Chapter 5

This is, I think, manifestly a _Contradiction_, and the Doctor, it seems, believes it, only because the Scripture, as he thinks, reveals it. Where is the Difference between _dying to save all Men_, and, _dying to redeem all Men?_ And yet _Jesus Christ_, it seems, did the one, but not the other. According to him (the Doctor) the Scripture assures us, that is, the Word of God assures us, both that _Christ did_, and that he _did not_ die to redeem all Mankind; which is a flat Contradiction. In what good Sense, I should be glad to know, could _Christ_ be said to _die_ for _all Men_, when God purposely, and peremptorily, _with-holds_ proper Assistances to restore the _greatest Part?_ If this be to die for _all Men_, it is certainly not in a good, but in a very bad Sense. But, perhaps, the _Doctor_ means, _that Man, consider'd in his primitive Rectitude, has Power sufficient to obey the Gospel as proposed to Sinners, and that_ Adam's _Posterity, consider'd as fallen in him, are under the same Obligation to keep the Law, as_ Adam _was_. 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'd _Page_ 340, in his _Consideration 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 of _Adam_, 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, of _Christ'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 granting _no Aids_ to enable us to _do this_, or such _as are too weak and insufficient to enable us thereto!_ We are, he allows, _under a moral Incapacity to keep the Law_, but not a _natural_ Incapacity, and therefore God may justly exact our Obedience. But pray consider, if both a _moral_ and _natural_ Ability be requisite to keep God's Laws, what signifies which of these is wanting, when we may as well be without _both_, as without _either_. It signifies little, what Epithets we bestow on the Word _Necessity_. Wherever it prevails; and whether it be _moral_ or _natural_, if it is not _self-caused_, but comes on Man, either by the immediate Decree of Heaven, or by the _Act of another_, it is _Necessity_, _irresistible Necessity_, and no Distinction can palliate it.

I allow indeed, when Man is created upright, and furnished with sufficient Understanding and Ability to please the Almighty; and yet, _abusing_ his Liberty, becomes at length so enslaved to his Passions and Appetites, as to fall into this _moral Debility_, the Law of God is still his Duty to observe: On the other hand, allowing Mankind to have lost their _moral Ability_ to practise Virtue in the Fall of _Adam_, and that God, taking Pity upon Man, grants him sufficient _Light_, to discern his State, and sufficient _Power_, to obtain Redemption from it, this Man is also under the _same Obligation_ to keep the Law of God, as though his moral Powers had never sustained any _Decay_ or _Loss_ in _Adam;_ and I dare affirm, that in _no_ other 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 those _restless_ and _irresistable_ Propensities to Evil, derived from _Adam_, and to punish _them_ eternally, only because these Propensities, derived in virtue of being born of the first Transgressor, constantly, and _in spite_ of any thing we are able, considered in a moral and natural Sense, to do to the contrary, produce _Vice_ and _immorality?_ _All_ evil Actions, consequent upon this Propensity, are, in fact, as necessary and unavoidable to us, as the Propensity itself, _Where_ then, in point of Innocence, can the Difference be, _between_ having 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 very _hard Task_, on the other: _He that offends in one Point is_, they say, _guilty of breaking the whole Law_. Here is a _plain Instance_ of taking _Scripture_ in a literal Sense, when it can by no Means be so understood. According to this, a Man, that only _steals_, may be said to commit Murder, and be _punished_ as a Murderer as well as a Thief; though we know he has not committed it.

In the main, we may conscientiously observe and keep God's Laws, and yet in Time of _Temptation_ and _Weakness_ fall into some Evil, will, God therefore _consider_ and _punish_ us as those who live in the daily Breach and Contempt of all his Laws? No! For, on the contrary, God ever 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 very _easy_ and _plain_ Signification: 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 far _greater 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's Laws 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 the _whole Law;_ for _mere Obedience_ upon improper Motives to a _Part_ of the Law, while at the same Time they allow'd themselves in the _known_ and _deliberate_ Violation of _more weighty_ Commands, was no true or proper Obedience at all: and, in this Sense, the _Jewish_ Sacrifices 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 Apostle _effectually_ and _peculiarly_ regards 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 to _Adam_, out of a kind and beneficent intention in the Creator, when God knew, in the first Place, that _Adam_ would 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 a _cruel Joke_, upon the _Calvinistical Scheme_, of God's willing the _Fall_, was here put upon _Adam_, and all his Posterity!

To talk as some do, of our existing in _Adam_ at the Time of his Transgression, is very absurd, when, as _intelligent_ and _free 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_. God never requires Impossibilities. He that made Man, knows best what he is capable of and hath undoubtedly taken care to proportion the _Duties_ he requires of Man, to the _Powers_ he 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's _Age_, _Complexion_, _Stature_, and _Circumstances_, 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 God did make such a Covenant with _Adam_, &_c_. (though I think I have shewn it to be impossible) let us see how the Doctrines of _Election_ and _Preterition_ will turn out _then_. I have already endeavoured to make it appear, that God does 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 was _sovereign Goodness_ (rather than _sovereign Pleasure_) which prompted the Almighty to create Man, in order to communicate Happiness to him; and if _Adam's_ Posterity might be said to fall in him, yet God must 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 eternally _any one_ under this Circumstance, without _first giving_ him an Opportunity of recovering from his lapsed State; nor could he ordain the Means on Purpose to _save some_ by _electing Grace_, without _saving all_. God does nothing without sufficient Reason: he could save none under this Circumstance, but as they were _in themselves_ Objects of his Pity and Mercy; and if ever there was an Object of Mercy, here it is, an immortal Soul condemned, for the Fault of _another_, 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 as _all Adam's_ Posterity were equally involved in his Guilt, all are Objects of Mercy _precisely the same_, and therefore there is not the least Ground for the Difference which we are told is made by Election; because 'tis making a _Distinction_ where there is _no Difference_. Here is the Race of _Adam_, considered as _equally_ fallen 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, but _weak_ Argument, drawn from an _earthly Prince_, his extending Pardon to _one_ Criminal, and leaving _another_ to undergo the Execution of his Sentence. But this is of the same _fallacious Kind_, as that drawn from the Case of _Rebellion_, and shews how _very hard_ the Patrons of this Doctrine are put to it for Arguments. Two Men, condemned for one Crime, may not be equally wicked, and consequently _one_ may better deserve Pity than the _other_, and to extend it, is in itself a rational and worthy Distinction, made between two _such Criminals_. Let us suppose, in order to illustrate the Argument, that a Man is _compelled_, 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 the _same_ as theirs: But when he is consider'd, as having acted not by Choice, but _by 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 of _Original Sin;_ which if it makes Men Sinners _at all_, it must be _by Necessity_, there being no _Possibility_ for us to prevent it; which is equal to the greatest Constraint that can be produced or imagined, and consequently _all Men_ must, under this Consideration, be _at worst_ suitable Objects of Mercy. Besides, the Weakness of this Argument will plainly appear, upon considering, with respect to _earthly Princes_, that where the Equity of making a _due Distinction_ between one _Criminal_ and another, is not the Reason, why _one is pardoned_, and the other _left to suffer;_ it _always_ arises either from _Caprice_, _Interest_, _Solicitation_, or from _Misrepresentation_ of Facts to Monarchs; who, too often, _see_ and _hear_ through _others_, that are not always duly conscientious, to preserve inviolable the Trust reposed in them; and whether such Reasoning as this, can possibly affect the _Almighty_, any Man of common Understanding may easily judge.

But let them apply my Argument on the _Sovereignty of_ God against the _Certainty_ of 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 of _Christ_ of more Effect than ours, because it secures the Salvation of _some_. But I have proved there can be no Security in it; and surely that Doctrine, which _puts all_ into a Capacity of Salvation, must be better, than that, which leaves _almost every Man_ to 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 of _Christ_, 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 of _free 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 if _unconditional Election_ be the true Doctrine of the Gospel, and Man is _equally dear_ and acceptable to God _without_, as he is _with_, good Works, what Inducement can such a Person have to please God that Way, when he is already as well pleased without them? If Election is founded upon an _unconditional 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 was _David_ in 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 I _will seek_ all 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, the _precise Degree_ of _that_ being 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 and _Self-Murder;_ and indeed the two Extremes of _Presumption_ and _Despair_, are the natural Brood and Offspring of these Doctrines, as the reverend and learned Dr. _Trapp_ has 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; and _whenever_ it 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 the _former_, to persecute and take Vengeance on the _latter_. 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 the _Divine Conduct_, endeavour to make them as wretched as possible here in this Life, and _who shall lay any Thing to the Charge of God's Elect?_ I am now shewing, what are the genuine Effects of this Doctrine, not charging Consequences on such as neither do _see_ nor _approve_ of 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 (as _Hazael_ did) _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's _Grace_, 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 a _nice Judge_ of 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 God operates on the Soul, the ardent Love of Mankind is _inseparable therewith_. If then the better Sort of those, who profess this Doctrine, are ever sensible of this _most agreeable_ and humbling Operation in the Soul, I ask them, if it does not _naturally distend_ and enlarge their Wishes, in Behalf of all Mankind? and if this Spirit of Love be the genuine Effect of the Operation of God's Grace, 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 mere _enthusiastick 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 of _Jacob_, and all other parallel Places of Scripture, that furnish the worst Part of the Lives of good Men, a _standing Rule_ of Behaviour--What a blessed Company has the Lord set apart for himself!

The _Foreknowledge_ of God is supposed, by some, to belong to the Argument of _Predestination;_ but I think it wholly beside my present Purpose, to enter circumstantially into it, for _this Reason_--If, Whatever God _foreknows_, he must also of Necessity _foreordain;_ it is manifestly using _Foreknowledge_ and _Ordination_ to signify just the _same Thing_, and, _in this Light_, every Argument against _Fore-ordination_, must be equally strong against _Foreknowledge_, 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 the _Divine Foreknowledge_, either _separate from_, or _connected with_, the Doctrine of _Fore-ordination_, I shall always be ready to receive Information.

This Doctrine of electing Grace, they exalt as an _incomprehensible Mystery;_ so do the Papists, with as good Reason, that of _Transubstantiation;_ for neither of them are Mysteries, or incomprehensible, but _palpable Errors_, whose Absurdity we do _easily and fully comprehend;_ nor will the stale Art of playing on the Word _Mystery_ amuse 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 a _free Creature_, and therefore God deals with him as such; because to make him free, and then arbitrarily _overrule_ his Freedom, would be making him free to _no Purpose_. The Will of God is sometimes _positive_, and sometimes _conditional_. 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 indeed _resist_ the Operations of his Grace: but to talk of _conquering_ God, 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, but _perfectly agreeable_ to many _plain_ and _express_ Parts of Scripture. The _Weeping_ and _Lamentation_ of _Christ_ over _Jerusalem_, 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 the _most tender_ and affectionate Manner, as is evident from the Comparison of the Hen, &_c_. and by the Words _how often_, is set forth the _great Patience and longsuffering of God:_ And notwithstanding all this, they resisted to their own Destruction. God _willed_, or would have saved her, but she was stubborn and rebellious, and would not accept of Salvation; did she therefore _conquer_ the 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 to _resist_, but in no _good Sense_ to _conquer_ my Father. Besides, according to this absurd Way of arguing, if God does all in Believers, his Laws are to be _kept_ by 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.

I might here, very naturally, speak concerning the Sacrifice of _Christ's Death_, and _his Righteousness_ imputed 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; _Sin_ is said to be infinite, because committed against an infinite God; and that therefore nothing but an infinite Being can satisfy the Justice of God for it: A fine Story indeed, for Men to amuse us with, who pretend to believe in _only one_ God: Here is _one_ infinite Being, to be satisfied for Sin; and _another_, 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 then _only_ the Person, or _rational Soul_ of _Jesus Christ_, that suffered, being upheld under it, by the infinite Being himself? If so, what is become of the infinite Being, that was to _suffer_ for Sin; for does God make 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.