Chapter III: Part 3

This Doctrine of electing Grace, they exalt as an _incomprehensible Mystery;_ so do the Papists, with as good Reason, that of _Transubstantiation;_ for neither of them are Mysteries, or incomprehensible, but _palpable Errors_, whose Absurdity we do _easily and fully comprehend;_ nor will the stale Art of playing on the Word _Mystery_ amuse us any longer. Another strange Argument, which these Men make use of, in order to set aside some Passages of Scripture, which are positive and express against them, is this, _that if God wills the Salvation of all Men, all must be saved, otherwise we may be said to conquer the Will and Grace of God_. To which the Answer is very easy--Man is made a _free Creature_, and therefore God deals with him as such; because to make him free, and then arbitrarily _overrule_ his Freedom, would be making him free to _no Purpose_. The Will of God is sometimes _positive_, and sometimes _conditional_. He gives Laws, commands us to keep them, and promises eternal Life to those who obey; nor can we suppose he commands us to obey, without willing our Obedience. We may indeed _resist_ the Operations of his Grace: but to talk of _conquering_ God, is Nonsense. He has made us free Creatures; he wills our Salvation, and has granted us such Aids as are sufficient, if we use them aright, to bring us to Happiness: This Conduct in the Divine Being, is not only reasonable in itself, but _perfectly agreeable_ to many _plain_ and _express_ Parts of Scripture. The _Weeping_ and _Lamentation_ of _Christ_ over _Jerusalem_, is a strong Proof of it: _How often would I have gathered thee, as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings; but thou wouldest not!_ Here was all done, that was fit and convenient to reclaim free Beings; not only proper Aids offer'd, but offer'd in the _most tender_ and affectionate Manner, as is evident from the Comparison of the Hen, &_c_. and by the Words _how often_, is set forth the _great Patience and longsuffering of God:_ And notwithstanding all this, they resisted to their own Destruction. God _willed_, or would have saved her, but she was stubborn and rebellious, and would not accept of Salvation; did she therefore _conquer_ the Almighty? Suppose my Father gives me a good Education, a good Employment, and a competent Portion in Money, and, besides all, is continually at hand, ready further to advise and assist me, whenever it may be necessary; yet I am obstinate and disobedient, and, by pursuing evil Courses, fall into Poverty, Contempt, and Ruin: I may indeed be said to _resist_, but in no _good Sense_ to _conquer_ my Father. Besides, according to this absurd Way of arguing, if God does all in Believers, his Laws are to be _kept_ by himself; with what Propriety then can they be said to be given to Man? He to whom the Law is given is to keep it, not the Being who gives it.

I might here, very naturally, speak concerning the Sacrifice of _Christ's Death_, and _his Righteousness_ imputed to us; but I shall not now discuss it fully, only a few Remarks may not be impertinent or useless. These two Points appear to me to be much misunderstood; _Sin_ is said to be infinite, because committed against an infinite God; and that therefore nothing but an infinite Being can satisfy the Justice of God for it: A fine Story indeed, for Men to amuse us with, who pretend to believe in _only one_ God: Here is _one_ infinite Being, to be satisfied for Sin; and _another_, to satisfy him. And, what is still as bad or worse, it supposes, that an infinite Being may, for a certain Season, suffer or undergo a Diminution of its Happiness; which, in an infinite and unchangeable Being, I take to be impossible. Was it then _only_ the Person, or _rational Soul_ of _Jesus Christ_, that suffered, being upheld under it, by the infinite Being himself? If so, what is become of the infinite Being, that was to _suffer_ for Sin; for does God make Satisfaction to himself? 'Till these Gentlemen either renounce, or better explain this Matter, they will, I hope, think very favourably of all who deal in absurd Schemes of Faith.

The Thing productive of these Absurdities, is a _wrong Notion_ of Sin, and of the Justice of God: Sin, they say, is infinite, because _committed against an infinite God_. It is doubtless sometimes a great Aggravation of it, that it is committed against God; but it is not so much his _Greatness_, as our abusing his _Goodness_, that aggravates the Crime: As may appear from this short Observation, That any Favour, disinterestedly done, by a Person of the meanest Rank in Life, lays the Receiver under the same Obligation, as though it were granted by the greatest Man upon Earth: It is the Motive and the Action, put together, that gives it its proper Value to the Receiver. God's Authority may add some kind of Sanction but no Alteration of outward Circumstances, in him who confers a Benefit, can ever after change the Nature of the Action, or the Obligations resulting from it.

And, when we consider, on the other hand, that Sin is committed by a frail finite Being, very often in its unguarded Moments, prompted by Passion and Appetite, and surrounded with the most powerful Temptations; this proves more strongly, that it cannot be infinite. By the _Justice_ of God, is not meant, that he cannot forgive Sin without Satisfaction, but that he _will_ not punish the Innocent; He proposes himself as a Pattern for our Imitation, and bids us _forgive our offending Brethren, if they repent and desire Forgiveness:_ and he himself will therefore forgive on the same Terms; for unless Sin becomes so enormous, as to make Punishment necessary, _Repentance_ and _Amendment_ is all that God expects. The Gospel is proposed to Sinners, on these Terms; and as to the Death of Christ, it were unreasonable to think, he laid down his Life by way of Satisfaction to Offended Justice, in the Manner these Gentlemen understand it; but in Testimony of the Truth of his Doctrines, and Confirmation of God's _great Love_ to the World. This was the Cause of Christ's Coming in the Flesh. God so loved the World, that he sent Christ to save it, by such Preaching and Miracles, and other internal Aids, &_c_. as were in themselves sufficient to beget Faith in such as gave a proper Attention; such a Faith, in the Soul, as was productive of Morality and Virtue in Practice. It was an _original Act_ of Grace and Goodness in God, to send Christ into the World, to save Sinners, and not (as some superstitiously teach) a mere Compliance in God the Father (and that, not without full Satisfaction first made) to the _voluntary_ and _merciful_ Intercession of Christ the Son. For then our Salvation would be _owing only_ to the Love of Christ, and not _at all_ to God's Love, who is here considered as a _rigorous_ and _unrelenting Creditor_, that will not release the Debtor, until full Satisfaction be made; so that Christ becomes our Creditor, and God has no farther Demand: and what Need then can there be of Intercession to God on our Behalf, when the Debt is already paid, and full Satisfaction made? Christ's coming into the World was _entirely owing_ to the Father's Mercy. His Doctrine, Miracles, &_c_. were what he had in Commission from God, as a Means to instruct and make the World happy; it is he who, instead of being averse to forgive frail Man his Offences, has through Jesus _proclaimed Pardon_ to _all_, on Condition of Repentance and Amendment; and thro' the Love of God it was also, that Christ was appointed a Mediator for sinful Man: So that the whole Affair arose from God's own Mercy.

I stand amazed at the Gentlemen, against whom I am arguing; what a _Scope_ do they give to the _Sovereignty_ of God, in the Doctrines of _Election_ and _Reprobation?_ And yet they won't _suffer it_ at all to operate, in the Case of _forgiving Sin_, on the Terms of Repentance and Amendment. A small, yea _very small_ and reasonable Allowance, in regard to the _Exertion_ of this Attribute, and in a _good Cause_ too, would be sufficient to justify the Mercy of God, in forgiving Sin. If, as a Sovereign, he punishes where no Sin is, surely he may also, as a Sovereign, forgive Sin. So that this Notion of the Impossibility of God's forgiving Sin, without Satisfaction first made, is erroneous and despicable. Repentance and Amendment in the Creature is, in the Nature of Things, a _much better_ Satisfaction, than can be made by the Act of another. By the _Justice_ of God, I repeat it again, is meant, that he will not punish the innocent, and not that he cannot shew Mercy to an offending, repenting, penitent Creature, unless another sheds his Blood for an Atonement. Nor is the Righteousness of Christ, _strictly speaking_, imputable to any one. The Terms of the Gospel are, _Repent, and be converted, and your Sins shall be blotted out:_ Be _sorry_ and _amend_, and I will _forgive_ you. _The Prayer of a Righteous Man availeth much;_ and God, in some Cases, to shew his Regard to the Righteous, and to excite others to become righteous also, may possibly grant _that_, at the Request of such a righteous Person, which without, it might be improper to grant; and Christ being our holy and righteous Mediator, God may do more at his Request, on our Behalf, than he would do without it. Not but that (_independent of_ and previous to the Intercession of Christ, at least to the Account we have of it, in the New Testament) God was _ever disposed_ to be favourable to Man, and always ready to receive him, coming to him in a proper and becoming Manner: For even this very Christ, and his Intercession, &_c_. is all ultimately the Act of God, and flows from his unbounded Love and Goodness to Man. So that _imputed Righteousness_ can mean no more, than God's forgiving us, at the Request of Jesus Christ (whom he sent on purpose to make that Request, and to do every thing for the Benefit and Happiness of Man) and not a _real Transfer_ of Christ's _personal_ Righteousness, which is not only in itself impossible, but would, if true, take away all Necessity of our becoming holy. The Righteousness of Christ is altogether different to what these Men take it to be; it is a real State of Righteousness, wrought in the Soul by the Operation of Christ's _Spirit_, Man submitting thereto. I know there are some Expressions in the _New Testament_, which (if precipitantly understood, without Regard had to the Nature of the Thing, and to other plain Texts) seem _a little_ to favour these Doctrines. I can't say, by what Means _precisely_ the _Bible_ came into its present Condition; many Things might concur to give us wrong Apprehensions of its true Sense and Meaning, He that understands human Nature will find, that Men, who have been _great Bigots_ in any Way of Religion, _will generally retain_ some of their former Prejudices, even after, in the main, they may have changed their Principles, Prejudice in Education is a Leaven, not so easily purged out, as some may imagine; and 'tis possible, the _Writings_ of St. _Paul_ may have in them a Tincture of this kind; besides what may have since crept in, by Partiality or Accident: against which, and _all Errors_ of a like Kind, a due Regard to the _fundamental Principles_, I have endeavoured to inculcate, will, I hope, abundantly secure us. These are some succinct Observations, that I could not well avoid making; which perhaps may shortly be followed by something more _full_ and _comprehensive_, concerning the _Virtue_ and _Extent_ of Christ's _Death_, and the Nature of _imputed Righteousness_. What I have here delivered, concerning God's _Sovereignty_, is not the Result of a few, hasty, or loose Thoughts, but the Effect of long and mature Deliberation. I have weighed over and over the Arguments in my own Breast, and tried their Strength with People, the most likely to afford me Satisfaction; and could I have found it in either Way, the World had never been troubled with these _Free and Impartial Thoughts_.

Permit me, before I make an End, just to observe, in Regard to the Controversy, between Mr. _J--s_ and Mr. _Taylor_, on the Scripture Doctrine of _Original Sin;_ that Mr. _J--s_, as well as Dr. _W--s_, lays great Stress on that frivolous Distinction, mentioned a few Pages back, of _moral_ and _natural_ Necessity, to that Degree, that Mr. _Taylor_ is treated somewhat _rudely_, for not perceiving the Force of it; when I dare aver, _none_ but misguided Zealots, could ever see any Reason or Argument in it: Nor do some of these very Men, who urge it, seem to believe it themselves. Ask them how Man can be justly accountable for Evils, that proceed from a _Nature depraved in_ Adam, and they immediately leave _this Distinction_, and recur to the _Covenant;_ and this Covenant they cannot support by any Argument short of God's _Sovereignty_, which they are welcome (if they can tell how) to improve to their own Advantage.

To say that Man, in the Fall, has natural Powers to act rightly, and is therefore condemnable when he does not, tho', by Necessity; he wants Inclinations to be virtuous, would, to _use_ Mr. _J--s_'s genteel Language, _be a senseless Falshood, and shew Poverty of Argument_ (I am loth to add as he does) _and Effrontery too_. Such Rudeness deserves Lamentation as well as Reproof, nor do I on this Occasion set before _him_ his _own Words_ with any secret Pleasure, but purely to shew Mr. _J--s_, how agreeable such a Liberty will appear, when, in return, it may be offered to himself.

Why is this favourite Distinction urged, unless it be to shew, that because Man has natural Powers, 'tis his _own_ Fault, if he does not employ them aright; but how does it appear, that such a Power _only_, can render _Man_ a whit better, or _more_ a _moral Agent_, than he is, or would be, without it? If Inclination to _Virtue_, must _precede_ every truly virtuous Action; and Man's Depravity under the Fall, be _such_ as prevents his ever having such good Inclinations, his natural Ability to do Good, must needs be a mere _Joke_ and a _Cypher_. Just the same as, on the other hand, would be, the strongest Inclinations to Virtue, and _no_ natural Power of complying with them in Practice. As nothing short of _Knowledge_ and _Power_, Power of both kinds, _natural_ and _moral_, can constitute Man a _moral Agent_, or proper Subject of _Law_, of Rewards and Punishments, either here, or hereafter; one would wonder to see this insignificant Distinction urged at all in this Controversy: for it is, at the best, a mere _Parade of Words;_ which prove nothing, except it be the Want of Truth and Righteousness, in this Doctrine of _Original Sin;_ or great _Bigotry_, and Defect of Understanding, in its most accomplished Patrons. And after all that is, or can be said, concerning _natural_ and _moral_ Powers; it is doubtful, if such a depraved miserable Wretch, as Man under the Fall is said by the _Assemblies Catechism_ to be, can (strictly speaking) have any Power at all over his own Thoughts and Actions; The immediate Cause and Spring of Action _is_ the _Soul_, to which the _Body_ is subservient only as an _Instrument_, but has in itself, according to the best Philosophy, no Power to produce _voluntary_ or _self Motion_. What is called _natural_ Power in Man, as opposed to _moral_, is at least, a Power lodged in the Soul, to give Motion to the Body. But these _Volitions_ of the Mind, and the immediate Act of the Soul upon the Body, in order to produce _Virtue_, depending on the Mind's being in a State of _Freedom_, able to chuse and prefer Virtue, as better than Vice; it is evident, that in a Mind, totally abandoned to Evil, _moral_ Motives have not their due Power over the Man; and what we call his _natural_ Power to be virtuous, is either suspended, or quite overpowered, by an evil and irresistable Turn of Inclination, arising from the _Act_ of another; I mean, _Adam_. Man then, considered as a _moral_ Agent, has Power to _do_, or _not_ to _do_, the very same Thing; be it good or evil. But this Liberty of Choice and Action in the Creature, as the _Soul_ is but one, and also _the_ immediate Source of all Action in Man, cannot properly, I think, be called _two_ distinct Powers, but rather _different Applications_ of _one_ and the _same Power_ lodged in the Soul. On the other hand, in such a _depraved Creature_, as Man under the Fall is said to be, the Power of _choosing_ and _refusing_, of being virtuous or vicious, which he _pleases_, is altogether lost and destroyed; and such a Man, so far from having _natural_ and _moral_ Powers, has (properly speaking) _no Power_ at all remaining: all his Thoughts and Actions, like those of a Machine, are merely involuntary; he is constantly impelled by something mightier than himself, and ever necessitated to think and act as he does: his being an intelligent Creature, doth not alter the State of the Case, or render him more an Agent than a Stock or a Stone. In this sad Condition, Man can have no Power at all to love and pursue Virtue, untill the overruling Principle, which determines all his Thoughts and Actions to the contrary, be removed, or he receive Superaddition of Understanding and Strength agreeable thereto. My natural Strength of Body may be equal to four hundred Weight; but what can this avail, while I am continually pressed down by four thousand? and all Mr. _J--s_'s Skill and Criticism (_Pages_ 71, 72) will not evade this Reasoning. The Distinction between immediate and remote Causes of Sin, is as trifling and inconclusive, as the 'forementioned Distinction of _moral_ and _natural_ Powers. Those indeed, who can fancy themselves to be God's own dear and elect Children, may reject all Opposition with _Scorn_, and without _Examination_, and acquiesce readily in the most rigid and tyrannical System of Religion, that renders the Bulk of Mankind miserable, while the Elect may think themselves secure in the Divine Decree, _with an humble Assent, and awful_ (it should be superstitious) _Reverence of the Majesty and Sovereignty of the great God_. But what Reason or Recompence will that be to _him_, who under proper Means and Motives would have kept the Commandments, and so have entered into Life; who would have loved the Lord his God, with all his Heart, Soul, and Strength; and his Neighbour as himself? Or how can such a partial and tyrannical Doctrine, be reconciled to the Voice of Reason in Man, to our common Notions of _Right_ and _Wrong_, to the General Scope and Tenour of the _Holy Scriptures_, or to that Text in particular, which assures us, that _the Almighty doth not grieve nor afflict the Children of Men willingly?_

_FINIS._