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.

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.

It may here be proper to take notice of a new Argument, urged in its full Strength, and with all the Advantage of Rhetorick and Eloquence, by the most ingenious Dr. I – c W – s, in a Book intituled, The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind; &c. We are there told, that this covenant seems to have been, evidently, calculated for the best; because Adam, in that State of Understanding and Innocence, was more likely to stand, and maintain his Innocence, than any of his Posterity, especially when he consider’d himself as acting for all his Posterity; with which the Doctor supposes him to have been fully and strongly apprised; as indeed he ought, had the Case been as the Doctor believes. This Argument I take him to have mistaken both ways, viz. by extolling Adam’s Condition, on the one hand, beyond what in reality it ever was, and setting that of his Posterity much lower than it really is: and these Errors are productive of many others. Adam is supposed to have been without any Pain, or Uneasiness, and that he would so have remained, during his Innocence: But after Christ has removed the Curse, and taken away the Sin of his own Chosen Children, bodily Pains and outward Afflictions are sometimes their Lot, why might not Man, in his original State of Innocence, be subject, in some Degree, to Pain and Disease? if Creation were inconsistent with such a mixt Dispensation of Good and Evil, why not Redemption? If God, for the Exercise of Man’s Fidelity, placed him where he was exposed to the Evil and Danger of Temptation; why not suffer his Patience to be exercised, at some Seasons, by Pain and Inquietude? To return to this Covenant, could it be proved to have been as the Doctor imagines, I see not what could be gained by it: because it would be trifling to a considerable Degree. And all the Arguments, used by Milton, in his third Book of Paradise Lost, to shew the Absurdity of that Doctrine, which considers Adam as acting, or rather as being acted, by Necessity, in that Situation of Paradise, would be equally applicable to all the Elect, under the absolute Slavery of the Fall.

Where is the Use of Reason, or Moral Agency, in Man, if another be substituted to act in his Stead, and not he himself? Man, being made a free and moral Agent, has Power to act for himself, and can be accountable for no body’s Crimes but his own. The Consciousness of being a Sinner, belongs only to him, that actually sinneth, or omitteth his Duty. Enthusiasm indeed, which, in its highest Stages, is a kind of spiritual Madness, may have on some Minds a quite different Effect; and the Poor Soul, that is subject to this gloomy and tyrannical Principle, may conceit strange things; it may at one Time imagine itself under the Guilt of Adam’s Sin, which it never committed; and fancy itself a Saint in Jesus Christ (and what not) at another: it is a mad Principle, fruitful of false Doctrines, Chimeras, and Monsters. It matters not whether (as in the Case of Natural Madness) the Reason be lost, or whether (as in that of Enthusiasm) it be over-power’d, and brought into subjection to False Principles. The Effect is the same; and between Powers that are suffered to lie dormant, and no Powers at all, there is here no material Distinction to be made. Again, this Notion of Adam’s being more likely to stand than his Posterity, is a mere Fallacy: it supposes a Difference of State, and Rectitude of Mind, between him and us; which, if true, will likewise suppose, that our State being more weak and defenceless than his, the Task or Duty, assigned us, must be proportionate to our different and inferior Abilities. If Adam was put into this State, as The Ruin and Recovery seems to suppose, from a Motive of Love in God, to his Creatures, in order to prevent the Misery of the Human Race; the same Love cannot fail to commiserate the Case, and to provide an effectual Remedy for all such as are included in the Covenant. Adam’s Motive to Obedience must (we are told) have been greatly strengthened by this Consideration, That on Him depended the Happiness, not of himself only, but of all his Posterity. But, I believe, Experience will tell us, that if the Consideration of a Man’s own Future State, placed in the strongest Light (as this Book supposes before Adam) be not sufficient to move to Obedience, a Regard to others will seldom have any considerable Influence: Such a Covenant enter’d into, or rather arbitrarily imposed on Adam by his Maker, could not fail to awaken, in so holy and knowing a Creature, some very uneasy and disquieting Suspicions. This Covenant, and Partial Election thence following after the Fall, will, if rightly considered, appear very iniquitous and oppressive: because it makes no proper Difference between the Righteous and the Wicked. If Adam had been considered as a private Person only; and all his Posterity left to stand or fall, by their own Merits or Demerits; some of those, whom this Doctrine adjudges to everlasting Condemnation, would doubtless have been so wise and happy, as to have pleased God in their Generation; while others, on the contrary, would have sinned, and transgressed his Laws. The State of the latter is, you see, the same as it would have been, upon the vulgar Notion of Adam’s Sin; or rather the Guilt of it being, in virtue of this Covenant, imputed to them: The other and better Part, in virtue of this Doctrine, are miserable, and must therefore have abundant and bitter Cause of Complaint against the Doctrine itself. I therefore think it was impossible, such a Covenant should ever be proposed to Adam; a Covenant which, if ratified, tended only to make those wretched and miserable, who without it, had they been left to shift for themselves, would have used their Liberty and Rational Powers aright, and have pleased and obtained God’s Favour thereby. To talk of its being of general Service, can never be of sufficient Authority to silence this Argument. No private Injuries can be excused to innocent Sufferers (and much less that of eternal Torment) on the Score of general Good; what is it to them, whether they only, or all Mankind suffer. If Adam had stood, these very Men, (who would, had they been left to their Liberty, have proved obedient) would have been in no wise bettered; as he failed, Misery came on those, who would otherwise have been happy. As to those who would, in the Course of their Liberty, have sinned; this Covenant, had Adam stood, would (’tis true) have saved them from the Sentence of Condemnation. Take it again the other way: Adam’s Fall could make no Alteration in the State of those who, without it, would have been Sinners; such as would have proved virtuous and happy, are hereby made miserable. These are, or must have been the Consequences of such a Covenant strictly observed; and the Wisdom and Equity of all Covenants must be judged of, by comparing the good and evil Consequences, necessarily resulting from them. All the Good such a Covenant could possibly pretend to, had it been kept, was, the saving from Wrath such as, without it, would, as free Beings, have sinned; and if, for their Sakes, and to prevent the Evil that might otherwise befall them, such a Covenant was worthy of God to make with Man, a Day of Grace and Salvation, extended for their Recovery, after they might have transgressed, would have been equally worthy of God; and we need not recur to such Fictions and Chimeras. One would think it incumbent on all Legislators, to consider well the Consequences of every Law they enact; for the preferring a Law, whose Consequences can at best be of no Service, and will probably in the main Event of Things be more evil and pernicious than otherwise, would be preferring Evil to Good; in as great Proportion as the Evil might exceed the Good: and how such a Constitution could be better for Mankind, I do not understand. I am sorry any body, especially the Author of The Ruin and Recovery, should imbibe and defend such erroneous Opinions, and this too, in Opposition to other and nobler Sentiments of his own, elsewhere delivered.

But, thus it is to be enslaved to the mere Letter of the Bible, under a Notion of doing it just Honour, when, on the contrary, ’tis the ready way to dishonour and lessen its Authority.

The Pains 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 of Original Sin. He thinks that, without such a Supposition, the Justice of God cannot be vindicated. [I wish he would stick true to that Argument.] We must, he thinks, suppose one of these two Things: either, That God punishes them without all Cause or Reason, or, That they are under the Curse and Condemnation of Adam’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, the Injustice is the same. He allows it in the one Case; and I hope it is proved in the other: and really the Picture which this Gentleman has drawn of our young Innocents, is very dreadful and terrifying. If all the Evils that befall them in this Life, and Eternal Damnation afterwards, be no more than a just Punishment for their Sins, our Saviour must surely have been greatly out, in the Encomiums he bestows on their Innocence, as I observed before; or, the Kingdom of Heaven, instead of being design’d for upright holy Souls, may be a Receptacle for the worst of human Race.

The Brute Creation undergo Pain and Affliction; is Adam’s Sin, 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 the Original Constitution of 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 wonder Adam is 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 the Curse; 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’s own 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 of extraordinary Invention, to get rid of difficult and perplexing Questions. Brutes may, it seems, contrary to common Experience, have Sensations less Quick and Painful than 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 a gaul’d Horse wince, upon the most gentle Approach of the Hand; and discover Signs of the greatest Fear, and most exquisite 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, Bishop Berkley has furnished the World with something equally instructive and philosophical, in relation to the Existence of Matter; which, he endeavours to prove not to be a real, but an ideal and imaginary 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’s Justice —Tho’ Brutes suffer, yet they may it seems have 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 besides Original Sin; for here again, as in the Case of a Propensity to Evil, Pain in Infants, if inflicted because of Adam’s Sin, must in all be uniform and alike. But the Fact being quite otherwise, some of this Pain and Evil must be resolved into other Causes; and if some, why not all? I grant indeed, that Adam himself 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; and every Age has, 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’s Free 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.