Chapter 3

It is evident, that as worthy Sentiments of God and of Religion, better the Mind, and improve the Understanding; so do weak and superstitious Principles corrupt the intellectual Faculty, and render the Soul more blind and inhuman, than it is in its natural State, unassisted and unimproved by Divine Grace. I have the rather made choice of this Argument, not only because I have never seen it urged before, but because I think it more nearly affects Men of this Faith, than any I have hitherto met with. I may be mistaken; but while it has such weight with me, I cannot but earnestly recommend it to the serious and impartial Consideration of all who profess this Faith, more especially those who preach it publickly to the World; whose Acknowledgment of what I take to be Truth, or friendly Animadversions thereon, will be Matter of no small Satisfaction to me: But I must here enjoin one Caution, _viz_. that it will be a absolutely in vain to produce Texts of Scripture, till this Point is better settled between us. In the Art of evading Scripture Proofs, I allow these Gentlemen to be very skilful and expert; nor can I help believing, that a small Part of the Penetration and Dexterity, usually exercised on these Occasions, would, in Men of contrary Principles, or even in themselves, could they be persuaded to think differently, be abundantly sufficient to overthrow even the Doctrines themselves: They have a peculiar Talent, at misunderstanding; and perverting the plainest Text, and rendering those which are difficult and obscure in their literal Sense, with much Boldness, and without Hesitation; they stumble in a plain Path at Noon-Day, and walk carelessly at Midnight amongst Rock, and upon the most dangerous Precipices. And here I might safely rest the Argument, and make a final End of it. _Sovereignty_, such an one as they contend for, once proved, any thing whatever may be allowed to follow, and all Disputations will be utterly in vain. Allow but the _Roman Church_ its _Infallibility_, and the Truth of other Doctrines will unavoidably follow. Till these Gentlemen, I say, set my main Principles aside, all the Scripture in the World will be nothing to their Purpose. Not but in the main the _Bible_ is against them; for the Scriptures _reveal_ God's Being and Attributes _more clearly_ than they do most Points of Doctrine: the Reason is, because the Doctrines commonly embraced, are in themselves _not so plain_ to Reason, as the Being and Attributes of God; the latter being generally acknowledged in all Christian Churches, tho' at the same Time they widely differ about particular Doctrines, some of which have no doubt been greatly corrupted in passing through _various Hands_ and Translations: and I have been informed, by much better Judges than I pretend to be, that the _New Testament_, even in these very Doctrines I have been contending against, has, by _some Partiality_ or _Neglect_, been made to speak more roundly in their Favour, than the original _Greek_, or best Copies, will support; and that, in some Places, the Meaning of the Original is inverted in the Translation. The Scripture not only revealing to us the _Being_ and _Attributes_ of God, _more clearly_ than it does many Doctrines, and that Fundamental of all true Religion being also in itself perfectly agreeable to the Light of Nature; 'tis evident, we are bound to reject the most positive Text of Scripture militating against this everlasting and fundamental Truth: and rather than part with this, we had much better suppose the Writer, as to disputable Points, to have been mistaken at the first, or the true Meaning corrupted by others. The Translators are allowed to have been fallible Men, and 'tis very probable some Errors might creep in at that Door: But it will not so easily be granted, that the _inspired Writers_ could mistake, nor would I suppose it, unless in _very extraordinary Cases_, where either _that_ or something _worse_ must be supposed; and such a Supposition will, I am sure; much better become us, than to imagine it possible for God to make a Revelation of his Will to Man, which shall upon Examination be found _contrary_ to his Being and Goodness, as well as expressly contrary to other _plain Parts_ of this Revelation, Tho' the Argument, I say, might be safely rested here, yet as there are some well meaning Persons, who believe that _Adam_ was made upright, and furnished with a Stock of Strength and Understanding, sufficient to _preserve_ his Innocence; that God made a Covenant with him, as our _Federal_ or _Representative Head_, wherein it was stipulated, that if he continued upright, during the Time of Probation allotted, _all_ his Posterity should be _for ever_ happy; but that if he fell, _all_ should be _subject_ to everlasting Misery, as the counter Part of the Covenant; and he falling, the Restoration of his fallen Race should be intirely owing to the good Pleasure of God, who might _redeem all_ or only _a Part_, and leave the rest to perish in the State wherein he found them, and in which _Adam_ had involved them by his Transgression: This they call _Preterition_, or a _Passing by_, which sounds a little better than that harsh Word _Reprobation_, tho' in reality no better at all: And on this first Transgression _some_ found the Doctrine of _Election_, and others that of _Infant-Baptism_, as an Expedient to wash away this original Guilt; and it must be owned, the Virtue of the Remedy is admirably well suited to the Malignity of the Disease. I shall, for their sakes, inspect a little farther into the Affair; to me it appears unreasonable, and therefore improbable, that God should make with _Adam_ any such Covenant or Agreement, or suffer the eternal State of all Mankind to hang upon the single Thread of _one Man's_ Behaviour, and who too (it seems) God knew would swerve from his Obedience: besides, in all equitable Covenants, _every Party_ concerned has a Right to be consulted, nor can they be justly included to their own Detriment, without Consent first obtained, (especially if the Thing covenanted for, has an immediate, or may have a very fatal, tho' very remote, Tendency, to make _wretched_ and _unhappy_) which, in this Case, with regard to the Unborn, could not possibly be had. I am sensible the Gentlemen against whom I am arguing (especially Mr. _Gill_) have many pretty Inventions, to justify such a Conduct in the Divine Being, such as producing parallel Instances, drawn from the allowed Practice of Men, and Usage of the State; in particular, the Law relating to _High-Treason_, whereby a _Rebel's_ immediate Descendants are _deprived_ of inheriting their Father's Estate, with others of a like Kind; to all which, what I am about to offer may, I hope, be a sufficient Answer: The two Cases differ so widely, that it will be no easy Undertaking to make any Thing of this Instance in their Favour; and 'tis very surprising, to find Men of the brightest Intellects, so weak as to argue and infer, from the Laws of _Fallible Men_, to the Laws of an _Infallible_ and _Holy Being:_ The Inference ought rather to be just the Reverse; for such Institutions as Men, in this weak and imperfect State, may think convenient for their own Sakes, and the Good of Society, to establish and ordain, can be _no Rule_ to him, whose Infinite Wisdom and Almighty Power set him _far above_ all such Necessity. Nor, again, does this Case come up to the Matter in Dispute: It is true, that the Heir of a convict Rebel _cannot_, according to our Laws, inherit his Father's Estate; but what then, does it deprive him of any thing that was his own before? No; the Law convicts the Rebel, while _in Possession_ of his Estate, which it considers as his _own Property_, and which therefore it justly takes away for his _own Offence_. Perhaps, in Cases of Hereditary Possessions, it may seem a little hard, because it prevents the _next_ Heir from inheriting; but if there be any Evil or Imperfection in this, we must excuse it, for the Sake of the Intent, which might be for the general Good, the more effectually to deter Men from _treasonable Conspiracies_ against their Prince, whereby the Happiness of Society hath been often greatly disturbed, and whole Kingdoms and Countries depopulated: but in this Case, it is not strictly the Heir's, till he comes into Possession; for the Law, by which he may possess hereafter, may be considered as having in it this _particular_ Exception, as to the Crime of _High-Treason_, which, whenever it _occurs_ as to the _Parent_, renders the Son incapable, &_c_. With regard to our Laws, we may, in some Sense, be said to make them ourselves, by our Representatives, whom we constitute for that End: and 'tis besides very probable, that some great Men, who formerly possessed Estates, and settled them on the Male Heirs in their Families, from one Generation to another, might help to make this very Law itself concerning Treason, and consequently they could not but acquiesce with this _very Exception_ to the Right of Inheritance in their Posterity. But if it be still said to be unjust, though necessary, 'tis no Argument; for it _cannot_ be unjust and necessary too: the Law, in this Case, ought rather (with Submission) so far as it unjustly affects a Man's Children, to be alter'd; and if it robs us of the Security, which arises from deterring the Parent, on Account of the Evils which shall afterwards befall his Child, 'tis easy to remedy this, by laying an _additional Punishment_ on the Traitor himself; which, as _Self_ is much nearest to us all, might better prevent the Sin of Rebellion, If the present Law be just in itself, there can be no Objection to it; if it be unjust, _no Argument_ of any Weight can be drawn from it, in regard to the _Divine Being;_ who is holy, wise, and true, and so are all his Appointments concerning the Children of Men.

To bring this kind of Reasoning of theirs up to the Point, they should have produced a Law, which subjected the Son (for the Father's Offence) to the _same corporal_ Punishment with the Father, and then also they must have proved such a Law to be just and good. But, as these Gentlemen are so fond of bringing Instances from the _Practice of Men_ in this frail State, in Justification of their own Doctrine, I shall present them with one or two of my own. _Murder_ has sometimes been committed under such Circumstances, that though the Murderer has been arraigned, there hath been no room to condemn him, all Circumstances having concurred, in the Eye of the Law, to acquit him; _will the Almighty therefore acquit him?_ Again, on the other hand, in the Case of Murder, things have so fallen out, as to make an innocent Person look like the Murderer, in the Eye of the Law or Court, which has therefore sometimes proceeded to Death itself; _is this Man therefore guilty before God?_ I have put these two Cases, purely to shew the Absurdity of such kind of Arguments: and I hope they will consider better of it, and advance them no farther.

If there was such a Covenant between God and Adam, 'tis strange _no Notice_ should be taken of it in the Law given to _Adam_, as laid down in the _Bible_, and where, of all Places, we have most Reason to expect it--this must surely have been the fittest Place for its Insertion--Nor is it only absent here, for there is no positive Account of any such Covenant in all the _Old Testament_. Besides, when the Law was given, and threatening (in Case of Disobedience) pronounced on _Adam_, 'twas _merely personal_--_In the Day_ thou _eatest thereof_, thou _shalt surely die_. And when _Adam_ and _Eve_ had broke the Command, and God descended to judge them for it, their Sentences were _personal_ and _particular_, and no reproaching _Adam_ on the Account of Evils to be thence brought on his Posterity, and _much less_ of eternal Damnation. The _Jews_ indeed, many of whom were weak enough to embrace any Absurdity at all, had by some Means contracted a Notion, not altogether unlike this of _original Sin_, probably from a Misunderstanding of the second Commandment, which speaks of "visiting the Iniquity of the Father upon the Children, &_c_." But 'tis highly worthy of our Notice, that God himself was _greatly displeased_ with their having imbibed this Notion, and commanded the Prophet _Ezekiel_ to refute it at large; the Substance of which I cannot avoid setting down, it being so full to my Purpose. The Prophet introduces it thus, _Ezek_, xviii. 2. _What mean ye, that use this Proverb in Israel, The Fathers have eaten sour Grapes, and the Children Teeth are set on edge?_ Ver. 4. _Behold all Souls are mine, as the Soul of the Father, so also the Soul of the Son is mine: the Soul that sinneth, it shall die_. The Prophet then, from _ver_. 5. to 19. puts the _two Cases_ of a _righteous Man's_ having a _wicked Son_, and a _wicked Man's_ having a _righteous Son_, in order to shew, that neither is the one _better_ for his Father's Uprightness, nor the other at all _worse_ for his Father's Wickedness; but that all is, as it should be, placed to the Account of their own _Merits_ or _Demerits_. Ver. 20. _The Soul that sinneth, it shall die: the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the Iniquity of the Son; the Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him, and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him_. Ver. 23. _Have I any Pleasure at all that the Wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his Ways and live?_ Ver. 25. _Yet ye say, the Way of the Lord is unequal. Hear now, O House of Israel, Is not my Way equal? are not your Ways unequal?_ Ver. 32. _For I have no Pleasure in the Death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn your selves and live ye_.

Words more positive against this Doctrine cannot be laid together. _Justice_ and _Equity_ are here, by the Almighty himself, consider'd as the _very same_, both in God and Man; and the same Justice and Equity, which _He commands_ us to make the Rule of _our Actions_, 'tis evident _He here_ makes the Rule of his _own_. He blames them for their false Principles, their Ignorance and Bigotry, and is not a little offended, because they thought him capable of acing in so evil and unrighteous a Manner, as that would be, of _punishing the Child for the Parent's Offence;_ and strongly and solemnly assures them, he will do no such Thing. And as Justice and Equity would not bear it then, it is plain that, God could never take any such cruel and disreputable Measures, either in the Beginning, or at any time afterwards; because, to act thus at the Creation of Man, and disdain the Imputation with Indignation afterwards, argues a strange Inconsistency in the Conduct of God towards Men; but the Truth is, the same Reasons which made him abhor the Imputation afterwards, could not but infallibly prevent his making any such unrighteous Covenant in the Beginning. What would you think of a Man, who is a Villain to-day, and boasts much of his great Honesty tomorrow? The _Appearance_ of _Christ_ in the Flesh was, we are told by these Gentlemen, on Account of _Adam's_ Transgression, without which it would have been, they say, wholly superfluous. But the Expediency or End of _Christ's_ coming, may be resolved into the _Love of_ God, on the _one hand;_ pitying the Ignorance and Folly of Mankind, on the _other:_ and whether this State was the Effect of _Adam's_ Sin, or of their _own_ personal Demerits, it makes _no Difference_ in this Case. Whoever looks carefully into the Evangelists, will find abundant Reason to disapprove and condemn this Doctrine of _Original Sin_, and of _Christ's_ coming into the World on _that Account only_. Our Saviour, had this been the Case, would either have plainly express'd, or have given some strong Intimations concerning it: Yet no such thing appears; but the contrary, to a _Demonstration_, from no less than two Passages of Scripture, recorded by St. _Mark_, (ix. 36.) When the Disciples had been privately contending for Preheminence above each other, our Saviour, to rebuke this aspiring Spirit, sets before them, as a Pattern of Simplicity and Innocence, a little Child; which must have been very absurd, according to the Notion of _Original Sin:_ The second is _Mark_ x. _ver_. 13. 14. 15. 16. where _Christ_ assures his Disciples, that, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, they _must become as little Children_. And in St. _Matthew_ (xviii. _ver_. 3.) this very thing is, if possible, more _Strongly_ and _Emphatically_ express'd. Which Declarations, had there been such a Thing as the Guilt of Original Sin, _subjecting Children to_ God's _Wrath and Displeasure_, would have been ungrounded, and erroneous in a high Degree; for if they were to become like such a little Child, as a necessary and fit Condition for Heaven, the Condition of Infants _must also_ be suitable to that Blessed Place--_Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven_. The Word Such, is a general Term, equally applicable to all Infants whatever: it shews their Innocence, and how acceptable they are to the Almighty; and, consequently, demonstrates the Doctrine of _Original Sin_ to be Spurious and Erroneous: as is also the Practice of _Infant Baptism_, in Support of which, this very Text is wisely alledged; whereas the Text itself assures us, that Children are _already_, by Nature, in that _same State_ of Innocence, which _Baptism_ is design'd to procure them: and how vain the Ceremony, under such a Circumstance, must be, is _too evident_ to need Explaining.

But suppose there was such a Covenant, our Condition, in point of Innocence, is just the same as it would be without it; we could have no manner of Concern with _Adam's_ Transgression: and our Innocence in either Case being _exactly_ the same, God cannot but look upon us (in our natural State, before we commit Sin) as Creatures that never did any thing to offend him, and consequently be gracious and kind to us; for to leave us in this State, to suffer everlasting Torment, is worse than a Breach of Promise made to the Elect; and if we are as innocent, as tho' no such Covenant had ever been made, God cannot but regard us accordingly: and this proves that such a Covenant could never be made, because to no good or valuable End.

I am fearful of swelling this Pamphlet, beyond its intended Bounds; yet so fast do my Thoughts, on this Subject, multiply and enlarge themselves, that I must beg Leave to Say a small Matter, concerning that _Propensity to Evil_, which we are told is derived from _Adam_, as a Fruit and Proof of his first and original Offence. If _Adam_'s Sin had this Influence on his Posterity; as the Act, which produced it, was _one_ and the _same;_ and all his Posterity standing in the same Relation to him, as their Federal Head; 'tis evident, in this View of the Matter, that _this_ Bias to Evil, must in _all_ be _uniform_ and _alike:_ but the contrary seems demonstrable, from undoubted and incontestable Experience; some Children having _much stronger Propensities to Evil_, than others: And if Part of this can be resolved into something besides the _Influence_ of _Adam's first Transgression_, and _subsequent_ to the _Fall;_ it lies (I think) on our Adversaries to shew clearly, why every Propensity to Sin, may not likewise be resolved into something besides, and _subsequent_ to, this _original Transgression_. But allowing we are born into the World, with this _Propensity to Evil_, and that we derive it from _Adam's_ Sin; yet if God be _merciful_, he could never leave us in this deplorable Condition; nor would his _Impartiality_ admit of _redeeming_ the one Part of Mankind in a mere arbitrary Manner, and _leaving_ the other _to perish_. Nor can much Righteousness be expected from the _Justice_ of that Being, whose Mercy can be an idle and unconcerned Spectator, in so very moving, piteous, and Miserable a Circumstance. As to _Adam's_ Posterity, where is the Difference to them, whether their present weak and despoiled Condition (as these Men deem it) be the immediate Work of _Creation_ itself, or the _Effect_ of _Adam's Sin_, and Abuse of his intellectual Powers. We are what we are by _Necessity_, strict _Necessity:_ and though it may be called _moral Necessity_, in order to palliate and distinguish it from that which is natural; it operates on us, to all Intents and Purposes, equally the same; and the giving it a milder Name, looks like a sophistical Artifice. If Man's Nature be impaired by the Act of another, God, as a _just_ and _good_ Being, will either abate of the Rigour of his original Law, or replenish and restore our decayed Powers.

The _same Goodness_ (if these Gentlemen will allow it was _Goodness_) which prompted the Almighty to make Man such an excellent and blessed Creature in the Beginning, must also prevail with him, to look even on _Adam_ himself with an Eye of Pity and Compassion, after he had sinned; and much more must he be inclined to provide for the _Restoration_ of his Off-spring, who themselves had not _actually_ sinned, but yet had their Natures impaired by the _Fall_. Besides, if Man was first enslaved by the Devil, not of _Force_, but by _Fraud_ and _Temptation;_ and Jesus Christ be a kind of _Chieftain_, set up against Antichrist; his Method of _Recovery_ must be as extensive as the _Fall_--Why does he save some? but as they are Objects of Mercy, and to recover, with a just Indignation, Souls, originally God's own, out of the Hand of an Usurper, Tyrant, and Destroyer. How can these Reasons operate as to a Part, and have no Influence as to the Remainder? The more I reflect upon the Doctrine, and view it in every light, the more terrifying and deformed it appears: and there is no Argument, short of God's _Sovereignty_, that will relieve the Difficulty; which admitted, will bring on and multiply ten thousand greater Evils.