Chapter I: Part 1

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.

The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged.

_LONDON:_

Printed for J. ROBINSON, at the _Golden-Lion_, in _Ludgate-Street._

M.DCC.XLV.

THE

PREFACE

_I Cannot find, upon the most impartial Retrospection of the Argument, any Reason to alter my Sentiments concerning it; and as it is a Matter of the greatest Importance, 'tis hoped that those who maintain the Doctrines of_ Election, &_c. will afford it all the Weight and Consideration it deserves. But, if there be any among them, who will hear no Reason or Argument whatever, and are_ sure, only because they are sure, _I Have_ little _or_ no Hopes _to prevail with them, to give me a fair Hearing, or to think_ candidly _and_ impartially _about it. But as there are among them, some, who no doubt will allow the_ Possibility _of their being in an Error; to all such I address my self, and beseech them, as much as possible to lay aside Prejudice and Partiality; wisely considering, that many of their Fore-fathers maintained some erroneous Doctrines, with as much Zeal, and Integrity, as they their Descendants now do the Doctrines of_ Election, &_c. and yet saw Occasion to renounce them afterwards._

_There is Reason to fear, the just Liberty I have taken with the_ Doctrines of Election, &_c. may, by some, be deem'd Blasphemy against_ God _himself; but I am far from intending any such thing. These Doctrines (I think) on the contrary, are_ in them selves _nothing better than_ blasphemous, _tho' the Intentions of some who maintain them, be ever so devout and sincere: And if an Impeachment of Doctrines, which, instead of preserving_ God's Moral Character, _robs him of all that is dear and valuable, or that can render him lovely and adorable to Man, be accounted_ Blasphemy, _the Ignorance and Bigotry of those, who judge after that Manner, ought much to be lamented. It is a melancholy Truth, that where Prejudice, in favour of false Principles, has had early and frequent Access to the Mind, it too often shuts the Ear against Reason and Truth; and 'tis very hard to persuade such People to enter at all, and much less impartially, into the Merits of an Argument advanced against them; nor indeed is the Liberty of Thought on_ Religious Subjects, duly inculcated _in Religious Assemblies: For, the_ Teachers of Christianity, _tho' they are seldom averse to give us the Compliment of a_ just Liberty of thinking for ourselves, _are but too apt_ to set the Terrors of the Lord in array against Unbelievers; _tho' perhaps_ their Dissent _may sometimes be only the_ innocent Effect, _of the best Examination they are able to make. And if there be any thing worthy of Notice, in what I have advanced, I hereby intreat all, into whose Hands this Treatise may come, not to be terrified, by any such popular Arts, from making a thorough Examination for themselves; on the other hand, I am altogether as willing to set right, in whatever I may have erred, or been mistaken._

_'Tis well known, the 17th Article of our own_ National Church, _greatly favours the_ Doctrines _of_ Election _and_ Reprobation; _and it is also generally believed, that the_ Better Part _of our Clergy entirely disapprove these Doctrines, and would very readily assist in expunging them out of their_ Creed; _which would render their Consciences much easier, than now they are, or can be, under a Subscription in a Sense so_ very qualified _and_ remote _from the_ natural Intent _and_ Meaning _of the_ Article.

_Experience makes it evident, that Education is able to retain Men of the_ Brightest Understanding, _in the Belief of the_ Greatest Absurdities. _But, that Men of Learning, Ingenuity and Experience, who have lived perhaps to the Age of fifty, in the Disbelief of the_ Doctrines _of_ Election, &_c. should after that sincerely embrace them, is to me Matter of great Astonishment; yet this I am inform'd is really the Case, with regard to one of the most ingenious_ Divines, _our Metropolis has to boast of. One Reason may perhaps be alledged, for such an unexpected Alteration of Sentiment_, viz. _That tho' we disbelieve these Doctrines, because they are_ absurd, _yet we hold at the same time, others_, equally repugnant _to Reason, and to Common Sense; and certainly we may as reasonably_ embrace _the one as_ retain _the other. Besides, with what reasonable Expectation of Success could such a Man as this sit down to argue with_ another _of_ absurd Principles, _when_ he himself _might be so easily abash'd and put to Silence, by an Appeal to_ other Principles, _of_ his own, _equally absurd and inexplicable. The best way then, instead of embracing a_ fresh, _absurd, Principle of Faith, is, to renounce the_ old. _I would not willingly Offend_ Any, _by a special Application to_ particular Societies _and_ Doctrines: _let but every Man make an honest Application to himself, and the Articles of Faith he professes, and the Work of Reformation will, I am persuaded, gain something thereby. And that, not only these Doctrines, but every other absurd Principle of Faith, which either Ignorance, or Design, may have introduced into the Christian church, to the_ Dishonour _of_ God, _the_ Burthen _and_ Reproach _of Human Nature, may be_ utterly exploded, _is the incessant Wish, and earnest Desire, of_

The Author.

Free _and_ Impartial

THOUGHTS, &_c_.

_CHRISTIANITY_ having been instituted, by its great Author and Publisher, for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind, it is pity we should so greatly differ, concerning what _Genuine Christianity_ is; if the _Holy Bible_, as we generally agree, was designed to lead us to the true Knowledge of God, and to be a standing and perpetual Rule of _Faith_ and _Manners_ to Men, it must surely have been greatly corrupted since the primitive Times of the Gospel, or the _Explication_ of it designedly left to a more excellent and superior Director: For the seeming Contradictions, and Multiplicity of obscure Passages, wherewith it abounds, shew plainly it could never, in its present Condition, be a Rule of Faith, &_c_. becoming an all-wise and perfect Being, to give to rational Creatures. Every _good Man, Society_, and _State_, study Perspicuity in all their _Rules, Orders, and Statutes,_ dispensed to their _Families, Members,_ and _Subjects:_ and can we suppose, that He, who is perfect in Knowledge, would, in the Dispensation of his Laws, take less care of the everlasting State of his immortal Creature _Man?_ Yet it is plain, we differ in our Sentiments of Religion, and greatly too, for want, as I sincerely hope, of the Knowledge of better Helps, to direct our Inquiries, in Matters, the true Knowledge whereof, is of so considerable Moment. Therefore,

I intend, in the Course of this Debate, to descant _freely_, on the Doctrines of _Divine Sovereignty, Election, Reprobation_, and _Original Sin;_ and also, on the Arguments which some ingenious Gentlemen have used to support them. But I hope (with regard to the _Authors_ I may possibly name) to be perfectly decent, and to treat them with all becoming Respect and Deference, as I think Men of Integrity, Learning and Abilities deserve; who, though in some Points they may err, and hold Doctrines in their own Nature and Tendency altogether subversive of Religion and Morality, do nevertheless not perceive them to have these Tendencies, and are therefore by _no Means_ chargeable with them. Yet, as touching the _Doctrines_ themselves, I shall presume to speak freely, both in regard to their Nature, and what appears to me to be their genuine Fruits and Effects.

It is with me an establish'd Truth, that the mistaken Notion of some _learned Men_, concerning the _Sovereignty_ of the _Deity_, has given these Doctrines a more favourable Acceptance in the World, than otherwise they would, or could, ever have met with; and notwithstanding all the Pains and Arguments these Gentlemen have bestowed, to reconcile their Doctrines to our common Sense of _Right_ and _Wrong_, it is plain, that, at _bottom_, this is the grand governing Principle. For, when their Attempts to reconcile these Doctrines with common Sense and Equity fail, they have immediate Recourse to God's _Sovereignty_, and even go so far, at least in Effect, as to deny there is _any_ intrinsick Difference in Things themselves, as shall be made appear from their most approved Writers, whenever they are pleased to demand it: But as this Principle of _Sovereignty_ is most certainly their strong Hold, I shall therefore endeavour to go to the Depth of this Argument; and shew, in the first Place, how greatly they misapprehend the Nature of this _Attribute;_ and, in the second Place, granting it to be as they say, I shall then shew the _precarious_ and _miserable_ Condition of all Mankind, not excepting the Elect themselves, under the Government of such an arbitrary Being.

To begin with the first. That God is a _Sovereign_, we readily allow: But it will not therefore follow, he is _morally capable_ of doing any thing, in its _own Nature_, immoral or unjust. All religious Debates are allowed to be best determinable by the divine Attributes; and yet nothing is more common, than to single out, and lay the greatest Stress on, that Attribute alone, which appears best to suit our own particular Opinions: which, however innocent our Intention may be, is, I think, in itself, a very erroneous and unwarrantable Procedure; for as God is _all-wise_ and _good_, as well as _almighty_ and _independent_, it is, in the Nature of Things, impossible (and therefore we should never admit it possible) he should be capable (in a moral Sense, I mean) of exerting any one particular Attribute in _Opposition_ to, or _Diminution_ from, another. A _Sovereign_ he is, nor can any Creature whatever dispute his _unlimited_ and _uncontroulable_ Power over his _whole Creation_. But Power alone, without Wisdom and Goodness to make a right Use and Application of it, may be perfect _Frenzy_, and run into the greatest Latitude of _Folly_ and _Tyranny_. It is, if I may be allowed the Comparison, like a _Vessel_ that has lost its Helm, continually exposed to the tossing of Winds and Waves. To talk, therefore, of _mere Sovereign Pleasure_, without Regard to the proper Reason or Fitness of Things, so far operating and bring in the _Divine Mind_ (and which is nothing more than the Presence and Operation of his own Wisdom) in order to prefer what, in its own Nature, is _best_, and _fittest_ to be done, is excluding from the Deity, those _more_ blessed and _valuable Perfections_ of _Wisdom_ and _Goodness_, and establishing in their room, and at their Expence, mere Sovereign Power alone. _Physically speaking_ indeed, we allow God can do Evil itself; but the moral Perfections of his Nature, are to us an _infallible_ and _unshaken Security_, that he _never will_ do it. _Man_ being an impotent and fallible Creature, liable, not only to mistake the true Nature and importance of Things, but when he does understand his Duty rightly, liable also, thro' the Prevalence of _Habit_ and _Passion_, to be very backward and defective in performing it, must necessarily be subject to such Laws, as contain in them Rewards and Punishments, proper to influence his _Hopes_ and his _Fears_.

But as God, on the contrary, is a Being of all possible and infinite Perfections; an exact Knowledge of what we call _Right_ and _Wrong_, _Just_ and _Unjust_, ever hath, and always will exit in the _Divine Mind_, and be to him a perfect, constant, and invariable Rule of Action, in relation to his Creatures. He that is _infinite_ in Knowledge, cannot but know, at all Times, and under the most (to us) difficult and perplex'd Circumstances of Things, what in its _own Nature_ is _best_, and _fittest_ to be done; and, being void of all Bias, Prejudice, and Passion, cannot but approve of what is _right_ and _best;_ and being likewise _Almighty_, no Power can possibly interrupt, or prevent what he determined to accomplish: So that it is _morally impossible_, that God should do an evil Thing, These Truths are so deducible from each other, and in themselves so evident, to all unbiassed and inquisitive Minds, that one would wonder to find Men, of Learning and Integrity, give into the contrary Sentiments; which, in Effect they do, who hold Doctrines _naturally subversive_ of these fundamental Truths, as all certainly do, who depart from the moral Good and Fitness of Things, and resolve all into _mere sovereign Pleasure_ alone, _independent_ of Wisdom and Goodness; which must ever be at hand to _cooperate_ with, and govern the Exertion of, their favourite Attribute, _sovereign Power_ itself; or, if they do not expressly affirm this, they do by another Method the very same thing; and that is, by denying, in Effect, the _intrinsick Difference_ of Good and Evil, which, according to them, has no Foundation in the _Nature_ and Relations of Things, but takes its Rise, only, from the mere Will and Appointment of the _Deity_. But if all Things are in themselves equally Good, where is the Use to _appoint_, or the Sense of talking about it? Wisdom and Goodness must, according to this Notion, be idle and unmeaning Sounds, without Sense or Service. But alas! the natural Consequence of maintaining Tenets, so repugnant to common Sense, is seldom less than running into and embracing other Absurdities, in themselves equally great with what they are brought to defend, And here, as some of these Gentlemen are exalted, and I hope deservedly, to the Dignity of Teachers in the _Christian Church_, they will, I hope, permit me to ask them a Question or two, which I should, on almost any other Occasion, blush to ask any rational Man, _viz_. If they do not perceive an intrinsic Beauty and Excellence in Virtue, as opposed to Vice; independent of all _positive_ or arbitrary Appointment, tho' of the _Deity_ itself; and whether, besides the Commands of God, (which to be sure are of high Importance, and ought ever to be urged with great Strength and Energy) they do not also _press_ upon their Hearers, the Practice of Virtue, and endeavour to recommend, and inforce it on the Mind, from its _own_ native Charms? But to make this Matter, still, if possible, more evident; let us suppose the present excellent Order of Things inverted, and that God, of his own mere Pleasure, had given Mankind quite contrary Laws, and commanded _Rebellion, Murder, Ingratitude_, and all Manner of Intemperance and Debauchery, instead of their _opposite virtues;_ would the same Fitness, Beauty, and Propriety, appear to these Gentlemen, as there now does, in _Virtue?_ If not, from whence the Difference arises, let them answer.

As God is an infinite Mind or Spirit, perfectly acquainted, at every Instant of Time, with whatever _hath been, is_, or _shall be;_ and all Things _possible to be;_ 'tis evident, that all possible Relations of Persons and Things are fully known to him; and that all _moral_ and _divine_ Obligations, arising from the Relation we stand in to God, and to each other, did, in their own Nature, _previous_ to actual Law or Commandment, exist; because the one was in Time, and the other Eternal; one commenced only (at best) with the _Being_ and _Beginning_ of Creatures, the other was from all Eternity, _co-existent_ with the _Divine Wisdom_ itself; and such an inseparable Concomitant therewith, that, in regard to the _Divine Being_, himself, it was absolutely impossible, but that, on his creating such a Rank of Beings as we are, _moral_ and _religious_ Obligations must have been _invariably_ and _unalterably_ the same; and if, as these Men teach, God's having commanded the Practice of Virtue, be its peculiar Sanction, and that _alone_ which distinguishes it from Vice or Evil; then, by the same or as good an Argument, his commanding Light in the Beginning, is all the Reason we have for esteeming Light and Darkness different, (as they really are) the one being the actual Pretence of a real Body, and the other a mere Name, to signify its Absence; not that Vice is therefore a mere Name, to signify the Absence of Virtue, for Comparisons seldom hold good in _every_ minute Particular; but there is a Parity between the two Cases, sufficient to justify my bringing in the one, as an Illustration of the other. There is no Knowledge _more certain_, than what Mankind commonly have of Good and Evil; and he who, in order to serve any private Scheme of Religion, goes about to depreciate this Knowledge, robs Mankind of all Truth and Certainty whatever, and in the End subjects his own darling Schemes to the same Uncertainty; for if we cannot judge of the Fitness, of plain moral Truth and Duty, neither can we of any Scheme of Religion; especially such as hang together more by Art and human Contrivance, than by Reason or Revelation.

Being very desirous to get all the Information I could, concerning the Matter in Debate; I have attentively read over Mr. _Cole's_ Treatise on the _Sovereignty_ of God. I know 'tis thought an unanswerable Performance; and, so far as it regards general Christianity, it is worth every Christian's serious Notice: But as to the Doctrine it was wrote to support, it leaves it (in my Judgment) no better than it found it; but is miserably weak, and defective, as to any Thing that looks like sound Reason, or true Argument; and amounts to no more than this _poor Assertion, That because God is a Sovereign, he may do what he pleases:_ And, from the Instances he brings from Scripture, 'tis plain, that Mr. _Cole_ himself pays as _little_ Regard to the intrinsick Worth and Excellence of Things, as is done by many of his Brethren. The manner in which he has been pleased to give us the Story of _Jacob_ and _Esau_, proves the Truth of this Observation, I have no great Inclination to spend Time in explaining _hard Passages_ of Scripture, (tho' if any thing of that kind can be serviceable, or deem'd excellent, 'tis Mr. _Taylor_ of _Norwich_ his Book on _Original Sin_,) or to trespass on the Reader's Patience, by throwing one Text of _hard_ and _uncertain_ Meaning against another; for by this means the Controversy hath been needlessly prolonged. Where the Scriptures are _plain_, _positive_ and _reasonable_, their Authority ought to be conscientiously adhered to: But as this is not always the Case, the _next_ Thing to knowing what is the _true Meaning_ of any particular Text of Scripture is, to know what it neither _does_ nor _can_ possibly mean; in which Case, the Divine Attributes, and the Nature and Reason, or (if you please) Fitness of Things, is the best Rule. We _cannot_, it is impossible we _should_, understand the certain determinate Meaning of any Text of Scripture _better_, if altogether _so well_, as we do _know_ certainly, that God is _just_ and _good_, and _know_ also as clearly, what _Justice_ and _Goodness_ mean, when applied to the _Deity_, as we do, when we apply them to _ourselves_. And this Rule, if duly observed, would be abundantly sufficient, to set aside many Interpretations of Scripture, too commonly admitted upon this and the like Occasions. And, besides this never failing Argument (to all who attend duly to its Force) it is worth while, just to remark, that though, as the _Bible_ now stands, there are in it (as we must acknowledge) some Passages, which (especially at first sight) seem to favour the Doctrine of _Sovereignty_, &c. yet as it is possible, nay sometimes easy, to give them _another interpretation_, and the general Scope and Tenor of the Scripture being agreeable to such an Interpretation, we have abundantly more Reason to _reject_, than to _admit_ of the Sense, in which these Gentlemen are pleased to understand and expound many Texts of the _Bible_, relating to this and other affinitive Points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.