Chapter II: Part 2

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.

While I am thus rendering _human Learning_, its just Tribute of Praise, _Truth_ requires, that I should be free to detect those little Arts, so often practised to deceive the Unwary, and misguide Mankind. As I am fully persuaded, the Generality of those Writers; who stick by this _Covenant_, and endeavour to vindicate the Honour, Justice, and Goodness of God therein, do it _only_ for Decency sake, _and to put_ (as I observed) _a more plausible Outside on their Doctrines;_ I think it incumbent on me to _detect_ this _equivocal_ Way of Writing, and shew, that while the Doctor is endeavouring to persuade you he _does not_ believe these Doctrines in their most _harsh_ and _severe_ Sense, there is Reason to suspect he does notwithstanding, _secretly_ and _strongly_, believe them in that _very Sense:_ nay, he seems to resolve _them_ very artfully into the _Sovereignty_ and _Majesty of God_. Any Man, who reads the Book, may perceive, how greatly the Doctor is _put to it_ for _Arguments_, to answer _Objections;_ and he himself knows it to be impossible to make any tolerable or reasonable Defence, of such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines: and therefore, lest his _own People_ should, from some Expressions, which, at first sight, might look as though he was arguing merely upon a Principle of _moral Fitness_, suspect his Sincerity, he has (Second Edition, _Page_ 274) given strong Intimations of his Faith, as follows:

"The Doctrine of _Reprobation_, in the most _severe_ and _absolute_ Sense of it, stands in such a direct Contradiction to all our Notions of Kindness and Love to others, in which the _blessed God_ is set forth as our Example, that our Reason cannot tell how to receive it; yet if it were never so true, and never so plainly revealed in Scripture, it would only be a Doctrine which would require our humble Assent, and silent Submission to it; with awful Reverence of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the great God, &_c_."

This proves, I think clearly, on what Authority the Doctor himself believes these _Doctrines;_ and whoever knows, how _common_ it is for Men of _this_ Faith, to make a specious Shew of reasoning with others on a Principle of moral Fitness, and among themselves, without Scruple, resolving all into mere _Sovereignty_, will not think I have been too forward or severe in my Observation. I _humbly_ presume, what I have offer'd against this Notion of _God's Sovereignty_, is a plain Confutation of the Doctor; and I here, with all due Submission, invite _him_, or any of his _Brethren_, to defend _the Doctrines;_ and _this Quotation_, against me. If they _do really_ resolve these Doctrines into _God's Sovereignty_, let them speak it out plainly; if they _do not_ believe them in this Sense, let them speak that out plainly too; that we may clearly understand, in what _determinate Sense_, they do believe them.

The Doctor has taken a great deal of Pains to make the World believe, that Christ died for all Men, when it does not appear, that he himself believes any such thing. Hear him, _Page_ 89, "And methinks, when I take my justest Survey of this lower World, with all the Inhabitants of it, I can look upon it no otherwise, than as a huge and magnificent Structure in Ruins, and turned into a Prison, and a Lazar-house, or Hospital; wherein lie Millions of Criminals, and Rebels against their Creator, under Condemnation to Misery and Death, who are at the same time sick of a mortal Distemper, and disorder'd in their Minds, even to Distraction: Hence proceed those infinite Follies, which are continually practised here; and the righteous Anger of an offended God is visible in ten thousand Instances: yet there are Proclamations of Divine Grace, Health, and Life, sounding amongst them; either with a louder Voice, or in gentler Whispers, though very few of them take any Notice thereof. But of this great Prison, this Infirmary, there is here and there one who is called powerfully, by Divine Grace, and attends to the Office of Reconciliation, and complies with the Proposals of Peace; his Sins are pardoned, he is healed of his worst Distemper; and tho', his Body is appointed to go down to the Dust, for a Season, yet his Soul is taken upwards to a Region of Blessedness; while the Bulk of these miserable and guilty Inhabitants, perish in their own wilful Madness and by the just Executions of Divine Anger."

As I have hitherto troubled the Reader with little Quotation, and it being now so necessary to let us into the _true Spirit_ of the Doctor's Belief, notwithstanding any seeming Appearance to the contrary, I hope to be pardoned. You perceive here, that all are called, but the _greatest Part_, in such a weak and imperfect Manner, that is out of _their Power_ to embrace the Call, and so they perish as _unavoidably_ and _unjustly_, as though no such Call were extended. The Distinction, which is here made between moral and natural Necessity, the Doctor thinks sufficient to silence all Objections, _Page_ 285. I have endeavour'd to shew the contrary, and I hope with better Success. Again, what the Doctor observes, _Page_ 245, is worthy of Notice,--"Though there must be a _very good Sense_, in which _Christ_ may be said to die for all Men, because the Scripture uses this Language; yet it does not follow, that the Doctrine of Universal Redemption is found there: I cannot find that Scripture once asserts that _Christ_ redeemed all Men, or _died_ to redeem them all."

This is, I think, manifestly a _Contradiction_, and the Doctor, it seems, believes it, only because the Scripture, as he thinks, reveals it. Where is the Difference between _dying to save all Men_, and, _dying to redeem all Men?_ And yet _Jesus Christ_, it seems, did the one, but not the other. According to him (the Doctor) the Scripture assures us, that is, the Word of God assures us, both that _Christ did_, and that he _did not_ die to redeem all Mankind; which is a flat Contradiction. In what good Sense, I should be glad to know, could _Christ_ be said to _die_ for _all Men_, when God purposely, and peremptorily, _with-holds_ proper Assistances to restore the _greatest Part?_ If this be to die for _all Men_, it is certainly not in a good, but in a very bad Sense. But, perhaps, the _Doctor_ means, _that Man, consider'd in his primitive Rectitude, has Power sufficient to obey the Gospel as proposed to Sinners, and that_ Adam's _Posterity, consider'd as fallen in him, are under the same Obligation to keep the Law, as_ Adam _was_. But of this I have already taken due Notice, and therefore I need only put the Doctor in mind of a few Words of his, drop'd _Page_ 340, in his _Consideration of the State of dying Infants_. He thinks, "it would be by no Means agreeable, to have them condemned to a wretched Resurrection and eternal Misery, only because they were born of _Adam_, the original Transgressor." This is a rational Sentiment, and I wish it were well improved; for it is better to suppose them entering on a new State of Trial, or downright Annihilation to be their Portion: But what Havock does this Concession make with the Doctor's other Doctrines, of _Christ's dying for all Men in a good Sense, of considering us in point of Obligation to keep the Law inviolable, the same as Adam was before his Fall;_ of God's either granting _no Aids_ to enable us to _do this_, or such _as are too weak and insufficient to enable us thereto!_ We are, he allows, _under a moral Incapacity to keep the Law_, but not a _natural_ Incapacity, and therefore God may justly exact our Obedience. But pray consider, if both a _moral_ and _natural_ Ability be requisite to keep God's Laws, what signifies which of these is wanting, when we may as well be without _both_, as without _either_. It signifies little, what Epithets we bestow on the Word _Necessity_. Wherever it prevails; and whether it be _moral_ or _natural_, if it is not _self-caused_, but comes on Man, either by the immediate Decree of Heaven, or by the _Act of another_, it is _Necessity_, _irresistible Necessity_, and no Distinction can palliate it.

I allow indeed, when Man is created upright, and furnished with sufficient Understanding and Ability to please the Almighty; and yet, _abusing_ his Liberty, becomes at length so enslaved to his Passions and Appetites, as to fall into this _moral Debility_, the Law of God is still his Duty to observe: On the other hand, allowing Mankind to have lost their _moral Ability_ to practise Virtue in the Fall of _Adam_, and that God, taking Pity upon Man, grants him sufficient _Light_, to discern his State, and sufficient _Power_, to obtain Redemption from it, this Man is also under the _same Obligation_ to keep the Law of God, as though his moral Powers had never sustained any _Decay_ or _Loss_ in _Adam;_ and I dare affirm, that in _no_ other Sense, can Man be accountable for the Pravity of his Will. And let the Doctor observe this,--If it would be unsuitable to the Mercy of God, in the Case of Infants not committing actual Sin, to punish them eternally, _only because they were born of this first Transgressor_, would it not be equally unkind, to leave such as arrive at mature Age, under the Power of those _restless_ and _irresistable_ Propensities to Evil, derived from _Adam_, and to punish _them_ eternally, only because these Propensities, derived in virtue of being born of the first Transgressor, constantly, and _in spite_ of any thing we are able, considered in a moral and natural Sense, to do to the contrary, produce _Vice_ and _immorality?_ _All_ evil Actions, consequent upon this Propensity, are, in fact, as necessary and unavoidable to us, as the Propensity itself, _Where_ then, in point of Innocence, can the Difference be, _between_ having imputed Guilt and this Propensity, in Time of Infancy, and living long enough in this World, to feel, and shew to others, its arbitrary Effects, in producing Vice and Impiety whether we will or no? and where then is the Reason, for such very different Treatment of Infants and adult Persons? I must observe one Thing--The Doctor and his Brethren, as they make the Work of Salvation, a very easy and agreeable Thing to the Elect, on the one hand; so they assign the poor Sinner a very _hard Task_, on the other: _He that offends in one Point is_, they say, _guilty of breaking the whole Law_. Here is a _plain Instance_ of taking _Scripture_ in a literal Sense, when it can by no Means be so understood. According to this, a Man, that only _steals_, may be said to commit Murder, and be _punished_ as a Murderer as well as a Thief; though we know he has not committed it.

In the main, we may conscientiously observe and keep God's Laws, and yet in Time of _Temptation_ and _Weakness_ fall into some Evil, will, God therefore _consider_ and _punish_ us as those who live in the daily Breach and Contempt of all his Laws? No! For, on the contrary, God ever waits to be gracious to all such, as through Inadvertence fall into Sin, and are willing to forsake it. The View and Intent of our Apostle, in these Words, seems to be of very _easy_ and _plain_ Signification: There was in those early Times, as appears from our Saviour's frequently reproving the Hypocrisy of that Generation, a Sort of People, who appeared zealous in the Externals of Religion, while at the same Time they neglected Things of far _greater Moment:_ _Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, ye pay Tithe of Mint and Cummin; and have omitted the weightier Matters of the Law:_ Mat. xxiii. _ver_. 23. They daringly violated God's Laws in some of the most material and important Instances, and complied with others in a mere formal ostentatious Way; and were therefore guilty, in the Divine View, of the Breach of the _whole Law;_ for _mere Obedience_ upon improper Motives to a _Part_ of the Law, while at the same Time they allow'd themselves in the _known_ and _deliberate_ Violation of _more weighty_ Commands, was no true or proper Obedience at all: and, in this Sense, the _Jewish_ Sacrifices of the Law, though commanded by the highest Authority, were always esteemed an Abomination; and the Christian Religion as well as the Law, is certainly liable to Abuses of the same Kind, from Men of hypocritical and corrupt Minds, whom therefore this Doctrine of the Apostle _effectually_ and _peculiarly_ regards and reproves: and I appeal to all, if this Construction of the Sacred Text be not more agreeable to Reason and Common Sense, than that which the Doctor has thought fit and convenient to bestow thereon. I beseech the Doctor to consider how, according to his Principles, this Covenant could be proposed to _Adam_, out of a kind and beneficent intention in the Creator, when God knew, in the first Place, that _Adam_ would not keep it, and determined, in the second Place, upon the Breach of it, to leave the Bulk of Mankind to perish everlastingly, without Mercy, without sufficient or suitable Means of Redemption; and what a _cruel Joke_, upon the _Calvinistical Scheme_, of God's willing the _Fall_, was here put upon _Adam_, and all his Posterity!

To talk as some do, of our existing in _Adam_ at the Time of his Transgression, is very absurd, when, as _intelligent_ and _free Creatures_, it is evident, we did not exist at all. _Sin is a Transgression of some Law, which we have at the same time Power to keep_. God never requires Impossibilities. He that made Man, knows best what he is capable of and hath undoubtedly taken care to proportion the _Duties_ he requires of Man, to the _Powers_ he hath bestowed on him. The contrary would be very hard dealing indeed--If a Law be dispensed to me, I must in the first Place have Understanding sufficient to judge of its Authority, and the Obligations it lays me under; and, in the second Place, I must also have Power to keep it, otherwise it can never be a Law suitable to me; and a Man's _Age_, _Complexion_, _Stature_, and _Circumstances_, are as just Causes for Damnation, as the Breach of a Law which lies beyond the Reach of his Knowledge and Abilities. But supposing, in the last Place, that God did make such a Covenant with _Adam_, &_c_. (though I think I have shewn it to be impossible) let us see how the Doctrines of _Election_ and _Preterition_ will turn out _then_. I have already endeavoured to make it appear, that God does not act in that arbitrary Manner, which these Gentlemen teach; that though he is indeed governed by no Law without, or accountable to any for what he is pleased to do, yet his own Rectitude of Mind, is to him an invariable Rule of Righteousness, equally secure to all Intents and Purposes of a written Law without: and this argues the adorable and incomparable Excellency of his Being who, though by Nature he is infinitely above all Power and Authority whatever, yet his moral Perfections continually prompt him to promote the Happiness of the meanest of his Creatures. It was _sovereign Goodness_ (rather than _sovereign Pleasure_) which prompted the Almighty to create Man, in order to communicate Happiness to him; and if _Adam's_ Posterity might be said to fall in him, yet God must at least look on them in a more favourable Manner, than if they had actually sinned themselves; and consequently it could never suit with his Goodness to punish eternally _any one_ under this Circumstance, without _first giving_ him an Opportunity of recovering from his lapsed State; nor could he ordain the Means on Purpose to _save some_ by _electing Grace_, without _saving all_. God does nothing without sufficient Reason: he could save none under this Circumstance, but as they were _in themselves_ Objects of his Pity and Mercy; and if ever there was an Object of Mercy, here it is, an immortal Soul condemned, for the Fault of _another_, which it could by no Means hinder or prevent, to suffer eternal Torment. There is something greatly moving in such an Object as this; and as _all Adam's_ Posterity were equally involved in his Guilt, all are Objects of Mercy _precisely the same_, and therefore there is not the least Ground for the Difference which we are told is made by Election; because 'tis making a _Distinction_ where there is _no Difference_. Here is the Race of _Adam_, considered as _equally_ fallen in him, divided into two very unequal Parts (equally in themselves, and altogether Objects of Mercy, if such an Object can be) by the Almighty himself. The smaller Number he is at all Events determined to save, and to destroy the greater Number.

In answer to this, I expect to hear that common, but _weak_ Argument, drawn from an _earthly Prince_, his extending Pardon to _one_ Criminal, and leaving _another_ to undergo the Execution of his Sentence. But this is of the same _fallacious Kind_, as that drawn from the Case of _Rebellion_, and shews how _very hard_ the Patrons of this Doctrine are put to it for Arguments. Two Men, condemned for one Crime, may not be equally wicked, and consequently _one_ may better deserve Pity than the _other_, and to extend it, is in itself a rational and worthy Distinction, made between two _such Criminals_. Let us suppose, in order to illustrate the Argument, that a Man is _compelled_, by Thieves, to go out on the Highway, where he plunders, and is at length, with the rest, brought to Justice; his Sentence would doubtless be the _same_ as theirs: But when he is consider'd, as having acted not by Choice, but _by Necessity_, he must needs be an Object of Pity. Nay, mere Justice itself will plead strongly in his Favour. Apply this (so far as it belongs) to the Doctrine of _Original Sin;_ which if it makes Men Sinners _at all_, it must be _by Necessity_, there being no _Possibility_ for us to prevent it; which is equal to the greatest Constraint that can be produced or imagined, and consequently _all Men_ must, under this Consideration, be _at worst_ suitable Objects of Mercy. Besides, the Weakness of this Argument will plainly appear, upon considering, with respect to _earthly Princes_, that where the Equity of making a _due Distinction_ between one _Criminal_ and another, is not the Reason, why _one is pardoned_, and the other _left to suffer;_ it _always_ arises either from _Caprice_, _Interest_, _Solicitation_, or from _Misrepresentation_ of Facts to Monarchs; who, too often, _see_ and _hear_ through _others_, that are not always duly conscientious, to preserve inviolable the Trust reposed in them; and whether such Reasoning as this, can possibly affect the _Almighty_, any Man of common Understanding may easily judge.

But let them apply my Argument on the _Sovereignty of_ God against the _Certainty_ of their Election, and I believe they will find but little Reason to boast of their Doctrine of electing Grace. They tell us indeed, that this Doctrine of theirs, makes the Death of _Christ_ of more Effect than ours, because it secures the Salvation of _some_. But I have proved there can be no Security in it; and surely that Doctrine, which _puts all_ into a Capacity of Salvation, must be better, than that, which leaves _almost every Man_ to perish; and if it was better to save a few, than to save none in this arbitrary Manner, it must still have been better and more to the Glory of _Christ_, arbitrarily to have saved all Mankind. They say also, that their Doctrine of Election is a much better Ground for Love and good Works, than is that of _free Grace_. But the contrary is apparent, because whoever thinks rightly, cannot be without this disquieting Thought.--If God, in a mere arbitrary Manner, and without any Regard to previous Fitness, has chosen me, and rejected another; how do I know but his Mind may change hereafter, or that he may not reverse this Decree? or if _unconditional Election_ be the true Doctrine of the Gospel, and Man is _equally dear_ and acceptable to God _without_, as he is _with_, good Works, what Inducement can such a Person have to please God that Way, when he is already as well pleased without them? If Election is founded upon an _unconditional Decree_, the natural Inference (in all such as believe the Doctrine, and themselves to be of the Elect) must be this--If I am of the Number of the Elect, nothing can frustrate my Happiness; I may gratify my favourite Passions, and wallow in all Kinds of Wickedness, Luxury and Sensuality, and be equally acceptable to the Almighty, as was _David_ in the Sins of Murder and Adultery: On the contrary, if I am not of that Number which shall be saved, all my Pains and Obedience will never procure me Acceptance with God, and therefore I _will seek_ all possible Gratifications in this Life, seeing it is the only Time and Place wherein I can obtain any Thing like Happiness; nor can the Liberty I take here increase my Misery hereafter, the _precise Degree_ of _that_ being fixed along with the Decree of my Damnation: Though this Persuasion of being set apart for everlasting Torment, has more often the Effects of Desperation and _Self-Murder;_ and indeed the two Extremes of _Presumption_ and _Despair_, are the natural Brood and Offspring of these Doctrines, as the reverend and learned Dr. _Trapp_ has abundantly evinced, in his excellent Discourse, _against the Folly, Sin, and Danger of being righteous over much_. Hypocrisy and Persecution are also the genuine Offspring of this Faith; and _whenever_ it has been tried, Persecution has grown up to a considerable Maturity: for as they pretend to know the Marks of elect and reprobate Men, what can be more natural, than for those, who apprehend themselves to be the _former_, to persecute and take Vengeance on the _latter_. Hath not God, by his own Decree of Damnation, set them an Example? and if he has set a Mark on the Reprobate, they (the Elect) may very reasonably, in Imitation of the _Divine Conduct_, endeavour to make them as wretched as possible here in this Life, and _who shall lay any Thing to the Charge of God's Elect?_ I am now shewing, what are the genuine Effects of this Doctrine, not charging Consequences on such as neither do _see_ nor _approve_ of them: there is great Difference in the Conduct of Men of this Principle; and its natural Effects are, by other Things intervening, often prevented, the chief of which may, I believe, be Want of Power and Opportunity; for tho' many, when out of Power, might be apt to say (as _Hazael_ did) _what is thy Servant a Dog, that he should do this Evil?_ yet they would perhaps be in some Danger of behaving as that great Man did, when he came to be tried. Some again, who tho' they profess the Doctrine, are yet (I doubt not) often under the Influence of God's _Grace_, which, as it tends to humble the Soul, and render it more loving and humane than before, naturally prevents the Spirit of Persecution from taking such deep Root as otherwise it might. And here, though I do not pretend to be a _nice Judge_ of the spiritual Part of Religion, yet I have heard such as have been accounted Men of the best Experience say, that when the Grace of God operates on the Soul, the ardent Love of Mankind is _inseparable therewith_. If then the better Sort of those, who profess this Doctrine, are ever sensible of this _most agreeable_ and humbling Operation in the Soul, I ask them, if it does not _naturally distend_ and enlarge their Wishes, in Behalf of all Mankind? and if this Spirit of Love be the genuine Effect of the Operation of God's Grace, what shall be said of that ineffable and immense Fountain of Grace and Goodness, from whence it proceeds? But, on the other hand, it has been observed, that among mere _enthusiastick and traditional Believers_, of the Doctrine of Election, their Hypocrisy, Deceit and Dissimulation has overtop'd that of all the World besides, even beyond what human Nature could be thought capable of, in its most wicked and corrupt State; in short, they seem to have made the Deceit of _Jacob_, and all other parallel Places of Scripture, that furnish the worst Part of the Lives of good Men, a _standing Rule_ of Behaviour--What a blessed Company has the Lord set apart for himself!

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