Free and Impartial Thoughts, on the Sovereignty of God, The Doctrines of Election, Reprobation, and Original Sin: Humbly Addressed To all who Believe and Profess those Doctrines.
TekstThe 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, 1st, A Promise made as a mere Sovereign, undetermined by, and unregardful of, all moral Obligations; and, 2dly, 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.
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.