observed, would be\nabundantly sufficient, to set aside many Interpretations of\nScripture, too commonly admitted upon this and the like Occasions.\nAnd, besides this never failing Argument (to all who attend duly to\nits Force) it is worth while, just to remark, that though, as the\n_Bible_ now stands, there are in it (as we must acknowledge) some\nPassages, which (especially at first sight) seem to favour the\nDoctrine of _Sovereignty_, &c. yet as it is possible, nay sometimes\neasy, to give them _another interpretation_, and the general Scope\nand Tenor of the Scripture being agreeable to such an Interpretation,\nwe have abundantly more Reason to _reject_, than to _admit_ of the\nSense, in which these Gentlemen are pleased to understand and\nexpound many Texts of the _Bible_, relating to this and other\naffinitive Points.\n\nI would not, as I observed before, presume to impose on the Reader's\nTime and Patience, by entering unnecessarily into the scriptural\nPart of the Argument; yet I must beg Leave, to make now and then an\nObservation or two as I go along: And the first Thing that falls in\nmy way is, the Story of _Jacob_ and _Esau_, and the Account which\nMr. _Cole_ gives of it. He not only relates the Story, but assures\nus, that _Jacob's_ obtaining the Blessing was of Divine Appointment,\nand (what is more extraordinary) that the _Falsehood_ and _Fraud_ he\npractised to accomplish it, was all of God's own immediate\nDirection; and this he gives as an Instance of God's _Sovereignty_,\nand proceeding contrary to the moral Fitness of Things, and the\nNature of those Laws he hath given to Man. That God intended _Jacob_\nthe _Blessing_, or preferred him to _Esau_, I readily grant; but\ncannot admit it to be inferred from thence, that the Means, by which\nit was, as we reckon, accomplished, were _Divine_ also: There is a\nmore natural or (at least) more justifiable way of accounting for\nthe whole Matter. According to the History, it seems plain, that\n_Rebecca_ only, and not her Husband, was privy to this Designation\nof the _Deity:_ she had upon Inquiry (when with Child) received such\nan Assurance from the Lord; which might be the _first Cause_ of her\npreferring _Jacob_ to _Esau_, and which in Time, 'tis probable, grew\nup into a much greater Degree of _Partiality_ and _Fondness:_ All\nthis Time the good Old _Patriarch_, her Husband, seems to have been\nentirely unacquainted with the Affair. And when the Time drew nigh,\nin which, according (as some think) to Custom, he was about to\n_bless_ his _eldest_ Son, _Rebecca_ then grew diffident of the\nAccomplishment of the Promise made in _Jacob's_ Behalf, and applied\nherself to the Means, which the Text tells us was used on that\nOccasion. As to the Authority those Heads of Families had to _confer\nBenefits_ on their Offspring, by way of _Blessing_, though I shall\nnot now much contend about it, yet give me Leave to make a few\nObservations. It don't appear to me that _Isaac_, in giving his\nBlessing, did so properly or so much bestow it on the _Person_ of\n_Jacob_ present, as he did on the _Person_ of _Esau_ absent; because\nit is the Intention which ought principally to be regarded, and\n_Esau_ undoubtedly was intended. Again, this way of blessing, if\nconsidered in itself as a mere Tradition, could be _no more_\nefficacious, than what now prevails in some Parts of the _Christian\nChurch_. All true Authority of this kind (if any there be) must\nresult from _immediate Inspiration and Command;_ and whether _Isaac_\nhad these Qualifications, while _Jacob_ stood before him,\npersonating _Esau_, is a Matter of no small Doubt and Dispute. He\nwas ('tis evident) much surprised at the _Cheat_, put on him by his\n_Wife_ and _Son_, and would doubtless very willingly have given\n_Esau_ the Preference, according to his first Intention; but\nsomething _supernatural_ seems now to have seized and satisfied him,\nthat _Jacob_ was the Person intended; for he cries out, \"I have\nblessed him, yea and he shall be blessed.\" And this latter\nAssurance, and the Energy and Satisfaction wherewith the Words were\npronounced, I take _rather_ to have been the _true Blessing_ than\nthe _other_. For, as the Reason of _Jacob's_ Dissimulation was\nintirely owing to his Mother's Diffidence and Impatience; so, there\nis no Doubt to be made, but that the _Almighty_ himself would, had\nshe not interfered, have brought it about in a manner becoming his\n_Holiness_, and not by _Falsehood_, _Deceit_, and _Dissimulation_.\n_Religion_ can never be _more_ dishonoured, or the Despensations of\nGod to Mankind receive _greater_ Reproach, than when _Divine\nPurposes_ are (under God's immediate Direction) said to be\naccomplish'd by Methods in themselves _evil_ and _immoral_, and\naltogether opposite to His Commands. Hath he forbid us Lying, under\nthe _Penalty_ of _Hell-Fire_, and shall he himself practise it, or\nimmediately influence another to do it, for the sake of bringing to\npass some Event, which he could as easily have accomplish'd, by\nMethods purely righteous and honourable! And had _Jacob_ never been\nprompted, or attempted to obtain the Blessing in the manner he did\nattempt it, 'tis more than probable, that God, who removed _Isaac's_\nSurprise, and caused him to break forth as he did, \"I have blessed\nhim, yea and he shall be blessed,\" would never have permitted or\nimpowered _Isaac_, to have _blessed Esau_, in an _effectual_ manner\nbeyond his Brother: Or if a mere Pronouncing of Words, when uttered\nas a Blessing from the Heads of Families, was in itself an\n_irreversible Blessing_, and _Isaac_ had attempted to bestow it on\n_Esau_, God no doubt would have stayed his Mouth by _Intimations\nwithin;_ as he did, on another Occasion, the _Hand of Abraham_, by\nan Angel without: Provided, I say, it be allowed, that a _formal\nBlessing_, from the Mouth of _Isaac_, was necessary to confirm on\n_Jacob_ those superior Privileges, which God had designed for him;\nand that this Interpretation of the Text is more honourable, and\nbetter becoming the Truth and Majesty of the _Divine Being_. I\nappeal not to Reason only, but to Mr. _Cole_ himself: For whatever\nInfluence Prejudice, or Enthusiasm, may have on some Minds, there\nare certain Seasons, wherein Truth will display itself to the Realm\nand Understanding of Mankind, and extort, even from the Mouths of\nthose, who sometimes oppose her, the most ample Concessions in her\nFavour. Take the following as an Instance--_Cole's Sovereignty of\nGod_, Page 41, 2d Edit. \"To this also might be added the strict\nInjunctions that God hath laid upon the subordinate Dispensers of\nhis Law; as namely, to judge the People with just Judgment, not to\nwrest Judgment, nor respect Persons; yea, he curseth them that\npervert Judgment, and will surely reprove them that accept Persons;\nand shall mortal Man be more just than God? will he, under such\nPenalties, command Men to do thus, and not do so himself?\"\n\nThe Argument is undoubtedly equally applicable to the Sin of\n_Lying_, or indeed to any Sin whatever; and I appeal to every\nunprejudiced Reader, if any Thing more to the Purpose could be\nurged, against his own Account of the Affair between _Jacob_ and\n_Esau_, or even against the Doctrine itself, which he writes his\nBook to support: and this, in Conjunction with my foregoing\nArguments, may, I hope, be Answer sufficient for the Use they make\nof _all other_ parallel Places of Scripture.\n\nBy this Concession 'tis plain, that Justice and Goodness in God are,\nby this Author, considered the same as in us; how else were it\npossible, to understand what the Laws of God truly mean? _Be you\nperfect, as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect_, is a plain\nIndication (taking in the Context) of the moral Perfections of the\nDivine Nature, in Part apparent to us, as the Text observes, from\nhis admirable Bounty in the Creation; _He causeth his Sun to rise on\nthe Evil and on the Good, and sendeth his Rain on the Just and the\nUnjust_. Though at other Times, when these Gentlemen are hard\npinched with the Iniquity and Injustice of their Doctrines, they\napply for Refuge to the _Sovereignty_ of God, and give strong\nIntimations, that _Justice_ and _Goodness_, when applied to him, are\nmere unmeaning Sounds, which at best signify, what mere Sovereignty\npleases to do, and that when applied to Man, they signify quite\nanother Thing. And this naturally leads me to the second Thing I\nproposed to consider, _viz_. That allowing the Doctrine of\n_Election_ to be, as they say, resolveable into God's Sovereignty;\nthat God is just such a Sovereign, as this Doctrine supposes, and\nthese Gentlemen take him to be; that they have his Word for their\nown Election and Salvation; yet even then, there could be no manner\nof Certainty as to Religion, no Dependance on the Promises and\nThreatnings of the Gospel; and consequently, the supposed Elect must\n_beat the Air_, and run at the same or as great Uncertainties, as\nany other Persons whatever, under the Government of such an\narbitrary Being.\n\nI have, to avoid Dispute, proposed this Argument more to the\nAdvantage of the Elect, than I was strictly obliged to do, by\nallowing them to be absolutely certain, that God has told them, that\nthey are his Elect, and that he will give them eternal Life; which,\nallowing the Doctrine of _Election_ to be true, is generally much\nmore than they can prove, either to themselves, or to others:\nallowing, I say, the Doctrine of _Election_ to be clearly revealed\nin Scripture, there will be this Difficulty behind, as to the\ncertain Marks of being of that Number. The Scripture must also as\nclearly reveal the Marks, as it does the Doctrine, or we shall not\nbe able to apply with any Certainty to ourselves. Is believing the\nDoctrine, &_c_. and thinking myself one of this happy Number, a Rule\nsufficient to abide by? If so, no Man who has this Faith, concerning\nthe _Doctrine_ and _himself_, can ever depart from it. Yet, there\nhave been many Instances of Persons, zealous in that way, who saw\nOccasion afterwards to renounce the Doctrine itself, and with it\nthat _imaginary_ and _ungrounded Conceit_ of their being, for no\nReason whatever, God's dear Children and Favourites, and embraced,\nin its room, the Doctrines of _universal Grace_ and _Free-will;_ and\nupon the best Reasons too, for as without the one, God cannot be\njust, so without the other, Man, being no Agent, can be no Subject\nof Rewards and Punishments. These very Men were before thought to be\nelect, by their most spiritual and best judging Brethren, who\npronounced them chosen in _Christ_, and unshaken in the Faith; and\nso indeed they judged concerning themselves: But the Grace of God\nbeing once permitted freely to operate in the Mind, it soon expelled\nthat Ignorance, and Narrowness of Spirit, which (even in many well\nmeaning Persons) is the genuine Effect of such narrow Doctrines. If\nhaving this Faith be no certain Mark, because a Man may depart from\nit, what Proof have they? surely none: But allowing them an absolute\nCertainty, as to themselves, that God hath told them, in Person,\nthat they are his Elect, it will (on their own darling Principle of\nSovereignty) amount to just nothing at all; because, as a Sovereign,\nGod may promise one thing, and intend, nay do another, or the\ncontrary; nor can they prove, or have they the least Assurance, he\nwill not thus deal with them, without recurring to other Principles,\nwhich will hold equally strong against the Doctrines themselves--To\nthis Dilemma are these Gentlemen inevitably reduced; they must\neither give up the Doctrines, or part with any Security of\nDependance on God himself, as to their own Happiness. It will be _in\nvain_, here, to refer to the _Goodness of God_, though, on _my_\nPrinciples, the Argument would be unanswerable; on _theirs_, it is\n_stark naught_, and avails nothing. And pray observe the _double\nDealing_ this reduces them to; it is something like setting up _two\nGods_ instead of one, or, which is much the same, ascribing to the\n_eternal, unchangeable Being_, an inconsistent and contrary Conduct.\nHere is, _first_, a _mere_ arbitrary Being, that decrees, or\npretends to decree, by mere _Sovereign Pleasure_ only, the Salvation\nof the _Elect;_ but, because such a Being may as well break his\nPromise as keep it, here is _another_ to make _good_ the Promise,\nwho invariably acts according to the moral Fitness of Things: Or, if\nyou take it the other way, here is, 1_st_, A Promise made as a mere\n_Sovereign_, undetermined by, and unregardful of, _all_ moral\nObligations; and, 2_dly_, The Performance of this Promise is\nexpected, from a Principle of Justice and Goodness; ever conformable\n_to_ the moral Reason and Fitness of Things: And certainly, in\neither Case, it leaves Things very precarious; nor can the Promises\nof such a Being as this (I speak it with all possible Reverence to\nthe true God himself) be any thing near so valuable, or fit to be\ndepended on, as the Engagements of a good and worthy Man. And\nwhatever these Gentlemen, to put a more plausible Out-side on their\nDoctrines, say, concerning the Freedom and Excellence of that State,\nwherein our first Father _Adam_ was created, and the _Possibility_\nof his having remained perfectly innocent, and the Blessings of\neternal Life, which would have been thence derived to all his\nPosterity, it is plain to me, they generally believe no such thing;\nbut that, on the contrary, God absolutely _willed_ and _decreed_ the\n_Fall of Adam_, Mr. _Cole_ himself, their great Advocate, is far\nfrom supposing the Condition of _Adam_ to have been proper for\nabiding long in Obedience to the Divine Command, or that, had he\nstood, his Posterity would have thence become _impeccable_ and\n_happy:_ on the contrary, he represents _Adam's_ Condition as a very\nweak and imperfect State, by no mean suited to the Temptations,\nwhich his Maker knew he would shortly be exposed to, and overcome\nwith; and all his Posterity, _had they been tried one by one,\nwould_, it seems, _have failed as he did_, Page 72. If all this does\nnot amount to something equal to a positive Assertion, that God\n_willed_ the Fall of Adam, and in Consequence of it, the Guilt and\nDesert of eternal Death, which is said to be thence derived, to\n_all_ his prosperity, I do not know what is, or can be equal to it;\nand indeed all this, and much more, may easily be resolved into the\nDoctrine of God's _Sovereignty:_ and whoever thinks I have\nmisrepresented their Faith, need only consult their great apostle\nMr. _Calvin_. But let me further pursue my Argument, to prove, that\ntho' a Man of this _Faith_ has God's _own Word_ for his Election and\nSalvation, he cannot, on this Principle of _mere Sovereignty_,\nreasonably or safely depend on it: My Reason, which is short and\nplain, I have already given; because God, as a _Sovereign_, may do\njust what he pleases, _keep_ his Promises, or _break_ them. There\ncan be no Possibility of evading this Argument, without coming back\nto the Goodness of God; which is at once to set aside mere\n_Sovereign_ Pleasure, and evidently recurring to the moral Fitness\nof Things. As much as these Gentlemen are pleased to despise this\nmoral Fitness, and superstitiously exalt the mere Will of God in\nOpposition thereto; and if the _Goodness_ of God proves, that he\n_cannot_ break the Promise he has made to them of eternal Life; it\nis at least as strong a Proof to me, that such a good Being _could\nnot_ possibly make me for eternal Misery, or, which is the very same\nThing, will or decree the Fall of _Adam_, and pass the Sentence of\neternal Death on all his Posterity; the far greatest Part of whom he\nleaves, in this Condition, to perish everlastingly, and _miserable_\nme among the rest!\n\nA Due Survey of the two Cases, or Conditions, of the Elect and\nNon-elect, may serve to set this Matter in a clear Light, God being in\nhimself antecedent to the Existence of all other Beings, infinitely\nglorious and happy, could have no Occasion for Creatures to add to\nhis Blessedness; all that we call _evil_, such as Cruelty and\nInjustice in Man, ever arises from such a _vicious_ and _imperfect_\nState of Mind, as cannot, for that Reason, possibly belong to\n_Deity_. As the Sources, therefore, whence these Evils arise, cannot\nbe in God; such a Conduct, as these Doctrines suppose, is also\nequally impossible to proceed from God, whose _only Intent_ in\ncreating must be, to communicate Happiness to his Creatures:\nCreation infers Providence, and to bring a sensible rational Being\ninto this World; and, instead of taking _due Care_ of its Safety and\nHappiness, to _decree_ and render it eternally miserable, is in its\n_own Nature_, much worse than making an absolute Promise of eternal\nLife to any created being, and _disappointing that Being_ of its\nHappiness, whether by annihilation, or by changing it to another\nState, or Mode of Being, no more happy than the present mortal Life;\n'tis only a Breach of Promise, which, in such a _Sovereign_, is a\nmere trifle. We have _no natural_ Right to Immortality, _much_ less\nto immortal Happiness; it is the mere Effect of Divine Bounty--But,\nbeing created in a weak, dependent State, and surrounded with Wants\nand Infirmities, we _have_ a _natural Right_ to the Care and\nProtection of our Maker; and tho' we allow, no _formal Promise_ is\nmade on our Behalf, yet the _very act_ itself, of creating such\nBeings, and the Condition we _are_ placed in, contains in it the\n_Substance_ of a Promise; and we may be assured, God will have\nproper Regard to such Beings. If God be gracious enough to _give_\neternal Life, to which we have not the _least_ natural Right, can he\npossibly with-hold that which, from our Make and Dependance on him,\nwe have just Reason to expect? and how Much more impossible is it,\nthat he should make us for everlasting Misery! To make _one Man_ for\nDamnation, is much worse, than promising eternal Life to another,\nand breaking that Promise; he that does the former, cannot be\ndepended on in the latter. Methinks, the very Creation itself, and\nbountiful Provision therein made, for the Accommodation and\nHappiness of Man, might assure us, that (Man being made principally\nfor another World) a _proportionate Care_ will be taken of his more\nimportant and everlasting Concerns. Which presents me with a fair\nOpportunity, of exposing a Notion these Gentlemen hold, or a Method\nthey have, of interpreting such plain Texts of Scripture, as are\nbrought to prove God's general Care and Providence over his whole\nCreation; in _particular_, where _David_ says, \"The tender Mercies\nof the Lord are over all his Works:\" This, if you believe them,\nrelates only to this Life; so I think Mr. _Gill_ says. But what\nthen, Is no Inference thence to be made? If God be thus tender, to\nprovide Temporals, how _much more_ will he be kind to the Soul, and\nprovide for _that!_ 'Tis a natural and strong Way of arguing, and it\nwas our Saviour's own Method of arguing, as the most Plain and\nConclusive: \"Wherefore if God so cloath the Grass of the Field,\n&_c_. How much more shall he cloath you, &_c_.\" _Mat_. vi. 30. The\nArgument rises in one Case, as much above the other, as _immortal\nLife_ is preferable to the present _mortal State;_ and suppose any\nof us should sympathise with a near Friend, under a _small Degree_\nof Pain and Affliction, would not the same Spirit of Friendship and\nHumanity have a _stronger Sympathy_, when Affliction becomes more\nintense and severe? To be tender and pitiful in the least and lowest\nMatters, and unregardful and cruel in important and everlasting\nConcerns, is, with regard to the _Divine Being_, a moral\nImpossibility; 'tis _beneath_ human Nature and Prudence, and the\nPractice of a good Man; And yet these Doctrines teach this horrible\nimpiety concerning the great God himself.\n\nTo sum up this Argument: That Being who can make a sensible rational\nCreature, on _Purpose_ for _Damnation_, instead of taking a\nreasonable Care of it, which, from its Make and Dependance, it has a\nRight to expect, as much as though a formal Promise were made, may,\nwith altogether as much (_nay more_) Justice, break its Promises of\neternal Life, _made_ to another Creature of the same Kind; its Claim\nnot being founded in Nature, but built on Promise. As the former\nwould be a more cruel and un-justifiable Proceeding than the latter,\nhe that is capable of doing the one, can have _no moral Perfections_\nin his Nature sufficient to secure the _Elect_ against his doing the\nother: and on this _wild_ and _boundless_ Principle of _Sovereignty_,\nit is possible that, with regard to _Religion_, Things may be quite\n_reversed_ hereafter; the _Elect_, as they are called, made _miserable_,\nand the _Non-elect, happy_. I think we may challenge the whole World,\nto shew on this mad Principle the contrary; and why, as well as any\nthing else, such an Economy may not be resolved into _Sovereign\nPleasure_. If God to _Isaac_ conveyed such errant Falshoods, by the\nInstrumentality of _Jacob's Mouth_, _Why not_ make the same _deceitful\nUse_ of the _Bible_, or even of his own immediate Word, in regard to\nthe Elect? If God, as Mr. _Gill_ (I think) observes, has two Wills,\n\"One publick Will of Command, and another of Intention, which is\nprivate;\" Why, with regard to the _Elect_, may he not promise one thing,\nand intend, nay resolve on another? One would think it impossible, for\nany understanding Man to judge thus of his Creator, that it is possible\nhe should command one Thing under the _severest Penalties_, and at\nthe _same Time_ not only _will_ and _intend_, but irresistibly and\nsecretly work to accomplish just the contrary, and (what is amazing\nbeyond Belief) after all punish severely the Creatures concerned,\nwhom he actuates to bring his secret Purposes to pass: If there can\nbe such a thing as arbitrary Power and tyrannical Government, in the\nvery worst Sense of all, here it is. And here certainly is all the\n_Phrensy_, _Folly_, and _Tyranny_, which, I told you in the\nBeginning, the Government of such an arbitrary Being (as these\nGentlemen represent the Deity to be) must ever be liable to.\n\nIt is evident, that as worthy Sentiments of God and of Religion,\nbetter the Mind, and improve the Understanding; so do weak and\nsuperstitious Principles corrupt the intellectual Faculty, and\nrender the Soul more blind and inhuman, than it is in its natural\nState, unassisted and unimproved by Divine Grace. I have the rather\nmade choice of this Argument, not only because I have never seen it\nurged before, but because I think it more nearly affects Men of this\nFaith, than any I have hitherto met with. I may be mistaken; but\nwhile it has such weight with me, I cannot but earnestly recommend\nit to the serious and impartial Consideration of all who profess\nthis Faith, more especially those who preach it publickly to the\nWorld; whose Acknowledgment of what I take to be Truth, or friendly\nAnimadversions thereon, will be Matter of no small Satisfaction to\nme: But I must here enjoin one Caution, _viz_. that it will be a\nabsolutely in vain to produce Texts of Scripture, till this Point is\nbetter settled between us. In the Art of evading Scripture Proofs, I\nallow these Gentlemen to be very skilful and expert; nor can I help\nbelieving, that a small Part of the Penetration and Dexterity,\nusually exercised on these Occasions, would, in Men of contrary\nPrinciples, or even in themselves, could they be persuaded to think\ndifferently, be abundantly sufficient to overthrow even the\nDoctrines themselves: They have a peculiar Talent, at misunderstanding;\nand perverting the plainest Text, and rendering those which are\ndifficult and obscure in their literal Sense, with much Boldness, and\nwithout Hesitation; they stumble in a plain Path at Noon-Day, and walk\ncarelessly at Midnight amongst Rock, and upon the most dangerous\nPrecipices. And here I might safely rest the Argument, and make a final\nEnd of it. _Sovereignty_, such an one as they contend for, once proved,\nany thing whatever may be allowed to follow, and all Disputations will\nbe utterly in vain. Allow but the _Roman Church_ its _Infallibility_,\nand the Truth of other Doctrines will unavoidably follow. Till these\nGentlemen, I say, set my main Principles aside, all the Scripture in the\nWorld will be nothing to their Purpose. Not but in the main the _Bible_\nis against them; for the Scriptures _reveal_ God's Being and Attributes\n_more clearly_ than they do most Points of Doctrine: the Reason is,\nbecause the Doctrines commonly embraced, are in themselves _not so\nplain_ to Reason, as the Being and Attributes of God; the latter being\ngenerally acknowledged in all Christian Churches, tho' at the same\nTime they widely differ about particular Doctrines, some of which\nhave no doubt been greatly corrupted in passing through _various\nHands_ and Translations: and I have been informed, by much better\nJudges than I pretend to be, that the _New Testament_, even in these\nvery Doctrines I have been contending against, has, by _some\nPartiality_ or _Neglect_, been made to speak more roundly in their\nFavour, than the original _Greek_, or best Copies, will support; and\nthat, in some Places, the Meaning of the Original is inverted in the\nTranslation. The Scripture not only revealing to us the _Being_ and\n_Attributes_ of God, _more clearly_ than it does many Doctrines, and\nthat Fundamental of all true Religion being also in itself perfectly\nagreeable to the Light of Nature; 'tis evident, we are bound to\nreject the most positive Text of Scripture militating against this\neverlasting and fundamental Truth: and rather than part with this,\nwe had much better suppose the Writer, as to disputable Points, to\nhave been mistaken at the first, or the true Meaning corrupted by\nothers. The Translators are allowed to have been fallible Men, and\n'tis very probable some Errors might creep in at that Door: But it\nwill not so easily be granted, that the _inspired Writers_ could\nmistake, nor would I suppose it, unless in _very extraordinary\nCases_, where either _that_ or something _worse_ must be supposed;\nand such a Supposition will, I am sure; much better become us, than\nto imagine it possible for God to make a Revelation of his Will to\nMan, which shall upon Examination be found _contrary_ to his Being\nand Goodness, as well as expressly contrary to other _plain Parts_\nof this Revelation, Tho' the Argument, I say, might be safely rested\nhere, yet as there are some well meaning Persons, who believe that\n_Adam_ was made upright, and furnished with a Stock of Strength and\nUnderstanding, sufficient to _preserve_ his Innocence; that God made\na Covenant with him, as our _Federal_ or _Representative Head_,\nwherein it was stipulated, that if he continued upright, during the\nTime of Probation allotted, _all_ his Posterity should be _for ever_\nhappy; but that if he fell, _all_ should be _subject_ to everlasting\nMisery, as the counter Part of the Covenant; and he falling, the\nRestoration of his fallen Race should be intirely owing to the good\nPleasure of God, who might _redeem all_ or only _a Part_, and leave\nthe rest to perish in the State wherein he found them, and in which\n_Adam_ had involved them by his Transgression: This they call\n_Preterition_, or a _Passing by_, which sounds a little better than\nthat harsh Word _Reprobation_, tho' in reality no better at all: And\non this first Transgression _some_ found the Doctrine of _Election_,\nand others that of _Infant-Baptism_, as an Expedient to wash away\nthis original Guilt; and it must be owned, the Virtue of the Remedy\nis admirably well suited to the Malignity of the Disease. I shall,\nfor their sakes, inspect a little farther into the Affair; to me it\nappears unreasonable, and therefore improbable, that God should make\nwith _Adam_ any such Covenant or Agreement, or suffer the eternal\nState of all Mankind to hang upon the single Thread of _one Man's_\nBehaviour, and who too (it seems) God knew would swerve from his\nObedience: besides, in all equitable Covenants, _every Party_\nconcerned has a Right to be consulted, nor can they be justly\nincluded to their own Detriment, without Consent first obtained,\n(especially if the Thing covenanted for, has an immediate, or may\nhave a very fatal, tho' very remote, Tendency, to make _wretched_\nand _unhappy_) which, in this Case, with regard to the Unborn, could\nnot possibly be had. I am sensible the Gentlemen against whom I am\narguing (especially Mr. _Gill_) have many pretty Inventions, to\njustify such a Conduct in the Divine Being, such as producing\nparallel Instances, drawn from the allowed Practice of Men, and Usage\nof the State; in particular, the Law relating to _High-Treason_,\nwhereby a _Rebel's_ immediate Descendants are _deprived_ of\ninheriting their Father's Estate, with others of a like Kind; to\nall which, what I am about to offer may, I hope, be a sufficient\nAnswer: The two Cases differ so widely, that it will be no easy\nUndertaking to make any Thing of this Instance in their Favour; and\n'tis very surprising, to find Men of the brightest Intellects, so\nweak as to argue and infer, from the Laws of _Fallible Men_, to the\nLaws of an _Infallible_ and _Holy Being:_ The Inference ought rather\nto be just the Reverse; for such Institutions as Men, in this weak\nand imperfect State, may think convenient for their own Sakes, and\nthe Good of Society, to establish and ordain, can be _no Rule_ to\nhim, whose Infinite Wisdom and Almighty Power set him _far above_\nall such Necessity. Nor, again, does this Case come up to the Matter\nin Dispute: It is true, that the Heir of a convict Rebel _cannot_,\naccording to our Laws, inherit his Father's Estate; but what then,\ndoes it deprive him of any thing that was his own before? No; the\nLaw convicts the Rebel, while _in Possession_ of his Estate, which\nit considers as his _own Property_, and which therefore it justly\ntakes away for his _own Offence_. Perhaps, in Cases of Hereditary\nPossessions, it may seem a little hard, because it prevents the\n_next_ Heir from inheriting; but if there be any Evil or\nImperfection in this, we must excuse it, for the Sake of the Intent,\nwhich might be for the general Good, the more effectually to deter\nMen from _treasonable Conspiracies_ against their Prince, whereby\nthe Happiness of Society hath been often greatly disturbed, and\nwhole Kingdoms and Countries depopulated: but in this Case, it is\nnot strictly the Heir's, till he comes into Possession; for the Law,\nby which he may possess hereafter, may be considered as having in it\nthis _particular_ Exception, as to the Crime of _High-Treason_,\nwhich, whenever it _occurs_ as to the _Parent_, renders the Son\nincapable, &_c_. With regard to our Laws, we may, in some Sense, be\nsaid to make them ourselves, by our Representatives, whom we\nconstitute for that End: and 'tis besides very probable, that some\ngreat Men, who formerly possessed Estates, and settled them on the\nMale Heirs in their Families, from one Generation to another, might\nhelp to make this very Law itself concerning Treason, and\nconsequently they could not but acquiesce with this _very Exception_\nto the Right of Inheritance in their Posterity. But if it be still\nsaid to be unjust, though necessary, 'tis no Argument; for it\n_cannot_ be unjust and necessary too: the Law, in this Case, ought\nrather (with Submission) so far as it unjustly affects a Man's\nChildren, to be alter'd; and if it robs us of the Security, which\narises from deterring the Parent, on Account of the Evils which\nshall afterwards befall his Child, 'tis easy to remedy this, by\nlaying an _additional Punishment_ on the Traitor himself; which, as\n_Self_ is much nearest to us all, might better prevent the Sin of\nRebellion, If the present Law be just in itself, there can be no\nObjection to it; if it be unjust, _no Argument_ of any Weight can be\ndrawn from it, in regard to the _Divine Being;_ who is holy, wise,\nand true, and so are all his Appointments concerning the Children of\nMen.\n\nTo bring this kind of Reasoning of theirs up to the Point, they\nshould have produced a Law, which subjected the Son (for the\nFather's Offence) to the _same corporal_ Punishment with the Father,\nand then also they must have proved such a Law to be just and good.\nBut, as these Gentlemen are so fond of bringing Instances from the\n_Practice of Men_ in this frail State, in Justification of their own\nDoctrine, I shall present them with one or two of my own. _Murder_\nhas sometimes been committed under such Circumstances, that though\nthe Murderer has been arraigned, there hath been no room to condemn\nhim, all Circumstances having concurred, in the Eye of the Law, to\nacquit him; _will the Almighty therefore acquit him?_ Again, on the\nother hand, in the Case of Murder, things have so fallen out, as to\nmake an innocent Person look like the Murderer, in the Eye of the\nLaw or Court, which has therefore sometimes proceeded to Death\nitself; _is this Man therefore guilty before God?_ I have put these\ntwo Cases, purely to shew the Absurdity of such kind of Arguments:\nand I hope they will consider better of it, and advance them no\nfarther.\n\nIf there was such a Covenant between God and Adam, 'tis strange _no\nNotice_ should be taken of it in the Law given to _Adam_, as laid\ndown in the _Bible_, and where, of all Places, we have most Reason\nto expect it--this must surely have been the fittest Place for its\nInsertion--Nor is it only absent here, for there is no positive\nAccount of any such Covenant in all the _Old Testament_. Besides,\nwhen the Law was given, and threatening (in Case of Disobedience)\npronounced on _Adam_, 'twas _merely personal_--_In the Day_ thou\n_eatest thereof_, thou _shalt surely die_. And when _Adam_ and _Eve_\nhad broke the Command, and God descended to judge them for it, their\nSentences were _personal_ and _particular_, and no reproaching\n_Adam_ on the Account of Evils to be thence brought on his\nPosterity, and _much less_ of eternal Damnation. The _Jews_ indeed,\nmany of whom were weak enough to embrace any Absurdity at all, had\nby some Means contracted a Notion, not altogether unlike this of\n_original Sin_, probably from a Misunderstanding of the second\nCommandment, which speaks of \"visiting the Iniquity of the Father\nupon the Children, &_c_.\" But 'tis highly worthy of our Notice, that\nGod himself was _greatly displeased_ with their having imbibed this\nNotion, and commanded the Prophet _Ezekiel_ to refute it at large;\nthe Substance of which I cannot avoid setting down, it being so full\nto my Purpose. The Prophet introduces it thus, _Ezek_, xviii. 2.\n_What mean ye, that use this Proverb in Israel, The Fathers have\neaten sour Grapes, and the Children Teeth are set on edge?_ Ver. 4.\n_Behold all Souls are mine, as the Soul of the Father, so also the\nSoul of the Son is mine: the Soul that sinneth, it shall die_. The\nProphet then, from _ver_. 5. to 19. puts the _two Cases_ of a\n_righteous Man's_ having a _wicked Son_, and a _wicked Man's_ having\na _righteous Son_, in order to shew, that neither is the one\n_better_ for his Father's Uprightness, nor the other at all _worse_\nfor his Father's Wickedness; but that all is, as it should be,\nplaced to the Account of their own _Merits_ or _Demerits_. Ver. 20.\n_The Soul that sinneth, it shall die: the Son shall not bear the\nIniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the Iniquity\nof the Son; the Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him,\nand the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him_. Ver. 23. _Have\nI any Pleasure at all that the Wicked should die? saith the Lord\nGod: and not that he should return from his Ways and live?_ Ver. 25.\n_Yet ye say, the Way of the Lord is unequal. Hear now, O House of\nIsrael, Is not my Way equal? are not your Ways unequal?_ Ver. 32.\n_For I have no Pleasure in the Death of him that dieth, saith the\nLord God: wherefore turn your selves and live ye_.\n\nWords more positive against this Doctrine cannot be laid together.\n_Justice_ and _Equity_ are here, by the Almighty himself, consider'd\nas the _very same_, both in God and Man; and the same Justice and\nEquity, which _He commands_ us to make the Rule of _our Actions_,\n'tis evident _He here_ makes the Rule of his _own_. He blames them\nfor their false Principles, their Ignorance and Bigotry, and is not\na little offended, because they thought him capable of acing in so\nevil and unrighteous a Manner, as that would be, of _punishing the\nChild for the Parent's Offence;_ and strongly and solemnly assures\nthem, he will do no such Thing. And as Justice and Equity would not\nbear it then, it is plain that, God could never take any such cruel\nand disreputable Measures, either in the Beginning, or at any time\nafterwards; because, to act thus at the Creation of Man, and disdain\nthe Imputation with Indignation afterwards, argues a strange\nInconsistency in the Conduct of God towards Men; but the Truth is,\nthe same Reasons which made him abhor the Imputation afterwards,\ncould not but infallibly prevent his making any such unrighteous\nCovenant in the Beginning. What would you think of a Man, who is a\nVillain to-day, and boasts much of his great Honesty tomorrow? The\n_Appearance_ of _Christ_ in the Flesh was, we are told by these\nGentlemen, on Account of _Adam's_ Transgression, without which it\nwould have been, they say, wholly superfluous. But the Expediency or\nEnd of _Christ's_ coming, may be resolved into the _Love of_ God, on\nthe _one hand;_ pitying the Ignorance and Folly of Mankind, on the\n_other:_ and whether this State was the Effect of _Adam's_ Sin, or\nof their _own_ personal Demerits, it makes _no Difference_ in this\nCase. Whoever looks carefully into the Evangelists, will find\nabundant Reason to disapprove and condemn this Doctrine of _Original\nSin_, and of _Christ's_ coming into the World on _that Account\nonly_. Our Saviour, had this been the Case, would either have\nplainly express'd, or have given some strong Intimations concerning\nit: Yet no such thing appears; but the contrary, to a _Demonstration_,\nfrom no less than two Passages of Scripture, recorded by St. _Mark_,\n(ix. 36.) When the Disciples had been privately contending for\nPreheminence above each other, our Saviour, to rebuke this aspiring\nSpirit, sets before them, as a Pattern of Simplicity and Innocence, a\nlittle Child; which must have been very absurd, according to the Notion\nof _Original Sin:_ The second is _Mark_ x. _ver_. 13. 14. 15. 16.\nwhere _Christ_ assures his Disciples, that, in order to enter into the\nKingdom of Heaven, they _must become as little Children_. And in St.\n_Matthew_ (xviii. _ver_. 3.) this very thing is, if possible, more\n_Strongly_ and _Emphatically_ express'd. Which Declarations, had there\nbeen such a Thing as the Guilt of Original Sin, _subjecting Children\nto_ God's _Wrath and Displeasure_, would have been ungrounded, and\nerroneous in a high Degree; for if they were to become like such a little\nChild, as a necessary and fit Condition for Heaven, the Condition of\nInfants _must also_ be suitable to that Blessed Place--_Suffer\nlittle Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is\nthe Kingdom of Heaven_. The Word Such, is a general Term, equally\napplicable to all Infants whatever: it shews their Innocence, and\nhow acceptable they are to the Almighty; and, consequently,\ndemonstrates the Doctrine of _Original Sin_ to be Spurious and\nErroneous: as is also the Practice of _Infant Baptism_, in Support\nof which, this very Text is wisely alledged; whereas the Text itself\nassures us, that Children are _already_, by Nature, in that _same\nState_ of Innocence, which _Baptism_ is design'd to procure them:\nand how vain the Ceremony, under such a Circumstance, must be, is\n_too evident_ to need Explaining.\n\nBut suppose there was such a Covenant, our Condition, in point of\nInnocence, is just the same as it would be without it; we could have\nno manner of Concern with _Adam's_ Transgression: and our Innocence\nin either Case being _exactly_ the same, God cannot but look upon us\n(in our natural State, before we commit Sin) as Creatures that never\ndid any thing to offend him, and consequently be gracious and kind\nto us; for to leave us in this State, to suffer everlasting Torment,\nis worse than a Breach of Promise made to the Elect; and if we are\nas innocent, as tho' no such Covenant had ever been made, God cannot\nbut regard us accordingly: and this proves that such a Covenant\ncould never be made, because to no good or valuable End.\n\nI am fearful of swelling this Pamphlet, beyond its intended Bounds;\nyet so fast do my Thoughts, on this Subject, multiply and enlarge\nthemselves, that I must beg Leave to Say a small Matter, concerning\nthat _Propensity to Evil_, which we are told is derived from _Adam_,\nas a Fruit and Proof of his first and original Offence. If _Adam_'s\nSin had this Influence on his Posterity; as the Act, which produced\nit, was _one_ and the _same;_ and all his Posterity standing in the\nsame Relation to him, as their Federal Head; 'tis evident, in this\nView of the Matter, that _this_ Bias to Evil, must in _all_ be\n_uniform_ and _alike:_ but the contrary seems demonstrable, from\nundoubted and incontestable Experience; some Children having _much\nstronger Propensities to Evil_, than others: And if Part of this can\nbe resolved into something besides the _Influence_ of _Adam's first\nTransgression_, and _subsequent_ to the _Fall;_ it lies (I think) on\nour Adversaries to shew clearly, why every Propensity to Sin, may\nnot likewise be resolved into something besides, and _subsequent_\nto, this _original Transgression_. But allowing we are born into the\nWorld, with this _Propensity to Evil_, and that we derive it from\n_Adam's_ Sin; yet if God be _merciful_, he could never leave us in\nthis deplorable Condition; nor would his _Impartiality_ admit of\n_redeeming_ the one Part of Mankind in a mere arbitrary Manner, and\n_leaving_ the other _to perish_. Nor can much Righteousness be\nexpected from the _Justice_ of that Being, whose Mercy can be an\nidle and unconcerned Spectator, in so very moving, piteous, and\nMiserable a Circumstance. As to _Adam's_ Posterity, where is the\nDifference to them, whether their present weak and despoiled\nCondition (as these Men deem it) be the immediate Work of _Creation_\nitself, or the _Effect_ of _Adam's Sin_, and Abuse of his\nintellectual Powers. We are what we are by _Necessity_, strict\n_Necessity:_ and though it may be called _moral Necessity_, in order\nto palliate and distinguish it from that which is natural; it\noperates on us, to all Intents and Purposes, equally the same; and\nthe giving it a milder Name, looks like a sophistical Artifice. If\nMan's Nature be impaired by the Act of another, God, as a _just_ and\n_good_ Being, will either abate of the Rigour of his original Law,\nor replenish and restore our decayed Powers.\n\nThe _same Goodness_ (if these Gentlemen will allow it was\n_Goodness_) which prompted the Almighty to make Man such an\nexcellent and blessed Creature in the Beginning, must also prevail\nwith him, to look even on _Adam_ himself with an Eye of Pity and\nCompassion, after he had sinned; and much more must he be inclined\nto provide for the _Restoration_ of his Off-spring, who themselves\nhad not _actually_ sinned, but yet had their Natures impaired by the\n_Fall_. Besides, if Man was first enslaved by the Devil, not of\n_Force_, but by _Fraud_ and _Temptation;_ and Jesus Christ be a kind\nof _Chieftain_, set up against Antichrist; his Method of _Recovery_\nmust be as extensive as the _Fall_--Why does he save some? but as\nthey are Objects of Mercy, and to recover, with a just Indignation,\nSouls, originally God's own, out of the Hand of an Usurper, Tyrant,\nand Destroyer. How can these Reasons operate as to a Part, and have\nno Influence as to the Remainder? The more I reflect upon the\nDoctrine, and view it in every light, the more terrifying and\ndeformed it appears: and there is no Argument, short of God's\n_Sovereignty_, that will relieve the Difficulty; which admitted,\nwill bring on and multiply ten thousand greater Evils.\n\nIt may here be proper to take notice of a new Argument, urged in its\nfull Strength, and with all the Advantage of Rhetorick and\nEloquence, by the most ingenious Dr. _I--c W--s_, in a Book\nintituled, _The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind;_ &_c_. We are there\ntold, that this _covenant_ seems to have been, evidently, calculated\nfor the best; because _Adam_, in that State of Understanding and\nInnocence, was more likely to stand, and maintain his Innocence,\nthan any of his Posterity, especially when he consider'd himself as\nacting for _all_ his Posterity; with which the Doctor supposes him\nto have been fully and strongly apprised; as indeed he ought, had\nthe Case been as the Doctor believes. This Argument I take him to\nhave mistaken both ways, _viz_. by extolling _Adam's_ Condition, on\nthe one hand, beyond what in reality it ever was, and setting that\nof his Posterity much lower than it really is: and these Errors are\nproductive of many others. _Adam_ is supposed to have been without\nany Pain, or Uneasiness, and that he would so have remained, during\nhis Innocence: But after Christ has removed the Curse, and taken\naway the Sin of his own _Chosen_ Children, bodily Pains and outward\nAfflictions are sometimes their Lot, why might not Man, in his\noriginal State of Innocence, be subject, in some Degree, to Pain and\nDisease? if _Creation_ were inconsistent with such a mixt\nDispensation of Good and Evil, why not _Redemption?_ If God, for the\nExercise of Man's Fidelity, placed him where he was exposed to the\nEvil and Danger of Temptation; why not suffer his Patience to be\nexercised, at some Seasons, by Pain and Inquietude? To return to\nthis _Covenant_, could it be proved to have been as the Doctor\nimagines, I see not what could be gained by it: because it would be\ntrifling to a considerable Degree. And all the Arguments, used by\n_Milton_, in his third Book of _Paradise Lost_, to shew the\nAbsurdity of that Doctrine, which considers _Adam_ as _acting_, or\nrather as _being acted, by Necessity_, in that Situation of\nParadise, would be equally applicable to all the Elect, under the\nabsolute Slavery of the _Fall_.\n\nWhere is the Use of _Reason_, or _Moral Agency_, in Man, if another\nbe substituted to act in his Stead, and not he himself? Man, being\nmade a _free_ and _moral_ Agent, has Power to act for himself, and\ncan be accountable for no body's Crimes but his own. The\n_Consciousness_ of being a Sinner, belongs only to him, that\n_actually_ sinneth, or omitteth his Duty. Enthusiasm indeed, which,\nin its highest Stages, is a kind of spiritual Madness, may have on\nsome Minds a quite different Effect; and the Poor Soul, that is\nsubject to this gloomy and tyrannical Principle, may conceit strange\nthings; it may at one Time imagine itself under the Guilt of\n_Adam's_ Sin, which it never committed; and fancy itself a Saint in\nJesus Christ (and what not) at another: it is a mad Principle,\nfruitful of false Doctrines, Chimeras, and Monsters. It matters not\nwhether (as in the Case of _Natural Madness_) the Reason be lost, or\nwhether (as in that of _Enthusiasm_) it be over-power'd, and brought\ninto subjection to False Principles. The Effect is the same; and\nbetween Powers that are suffered to lie dormant, and no Powers at\nall, there is here no material Distinction to be made. Again, this\nNotion of _Adam's_ being more likely to stand than his Posterity, is\na mere Fallacy: it supposes a Difference of State, and Rectitude of\nMind, between him and us; which, if true, will likewise suppose,\nthat our State being more weak and defenceless than his, the Task or\nDuty, assigned us, must be proportionate to our different and\ninferior Abilities. If _Adam_ was put into this State, as _The Ruin\nand Recovery_ seems to suppose, from a Motive of Love in God, to his\nCreatures, in order to prevent the Misery of the Human Race; the\nsame Love cannot fail to commiserate the Case, and to provide an\neffectual Remedy for all such as are included in the Covenant.\n_Adam's_ Motive to Obedience must (we are told) have been greatly\nstrengthened by this Consideration, That on _Him_ depended the\nHappiness, not of _himself_ only, but of _all his Posterity_. But, I\nbelieve, Experience will tell us, that if the Consideration of a\nMan's own Future State, placed in the strongest Light (as this Book\nsupposes before _Adam_) be not sufficient to move to Obedience, a\nRegard to others will seldom have any considerable Influence: Such a\nCovenant enter'd into, or rather arbitrarily imposed on _Adam_ by\nhis Maker, could not fail to awaken, in so holy and knowing a\nCreature, some very uneasy and disquieting Suspicions. This\nCovenant, and _Partial Election_ thence following after the _Fall_,\nwill, if rightly considered, appear very iniquitous and oppressive:\nbecause it makes no proper Difference between the _Righteous_ and\nthe _Wicked_. If _Adam_ had been considered as a private Person\nonly; and _all his Posterity_ left to stand or fall, by their own\nMerits or Demerits; some of those, whom this Doctrine adjudges to\neverlasting Condemnation, would doubtless have been so _wise_ and\n_happy_, as to have pleased God in their Generation; while others,\non the contrary, would have sinned, and transgressed his Laws. The\nState of the latter is, you see, the same as it would have been,\nupon the vulgar Notion of _Adam's Sin;_ or rather the Guilt of it\nbeing, in virtue of this Covenant, imputed to them: The other and\nbetter Part, in virtue of this Doctrine, are miserable, and must\ntherefore have abundant and bitter Cause of Complaint against the\nDoctrine itself. I therefore think it was impossible, such a\nCovenant should ever be proposed to _Adam;_ a Covenant which, if\nratified, tended only to make those wretched and miserable, who\nwithout it, had they been left to shift for themselves, would have\nused their Liberty and Rational Powers aright, and have pleased and\nobtained God's Favour thereby. To talk of its being of general\nService, can never be of sufficient Authority to silence this\nArgument. No _private Injuries_ can be excused to _innocent\nSufferers_ (and much less that of _eternal Torment_) on the Score of\ngeneral Good; what is it to them, whether _they only_, or _all\nMankind_ suffer. If _Adam_ had stood, these very Men, (who would,\nhad they been left to their Liberty, have proved obedient) would\nhave been in no wise bettered; as he failed, Misery came on those,\nwho would otherwise have been happy. As to those who would, in the\nCourse of their Liberty, have sinned; this Covenant, had _Adam_\nstood, would ('tis true) have saved them from the Sentence of\n_Condemnation_. Take it again the other way: _Adam's Fall_ could\nmake no Alteration in the State of those who, without it, would have\nbeen Sinners; such as would have proved virtuous and happy, are\nhereby made miserable. These are, or must have been the Consequences\nof such a Covenant strictly observed; and the Wisdom and Equity of\nall Covenants must be judged of, by comparing the good and evil\nConsequences, necessarily resulting from them. All the Good such a\nCovenant could possibly pretend to, had it been kept, was, the\nsaving from Wrath such as, without it, would, as free Beings, have\nsinned; and if, for their Sakes, and to prevent the Evil that might\notherwise befall them, such a Covenant was worthy of God to make\nwith Man, a Day of Grace and Salvation, extended for their Recovery,\nafter they might have transgressed, would have been equally worthy\nof God; and we need not recur to such Fictions and Chimeras. One\nwould think it incumbent on all Legislators, to consider well the\nConsequences of every Law they enact; for the preferring a Law,\nwhose Consequences can at best be of no Service, and will probably\nin the main Event of Things be more evil and pernicious than\notherwise, would be preferring Evil to Good; in as great Proportion\nas the Evil might exceed the Good: and how such a Constitution could\nbe better for Mankind, I do not understand. I am sorry any body,\nespecially the Author of _The Ruin and Recovery_, should imbibe and\ndefend such erroneous Opinions, and this too, in Opposition to other\nand nobler Sentiments of his own, elsewhere delivered.\n\nBut, thus it is to be enslaved to the mere Letter of the _Bible_,\nunder a Notion of doing it _just Honour_, when, on the contrary,\n'tis the ready way to _dishonour_ and _lessen_ its Authority.\n\nThe Pains which Infants suffer, and the many Miseries to which they\nare exposed, are, by this Gentleman, consider'd as so many Arguments\nof the Guilt of _Original Sin_. He thinks that, without such a\nSupposition, the _Justice_ of God cannot be vindicated. [I wish he\nwould stick true to that Argument.] We must, he thinks, suppose one\nof these two Things: either, _That God punishes them without all\nCause or Reason_, or, _That they are under the Curse and\nCondemnation of_ Adam'_s Sin:_ and the latter is, in his Opinion,\nthe best Sentiment. But I am of a contrary Opinion, and think that\nin either Case, the _Injustice_ is the same. He _allows_ it in the\n_one Case;_ and I hope it is _proved_ in the other: and really the\nPicture which this Gentleman has drawn of our young Innocents, is\nvery dreadful and terrifying. If all the _Evils_ that befall them in\nthis Life, and _Eternal Damnation_ afterwards, be no more than a\n_just_ Punishment for their _Sins_, our _Saviour_ must surely have\nbeen _greatly out_, in the Encomiums he bestows on their\n_Innocence_, as I observed before; or, the Kingdom of Heaven,\ninstead of being design'd for _upright holy Souls_, may be a\nReceptacle for the worst of human Race.\n\nThe Brute Creation undergo Pain and Affliction; is _Adam's_ Sin,\ntherefore, imputed to them? If not, and they sometimes suffer by\nPain and Abuse, why may not Infants do the same? The Miseries of the\nhuman Race, reckon'd up and aggravated thro' so many elaborate\nPages, cannot all of them be supposed to belong to the _Original\nConstitution_ of Things, but might be partly owing to the Effect of\nTime and Accident, as well as to the Folly and Wickedness of\nparticular Persons and Nations. This Objection, drawn from the\nSufferings of Brute Animals, the Doctor endeavours to answer: I\nwonder _Adam_ is not considered (for the sake of putting an End to\nthe Difficulty) as their Federal Head. He thinks, however, that\nBrutes must be some way or other included in the _Curse;_ and may be\npunished, as Man's Property: But has Man, because they are his\nProperty, a Right to grieve and afflict them? They were bestowed as\na Blessing, for reasonable Service and Delight, not for cruel\nTreatment and Abuse. The Doctor's Rule of Faith will tell him, _A\nmerciful Man will be merciful to his Beast_. If their being Man's\nProperty will not justify him in abusing or cruelly handling them;\nit can be no Reason or Argument, why another should do it, even the\nAlmighty himself. Consider Beasts, then, as God's own Property; will\nthat render it a whit more equitable? No: This the Doctor himself,\nin the Case of Infants, allows would be cruel, and contrary to the\nDivine Justice and Goodness: and the Argument is the same as to\nBrutes. But the Doctor, sensible of the Weakness of this Argument,\nhas recourse to another, which I believe will always be admired as a\nstanding Mark of _extraordinary Invention_, to get rid of difficult\nand perplexing Questions. Brutes may, it seems, contrary to common\nExperience, have Sensations _less Quick_ and _Painful_ than ours. I\nwonder he allows them any Sensation at all; nay, 'tis doubtful if he\ndoes allow it. Noise, or Crying out, in them, is, it seems, no Mark\nof Pain, because some Brutes, under the same Circumstance, remain\nquiet and still. But will the Doctor say, they have therefore no\npainful Sensations? Are there no Marks of Pain besides those of\ncrying aloud? Did the Doctor never know a Man sometimes bear a\npretty deal of Pain without crying out at all; and give many\nexternal Tokens of Pain, at another Time? Did he never perceive a\n_gaul'd Horse_ wince, upon the most gentle Approach of the Hand; and\ndiscover Signs of the greatest Fear, and most _exquisite Pains?_ Do\nnot some Brutes take as much Pains to avoid the Discipline of the\nWhip, as tho' their Sensations were the same as ours? I am ashamed\nto waste Time upon such a Subject; tho' I hope to be pardoned for\nfollowing so great a Man in his own Method of arguing. He perhaps\nmay continue of the same Mind, and there may be no Hopes of\nConvincement, till Brutes are taught to speak. By this new Way of\nReasoning, the Ground we tread upon, and every Thing around us,\nhitherto thought Inanimate, may be full of Cogitation. If affording\nthe common Marks of Sensation, be no Proof, that Brutes have it in a\ncommon Degree, Wanting the common Marks of Intelligence, can be no\nProof that a Stock or a Stone has it not. If I mistake not, Bishop\n_Berkley_ has furnished the World with something equally instructive\nand philosophical, in relation to the Existence of Matter; which, he\nendeavours to prove _not_ to be a _real_, but an _ideal_ and\n_imaginary Being_. I shall leave others to guess, in what Condition\nthose must be, who think and reason after this extraordinary Manner.\nBut the Doctor has yet another Argument in reserve, to vindicate\nGod's Justice--_Tho' Brutes suffer, yet they may_ it seems _have\nupon the whole more Pleasure than Pain_. But do not some Brutes\npartake very deeply of the former, in this Life; will the Doctor\ntherefore suppose a Future State for them, by way of Compensation?\nBut this Argument ruins the whole Affair, and may be turned against\nthe Doctor himself, in the Case of Infants, who may be made ample\nAmends in a future State, for the Evils sustained here, which Evils\nmay have other Causes besides _Original Sin;_ for here again, as in\nthe Case of a Propensity to Evil, Pain in Infants, if inflicted\nbecause of _Adam's Sin_, must in _all_ be _uniform_ and _alike_. But\nthe Fact being quite otherwise, some of this Pain and Evil must be\nresolved into _other Causes;_ and if _some_, why not _all?_ I grant\nindeed, that _Adam_ himself might have so far corrupted his Nature,\nas to render him more liable to Pain, than in a State of true\nInnocence he might have been, and that therefore he might be\ninstrumental to propagate the Seeds of several Diseases, to his\nPosterity: But had he never done this, his Successors might have\ndone it; and _every Age_ has, perhaps, by Intemperance and\nLasciviousness, been adding to the common Stock of human Diseases\nand Calamities: Propensities to Vice might also be propagated in the\nsame Way, and that, and nothing besides, can (I think) account so\nwell for their great and infinite Variety. The Doctor, with the rest\nof his Brethren, are perpetually urging those common-place\nArguments, drawn from the Practice of Men; which in the general I\nhave answer'd already: and, had I proper Leisure, it would be no\ndifficult Matter to give a clear and distinct Answer to every one of\nthem: And these very Gentlemen would, on other Occasions, had they\nno favourite Point to carry, reject such Reasoning with all the\nContempt, and Indignation, it deserves. It is with some Reluctance,\nI find myself obliged to disapprove the Sentiments of such wise and\nworthy Grey Hairs, to whom the World hath been long and deeply\nindebted for his many excellent Services, both from the Pen and the\nPulpit. I have read over Mr. _J--s_'s Book, in Answer to Taylor's\n_Free and Candid Examination;_ and tho' I have no personal Knowledge\nof that ingenious Gentleman, yet I hope he will permit me to say,\n'Tis pity, great pity, that fine Talents (pardon the Expression)\nshould be prostituted in the Defence of such an unholy and\nincongruous System of Religion. Superior Degrees of Learning and\nKnowledge are, in themselves, most excellent Things, and eminently\nserviceable, when rightly applied to the Honour and Defence of\nTruth: But, like a two edged Sword, they cut both ways, and are also\ntoo frequently employed in the Propagation of Error.\n\nWhile I am thus rendering _human Learning_, its just Tribute of\nPraise, _Truth_ requires, that I should be free to detect those\nlittle Arts, so often practised to deceive the Unwary, and misguide\nMankind. As I am fully persuaded, the Generality of those Writers;\nwho stick by this _Covenant_, and endeavour to vindicate the Honour,\nJustice, and Goodness of God therein, do it _only_ for Decency sake,\n_and to put_ (as I observed) _a more plausible Outside on their\nDoctrines;_ I think it incumbent on me to _detect_ this _equivocal_\nWay of Writing, and shew, that while the Doctor is endeavouring to\npersuade you he _does not_ believe these Doctrines in their most\n_harsh_ and _severe_ Sense, there is Reason to suspect he does\nnotwithstanding, _secretly_ and _strongly_, believe them in that\n_very Sense:_ nay, he seems to resolve _them_ very artfully into the\n_Sovereignty_ and _Majesty of God_. Any Man, who reads the Book, may\nperceive, how greatly the Doctor is _put to it_ for _Arguments_, to\nanswer _Objections;_ and he himself knows it to be impossible to\nmake any tolerable or reasonable Defence, of such unreasonable and\nunaccountable Doctrines: and therefore, lest his _own People_\nshould, from some Expressions, which, at first sight, might look as\nthough he was arguing merely upon a Principle of _moral Fitness_,\nsuspect his Sincerity, he has (Second Edition, _Page_ 274) given\nstrong Intimations of his Faith, as follows:\n\n\"The Doctrine of _Reprobation_, in the most _severe_ and _absolute_\nSense of it, stands in such a direct Contradiction to all our\nNotions of Kindness and Love to others, in which the _blessed God_\nis set forth as our Example, that our Reason cannot tell how to\nreceive it; yet if it were never so true, and never so plainly\nrevealed in Scripture, it would only be a Doctrine which would\nrequire our humble Assent, and silent Submission to it; with awful\nReverence of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the great God, &_c_.\"\n\nThis proves, I think clearly, on what Authority the Doctor himself\nbelieves these _Doctrines;_ and whoever knows, how _common_ it is\nfor Men of _this_ Faith, to make a specious Shew of reasoning with\nothers on a Principle of moral Fitness, and among themselves,\nwithout Scruple, resolving all into mere _Sovereignty_, will not\nthink I have been too forward or severe in my Observation. I\n_humbly_ presume, what I have offer'd against this Notion of _God's\nSovereignty_, is a plain Confutation of the Doctor; and I here, with\nall due Submission, invite _him_, or any of his _Brethren_, to\ndefend _the Doctrines;_ and _this Quotation_, against me. If they\n_do really_ resolve these Doctrines into _God's Sovereignty_, let\nthem speak it out plainly; if they _do not_ believe them in this\nSense, let them speak that out plainly too; that we may clearly\nunderstand, in what _determinate Sense_, they do believe them.\n\nThe Doctor has taken a great deal of Pains to make the World\nbelieve, that Christ died for all Men, when it does not appear, that\nhe himself believes any such thing. Hear him, _Page_ 89, \"And\nmethinks, when I take my justest Survey of this lower World, with\nall the Inhabitants of it, I can look upon it no otherwise, than as\na huge and magnificent Structure in Ruins, and turned into a Prison,\nand a Lazar-house, or Hospital; wherein lie Millions of Criminals,\nand Rebels against their Creator, under Condemnation to Misery and\nDeath, who are at the same time sick of a mortal Distemper, and\ndisorder'd in their Minds, even to Distraction: Hence proceed those\ninfinite Follies, which are continually practised here; and the\nrighteous Anger of an offended God is visible in ten thousand\nInstances: yet there are Proclamations of Divine Grace, Health, and\nLife, sounding amongst them; either with a louder Voice, or in\ngentler Whispers, though very few of them take any Notice thereof.\nBut of this great Prison, this Infirmary, there is here and there\none who is called powerfully, by Divine Grace, and attends to the\nOffice of Reconciliation, and complies with the Proposals of Peace;\nhis Sins are pardoned, he is healed of his worst Distemper; and\ntho', his Body is appointed to go down to the Dust, for a Season,\nyet his Soul is taken upwards to a Region of Blessedness; while the\nBulk of these miserable and guilty Inhabitants, perish in their own\nwilful Madness and by the just Executions of Divine Anger.\"\n\nAs I have hitherto troubled the Reader with little Quotation, and it\nbeing now so necessary to let us into the _true Spirit_ of the\nDoctor's Belief, notwithstanding any seeming Appearance to the\ncontrary, I hope to be pardoned. You perceive here, that all are\ncalled, but the _greatest Part_, in such a weak and imperfect\nManner, that is out of _their Power_ to embrace the Call, and so\nthey perish as _unavoidably_ and _unjustly_, as though no such Call\nwere extended. The Distinction, which is here made between moral and\nnatural Necessity, the Doctor thinks sufficient to silence all\nObjections, _Page_ 285. I have endeavour'd to shew the contrary, and\nI hope with better Success. Again, what the Doctor observes, _Page_\n245, is worthy of Notice,--\"Though there must be a _very good\nSense_, in which _Christ_ may be said to die for all Men, because\nthe Scripture uses this Language; yet it does not follow, that the\nDoctrine of Universal Redemption is found there: I cannot find that\nScripture once asserts that _Christ_ redeemed all Men, or _died_ to\nredeem them all.\"\n\nThis is, I think, manifestly a _Contradiction_, and the Doctor, it\nseems, believes it, only because the Scripture, as he thinks,\nreveals it. Where is the Difference between _dying to save all Men_,\nand, _dying to redeem all Men?_ And yet _Jesus Christ_, it seems,\ndid the one, but not the other. According to him (the Doctor) the\nScripture assures us, that is, the Word of God assures us, both that\n_Christ did_, and that he _did not_ die to redeem all Mankind; which\nis a flat Contradiction. In what good Sense, I should be glad to\nknow, could _Christ_ be said to _die_ for _all Men_, when God\npurposely, and peremptorily, _with-holds_ proper Assistances to\nrestore the _greatest Part?_ If this be to die for _all Men_, it is\ncertainly not in a good, but in a very bad Sense. But, perhaps, the\n_Doctor_ means, _that Man, consider'd in his primitive Rectitude,\nhas Power sufficient to obey the Gospel as proposed to Sinners, and\nthat_ Adam's _Posterity, consider'd as fallen in him, are under the\nsame Obligation to keep the Law, as_ Adam _was_. But of this I have\nalready taken due Notice, and therefore I need only put the Doctor\nin mind of a few Words of his, drop'd _Page_ 340, in his\n_Consideration of the State of dying Infants_. He thinks, \"it would\nbe by no Means agreeable, to have them condemned to a wretched\nResurrection and eternal Misery, only because they were born of\n_Adam_, the original Transgressor.\" This is a rational Sentiment,\nand I wish it were well improved; for it is better to suppose them\nentering on a new State of Trial, or downright Annihilation to be\ntheir Portion: But what Havock does this Concession make with the\nDoctor's other Doctrines, of _Christ's dying for all Men in a good\nSense, of considering us in point of Obligation to keep the Law\ninviolable, the same as Adam was before his Fall;_ of God's either\ngranting _no Aids_ to enable us to _do this_, or such _as are too\nweak and insufficient to enable us thereto!_ We are, he allows,\n_under a moral Incapacity to keep the Law_, but not a _natural_\nIncapacity, and therefore God may justly exact our Obedience. But\npray consider, if both a _moral_ and _natural_ Ability be requisite\nto keep God's Laws, what signifies which of these is wanting, when\nwe may as well be without _both_, as without _either_. It signifies\nlittle, what Epithets we bestow on the Word _Necessity_. Wherever it\nprevails; and whether it be _moral_ or _natural_, if it is not\n_self-caused_, but comes on Man, either by the immediate Decree of\nHeaven, or by the _Act of another_, it is _Necessity_, _irresistible\nNecessity_, and no Distinction can palliate it.\n\nI allow indeed, when Man is created upright, and furnished with\nsufficient Understanding and Ability to please the Almighty; and\nyet, _abusing_ his Liberty, becomes at length so enslaved to his\nPassions and Appetites, as to fall into this _moral Debility_, the\nLaw of God is still his Duty to observe: On the other hand, allowing\nMankind to have lost their _moral Ability_ to practise Virtue in the\nFall of _Adam_, and that God, taking Pity upon Man, grants him\nsufficient _Light_, to discern his State, and sufficient _Power_, to\nobtain Redemption from it, this Man is also under the _same\nObligation_ to keep the Law of God, as though his moral Powers had\nnever sustained any _Decay_ or _Loss_ in _Adam;_ and I dare affirm,\nthat in _no_ other Sense, can Man be accountable for the Pravity of\nhis Will. And let the Doctor observe this,--If it would be\nunsuitable to the Mercy of God, in the Case of Infants not\ncommitting actual Sin, to punish them eternally, _only because they\nwere born of this first Transgressor_, would it not be equally\nunkind, to leave such as arrive at mature Age, under the Power of\nthose _restless_ and _irresistable_ Propensities to Evil, derived\nfrom _Adam_, and to punish _them_ eternally, only because these\nPropensities, derived in virtue of being born of the first\nTransgressor, constantly, and _in spite_ of any thing we are able,\nconsidered in a moral and natural Sense, to do to the contrary,\nproduce _Vice_ and _immorality?_ _All_ evil Actions, consequent upon\nthis Propensity, are, in fact, as necessary and unavoidable to us,\nas the Propensity itself, _Where_ then, in point of Innocence, can\nthe Difference be, _between_ having imputed Guilt and this\nPropensity, in Time of Infancy, and living long enough in this\nWorld, to feel, and shew to others, its arbitrary Effects, in\nproducing Vice and Impiety whether we will or no? and where then is\nthe Reason, for such very different Treatment of Infants and adult\nPersons? I must observe one Thing--The Doctor and his Brethren, as\nthey make the Work of Salvation, a very easy and agreeable Thing to\nthe Elect, on the one hand; so they assign the poor Sinner a very\n_hard Task_, on the other: _He that offends in one Point is_, they\nsay, _guilty of breaking the whole Law_. Here is a _plain Instance_\nof taking _Scripture_ in a literal Sense, when it can by no Means be\nso understood. According to this, a Man, that only _steals_, may be\nsaid to commit Murder, and be _punished_ as a Murderer as well as a\nThief; though we know he has not committed it.\n\nIn the main, we may conscientiously observe and keep God's Laws, and\nyet in Time of _Temptation_ and _Weakness_ fall into some Evil,\nwill, God therefore _consider_ and _punish_ us as those who live in\nthe daily Breach and Contempt of all his Laws? No! For, on the\ncontrary, God ever waits to be gracious to all such, as through\nInadvertence fall into Sin, and are willing to forsake it. The View\nand Intent of our Apostle, in these Words, seems to be of very\n_easy_ and _plain_ Signification: There was in those early Times, as\nappears from our Saviour's frequently reproving the Hypocrisy of\nthat Generation, a Sort of People, who appeared zealous in the\nExternals of Religion, while at the same Time they neglected Things\nof far _greater Moment:_ _Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, ye pay\nTithe of Mint and Cummin; and have omitted the weightier Matters of\nthe Law:_ Mat. xxiii. _ver_. 23. They daringly violated God's Laws\nin some of the most material and important Instances, and complied\nwith others in a mere formal ostentatious Way; and were therefore\nguilty, in the Divine View, of the Breach of the _whole Law;_ for\n_mere Obedience_ upon improper Motives to a _Part_ of the Law, while\nat the same Time they allow'd themselves in the _known_ and\n_deliberate_ Violation of _more weighty_ Commands, was no true or\nproper Obedience at all: and, in this Sense, the _Jewish_ Sacrifices\nof the Law, though commanded by the highest Authority, were always\nesteemed an Abomination; and the Christian Religion as well as the\nLaw, is certainly liable to Abuses of the same Kind, from Men of\nhypocritical and corrupt Minds, whom therefore this Doctrine of the\nApostle _effectually_ and _peculiarly_ regards and reproves: and I\nappeal to all, if this Construction of the Sacred Text be not more\nagreeable to Reason and Common Sense, than that which the Doctor has\nthought fit and convenient to bestow thereon. I beseech the Doctor\nto consider how, according to his Principles, this Covenant could be\nproposed to _Adam_, out of a kind and beneficent intention in the\nCreator, when God knew, in the first Place, that _Adam_ would not\nkeep it, and determined, in the second Place, upon the Breach of it,\nto leave the Bulk of Mankind to perish everlastingly, without Mercy,\nwithout sufficient or suitable Means of Redemption; and what a\n_cruel Joke_, upon the _Calvinistical Scheme_, of God's willing the\n_Fall_, was here put upon _Adam_, and all his Posterity!\n\nTo talk as some do, of our existing in _Adam_ at the Time of his\nTransgression, is very absurd, when, as _intelligent_ and _free\nCreatures_, it is evident, we did not exist at all. _Sin is a\nTransgression of some Law, which we have at the same time Power to\nkeep_. God never requires Impossibilities. He that made Man, knows\nbest what he is capable of and hath undoubtedly taken care to\nproportion the _Duties_ he requires of Man, to the _Powers_ he hath\nbestowed on him. The contrary would be very hard dealing indeed--If\na Law be dispensed to me, I must in the first Place have\nUnderstanding sufficient to judge of its Authority, and the\nObligations it lays me under; and, in the second Place, I must also\nhave Power to keep it, otherwise it can never be a Law suitable to\nme; and a Man's _Age_, _Complexion_, _Stature_, and _Circumstances_,\nare as just Causes for Damnation, as the Breach of a Law which lies\nbeyond the Reach of his Knowledge and Abilities. But supposing, in\nthe last Place, that God did make such a Covenant with _Adam_, &_c_.\n(though I think I have shewn it to be impossible) let us see how the\nDoctrines of _Election_ and _Preterition_ will turn out _then_. I\nhave already endeavoured to make it appear, that God does not act in\nthat arbitrary Manner, which these Gentlemen teach; that though he\nis indeed governed by no Law without, or accountable to any for what\nhe is pleased to do, yet his own Rectitude of Mind, is to him an\ninvariable Rule of Righteousness, equally secure to all Intents and\nPurposes of a written Law without: and this argues the adorable and\nincomparable Excellency of his Being who, though by Nature he is\ninfinitely above all Power and Authority whatever, yet his moral\nPerfections continually prompt him to promote the Happiness of the\nmeanest of his Creatures. It was _sovereign Goodness_ (rather than\n_sovereign Pleasure_) which prompted the Almighty to create Man, in\norder to communicate Happiness to him; and if _Adam's_ Posterity\nmight be said to fall in him, yet God must at least look on them in\na more favourable Manner, than if they had actually sinned\nthemselves; and consequently it could never suit with his Goodness\nto punish eternally _any one_ under this Circumstance, without\n_first giving_ him an Opportunity of recovering from his lapsed\nState; nor could he ordain the Means on Purpose to _save some_ by\n_electing Grace_, without _saving all_. God does nothing without\nsufficient Reason: he could save none under this Circumstance, but\nas they were _in themselves_ Objects of his Pity and Mercy; and if\never there was an Object of Mercy, here it is, an immortal Soul\ncondemned, for the Fault of _another_, which it could by no Means\nhinder or prevent, to suffer eternal Torment. There is something\ngreatly moving in such an Object as this; and as _all Adam's_\nPosterity were equally involved in his Guilt, all are Objects of\nMercy _precisely the same_, and therefore there is not the least\nGround for the Difference which we are told is made by Election;\nbecause 'tis making a _Distinction_ where there is _no Difference_.\nHere is the Race of _Adam_, considered as _equally_ fallen in him,\ndivided into two very unequal Parts (equally in themselves, and\naltogether Objects of Mercy, if such an Object can be) by the\nAlmighty himself. The smaller Number he is at all Events determined\nto save, and to destroy the greater Number.\n\nIn answer to this, I expect to hear that common, but _weak_\nArgument, drawn from an _earthly Prince_, his extending Pardon to\n_one_ Criminal, and leaving _another_ to undergo the Execution of\nhis Sentence. But this is of the same _fallacious Kind_, as that\ndrawn from the Case of _Rebellion_, and shews how _very hard_ the\nPatrons of this Doctrine are put to it for Arguments. Two Men,\ncondemned for one Crime, may not be equally wicked, and consequently\n_one_ may better deserve Pity than the _other_, and to extend it, is\nin itself a rational and worthy Distinction, made between two _such\nCriminals_. Let us suppose, in order to illustrate the Argument,\nthat a Man is _compelled_, by Thieves, to go out on the Highway,\nwhere he plunders, and is at length, with the rest, brought to\nJustice; his Sentence would doubtless be the _same_ as theirs: But\nwhen he is consider'd, as having acted not by Choice, but _by\nNecessity_, he must needs be an Object of Pity. Nay, mere Justice\nitself will plead strongly in his Favour. Apply this (so far as it\nbelongs) to the Doctrine of _Original Sin;_ which if it makes Men\nSinners _at all_, it must be _by Necessity_, there being no\n_Possibility_ for us to prevent it; which is equal to the greatest\nConstraint that can be produced or imagined, and consequently _all\nMen_ must, under this Consideration, be _at worst_ suitable Objects\nof Mercy. Besides, the Weakness of this Argument will plainly\nappear, upon considering, with respect to _earthly Princes_, that\nwhere the Equity of making a _due Distinction_ between one\n_Criminal_ and another, is not the Reason, why _one is pardoned_,\nand the other _left to suffer;_ it _always_ arises either from\n_Caprice_, _Interest_, _Solicitation_, or from _Misrepresentation_\nof Facts to Monarchs; who, too often, _see_ and _hear_ through\n_others_, that are not always duly conscientious, to preserve\ninviolable the Trust reposed in them; and whether such Reasoning as\nthis, can possibly affect the _Almighty_, any Man of common\nUnderstanding may easily judge.\n\nBut let them apply my Argument on the _Sovereignty of_ God against\nthe _Certainty_ of their Election, and I believe they will find but\nlittle Reason to boast of their Doctrine of electing Grace. They\ntell us indeed, that this Doctrine of theirs, makes the Death of\n_Christ_ of more Effect than ours, because it secures the Salvation\nof _some_. But I have proved there can be no Security in it; and\nsurely that Doctrine, which _puts all_ into a Capacity of Salvation,\nmust be better, than that, which leaves _almost every Man_ to\nperish; and if it was better to save a few, than to save none in\nthis arbitrary Manner, it must still have been better and more to\nthe Glory of _Christ_, arbitrarily to have saved all Mankind. They\nsay also, that their Doctrine of Election is a much better Ground\nfor Love and good Works, than is that of _free Grace_. But the\ncontrary is apparent, because whoever thinks rightly, cannot be\nwithout this disquieting Thought.--If God, in a mere arbitrary\nManner, and without any Regard to previous Fitness, has chosen me,\nand rejected another; how do I know but his Mind may change\nhereafter, or that he may not reverse this Decree? or if\n_unconditional Election_ be the true Doctrine of the Gospel, and Man\nis _equally dear_ and acceptable to God _without_, as he is _with_,\ngood Works, what Inducement can such a Person have to please God\nthat Way, when he is already as well pleased without them? If\nElection is founded upon an _unconditional Decree_, the natural\nInference (in all such as believe the Doctrine, and themselves to be\nof the Elect) must be this--If I am of the Number of the Elect,\nnothing can frustrate my Happiness; I may gratify my favourite\nPassions, and wallow in all Kinds of Wickedness, Luxury and\nSensuality, and be equally acceptable to the Almighty, as was\n_David_ in the Sins of Murder and Adultery: On the contrary, if I am\nnot of that Number which shall be saved, all my Pains and Obedience\nwill never procure me Acceptance with God, and therefore I _will\nseek_ all possible Gratifications in this Life, seeing it is the\nonly Time and Place wherein I can obtain any Thing like Happiness;\nnor can the Liberty I take here increase my Misery hereafter, the\n_precise Degree_ of _that_ being fixed along with the Decree of my\nDamnation: Though this Persuasion of being set apart for everlasting\nTorment, has more often the Effects of Desperation and _Self-Murder;_\nand indeed the two Extremes of _Presumption_ and _Despair_,\nare the natural Brood and Offspring of these Doctrines, as the\nreverend and learned Dr. _Trapp_ has abundantly evinced, in his\nexcellent Discourse, _against the Folly, Sin, and Danger of being\nrighteous over much_. Hypocrisy and Persecution are also the genuine\nOffspring of this Faith; and _whenever_ it has been tried,\nPersecution has grown up to a considerable Maturity: for as they\npretend to know the Marks of elect and reprobate Men, what can be\nmore natural, than for those, who apprehend themselves to be the\n_former_, to persecute and take Vengeance on the _latter_. Hath not\nGod, by his own Decree of Damnation, set them an Example? and if he\nhas set a Mark on the Reprobate, they (the Elect) may very\nreasonably, in Imitation of the _Divine Conduct_, endeavour to make\nthem as wretched as possible here in this Life, and _who shall lay\nany Thing to the Charge of God's Elect?_ I am now shewing, what are\nthe genuine Effects of this Doctrine, not charging Consequences on\nsuch as neither do _see_ nor _approve_ of them: there is great\nDifference in the Conduct of Men of this Principle; and its natural\nEffects are, by other Things intervening, often prevented, the chief\nof which may, I believe, be Want of Power and Opportunity; for tho'\nmany, when out of Power, might be apt to say (as _Hazael_ did) _what\nis thy Servant a Dog, that he should do this Evil?_ yet they would\nperhaps be in some Danger of behaving as that great Man did, when he\ncame to be tried. Some again, who tho' they profess the Doctrine,\nare yet (I doubt not) often under the Influence of God's _Grace_,\nwhich, as it tends to humble the Soul, and render it more loving and\nhumane than before, naturally prevents the Spirit of Persecution\nfrom taking such deep Root as otherwise it might. And here, though I\ndo not pretend to be a _nice Judge_ of the spiritual Part of\nReligion, yet I have heard such as have been accounted Men of the\nbest Experience say, that when the Grace of God operates on the\nSoul, the ardent Love of Mankind is _inseparable therewith_. If then\nthe better Sort of those, who profess this Doctrine, are ever\nsensible of this _most agreeable_ and humbling Operation in the\nSoul, I ask them, if it does not _naturally distend_ and enlarge\ntheir Wishes, in Behalf of all Mankind? and if this Spirit of Love\nbe the genuine Effect of the Operation of God's Grace, what shall be\nsaid of that ineffable and immense Fountain of Grace and Goodness,\nfrom whence it proceeds? But, on the other hand, it has been\nobserved, that among mere _enthusiastick and traditional Believers_,\nof the Doctrine of Election, their Hypocrisy, Deceit and\nDissimulation has overtop'd that of all the World besides, even\nbeyond what human Nature could be thought capable of, in its most\nwicked and corrupt State; in short, they seem to have made the\nDeceit of _Jacob_, and all other parallel Places of Scripture, that\nfurnish the worst Part of the Lives of good Men, a _standing Rule_\nof Behaviour--What a blessed Company has the Lord set apart for\nhimself!\n\nThe _Foreknowledge_ of God is supposed, by some, to belong to the\nArgument of _Predestination;_ but I think it wholly beside my\npresent Purpose, to enter circumstantially into it, for _this\nReason_--If, Whatever God _foreknows_, he must also of Necessity\n_foreordain;_ it is manifestly using _Foreknowledge_ and\n_Ordination_ to signify just the _same Thing_, and, _in this Light_,\nevery Argument against _Fore-ordination_, must be equally strong\nagainst _Foreknowledge_, so far as it affects the Doctrines under\nConsideration; and when these Gentlemen can shew the contrary, or\nare willing to enter into the Consideration of the _Divine\nForeknowledge_, either _separate from_, or _connected with_, the\nDoctrine of _Fore-ordination_, I shall always be ready to receive\nInformation.\n\nThis Doctrine of electing Grace, they exalt as an _incomprehensible\nMystery;_ so do the Papists, with as good Reason, that of\n_Transubstantiation;_ for neither of them are Mysteries, or\nincomprehensible, but _palpable Errors_, whose Absurdity we do\n_easily and fully comprehend;_ nor will the stale Art of playing on\nthe Word _Mystery_ amuse us any longer. Another strange Argument,\nwhich these Men make use of, in order to set aside some Passages of\nScripture, which are positive and express against them, is this,\n_that if God wills the Salvation of all Men, all must be saved,\notherwise we may be said to conquer the Will and Grace of God_. To\nwhich the Answer is very easy--Man is made a _free Creature_, and\ntherefore God deals with him as such; because to make him free, and\nthen arbitrarily _overrule_ his Freedom, would be making him free to\n_no Purpose_. The Will of God is sometimes _positive_, and sometimes\n_conditional_. He gives Laws, commands us to keep them, and promises\neternal Life to those who obey; nor can we suppose he commands us to\nobey, without willing our Obedience. We may indeed _resist_ the\nOperations of his Grace: but to talk of _conquering_ God, is\nNonsense. He has made us free Creatures; he wills our Salvation, and\nhas granted us such Aids as are sufficient, if we use them aright,\nto bring us to Happiness: This Conduct in the Divine Being, is not\nonly reasonable in itself, but _perfectly agreeable_ to many _plain_\nand _express_ Parts of Scripture. The _Weeping_ and _Lamentation_ of\n_Christ_ over _Jerusalem_, is a strong Proof of it: _How often would\nI have gathered thee, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her\nWings; but thou wouldest not!_ Here was all done, that was fit and\nconvenient to reclaim free Beings; not only proper Aids offer'd, but\noffer'd in the _most tender_ and affectionate Manner, as is evident\nfrom the Comparison of the Hen, &_c_. and by the Words _how often_,\nis set forth the _great Patience and longsuffering of God:_ And\nnotwithstanding all this, they resisted to their own Destruction.\nGod _willed_, or would have saved her, but she was stubborn and\nrebellious, and would not accept of Salvation; did she therefore\n_conquer_ the Almighty? Suppose my Father gives me a good Education,\na good Employment, and a competent Portion in Money, and, besides\nall, is continually at hand, ready further to advise and assist me,\nwhenever it may be necessary; yet I am obstinate and disobedient,\nand, by pursuing evil Courses, fall into Poverty, Contempt, and\nRuin: I may indeed be said to _resist_, but in no _good Sense_ to\n_conquer_ my Father. Besides, according to this absurd Way of\narguing, if God does all in Believers, his Laws are to be _kept_ by\nhimself; with what Propriety then can they be said to be given to\nMan? He to whom the Law is given is to keep it, not the Being who\ngives it.\n\nI might here, very naturally, speak concerning the Sacrifice of\n_Christ's Death_, and _his Righteousness_ imputed to us; but I shall\nnot now discuss it fully, only a few Remarks may not be impertinent\nor useless. These two Points appear to me to be much misunderstood;\n_Sin_ is said to be infinite, because committed against an infinite\nGod; and that therefore nothing but an infinite Being can satisfy\nthe Justice of God for it: A fine Story indeed, for Men to amuse us\nwith, who pretend to believe in _only one_ God: Here is _one_\ninfinite Being, to be satisfied for Sin; and _another_, to satisfy\nhim. And, what is still as bad or worse, it supposes, that an\ninfinite Being may, for a certain Season, suffer or undergo a\nDiminution of its Happiness; which, in an infinite and unchangeable\nBeing, I take to be impossible. Was it then _only_ the Person, or\n_rational Soul_ of _Jesus Christ_, that suffered, being upheld under\nit, by the infinite Being himself? If so, what is become of the\ninfinite Being, that was to _suffer_ for Sin; for does God make\nSatisfaction to himself? 'Till these Gentlemen either renounce, or\nbetter explain this Matter, they will, I hope, think very favourably\nof all who deal in absurd Schemes of Faith.\n\nThe Thing productive of these Absurdities, is a _wrong Notion_ of\nSin, and of the Justice of God: Sin, they say, is infinite, because\n_committed against an infinite God_. It is doubtless sometimes a\ngreat Aggravation of it, that it is committed against God; but it is\nnot so much his _Greatness_, as our abusing his _Goodness_, that\naggravates the Crime: As may appear from this short Observation,\nThat any Favour, disinterestedly done, by a Person of the meanest\nRank in Life, lays the Receiver under the same Obligation, as though\nit were granted by the greatest Man upon Earth: It is the Motive and\nthe Action, put together, that gives it its proper Value to the\nReceiver. God's Authority may add some kind of Sanction but no\nAlteration of outward Circumstances, in him who confers a Benefit,\ncan ever after change the Nature of the Action, or the Obligations\nresulting from it.\n\nAnd, when we consider, on the other hand, that Sin is committed by a\nfrail finite Being, very often in its unguarded Moments, prompted by\nPassion and Appetite, and surrounded with the most powerful\nTemptations; this proves more strongly, that it cannot be infinite.\nBy the _Justice_ of God, is not meant, that he cannot forgive Sin\nwithout Satisfaction, but that he _will_ not punish the Innocent; He\nproposes himself as a Pattern for our Imitation, and bids us\n_forgive our offending Brethren, if they repent and desire\nForgiveness:_ and he himself will therefore forgive on the same\nTerms; for unless Sin becomes so enormous, as to make Punishment\nnecessary, _Repentance_ and _Amendment_ is all that God expects. The\nGospel is proposed to Sinners, on these Terms; and as to the Death\nof Christ, it were unreasonable to think, he laid down his Life by\nway of Satisfaction to Offended Justice, in the Manner these\nGentlemen understand it; but in Testimony of the Truth of his\nDoctrines, and Confirmation of God's _great Love_ to the World. This\nwas the Cause of Christ's Coming in the Flesh. God so loved the\nWorld, that he sent Christ to save it, by such Preaching and\nMiracles, and other internal Aids, &_c_. as were in themselves\nsufficient to beget Faith in such as gave a proper Attention; such a\nFaith, in the Soul, as was productive of Morality and Virtue in\nPractice. It was an _original Act_ of Grace and Goodness in God, to\nsend Christ into the World, to save Sinners, and not (as some\nsuperstitiously teach) a mere Compliance in God the Father (and\nthat, not without full Satisfaction first made) to the _voluntary_\nand _merciful_ Intercession of Christ the Son. For then our\nSalvation would be _owing only_ to the Love of Christ, and not _at\nall_ to God's Love, who is here considered as a _rigorous_ and\n_unrelenting Creditor_, that will not release the Debtor, until full\nSatisfaction be made; so that Christ becomes our Creditor, and God\nhas no farther Demand: and what Need then can there be of\nIntercession to God on our Behalf, when the Debt is already paid,\nand full Satisfaction made? Christ's coming into the World was\n_entirely owing_ to the Father's Mercy. His Doctrine, Miracles,\n&_c_. were what he had in Commission from God, as a Means to\ninstruct and make the World happy; it is he who, instead of being\naverse to forgive frail Man his Offences, has through Jesus\n_proclaimed Pardon_ to _all_, on Condition of Repentance and\nAmendment; and thro' the Love of God it was also, that Christ was\nappointed a Mediator for sinful Man: So that the whole Affair arose\nfrom God's own Mercy.\n\nI stand amazed at the Gentlemen, against whom I am arguing; what a\n_Scope_ do they give to the _Sovereignty_ of God, in the Doctrines\nof _Election_ and _Reprobation?_ And yet they won't _suffer it_ at\nall to operate, in the Case of _forgiving Sin_, on the Terms of\nRepentance and Amendment. A small, yea _very small_ and reasonable\nAllowance, in regard to the _Exertion_ of this Attribute, and in a\n_good Cause_ too, would be sufficient to justify the Mercy of God,\nin forgiving Sin. If, as a Sovereign, he punishes where no Sin is,\nsurely he may also, as a Sovereign, forgive Sin. So that this Notion\nof the Impossibility of God's forgiving Sin, without Satisfaction\nfirst made, is erroneous and despicable. Repentance and Amendment in\nthe Creature is, in the Nature of Things, a _much better_\nSatisfaction, than can be made by the Act of another. By the\n_Justice_ of God, I repeat it again, is meant, that he will not\npunish the innocent, and not that he cannot shew Mercy to an\noffending, repenting, penitent Creature, unless another sheds his\nBlood for an Atonement. Nor is the Righteousness of Christ,\n_strictly speaking_, imputable to any one. The Terms of the Gospel\nare, _Repent, and be converted, and your Sins shall be blotted out:_\nBe _sorry_ and _amend_, and I will _forgive_ you. _The Prayer of a\nRighteous Man availeth much;_ and God, in some Cases, to shew his\nRegard to the Righteous, and to excite others to become righteous\nalso, may possibly grant _that_, at the Request of such a righteous\nPerson, which without, it might be improper to grant; and Christ\nbeing our holy and righteous Mediator, God may do more at his\nRequest, on our Behalf, than he would do without it. Not but that\n(_independent of_ and previous to the Intercession of Christ, at\nleast to the Account we have of it, in the New Testament) God was\n_ever disposed_ to be favourable to Man, and always ready to receive\nhim, coming to him in a proper and becoming Manner: For even this\nvery Christ, and his Intercession, &_c_. is all ultimately the Act\nof God, and flows from his unbounded Love and Goodness to Man. So\nthat _imputed Righteousness_ can mean no more, than God's forgiving\nus, at the Request of Jesus Christ (whom he sent on purpose to make\nthat Request, and to do every thing for the Benefit and Happiness of\nMan) and not a _real Transfer_ of Christ's _personal_ Righteousness,\nwhich is not only in itself impossible, but would, if true, take\naway all Necessity of our becoming holy. The Righteousness of Christ\nis altogether different to what these Men take it to be; it is a\nreal State of Righteousness, wrought in the Soul by the Operation of\nChrist's _Spirit_, Man submitting thereto. I know there are some\nExpressions in the _New Testament_, which (if precipitantly\nunderstood, without Regard had to the Nature of the Thing, and to\nother plain Texts) seem _a little_ to favour these Doctrines. I\ncan't say, by what Means _precisely_ the _Bible_ came into its\npresent Condition; many Things might concur to give us wrong\nApprehensions of its true Sense and Meaning, He that understands\nhuman Nature will find, that Men, who have been _great Bigots_ in\nany Way of Religion, _will generally retain_ some of their former\nPrejudices, even after, in the main, they may have changed their\nPrinciples, Prejudice in Education is a Leaven, not so easily purged\nout, as some may imagine; and 'tis possible, the _Writings_ of St.\n_Paul_ may have in them a Tincture of this kind; besides what may\nhave since crept in, by Partiality or Accident: against which, and\n_all Errors_ of a like Kind, a due Regard to the _fundamental\nPrinciples_, I have endeavoured to inculcate, will, I hope,\nabundantly secure us. These are some succinct Observations, that I\ncould not well avoid making; which perhaps may shortly be followed\nby something more _full_ and _comprehensive_, concerning the\n_Virtue_ and _Extent_ of Christ's _Death_, and the Nature of\n_imputed Righteousness_. What I have here delivered, concerning\nGod's _Sovereignty_, is not the Result of a few, hasty, or loose\nThoughts, but the Effect of long and mature Deliberation. I have\nweighed over and over the Arguments in my own Breast, and tried\ntheir Strength with People, the most likely to afford me\nSatisfaction; and could I have found it in either Way, the World had\nnever been troubled with these _Free and Impartial Thoughts_.\n\nPermit me, before I make an End, just to observe, in Regard to the\nControversy, between Mr. _J--s_ and Mr. _Taylor_, on the Scripture\nDoctrine of _Original Sin;_ that Mr. _J--s_, as well as Dr. _W--s_,\nlays great Stress on that frivolous Distinction, mentioned a few\nPages back, of _moral_ and _natural_ Necessity, to that Degree, that\nMr. _Taylor_ is treated somewhat _rudely_, for not perceiving the\nForce of it; when I dare aver, _none_ but misguided Zealots, could\never see any Reason or Argument in it: Nor do some of these very\nMen, who urge it, seem to believe it themselves. Ask them how Man\ncan be justly accountable for Evils, that proceed from a _Nature\ndepraved in_ Adam, and they immediately leave _this Distinction_,\nand recur to the _Covenant;_ and this Covenant they cannot support\nby any Argument short of God's _Sovereignty_, which they are welcome\n(if they can tell how) to improve to their own Advantage.\n\nTo say that Man, in the Fall, has natural Powers to act rightly, and\nis therefore condemnable when he does not, tho', by Necessity; he\nwants Inclinations to be virtuous, would, to _use_ Mr. _J--s_'s\ngenteel Language, _be a senseless Falshood, and shew Poverty of\nArgument_ (I am loth to add as he does) _and Effrontery too_. Such\nRudeness deserves Lamentation as well as Reproof, nor do I on this\nOccasion set before _him_ his _own Words_ with any secret Pleasure,\nbut purely to shew Mr. _J--s_, how agreeable such a Liberty will\nappear, when, in return, it may be offered to himself.\n\nWhy is this favourite Distinction urged, unless it be to shew, that\nbecause Man has natural Powers, 'tis his _own_ Fault, if he does not\nemploy them aright; but how does it appear, that such a Power\n_only_, can render _Man_ a whit better, or _more_ a _moral Agent_,\nthan he is, or would be, without it? If Inclination to _Virtue_,\nmust _precede_ every truly virtuous Action; and Man's Depravity\nunder the Fall, be _such_ as prevents his ever having such good\nInclinations, his natural Ability to do Good, must needs be a mere\n_Joke_ and a _Cypher_. Just the same as, on the other hand, would\nbe, the strongest Inclinations to Virtue, and _no_ natural Power of\ncomplying with them in Practice. As nothing short of _Knowledge_ and\n_Power_, Power of both kinds, _natural_ and _moral_, can constitute\nMan a _moral Agent_, or proper Subject of _Law_, of Rewards and\nPunishments, either here, or hereafter; one would wonder to see this\ninsignificant Distinction urged at all in this Controversy: for it\nis, at the best, a mere _Parade of Words;_ which prove nothing,\nexcept it be the Want of Truth and Righteousness, in this Doctrine\nof _Original Sin;_ or great _Bigotry_, and Defect of Understanding,\nin its most accomplished Patrons. And after all that is, or can be\nsaid, concerning _natural_ and _moral_ Powers; it is doubtful, if\nsuch a depraved miserable Wretch, as Man under the Fall is said by\nthe _Assemblies Catechism_ to be, can (strictly speaking) have any\nPower at all over his own Thoughts and Actions; The immediate Cause\nand Spring of Action _is_ the _Soul_, to which the _Body_ is\nsubservient only as an _Instrument_, but has in itself, according to\nthe best Philosophy, no Power to produce _voluntary_ or _self\nMotion_. What is called _natural_ Power in Man, as opposed to\n_moral_, is at least, a Power lodged in the Soul, to give Motion to\nthe Body. But these _Volitions_ of the Mind, and the immediate Act\nof the Soul upon the Body, in order to produce _Virtue_, depending\non the Mind's being in a State of _Freedom_, able to chuse and\nprefer Virtue, as better than Vice; it is evident, that in a Mind,\ntotally abandoned to Evil, _moral_ Motives have not their due Power\nover the Man; and what we call his _natural_ Power to be virtuous,\nis either suspended, or quite overpowered, by an evil and\nirresistable Turn of Inclination, arising from the _Act_ of another;\nI mean, _Adam_. Man then, considered as a _moral_ Agent, has Power\nto _do_, or _not_ to _do_, the very same Thing; be it good or evil.\nBut this Liberty of Choice and Action in the Creature, as the _Soul_\nis but one, and also _the_ immediate Source of all Action in Man,\ncannot properly, I think, be called _two_ distinct Powers, but\nrather _different Applications_ of _one_ and the _same Power_ lodged\nin the Soul. On the other hand, in such a _depraved Creature_, as\nMan under the Fall is said to be, the Power of _choosing_ and\n_refusing_, of being virtuous or vicious, which he _pleases_, is\naltogether lost and destroyed; and such a Man, so far from having\n_natural_ and _moral_ Powers, has (properly speaking) _no Power_ at\nall remaining: all his Thoughts and Actions, like those of a\nMachine, are merely involuntary; he is constantly impelled by\nsomething mightier than himself, and ever necessitated to think and\nact as he does: his being an intelligent Creature, doth not alter\nthe State of the Case, or render him more an Agent than a Stock or a\nStone. In this sad Condition, Man can have no Power at all to love\nand pursue Virtue, untill the overruling Principle, which determines\nall his Thoughts and Actions to the contrary, be removed, or he\nreceive Superaddition of Understanding and Strength agreeable\nthereto. My natural Strength of Body may be equal to four hundred\nWeight; but what can this avail, while I am continually pressed down\nby four thousand? and all Mr. _J--s_'s Skill and Criticism (_Pages_\n71, 72) will not evade this Reasoning. The Distinction between\nimmediate and remote Causes of Sin, is as trifling and inconclusive,\nas the 'forementioned Distinction of _moral_ and _natural_ Powers.\nThose indeed, who can fancy themselves to be God's own dear and\nelect Children, may reject all Opposition with _Scorn_, and without\n_Examination_, and acquiesce readily in the most rigid and\ntyrannical System of Religion, that renders the Bulk of Mankind\nmiserable, while the Elect may think themselves secure in the Divine\nDecree, _with an humble Assent, and awful_ (it should be\nsuperstitious) _Reverence of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the\ngreat God_. But what Reason or Recompence will that be to _him_, who\nunder proper Means and Motives would have kept the Commandments, and\nso have entered into Life; who would have loved the Lord his God,\nwith all his Heart, Soul, and Strength; and his Neighbour as\nhimself? Or how can such a partial and tyrannical Doctrine, be\nreconciled to the Voice of Reason in Man, to our common Notions of\n_Right_ and _Wrong_, to the General Scope and Tenour of the _Holy\nScriptures_, or to that Text in particular, which assures us, that\n_the Almighty doth not grieve nor afflict the Children of Men\nwillingly?_\n\n_FINIS._","title":"Free and Impartial Thoughts, on the Sovereignty of God, The Doctrines of Election, Reprobation, and Original Sin: Humbly Addressed To all who Believe and Profess those Doctrines.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":21079}