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 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.

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