Chapter 2

I would not, as I observed before, presume to impose on the Reader's Time and Patience, by entering unnecessarily into the scriptural Part of the Argument; yet I must beg Leave, to make now and then an Observation or two as I go along: And the first Thing that falls in my way is, the Story of _Jacob_ and _Esau_, and the Account which Mr. _Cole_ gives of it. He not only relates the Story, but assures us, that _Jacob's_ obtaining the Blessing was of Divine Appointment, and (what is more extraordinary) that the _Falsehood_ and _Fraud_ he practised to accomplish it, was all of God's own immediate Direction; and this he gives as an Instance of God's _Sovereignty_, and proceeding contrary to the moral Fitness of Things, and the Nature of those Laws he hath given to Man. That God intended _Jacob_ the _Blessing_, or preferred him to _Esau_, I readily grant; but cannot admit it to be inferred from thence, that the Means, by which it was, as we reckon, accomplished, were _Divine_ also: There is a more natural or (at least) more justifiable way of accounting for the whole Matter. According to the History, it seems plain, that _Rebecca_ only, and not her Husband, was privy to this Designation of the _Deity:_ she had upon Inquiry (when with Child) received such an Assurance from the Lord; which might be the _first Cause_ of her preferring _Jacob_ to _Esau_, and which in Time, 'tis probable, grew up into a much greater Degree of _Partiality_ and _Fondness:_ All this Time the good Old _Patriarch_, her Husband, seems to have been entirely unacquainted with the Affair. And when the Time drew nigh, in which, according (as some think) to Custom, he was about to _bless_ his _eldest_ Son, _Rebecca_ then grew diffident of the Accomplishment of the Promise made in _Jacob's_ Behalf, and applied herself to the Means, which the Text tells us was used on that Occasion. As to the Authority those Heads of Families had to _confer Benefits_ on their Offspring, by way of _Blessing_, though I shall not now much contend about it, yet give me Leave to make a few Observations. It don't appear to me that _Isaac_, in giving his Blessing, did so properly or so much bestow it on the _Person_ of _Jacob_ present, as he did on the _Person_ of _Esau_ absent; because it is the Intention which ought principally to be regarded, and _Esau_ undoubtedly was intended. Again, this way of blessing, if considered in itself as a mere Tradition, could be _no more_ efficacious, than what now prevails in some Parts of the _Christian Church_. All true Authority of this kind (if any there be) must result from _immediate Inspiration and Command;_ and whether _Isaac_ had these Qualifications, while _Jacob_ stood before him, personating _Esau_, is a Matter of no small Doubt and Dispute. He was ('tis evident) much surprised at the _Cheat_, put on him by his _Wife_ and _Son_, and would doubtless very willingly have given _Esau_ the Preference, according to his first Intention; but something _supernatural_ seems now to have seized and satisfied him, that _Jacob_ was the Person intended; for he cries out, "I have blessed him, yea and he shall be blessed." And this latter Assurance, and the Energy and Satisfaction wherewith the Words were pronounced, I take _rather_ to have been the _true Blessing_ than the _other_. For, as the Reason of _Jacob's_ Dissimulation was intirely owing to his Mother's Diffidence and Impatience; so, there is no Doubt to be made, but that the _Almighty_ himself would, had she not interfered, have brought it about in a manner becoming his _Holiness_, and not by _Falsehood_, _Deceit_, and _Dissimulation_. _Religion_ can never be _more_ dishonoured, or the Despensations of God to Mankind receive _greater_ Reproach, than when _Divine Purposes_ are (under God's immediate Direction) said to be accomplish'd by Methods in themselves _evil_ and _immoral_, and altogether opposite to His Commands. Hath he forbid us Lying, under the _Penalty_ of _Hell-Fire_, and shall he himself practise it, or immediately influence another to do it, for the sake of bringing to pass some Event, which he could as easily have accomplish'd, by Methods purely righteous and honourable! And had _Jacob_ never been prompted, or attempted to obtain the Blessing in the manner he did attempt it, 'tis more than probable, that God, who removed _Isaac's_ Surprise, and caused him to break forth as he did, "I have blessed him, yea and he shall be blessed," would never have permitted or impowered _Isaac_, to have _blessed Esau_, in an _effectual_ manner beyond his Brother: Or if a mere Pronouncing of Words, when uttered as a Blessing from the Heads of Families, was in itself an _irreversible Blessing_, and _Isaac_ had attempted to bestow it on _Esau_, God no doubt would have stayed his Mouth by _Intimations within;_ as he did, on another Occasion, the _Hand of Abraham_, by an Angel without: Provided, I say, it be allowed, that a _formal Blessing_, from the Mouth of _Isaac_, was necessary to confirm on _Jacob_ those superior Privileges, which God had designed for him; and that this Interpretation of the Text is more honourable, and better becoming the Truth and Majesty of the _Divine Being_. I appeal not to Reason only, but to Mr. _Cole_ himself: For whatever Influence Prejudice, or Enthusiasm, may have on some Minds, there are certain Seasons, wherein Truth will display itself to the Realm and Understanding of Mankind, and extort, even from the Mouths of those, who sometimes oppose her, the most ample Concessions in her Favour. Take the following as an Instance--_Cole's Sovereignty of God_, Page 41, 2d Edit. "To this also might be added the strict Injunctions that God hath laid upon the subordinate Dispensers of his Law; as namely, to judge the People with just Judgment, not to wrest Judgment, nor respect Persons; yea, he curseth them that pervert Judgment, and will surely reprove them that accept Persons; and shall mortal Man be more just than God? will he, under such Penalties, command Men to do thus, and not do so himself?"

The Argument is undoubtedly equally applicable to the Sin of _Lying_, or indeed to any Sin whatever; and I appeal to every unprejudiced Reader, if any Thing more to the Purpose could be urged, against his own Account of the Affair between _Jacob_ and _Esau_, or even against the Doctrine itself, which he writes his Book to support: and this, in Conjunction with my foregoing Arguments, may, I hope, be Answer sufficient for the Use they make of _all other_ parallel Places of Scripture.

By this Concession 'tis plain, that Justice and Goodness in God are, by this Author, considered the same as in us; how else were it possible, to understand what the Laws of God truly mean? _Be you perfect, as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect_, is a plain Indication (taking in the Context) of the moral Perfections of the Divine Nature, in Part apparent to us, as the Text observes, from his admirable Bounty in the Creation; _He causeth his Sun to rise on the Evil and on the Good, and sendeth his Rain on the Just and the Unjust_. Though at other Times, when these Gentlemen are hard pinched with the Iniquity and Injustice of their Doctrines, they apply for Refuge to the _Sovereignty_ of God, and give strong Intimations, that _Justice_ and _Goodness_, when applied to him, are mere unmeaning Sounds, which at best signify, what mere Sovereignty pleases to do, and that when applied to Man, they signify quite another Thing. And this naturally leads me to the second Thing I proposed to consider, _viz_. That allowing the Doctrine of _Election_ to be, as they say, resolveable into God's Sovereignty; that God is just such a Sovereign, as this Doctrine supposes, and these Gentlemen take him to be; that they have his Word for their own Election and Salvation; yet even then, there could be no manner of Certainty as to Religion, no Dependance on the Promises and Threatnings of the Gospel; and consequently, the supposed Elect must _beat the Air_, and run at the same or as great Uncertainties, as any other Persons whatever, under the Government of such an arbitrary Being.

I have, to avoid Dispute, proposed this Argument more to the Advantage of the Elect, than I was strictly obliged to do, by allowing them to be absolutely certain, that God has told them, that they are his Elect, and that he will give them eternal Life; which, allowing the Doctrine of _Election_ to be true, is generally much more than they can prove, either to themselves, or to others: allowing, I say, the Doctrine of _Election_ to be clearly revealed in Scripture, there will be this Difficulty behind, as to the certain Marks of being of that Number. The Scripture must also as clearly reveal the Marks, as it does the Doctrine, or we shall not be able to apply with any Certainty to ourselves. Is believing the Doctrine, &_c_. and thinking myself one of this happy Number, a Rule sufficient to abide by? If so, no Man who has this Faith, concerning the _Doctrine_ and _himself_, can ever depart from it. Yet, there have been many Instances of Persons, zealous in that way, who saw Occasion afterwards to renounce the Doctrine itself, and with it that _imaginary_ and _ungrounded Conceit_ of their being, for no Reason whatever, God's dear Children and Favourites, and embraced, in its room, the Doctrines of _universal Grace_ and _Free-will;_ and upon the best Reasons too, for as without the one, God cannot be just, so without the other, Man, being no Agent, can be no Subject of Rewards and Punishments. These very Men were before thought to be elect, by their most spiritual and best judging Brethren, who pronounced them chosen in _Christ_, and unshaken in the Faith; and so indeed they judged concerning themselves: But the Grace of God being once permitted freely to operate in the Mind, it soon expelled that Ignorance, and Narrowness of Spirit, which (even in many well meaning Persons) is the genuine Effect of such narrow Doctrines. If having this Faith be no certain Mark, because a Man may depart from it, what Proof have they? surely none: But allowing them an absolute Certainty, as to themselves, that God hath told them, in Person, that they are his Elect, it will (on their own darling Principle of Sovereignty) amount to just nothing at all; because, as a Sovereign, God may promise one thing, and intend, nay do another, or the contrary; nor can they prove, or have they the least Assurance, he will not thus deal with them, without recurring to other Principles, which will hold equally strong against the Doctrines themselves--To this Dilemma are these Gentlemen inevitably reduced; they must either give up the Doctrines, or part with any Security of Dependance on God himself, as to their own Happiness. It will be _in vain_, here, to refer to the _Goodness of God_, though, on _my_ Principles, the Argument would be unanswerable; on _theirs_, it is _stark naught_, and avails nothing. And pray observe the _double Dealing_ this reduces them to; it is something like setting up _two Gods_ instead of one, or, which is much the same, ascribing to the _eternal, unchangeable Being_, an inconsistent and contrary Conduct. Here is, _first_, a _mere_ arbitrary Being, that decrees, or pretends to decree, by mere _Sovereign Pleasure_ only, the Salvation of the _Elect;_ but, because such a Being may as well break his Promise as keep it, here is _another_ to make _good_ the Promise, who invariably acts according to the moral Fitness of Things: Or, if you take it the other way, here is, 1_st_, A Promise made as a mere _Sovereign_, undetermined by, and unregardful of, _all_ moral Obligations; and, 2_dly_, The Performance of this Promise is expected, from a Principle of Justice and Goodness; ever conformable _to_ the moral Reason and Fitness of Things: And certainly, in either Case, it leaves Things very precarious; nor can the Promises of such a Being as this (I speak it with all possible Reverence to the true God himself) be any thing near so valuable, or fit to be depended on, as the Engagements of a good and worthy Man. And whatever these Gentlemen, to put a more plausible Out-side on their Doctrines, say, concerning the Freedom and Excellence of that State, wherein our first Father _Adam_ was created, and the _Possibility_ of his having remained perfectly innocent, and the Blessings of eternal Life, which would have been thence derived to all his Posterity, it is plain to me, they generally believe no such thing; but that, on the contrary, God absolutely _willed_ and _decreed_ the _Fall of Adam_, Mr. _Cole_ himself, their great Advocate, is far from supposing the Condition of _Adam_ to have been proper for abiding long in Obedience to the Divine Command, or that, had he stood, his Posterity would have thence become _impeccable_ and _happy:_ on the contrary, he represents _Adam's_ Condition as a very weak and imperfect State, by no mean suited to the Temptations, which his Maker knew he would shortly be exposed to, and overcome with; and all his Posterity, _had they been tried one by one, would_, it seems, _have failed as he did_, Page 72. If all this does not amount to something equal to a positive Assertion, that God _willed_ the Fall of Adam, and in Consequence of it, the Guilt and Desert of eternal Death, which is said to be thence derived, to _all_ his prosperity, I do not know what is, or can be equal to it; and indeed all this, and much more, may easily be resolved into the Doctrine of God's _Sovereignty:_ and whoever thinks I have misrepresented their Faith, need only consult their great apostle Mr. _Calvin_. But let me further pursue my Argument, to prove, that tho' a Man of this _Faith_ has God's _own Word_ for his Election and Salvation, he cannot, on this Principle of _mere Sovereignty_, reasonably or safely depend on it: My Reason, which is short and plain, I have already given; because God, as a _Sovereign_, may do just what he pleases, _keep_ his Promises, or _break_ them. There can be no Possibility of evading this Argument, without coming back to the Goodness of God; which is at once to set aside mere _Sovereign_ Pleasure, and evidently recurring to the moral Fitness of Things. As much as these Gentlemen are pleased to despise this moral Fitness, and superstitiously exalt the mere Will of God in Opposition thereto; and if the _Goodness_ of God proves, that he _cannot_ break the Promise he has made to them of eternal Life; it is at least as strong a Proof to me, that such a good Being _could not_ possibly make me for eternal Misery, or, which is the very same Thing, will or decree the Fall of _Adam_, and pass the Sentence of eternal Death on all his Posterity; the far greatest Part of whom he leaves, in this Condition, to perish everlastingly, and _miserable_ me among the rest!

A Due Survey of the two Cases, or Conditions, of the Elect and Non-elect, may serve to set this Matter in a clear Light, God being in himself antecedent to the Existence of all other Beings, infinitely glorious and happy, could have no Occasion for Creatures to add to his Blessedness; all that we call _evil_, such as Cruelty and Injustice in Man, ever arises from such a _vicious_ and _imperfect_ State of Mind, as cannot, for that Reason, possibly belong to _Deity_. As the Sources, therefore, whence these Evils arise, cannot be in God; such a Conduct, as these Doctrines suppose, is also equally impossible to proceed from God, whose _only Intent_ in creating must be, to communicate Happiness to his Creatures: Creation infers Providence, and to bring a sensible rational Being into this World; and, instead of taking _due Care_ of its Safety and Happiness, to _decree_ and render it eternally miserable, is in its _own Nature_, much worse than making an absolute Promise of eternal Life to any created being, and _disappointing that Being_ of its Happiness, whether by annihilation, or by changing it to another State, or Mode of Being, no more happy than the present mortal Life; 'tis only a Breach of Promise, which, in such a _Sovereign_, is a mere trifle. We have _no natural_ Right to Immortality, _much_ less to immortal Happiness; it is the mere Effect of Divine Bounty--But, being created in a weak, dependent State, and surrounded with Wants and Infirmities, we _have_ a _natural Right_ to the Care and Protection of our Maker; and tho' we allow, no _formal Promise_ is made on our Behalf, yet the _very act_ itself, of creating such Beings, and the Condition we _are_ placed in, contains in it the _Substance_ of a Promise; and we may be assured, God will have proper Regard to such Beings. If God be gracious enough to _give_ eternal Life, to which we have not the _least_ natural Right, can he possibly with-hold that which, from our Make and Dependance on him, we have just Reason to expect? and how Much more impossible is it, that he should make us for everlasting Misery! To make _one Man_ for Damnation, is much worse, than promising eternal Life to another, and breaking that Promise; he that does the former, cannot be depended on in the latter. Methinks, the very Creation itself, and bountiful Provision therein made, for the Accommodation and Happiness of Man, might assure us, that (Man being made principally for another World) a _proportionate Care_ will be taken of his more important and everlasting Concerns. Which presents me with a fair Opportunity, of exposing a Notion these Gentlemen hold, or a Method they have, of interpreting such plain Texts of Scripture, as are brought to prove God's general Care and Providence over his whole Creation; in _particular_, where _David_ says, "The tender Mercies of the Lord are over all his Works:" This, if you believe them, relates only to this Life; so I think Mr. _Gill_ says. But what then, Is no Inference thence to be made? If God be thus tender, to provide Temporals, how _much more_ will he be kind to the Soul, and provide for _that!_ 'Tis a natural and strong Way of arguing, and it was our Saviour's own Method of arguing, as the most Plain and Conclusive: "Wherefore if God so cloath the Grass of the Field, &_c_. How much more shall he cloath you, &_c_." _Mat_. vi. 30. The Argument rises in one Case, as much above the other, as _immortal Life_ is preferable to the present _mortal State;_ and suppose any of us should sympathise with a near Friend, under a _small Degree_ of Pain and Affliction, would not the same Spirit of Friendship and Humanity have a _stronger Sympathy_, when Affliction becomes more intense and severe? To be tender and pitiful in the least and lowest Matters, and unregardful and cruel in important and everlasting Concerns, is, with regard to the _Divine Being_, a moral Impossibility; 'tis _beneath_ human Nature and Prudence, and the Practice of a good Man; And yet these Doctrines teach this horrible impiety concerning the great God himself.

To sum up this Argument: That Being who can make a sensible rational Creature, on _Purpose_ for _Damnation_, instead of taking a reasonable Care of it, which, from its Make and Dependance, it has a Right to expect, as much as though a formal Promise were made, may, with altogether as much (_nay more_) Justice, break its Promises of eternal Life, _made_ to another Creature of the same Kind; its Claim not being founded in Nature, but built on Promise. As the former would be a more cruel and un-justifiable Proceeding than the latter, he that is capable of doing the one, can have _no moral Perfections_ in his Nature sufficient to secure the _Elect_ against his doing the other: and on this _wild_ and _boundless_ Principle of _Sovereignty_, it is possible that, with regard to _Religion_, Things may be quite _reversed_ hereafter; the _Elect_, as they are called, made _miserable_, and the _Non-elect, happy_. I think we may challenge the whole World, to shew on this mad Principle the contrary; and why, as well as any thing else, such an Economy may not be resolved into _Sovereign Pleasure_. If God to _Isaac_ conveyed such errant Falshoods, by the Instrumentality of _Jacob's Mouth_, _Why not_ make the same _deceitful Use_ of the _Bible_, or even of his own immediate Word, in regard to the Elect? If God, as Mr. _Gill_ (I think) observes, has two Wills, "One publick Will of Command, and another of Intention, which is private;" Why, with regard to the _Elect_, may he not promise one thing, and intend, nay resolve on another? One would think it impossible, for any understanding Man to judge thus of his Creator, that it is possible he should command one Thing under the _severest Penalties_, and at the _same Time_ not only _will_ and _intend_, but irresistibly and secretly work to accomplish just the contrary, and (what is amazing beyond Belief) after all punish severely the Creatures concerned, whom he actuates to bring his secret Purposes to pass: If there can be such a thing as arbitrary Power and tyrannical Government, in the very worst Sense of all, here it is. And here certainly is all the _Phrensy_, _Folly_, and _Tyranny_, which, I told you in the Beginning, the Government of such an arbitrary Being (as these Gentlemen represent the Deity to be) must ever be liable to.