But, thus it is to be enslaved to the mere Letter of theBible, under a Notion of doing itjust Honour, when, on the contrary, ’tis the ready way todishonourandlessenits Authority.
ThePains which Infants suffer, and the many Miseries to which they are exposed, are, by this Gentleman, consider’d as so many Arguments of the Guilt ofOriginal Sin. He thinks that, without such a Supposition, theJusticeof Godcannot be vindicated. [I wish he would stick true to that Argument.] We must, he thinks, suppose one of these two Things: either,That Godpunishes them without all Cause or Reason, or,That they are under the Curse and Condemnation ofAdam’s Sin:and the latter is, in his Opinion, the best Sentiment. But I am of a contrary Opinion, and think that in either Case, theInjusticeis the same. Heallowsit in theone Case;and I hope it isprovedin the other: and really the Picture which this Gentleman has drawn of our young Innocents, is very dreadful and terrifying. If all theEvilsthat befall them in this Life, andEternal Damnationafterwards, be no more than ajustPunishment for theirSins, ourSaviourmust surely have beengreatly out, in the Encomiums he bestows on theirInnocence, as I observed before; or, the Kingdom of Heaven, instead of being design’d forupright holy Souls, may be a Receptacle for the worst of human Race.
TheBrute Creation undergo Pain and Affliction; isAdam’sSin, therefore, imputed to them? If not, and they sometimes suffer by Pain and Abuse, why may not Infants do the same? The Miseries of the human Race, reckon’d up and aggravated thro’ so many elaborate Pages, cannot all of them be supposed to belong to theOriginal Constitutionof Things, but might be partly owing to the Effect of Time and Accident, as well as to the Folly and Wickedness of particular Persons and Nations. This Objection, drawn from the Sufferings of Brute Animals, the Doctor endeavours to answer: I wonderAdamis not considered (for the sake of putting an End to the Difficulty) as their Federal Head. He thinks, however, that Brutes must be some way or other included in theCurse;and may be punished, as Man’s Property: But has Man, because they are his Property, a Right to grieve and afflict them? They were bestowed as a Blessing, for reasonable Service and Delight, not for cruel Treatment and Abuse. The Doctor’s Rule of Faith will tell him,A merciful Man will be merciful to his Beast. If their being Man’s Property will not justify him in abusing or cruelly handling them; it can be no Reason or Argument, why another should do it, even the Almighty himself. Consider Beasts, then, as God’sown Property; will that render it a whit more equitable? No: This the Doctor himself, in the Case of Infants, allows would be cruel, and contrary to the Divine Justice and Goodness: and the Argument is the same as to Brutes. But the Doctor, sensible of the Weakness of this Argument, has recourse to another, which I believe will always be admired as a standing Mark ofextraordinary Invention, to get rid of difficult and perplexing Questions. Brutes may, it seems, contrary to common Experience, have Sensationsless QuickandPainfulthan ours. I wonder he allows them any Sensation at all; nay, ’tis doubtful if he does allow it. Noise, or Crying out, in them, is, it seems, no Mark of Pain, because some Brutes, under the same Circumstance, remain quiet and still. But will the Doctor say, they have therefore no painful Sensations? Are there no Marks of Pain besides those of crying aloud? Did the Doctor never know a Man sometimes bear a pretty deal of Pain without crying out at all; and give many external Tokens of Pain, at another Time? Did he never perceive agaul’d Horsewince, upon the most gentle Approach of the Hand; and discover Signs of the greatest Fear, and mostexquisite Pains?Do not some Brutes take as much Pains to avoid the Discipline of the Whip, as tho’ their Sensations were the same as ours? I am ashamed to waste Time upon such a Subject; tho’ I hope to be pardoned for following so great a Man in his own Method of arguing. He perhaps may continue of the same Mind, and there may be no Hopes of Convincement, till Brutes are taught to speak. By this new Way of Reasoning, the Ground we tread upon, and every Thing around us, hitherto thought Inanimate, may be full of Cogitation. If affording the common Marks of Sensation, be no Proof, that Brutes have it in a common Degree, Wanting the common Marks of Intelligence, can be no Proof that a Stock or a Stone has it not. If I mistake not, BishopBerkleyhas furnished the World with something equally instructive and philosophical, in relation to the Existence of Matter; which, he endeavours to provenotto be areal, but anidealandimaginary Being. I shall leave others to guess, in what Condition those must be, who think and reason after this extraordinary Manner. But the Doctor has yet another Argument in reserve, to vindicate God’sJustice—Tho’ Brutes suffer, yet they mayit seemshave upon the whole more Pleasure than Pain. But do not some Brutes partake very deeply of the former, in this Life; will the Doctor therefore suppose a Future State for them, by way of Compensation? But this Argument ruins the whole Affair, and may be turned against the Doctor himself, in the Case of Infants, who may be made ample Amends in a future State, for the Evils sustained here, which Evils may have other Causes besidesOriginal Sin;for here again, as in the Case of a Propensity to Evil, Pain in Infants, if inflicted because ofAdam’s Sin, must inallbeuniformandalike. But the Fact being quite otherwise, some of this Pain and Evil must be resolved intoother Causes;and ifsome, why notall?I grant indeed, thatAdamhimself might have so far corrupted his Nature, as to render him more liable to Pain, than in a State of true Innocence he might have been, and that therefore he might be instrumental to propagate the Seeds of several Diseases, to his Posterity: But had he never done this, his Successors might have done it; andevery Agehas, perhaps, by Intemperance and Lasciviousness, been adding to the common Stock of human Diseases and Calamities: Propensities to Vice might also be propagated in the same Way, and that, and nothing besides, can (I think) account so well for their great and infinite Variety. The Doctor, with the rest of his Brethren, are perpetually urging those common-place Arguments, drawn from the Practice of Men; which in the general I have answer’d already: and, had I proper Leisure, it would be no difficult Matter to give a clear and distinct Answer to every one of them: And these very Gentlemen would, on other Occasions, had they no favourite Point to carry, reject such Reasoning with all the Contempt, and Indignation, it deserves. It is with some Reluctance, I find myself obliged to disapprove the Sentiments of such wise and worthy Grey Hairs, to whom the World hath been long and deeply indebted for his many excellent Services, both from the Pen and the Pulpit. I have read over Mr.J—s’s Book, in Answer to Taylor’sFree and Candid Examination;and tho’ I have no personal Knowledge of that ingenious Gentleman, yet I hope he will permit me to say, ’Tis pity, great pity, that fine Talents (pardon the Expression) should be prostituted in the Defence of such an unholy and incongruous System of Religion. Superior Degrees of Learning and Knowledge are, in themselves, most excellent Things, and eminently serviceable, when rightly applied to the Honour and Defence of Truth: But, like a two edged Sword, they cut both ways, and are also too frequently employed in the Propagation of Error.
WhileI am thus renderinghuman Learning, its just Tribute of Praise,Truthrequires, that I should be free to detect those little Arts, so often practised to deceive the Unwary, and misguide Mankind. As I am fully persuaded, the Generality of those Writers; who stick by thisCovenant, and endeavour to vindicate the Honour, Justice, and Goodness of Godtherein, do itonlyfor Decency sake,and to put(as I observed)a more plausible Outside on their Doctrines;I think it incumbent on me todetectthisequivocalWay of Writing, and shew, that while the Doctor is endeavouring to persuade you hedoes notbelieve these Doctrines in their mostharshandsevereSense, there is Reason to suspect he does notwithstanding,secretlyandstrongly, believe them in thatvery Sense:nay, he seems to resolvethemvery artfully into theSovereigntyandMajesty of God. Any Man, who reads the Book, may perceive, how greatly the Doctor isput to itforArguments, to answerObjections;and he himself knows it to be impossible to make any tolerable or reasonable Defence, of such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines: and therefore, lest hisown Peopleshould, from some Expressions, which, at first sight, might look as though he was arguing merely upon a Principle ofmoral Fitness, suspect his Sincerity, he has (Second Edition,Page274) given strong Intimations of his Faith, as follows:
“The Doctrine ofReprobation, in the mostsevereandabsoluteSense of it, stands in such a direct Contradiction to all our Notions of Kindness and Love to others, in which theblessed Godis set forth as our Example, that our Reason cannot tell how to receive it; yet if it were never so true, and never so plainly revealed in Scripture, it would only be a Doctrine which would require our humble Assent, and silent Submission to it; with awful Reverence of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the great God, &c.”
Thisproves, I think clearly, on what Authority the Doctor himself believes theseDoctrines;and whoever knows, howcommonit is for Men ofthisFaith, to make a specious Shew of reasoning with others on a Principle of moral Fitness, and among themselves, without Scruple, resolving all into mereSovereignty, will not think I have been too forward or severe in my Observation. Ihumblypresume, what I have offer’d against this Notion ofGod’s Sovereignty, is a plain Confutation of the Doctor; and I here, with all due Submission, invitehim, or any of hisBrethren, to defendthe Doctrines;andthis Quotation, against me. If theydo reallyresolve these Doctrines intoGod’s Sovereignty, let them speak it out plainly; if theydo notbelieve them in this Sense, let them speak that out plainly too; that we may clearly understand, in whatdeterminate Sense, they do believe them.
TheDoctor has taken a great deal of Pains to make the World believe, that Christdied for all Men, when it does not appear, that he himself believes any such thing. Hear him,Page89, “And methinks, when I take my justest Survey of this lower World, with all the Inhabitants of it, I can look upon it no otherwise, than as a huge and magnificent Structure in Ruins, and turned into a Prison, and a Lazar-house, or Hospital; wherein lie Millions of Criminals, and Rebels against their Creator, under Condemnation to Misery and Death, who are at the same time sick of a mortal Distemper, and disorder’d in their Minds, even to Distraction: Hence proceed those infinite Follies, which are continually practised here; and the righteous Anger of an offended Godis visible in ten thousand Instances: yet there are Proclamations of Divine Grace, Health, and Life, sounding amongst them; either with a louder Voice, or in gentler Whispers, though very few of them take any Notice thereof. But of this great Prison, this Infirmary, there is here and there one who is called powerfully, by Divine Grace, and attends to the Office of Reconciliation, and complies with the Proposals of Peace; his Sins are pardoned, he is healed of his worst Distemper; and tho’, his Body is appointed to go down to the Dust, for a Season, yet his Soul is taken upwards to a Region of Blessedness; while the Bulk of these miserable and guilty Inhabitants, perish in their own wilful Madness and by the just Executions of Divine Anger.”
As I have hitherto troubled the Reader with little Quotation, and it being now so necessary to let us into thetrue Spiritof the Doctor’s Belief, notwithstanding any seeming Appearance to the contrary, I hope to be pardoned. You perceive here, thatallare called, but thegreatest Part, in such a weak and imperfect Manner, that is out oftheir Powerto embrace the Call, and so they perish asunavoidablyandunjustly, as though no such Call were extended. The Distinction, which is here made between moral and natural Necessity, the Doctor thinks sufficient to silence all Objections,Page285. I have endeavour’d to shew the contrary, and I hope with better Success. Again, what the Doctor observes,Page245, is worthy of Notice,—“Though there must be avery good Sense, in whichChristmay be said to die for all Men, because the Scripture uses this Language; yet it does not follow, that the Doctrine of Universal Redemption is found there: I cannot find that Scripture once asserts thatChristredeemed all Men, ordiedto redeem them all.”
Thisis, I think, manifestly aContradiction, and the Doctor, it seems, believes it, only because the Scripture, as he thinks, reveals it. Where is the Difference betweendying to save all Men, and,dying to redeem all Men?And yetJesus Christ, it seems, did the one, but not the other. According to him (the Doctor) the Scripture assures us, that is, the Word of Godassures us,boththatChrist did, and that hedid notdieto redeem all Mankind; which is a flat Contradiction. In what good Sense, I should be glad to know, couldChristbe said todieforall Men, when Godpurposely, and peremptorily,with-holdsproper Assistances to restore thegreatest Part?If this be to die forall Men, it is certainly not in a good, but in a very bad Sense. But, perhaps, theDoctormeans,that Man, consider’d in his primitive Rectitude, has Power sufficient to obey the Gospel as proposed to Sinners, and thatAdam’sPosterity, consider’d as fallen in him, are under the same Obligation to keep the Law, asAdamwas. But of this I have already taken due Notice, and therefore I need only put the Doctor in mind of a few Words of his, drop’dPage340, in hisConsideration of the State of dying Infants. He thinks, “it would be by no Means agreeable, to have them condemned to a wretched Resurrection and eternal Misery, only because they were born ofAdam, the original Transgressor.” This is a rational Sentiment, and I wish it were well improved; for it is better to suppose them entering on a new State of Trial, or downright Annihilation to be their Portion: But what Havock does this Concession make with the Doctor’s other Doctrines, ofChrist’s dying for all Men in a good Sense, of considering us in point of Obligation to keep the Law inviolable, the same as Adam was before his Fall;of God’s either grantingno Aidsto enable us todo this, orsuchas are too weak and insufficient to enable us thereto!We are, he allows,under a moral Incapacity to keep the Law, but not anaturalIncapacity, and therefore Godmay justly exact our Obedience. But pray consider, if both amoralandnaturalAbility be requisite to keep God’s Laws, what signifies which of these is wanting, when we may as well be withoutboth, as withouteither. It signifies little, what Epithets we bestow on the WordNecessity. Wherever it prevails; and whether it bemoralornatural, if it is notself-caused, but comes on Man, either by the immediate Decree of Heaven, or by theAct of another, it isNecessity,irresistible Necessity, and no Distinction can palliate it.
Iallowindeed, when Man is created upright, and furnished with sufficient Understanding and Ability to please the Almighty; and yet,abusinghis Liberty, becomes at length so enslaved to his Passions and Appetites, as to fall into thismoral Debility, the Law of Godis still his Duty to observe: On the other hand, allowing Mankind to have lost theirmoral Abilityto practise Virtue in the Fall ofAdam, and that God, taking Pity upon Man, grants him sufficientLight, to discern his State, and sufficientPower, to obtain Redemption from it, this Man is also under thesame Obligationto keep the Law of God, as though his moral Powers had never sustained anyDecayorLossinAdam;and I dare affirm, that innoother Sense, can Man be accountable for the Pravity of his Will. And let the Doctor observe this,—If it would be unsuitable to the Mercy of God, in the Case of Infants not committing actual Sin, to punish them eternally,only because they were born of this first Transgressor, would it not be equally unkind, to leave such as arrive at mature Age, under the Power of thoserestlessandirresistablePropensities to Evil, derived fromAdam, and to punishthemeternally, only because these Propensities, derived in virtue of being born of the first Transgressor, constantly, andin spiteof any thing we are able, considered in a moral and natural Sense, to do to the contrary, produceViceandimmorality?Allevil Actions, consequent upon this Propensity, are, in fact, as necessary and unavoidable to us, as the Propensity itself,Wherethen, in point of Innocence, can the Difference be,betweenhaving imputed Guilt and this Propensity, in Time of Infancy, and living long enough in this World, to feel, and shew to others, its arbitrary Effects, in producing Vice and Impiety whether we will or no? and where then is the Reason, for such very different Treatment of Infants and adult Persons? I must observe one Thing—The Doctor and his Brethren, as they make the Work of Salvation, a very easy and agreeable Thing to the Elect, on the one hand; so they assign the poor Sinner a veryhard Task, on the other:He that offends in one Point is, they say,guilty of breaking the whole Law. Here is aplain Instanceof takingScripturein a literal Sense, when it can by no Means be so understood. According to this, a Man, that onlysteals, may be said to commit Murder, and bepunishedas a Murderer as well as a Thief; though we know he has not committed it.
Inthe main, we may conscientiously observe and keep God’sLaws, and yet in Time ofTemptationandWeaknessfall into some Evil, will, Godthereforeconsiderandpunishus as those who live in the daily Breach and Contempt of all his Laws? No! For, on the contrary, Godever waits to be gracious to all such, as through Inadvertence fall into Sin, and are willing to forsake it. The View and Intent of our Apostle, in these Words, seems to be of veryeasyandplainSignification: There was in those early Times, as appears from our Saviour’s frequently reproving the Hypocrisy of that Generation, a Sort of People, who appeared zealous in the Externals of Religion, while at the same Time they neglected Things of fargreater Moment:Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, ye pay Tithe of Mint and Cummin; and have omitted the weightier Matters of the Law:Mat. xxiii.ver. 23. They daringly violated God’sLaws in some of the most material and important Instances, and complied with others in a mere formal ostentatious Way; and were therefore guilty, in the Divine View, of the Breach of thewhole Law;formere Obedienceupon improper Motives to aPartof the Law, while at the same Time they allow’d themselves in theknownanddeliberateViolation ofmore weightyCommands, was no true or proper Obedience at all: and, in this Sense, theJewishSacrifices of the Law, though commanded by the highest Authority, were always esteemed an Abomination; and the Christian Religion as well as the Law, is certainly liable to Abuses of the same Kind, from Men of hypocritical and corrupt Minds, whom therefore this Doctrine of the Apostleeffectuallyandpeculiarlyregards and reproves: and I appeal to all, if this Construction of the Sacred Text be not more agreeable to Reason and Common Sense, than that which the Doctor has thought fit and convenient to bestow thereon. I beseech the Doctor to consider how, according to his Principles, this Covenant could be proposed toAdam, out of a kind and beneficent intention in the Creator, when God knew, in the first Place, thatAdamwould not keep it, and determined, in the second Place, upon the Breach of it, to leave the Bulk of Mankind to perish everlastingly, without Mercy, without sufficient or suitable Means of Redemption; and what acruel Joke, upon theCalvinistical Scheme, of God’swilling theFall, was here put uponAdam, and all his Posterity!
To talk as some do, of our existing inAdamat the Time of his Transgression, is very absurd, when, asintelligentandfree Creatures, it is evident, we did not exist at all.Sin is a Transgression of some Law, which we have at the same time Power to keep. Godnever requires Impossibilities. He that made Man, knows best what he is capable of and hath undoubtedly taken care to proportion theDutieshe requires of Man, to thePowershe hath bestowed on him. The contrary would be very hard dealing indeed—If a Law be dispensed to me, I must in the first Place have Understanding sufficient to judge of its Authority, and the Obligations it lays me under; and, in the second Place, I must also have Power to keep it, otherwise it can never be a Law suitable to me; and a Man’sAge,Complexion,Stature, andCircumstances, are as just Causes for Damnation, as the Breach of a Law which lies beyond the Reach of his Knowledge and Abilities. But supposing, in the last Place, that Goddid make such a Covenant withAdam, &c. (though I think I have shewn it to be impossible) let us see how the Doctrines ofElectionandPreteritionwill turn outthen. I have already endeavoured to make it appear, that Goddoes not act in that arbitrary Manner, which these Gentlemen teach; that though he is indeed governed by no Law without, or accountable to any for what he is pleased to do, yet his own Rectitude of Mind, is to him an invariable Rule of Righteousness, equally secure to all Intents and Purposes of a written Law without: and this argues the adorable and incomparable Excellency of his Being who, though by Nature he is infinitely above all Power and Authority whatever, yet his moral Perfections continually prompt him to promote the Happiness of the meanest of his Creatures. It wassovereign Goodness(rather thansovereign Pleasure) which prompted the Almighty to create Man, in order to communicate Happiness to him; and ifAdam’sPosterity might be said to fall in him, yet Godmust at least look on them in a more favourable Manner, than if they had actually sinned themselves; and consequently it could never suit with his Goodness to punish eternallyany oneunder this Circumstance, withoutfirst givinghim an Opportunity of recovering from his lapsed State; nor could he ordain the Means on Purpose tosave somebyelecting Grace, withoutsaving all. Goddoes nothing without sufficient Reason: he could save none under this Circumstance, but as they werein themselvesObjects of his Pity and Mercy; and if ever there was an Object of Mercy, here it is, an immortal Soul condemned, for the Fault ofanother, which it could by no Means hinder or prevent, to suffer eternal Torment. There is something greatly moving in such an Object as this; and asall Adam’sPosterity were equally involved in his Guilt, all are Objects of Mercyprecisely the same, and therefore there is not the least Ground for the Difference which we are told is made by Election; because ’tis making aDistinctionwhere there isno Difference. Here is the Race ofAdam, considered asequallyfallen in him, divided into two very unequal Parts (equally in themselves, and altogether Objects of Mercy, if such an Object can be) by the Almighty himself. The smaller Number he is at all Events determined to save, and to destroy the greater Number.
In answer to this, I expect to hear that common, butweakArgument, drawn from anearthly Prince, his extending Pardon tooneCriminal, and leavinganotherto undergo the Execution of his Sentence. But this is of the samefallacious Kind, as that drawn from the Case ofRebellion, and shews howvery hardthe Patrons of this Doctrine are put to it for Arguments. Two Men, condemned for one Crime, may not be equally wicked, and consequentlyonemay better deserve Pity than theother, and to extend it, is in itself a rational and worthy Distinction, made between twosuch Criminals. Let us suppose, in order to illustrate the Argument, that a Man iscompelled, by Thieves, to go out on the Highway, where he plunders, and is at length, with the rest, brought to Justice; his Sentence would doubtless be thesameas theirs: But when he is consider’d, as having acted not by Choice, butby Necessity, he must needs be an Object of Pity. Nay, mere Justice itself will plead strongly in his Favour. Apply this (so far as it belongs) to the Doctrine ofOriginal Sin;which if it makes Men Sinnersat all, it must beby Necessity, there being noPossibilityfor us to prevent it; which is equal to the greatest Constraint that can be produced or imagined, and consequentlyall Menmust, under this Consideration, beat worstsuitable Objects of Mercy. Besides, the Weakness of this Argument will plainly appear, upon considering, with respect toearthly Princes, that where the Equity of making adue Distinctionbetween oneCriminaland another, is not the Reason, whyone is pardoned, and the otherleft to suffer;italwaysarises either fromCaprice,Interest,Solicitation, or fromMisrepresentationof Facts to Monarchs; who, too often,seeandhearthroughothers, that are not always duly conscientious, to preserve inviolable the Trust reposed in them; and whether such Reasoning as this, can possibly affect theAlmighty, any Man of common Understanding may easily judge.
But let them apply my Argument on theSovereignty ofGodagainst theCertaintyof their Election, and I believe they will find but little Reason to boast of their Doctrine of electing Grace. They tell us indeed, that this Doctrine of theirs, makes the Death ofChristof more Effect than ours, because it secures the Salvation ofsome. But I have proved there can be no Security in it; and surely that Doctrine, whichputs allinto a Capacity of Salvation, must be better, than that, which leavesalmost every Manto perish; and if it was better to save a few, than to save none in this arbitrary Manner, it must still have been better and more to the Glory ofChrist, arbitrarily to have saved all Mankind. They say also, that their Doctrine of Election is a much better Ground for Love and good Works, than is that offree Grace. But the contrary is apparent, because whoever thinks rightly, cannot be without this disquieting Thought.—If God, in a mere arbitrary Manner, and without any Regard to previous Fitness, has chosen me, and rejected another; how do I know but his Mind may change hereafter, or that he may not reverse this Decree? or ifunconditional Electionbe the true Doctrine of the Gospel, and Man isequally dearand acceptable to Godwithout, as he iswith, good Works, what Inducement can such a Person have to please Godthat Way, when he is already as well pleased without them? If Election is founded upon anunconditional Decree, the natural Inference (in all such as believe the Doctrine, and themselves to be of the Elect) must be this—If I am of the Number of the Elect, nothing can frustrate my Happiness; I may gratify my favourite Passions, and wallow in all Kinds of Wickedness, Luxury and Sensuality, and be equally acceptable to the Almighty, as wasDavidin the Sins of Murder and Adultery: On the contrary, if I am not of that Number which shall be saved, all my Pains and Obedience will never procure me Acceptance with God, and therefore Iwill seekall possible Gratifications in this Life, seeing it is the only Time and Place wherein I can obtain any Thing like Happiness; nor can the Liberty I take here increase my Misery hereafter, theprecise Degreeofthatbeing fixed along with the Decree of my Damnation: Though this Persuasion of being set apart for everlasting Torment, has more often the Effects of Desperation andSelf-Murder;and indeed the two Extremes ofPresumptionandDespair, are the natural Brood and Offspring of these Doctrines, as the reverend and learned Dr.Trapphas abundantly evinced, in his excellent Discourse,against the Folly, Sin, and Danger of being righteous over much. Hypocrisy and Persecution are also the genuine Offspring of this Faith; andwheneverit has been tried, Persecution has grown up to a considerable Maturity: for as they pretend to know the Marks of elect and reprobate Men, what can be more natural, than for those, who apprehend themselves to be theformer, to persecute and take Vengeance on thelatter. Hath not God, by his own Decree of Damnation, set them an Example? and if he has set a Mark on the Reprobate, they (the Elect) may very reasonably, in Imitation of theDivine Conduct, endeavour to make them as wretched as possible here in this Life, andwho shall lay any Thing to the Charge of God’sElect?I am now shewing, what are the genuine Effects of this Doctrine, not charging Consequences on such as neither doseenorapproveof them: there is great Difference in the Conduct of Men of this Principle; and its natural Effects are, by other Things intervening, often prevented, the chief of which may, I believe, be Want of Power and Opportunity; for tho’ many, when out of Power, might be apt to say (asHazaeldid)what is thy Servant a Dog, that he should do this Evil?yet they would perhaps be in some Danger of behaving as that great Man did, when he came to be tried. Some again, who tho’ they profess the Doctrine, are yet (I doubt not) often under the Influence of God’sGrace, which, as it tends to humble the Soul, and render it more loving and humane than before, naturally prevents the Spirit of Persecution from taking such deep Root as otherwise it might. And here, though I do not pretend to be anice Judgeof the spiritual Part of Religion, yet I have heard such as have been accounted Men of the best Experience say, that when the Grace of Godoperates on the Soul, the ardent Love of Mankind isinseparable therewith. If then the better Sort of those, who profess this Doctrine, are ever sensible of thismost agreeableand humbling Operation in the Soul, I ask them, if it does notnaturally distendand enlarge their Wishes, in Behalf of all Mankind? and if this Spirit of Love be the genuine Effect of the Operation of God’sGrace, what shall be said of that ineffable and immense Fountain of Grace and Goodness, from whence it proceeds? But, on the other hand, it has been observed, that among mereenthusiastick and traditional Believers, of the Doctrine of Election, their Hypocrisy, Deceit and Dissimulation has overtop’d that of all the World besides, even beyond what human Nature could be thought capable of, in its most wicked and corrupt State; in short, they seem to have made the Deceit ofJacob, and all other parallel Places of Scripture, that furnish the worst Part of the Lives of good Men, astanding Ruleof Behaviour—What a blessed Company has the Lordset apart for himself!
TheForeknowledgeof Godis supposed, by some, to belong to the Argument ofPredestination;but I think it wholly beside my present Purpose, to enter circumstantially into it, forthis Reason—If, Whatever Godforeknows, he must also of Necessityforeordain;it is manifestly usingForeknowledgeandOrdinationto signify just thesame Thing, and,in this Light, every Argument againstFore-ordination, must be equally strong againstForeknowledge, so far as it affects the Doctrines under Consideration; and when these Gentlemen can shew the contrary, or are willing to enter into the Consideration of theDivine Foreknowledge, eitherseparate from, orconnected with, the Doctrine ofFore-ordination, I shall always be ready to receive Information.
ThisDoctrine of electing Grace, they exalt as anincomprehensible Mystery;so do the Papists, with as good Reason, that ofTransubstantiation;for neither of them are Mysteries, or incomprehensible, butpalpable Errors, whose Absurdity we doeasily and fully comprehend;nor will the stale Art of playing on the WordMysteryamuse us any longer. Another strange Argument, which these Men make use of, in order to set aside some Passages of Scripture, which are positive and express against them, is this,that if God wills the Salvation of all Men, all must be saved, otherwise we may be said to conquer the Will and Grace of God. To which the Answer is very easy—Man is made afree Creature, and therefore Goddeals with him as such; because to make him free, and then arbitrarilyoverrulehis Freedom, would be making him free tono Purpose. The Will of Godis sometimespositive, and sometimesconditional. He gives Laws, commands us to keep them, and promises eternal Life to those who obey; nor can we suppose he commands us to obey, without willing our Obedience. We may indeedresistthe Operations of his Grace: but to talk ofconqueringGod, is Nonsense. He has made us free Creatures; he wills our Salvation, and has granted us such Aids as are sufficient, if we use them aright, to bring us to Happiness: This Conduct in the Divine Being, is not only reasonable in itself, butperfectly agreeableto manyplainandexpressParts of Scripture. TheWeepingandLamentationofChristoverJerusalem, is a strong Proof of it:How often would I have gathered thee, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings; but thou wouldest not!Here was all done, that was fit and convenient to reclaim free Beings; not only proper Aids offer’d, but offer’d in themost tenderand affectionate Manner, as is evident from the Comparison of the Hen, &c. and by the Wordshow often, is set forth thegreat Patience and longsuffering of God:And notwithstanding all this, they resisted to their own Destruction. Godwilled, or would have saved her, but she was stubborn and rebellious, and would not accept of Salvation; did she thereforeconquerthe Almighty? Suppose my Father gives me a good Education, a good Employment, and a competent Portion in Money, and, besides all, is continually at hand, ready further to advise and assist me, whenever it may be necessary; yet I am obstinate and disobedient, and, by pursuing evil Courses, fall into Poverty, Contempt, and Ruin: I may indeed be said toresist, but in nogood Sensetoconquermy Father. Besides, according to this absurd Way of arguing, if Goddoes all in Believers, his Laws are to bekeptby himself; with what Propriety then can they be said to be given to Man? He to whom the Law is given is to keep it, not the Being who gives it.
Imighthere, very naturally, speak concerning the Sacrifice ofChrist’s Death, andhis Righteousnessimputed to us; but I shall not now discuss it fully, only a few Remarks may not be impertinent or useless. These two Points appear to me to be much misunderstood;Sinis said to be infinite, because committed against an infinite God; and that therefore nothing but an infinite Being can satisfy the Justice of Godfor it: A fine Story indeed, for Men to amuse us with, who pretend to believe inonly oneGod: Here isoneinfinite Being, to be satisfied for Sin; andanother, to satisfy him. And, what is still as bad or worse, it supposes, that an infinite Being may, for a certain Season, suffer or undergo a Diminution of its Happiness; which, in an infinite and unchangeable Being, I take to be impossible. Was it thenonlythe Person, orrational SoulofJesus Christ, that suffered, being upheld under it, by the infinite Being himself? If so, what is become of the infinite Being, that was tosufferfor Sin; for does Godmake Satisfaction to himself? ’Till these Gentlemen either renounce, or better explain this Matter, they will, I hope, think very favourably of all who deal in absurd Schemes of Faith.
TheThing productive of these Absurdities, is awrong Notionof Sin, and of the Justice of God: Sin, they say, is infinite, becausecommitted against an infinite God. It is doubtless sometimes a great Aggravation of it, that it is committed against God; but it is not so much hisGreatness, as our abusing hisGoodness, that aggravates the Crime: As may appear from this short Observation, That any Favour, disinterestedly done, by a Person of the meanest Rank in Life, lays the Receiver under the same Obligation, as though it were granted by the greatest Man upon Earth: It is the Motive and the Action, put together, that gives it its proper Value to the Receiver. God’sAuthority may add some kind of Sanction but no Alteration of outward Circumstances, in him who confers a Benefit, can ever after change the Nature of the Action, or the Obligations resulting from it.
And, when we consider, on the other hand, that Sin is committed by a frail finite Being, very often in its unguarded Moments, prompted by Passion and Appetite, and surrounded with the most powerful Temptations; this proves more strongly, that it cannot be infinite. By theJusticeof God, is not meant, that he cannot forgive Sin without Satisfaction, but that hewillnot punish the Innocent; He proposes himself as a Pattern for our Imitation, and bids usforgive our offending Brethren, if they repent and desire Forgiveness:and he himself will therefore forgive on the same Terms; for unless Sin becomes so enormous, as to make Punishment necessary,RepentanceandAmendmentis all that Godexpects. The Gospel is proposed to Sinners, on these Terms; and as to the Death of Christ, it were unreasonable to think, he laid down his Life by way of Satisfaction to Offended Justice, in the Manner these Gentlemen understand it; but in Testimony of the Truth of his Doctrines, and Confirmation of God’sgreat Loveto the World. This was the Cause of Christ’sComing in the Flesh. Godso loved the World, that he sent Christto save it, by such Preaching and Miracles, and other internal Aids, &c. as were in themselves sufficient to beget Faith in such as gave a proper Attention; such a Faith, in the Soul, as was productive of Morality and Virtue in Practice. It was anoriginal Actof Grace and Goodness in God, to send Christinto the World, to save Sinners, and not (as some superstitiously teach) a mere Compliance in Godthe Father (and that, not without full Satisfaction first made) to thevoluntaryandmercifulIntercession of Christthe Son. For then our Salvation would beowing onlyto the Love of Christ, and notat allto God’s Love, who is here considered as arigorousandunrelenting Creditor, that will not release the Debtor, until full Satisfaction be made; so that Christbecomes our Creditor, and Godhas no farther Demand: and what Need then can there be of Intercession to Godon our Behalf, when the Debt is already paid, and full Satisfaction made? Christ’scoming into the World wasentirely owingto the Father’s Mercy. His Doctrine, Miracles, &c. were what he had in Commission from God, as a Means to instruct and make the World happy; it is he who, instead of being averse to forgive frail Man his Offences, has through Jesusproclaimed Pardontoall, on Condition of Repentance and Amendment; and thro’ the Love of Godit was also, that Christwas appointed a Mediator for sinful Man: So that the whole Affair arose from God’sown Mercy.
Istandamazed at the Gentlemen, against whom I am arguing; what aScopedo they give to theSovereigntyof God, in the Doctrines ofElectionandReprobation?And yet they won’tsuffer itat all to operate, in the Case offorgiving Sin, on the Terms of Repentance and Amendment. A small, yeavery smalland reasonable Allowance, in regard to theExertionof this Attribute, and in agood Causetoo, would be sufficient to justify the Mercy of God, in forgiving Sin. If, as a Sovereign, he punishes where no Sin is, surely he may also, as a Sovereign, forgive Sin. So that this Notion of the Impossibility of God’s forgiving Sin, without Satisfaction first made, is erroneous and despicable. Repentance and Amendment in the Creature is, in the Nature of Things, amuch betterSatisfaction, than can be made by the Act of another. By theJusticeof God, I repeat it again, is meant, that he will not punish the innocent, and not that he cannot shew Mercy to an offending, repenting, penitent Creature, unless another sheds his Blood for an Atonement. Nor is the Righteousness of Christ,strictly speaking, imputable to any one. The Terms of the Gospel are,Repent, and be converted, and your Sins shall be blotted out:Besorryandamend, and I willforgiveyou.The Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much;and God, in some Cases, to shew his Regard to the Righteous, and to excite others to become righteous also, may possibly grantthat, at the Request of such a righteous Person, which without, it might be improper to grant; and Christbeing our holy and righteous Mediator, Godmay do more at his Request, on our Behalf, than he would do without it. Not but that (independent ofand previous to the Intercession of Christ, at least to the Account we have of it, in the New Testament) Godwasever disposedto be favourable to Man, and always ready to receive him, coming to him in a proper and becoming Manner: For even this very Christ, and his Intercession, &c. is all ultimately the Act of God, and flows from his unbounded Love and Goodness to Man. So thatimputed Righteousnesscan mean no more, than God’sforgiving us, at the Request of JesusChrist(whom he sent on purpose to make that Request, and to do every thing for the Benefit and Happiness of Man) and not areal Transferof Christ’spersonalRighteousness, which is not only in itself impossible, but would, if true, take away all Necessity of our becoming holy. The Righteousness of Christis altogether different to what these Men take it to be; it is a real State of Righteousness, wrought in the Soul by the Operation of Christ’sSpirit, Man submitting thereto. I know there are some Expressions in theNew Testament, which (if precipitantly understood, without Regard had to the Nature of the Thing, and to other plain Texts) seema littleto favour these Doctrines. I can’t say, by what MeanspreciselytheBiblecame into its present Condition; many Things might concur to give us wrong Apprehensions of its true Sense and Meaning, He that understands human Nature will find, that Men, who have beengreat Bigotsin any Way of Religion,will generally retainsome of their former Prejudices, even after, in the main, they may have changed their Principles, Prejudice in Education is a Leaven, not so easily purged out, as some may imagine; and ’tis possible, theWritingsof St.Paulmay have in them a Tincture of this kind; besides what may have since crept in, by Partiality or Accident: against which, andall Errorsof a like Kind, a due Regard to thefundamental Principles, I have endeavoured to inculcate, will, I hope, abundantly secure us. These are some succinct Observations, that I could not well avoid making; which perhaps may shortly be followed by something morefullandcomprehensive, concerning theVirtueandExtentof Christ’sDeath, and the Nature ofimputed Righteousness. What I have here delivered, concerning God’sSovereignty, is not the Result of a few, hasty, or loose Thoughts, but the Effect of long and mature Deliberation. I have weighed over and over the Arguments in my own Breast, and tried their Strength with People, the most likely to afford me Satisfaction; and could I have found it in either Way, the World had never been troubled with theseFree and Impartial Thoughts.
Permitme, before I make an End, just to observe, in Regard to the Controversy, between Mr.J—sand Mr.Taylor, on the Scripture Doctrine ofOriginal Sin;that Mr.J—s, as well as Dr.W—s, lays great Stress on that frivolous Distinction, mentioned a few Pages back, ofmoralandnaturalNecessity, to that Degree, that Mr.Tayloris treated somewhatrudely, for not perceiving the Force of it; when I dare aver,nonebut misguided Zealots, could ever see any Reason or Argument in it: Nor do some of these very Men, who urge it, seem to believe it themselves. Ask them how Man can be justly accountable for Evils, that proceed from aNature depraved inAdam, and they immediately leavethis Distinction, and recur to theCovenant;and this Covenant they cannot support by any Argument short of God’sSovereignty, which they are welcome (if they can tell how) to improve to their own Advantage.
To say that Man, in the Fall, has natural Powers to act rightly, and is therefore condemnable when he does not, tho’, by Necessity; he wants Inclinations to be virtuous, would, touseMr.J—s’s genteel Language,be a senseless Falshood, and shew Poverty of Argument(I am loth to add as he does)and Effrontery too. Such Rudeness deserves Lamentation as well as Reproof, nor do I on this Occasion set beforehimhisown Wordswith any secret Pleasure, but purely to shew Mr.J—s, how agreeable such a Liberty will appear, when, in return, it may be offered to himself.
Whyis this favourite Distinction urged, unless it be to shew, that because Man has natural Powers, ’tis hisownFault, if he does not employ them aright; but how does it appear, that such a Poweronly, can renderMana whit better, ormoreamoral Agent, than he is, or would be, without it? If Inclination toVirtue, mustprecedeevery truly virtuous Action; and Man’s Depravity under the Fall, besuchas prevents his ever having such good Inclinations, his natural Ability to do Good, must needs be a mereJokeand aCypher. Just the same as, on the other hand, would be, the strongest Inclinations to Virtue, andnonatural Power of complying with them in Practice. As nothing short ofKnowledgeandPower, Power of both kinds,naturalandmoral, can constitute Man amoral Agent, or proper Subject ofLaw, of Rewards and Punishments, either here, or hereafter; one would wonder to see this insignificant Distinction urged at all in this Controversy: for it is, at the best, a mereParade of Words;which prove nothing, except it be the Want of Truth and Righteousness, in this Doctrine ofOriginal Sin;or greatBigotry, and Defect of Understanding, in its most accomplished Patrons. And after all that is, or can be said, concerningnaturalandmoralPowers; it is doubtful, if such a depraved miserable Wretch, as Man under the Fall is said by theAssemblies Catechismto be, can (strictly speaking) have any Power at all over his own Thoughts and Actions; The immediate Cause and Spring of ActionistheSoul, to which theBodyis subservient only as anInstrument, but has in itself, according to the best Philosophy, no Power to producevoluntaryorself Motion. What is callednaturalPower in Man, as opposed tomoral, is at least, a Power lodged in the Soul, to give Motion to the Body. But theseVolitionsof the Mind, and the immediate Act of the Soul upon the Body, in order to produceVirtue, depending on the Mind’s being in a State ofFreedom, able to chuse and prefer Virtue, as better than Vice; it is evident, that in a Mind, totally abandoned to Evil,moralMotives have not their due Power over the Man; and what we call hisnaturalPower to be virtuous, is either suspended, or quite overpowered, by an evil and irresistable Turn of Inclination, arising from theActof another; I mean,Adam. Man then, considered as amoralAgent, has Power todo, ornottodo, the very same Thing; be it good or evil. But this Liberty of Choice and Action in the Creature, as theSoulis butone, and alsotheimmediate Source of all Action in Man, cannot properly, I think, be calledtwodistinct Powers, but ratherdifferent Applicationsofoneand thesame Powerlodged in the Soul. On the other hand, in such adepraved Creature, as Man under the Fall is said to be, the Power ofchoosingandrefusing, of being virtuous or vicious, which hepleases, is altogether lost and destroyed; and such a Man, so far from havingnaturalandmoralPowers, has (properly speaking)no Powerat all remaining: all his Thoughts and Actions, like those of a Machine, are merely involuntary; he is constantly impelled by something mightier than himself, and ever necessitated to think and act as he does: his being an intelligent Creature, doth not alter the State of the Case, or render him more an Agent than a Stock or a Stone. In this sad Condition, Man can have no Power at all to love and pursue Virtue, untill the overruling Principle, which determines all his Thoughts and Actions to the contrary, be removed, or he receive Superaddition of Understanding and Strength agreeable thereto. My natural Strength of Body may be equal to four hundred Weight; but what can this avail, while I am continually pressed down by four thousand? and all Mr.J—s’s Skill and Criticism (Pages71, 72) will not evade this Reasoning. The Distinction between immediate and remote Causes of Sin, is as trifling and inconclusive, as the ’forementioned Distinction ofmoralandnaturalPowers. Those indeed, who can fancy themselves to be God’sown dear and elect Children, may reject all Opposition withScorn, and withoutExamination, and acquiesce readily in the most rigid and tyrannical System of Religion, that renders the Bulk of Mankind miserable, while the Elect may think themselves secure in the Divine Decree,with an humble Assent, and awful(it should be superstitious)Reverence of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the great God. But what Reason or Recompence will that be tohim, who under proper Means and Motives would have kept the Commandments, and so have entered into Life; who would have loved the Lordhis God, with all his Heart, Soul, and Strength; and his Neighbour as himself? Or how can such a partial and tyrannical Doctrine, be reconciled to the Voice of Reason in Man, to our common Notions ofRightandWrong, to the General Scope and Tenour of theHoly Scriptures, or to that Text in particular, which assures us, thatthe Almighty doth not grieve nor afflict the Children of Men willingly?
FINIS.