4

the ground and foundation of CHRISTIANITY; the other, by giving to Natural Religion certain Doctrines of Perfection, to which it doth not pretend, overturns the Superstructure.

Having thus shewn that Man lived, at first, under the guidance of Natural Religion; let us now consider more precisely, but with all possible brevity, What this Reli gion is, and what it teacheth.

If my ideas, whether innate or acquired, do not mislead me, the whole of it may be comprised in this— "That Man, endowed with REASON and FREEDOM OF WILL, is a Moral Agent, and accountable for his conduct to his Maker; who hath given him, for his rule of Life, a Law, discoverable by the one Faculty, and rendered practicable by the other.--That the faithful Observers of this Law God will reward, and the wilful Transgressors of it he will punish; but that, on repentance and amendment, he will pardon, and be reconciled to, Offenders."

This SANCTION of Natural Religion, evident as it is, hath been brought into question, and disputed, not only by those who reject our idea of such a moral System, but by those who contend for it.

The first have said, that we know so little of God's government of the universe, that it is hazardous to affirm, that Man hath any claim at all to Reward. The other, that it is still more hazardous to affirm, that REPENTANCE will certainly restore bad Men to the benefit of this Claim, if, before their transgression, they had any such.

Yet the Truths (thus boldly brought in question) are founded on this clear Principle, "That, taking in the whole of a good Man's existence, God will bestow upon him more of happiness than of misery." To deny this, will tend to confound our distinct ideas of a good and of an evil Governor of the World. Nor are these truths, thus founded, at all shaken by our ignorance of God's government of the universe. I apprehend, that the supposed force of the objection ariseth from Men's not rightly distinguishing between God's PHYSICAL and MORAL Government; nor seeing how the consequences of that distinction directs our judgment to decide of the evidence in religious matters, and particularly of the

force

force of this objection. I will not here repeat my reasoning on this subject, which the reader may find already delivered in pages 221, 222, and 223 of the Introduction, and will see repeated, occasionally, hereafter. In behalf of these repetitions, had I added one more, on the present occasion, I should have no need to apologize : for as often as an old argument supports a Truth, newly attacked, the use of that argument, on such an occasion, cannot be called a repetition of it, but a different application of it to a new question. And every different application will give additional credit to the solidity of the argument, when it is seen how many various purposes it may be made to serve, and how many various Truths it is fitted to illustrate. This is one of those FRUITFUL ARGUMENTS, frequently to be met with in this Work, which I have enforced again and again, in the support of some new Truth; and which, I make no doubt, a less attentive Reader has as often condemned for a repetition of the same thing.

From this Argument, so referred to, as it lies in the Introduction, we may safely conclude, that a good man hath a claim to reward: And this, I think, Religionists, consulting no more than their natural ideas, have generally agreed in; and yet have generally concurred to deny that other part of the proposition (though it stand upon the same Principle) which teacheth, that God will re-establish the repentant Sinner in his original claim to divine favour."

This may seem unaccountable; but there is a secret in it, which will deserve to be explained, for more reasons than one; but at present, principally for the sake of removing this difficulty.

The truth is, those Divines, who doubted of this reestablishment, laboured under a groundless apprehension, that to allow the Doctrine of reconciliation, on sincere repentance alone, might tend to supersede the necessity of the Christian Revelation; which they erroncously supposed taught nothing concerning a future state but what was discoverable, and had been actually discovered, by the light of Nature: So that if natural Religion taught ONE means of Reconciliation, and Revelation taught ANOTHER, both could not be true. They, therefore, rejected that, as false, which natural Religion was said to

teach.

teach. And modern Unbelievers being under the like delusion, viz. that natural Religion and revealed taught the same doctrine concerning a future state, reject, as false, that means of reconciliation which Revelation pretends to have discovered.

But we have bestowed our pains to little purpose, if, by this time, the attentive Reader doth not perceive, that the Rewards, taught by natural Religion, are very different in kind, as well as in degree, from those taught by the Revealed: However, if he hath not yet been sufficiently instructed in this important truth, the sequel of our Discourse, to which we are now hastening, will, we hope, give him entire satisfaction.

I had said, and on the Authority of St. Paul himself, that natural Religion taught, that God is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him*. Now, from his being a Rewarder, which springs from his nature and attributes, I have ventured to found Man's claim to reward.

But it may be asked, WHERE are those rewards to be expected, and of WHAT quality do they consist?

To the first part of the question, I reply-That, at what time soever God's Providence hath been dispensed EQUALLY to the Sons of Adam, living under the direction of natural Law, they could expect their reward only HERE. But, whenever they began to observe, that God's Providence was grown UNEQUAL, and that rewards and punishments were not regularly dispended here, they would look to have the disorder rectified HEREAFTER. But of

this, more as we proceed.

To the second part of the question, Of WHAT quality these rewards consist? I reply, We are taught to believe, they shall be abundant, as suited to that better state of existence to which they are reserved; and as bestowed by an all-bountiful Master, to whose more intimate presence they shall be admitted: yet still bearing some adequate proportion to Man's merit and desert.

If REASON, on the one hand, seems to revolt at the thoughts of everlasting Punishment; (for, as God is a Rewarder of the Good, we must conclude, the Apostle would have us infer, that he is a Punisher of the Bad; since this exercise of his power over both Good and Bad,

* Heb, xi. 6.

stands

stands on the same attributes of Goodness and Justice ;) If REASON, I say, doth, on the one hand, seem to revolt at everlasting Punishment, we must confess, that FANCY, on the other (even when full plumed by Vanity), hath scarce force enough to rise to the idea of infinite rewards. How the heart of Man came to conceive this to be an adequate retribution for his right conduct, during the short trial of his Virtue here, would be hard to tell, did we not know what Monsters PRIDE begot of old upon Pagan Philosophy; and how much greater still these latter ages have disclosed, by the long incubation of School-divinity upon Folly.

What hath been urged from natural reason, in support of this extravagant presumption, is so very slender, that it recoils as you inforce it. 1. First, you say, "that the SOUL, the subject of these eternal rewards, being immaterial, and so therefore unaffected by the causes which bring material things to an end, is, by its nature, fitted for eternal rewards." This is an argument ad ignorantiam, and holds no farther-Because an immaterial Being is not subject to that mode of dissolution which affects material substances, you conclude it to be eternal. This is going too fast. There may be, and probably are, many natural causes, (unknown, indeed, to us,) whereby immaterial Beings come to an end. But if the nature of things cannot, yet certainly God can, put a period to such a Being, when it hath served the purpose of its Creation. Doth ANNIHILATION impeach that Wisdom and Goodness which was displayed when God brought it OUT OF NOTHING?

Other immaterial Beings there are (as hath been observed) who have the same natural security with man for their existence, of whose eternity we never dream; I mean the Souls of Brutes. But PRIDE, as the Poet observes, calls God unjust:

"If MAN alone ingross not Heaven's high care; "Alone made perfect here, IMMORTAL there." Fanatics, indeed, both New and Old, have well provided for the proper eternity of the human Soul, by making it a part or portion of the substance of God himself *. Put so blasphemous a fancy, all sober Christians, from the

See note [B] at the end of this Book.

most

most early times to the present, have looked upon with

horror.

However, let us (for argument's sake) allow the human Soul to be unperishable by nature, and secured in its existence by the unchangeable will of God: and see what will follow from thence.-An infinite Reward for Virtue, during one moment of its existence, because Reason discovers that, by the Law of Nature, some Reward is due? By no means-When God bath amply repaid us for the performance of our duty, will he be at a loss how to dispose of us for the long remainder of ETERNITY? May he not find new and endless employment for reasonable Creatures, to which, when properly discharged, new rewards, and in endless succession, will be assigned? Modest Reason seems to dictate this to the Followers of the Law of Nature. The flattering expedient of ETERNAL REWARDS, for Virtue here, was invented in the simplicity of early speculation, after it had fairly brought men to conclude that the soul was immaterial.

2. A second Argument, from the conviction it carries with it, I would recommend to the care and protection of its Discoverers, the Platonists and Poets; namely, Men's LONGINGS AFTER IMMORTALITY, even in the state of Nature. These, say our Poetical Metaphysicians, and Metaphysical Poets, are a proof that we shall obtain what we long for; since natural appetites were not given in vain. The foundation, on which this argument stands, is not, it must be confessed, quite void of all plausibility. The general appetite for GooD, was indeed given by Nature, to aid us in the easier and speedier attainment of it. But in this consists the sophistry of the reasoning-Because the appetite for Good is essential in the constitution of every sensitive Being, it is concluded, that we shall obtain the GREATEST GOOD which the Imagination can form, for the object of its wishes. And, to call this visionary Operator, Nature, and not Fancy, will scarce inend the matter, if the noble Philosopher* did not vilify his species, when he said, that She did not know how to keep a mean or measure†. The Phenomenon is easily explained. The PASSIONS were given to excite our Activity in the pursuit of Good: and

* Bacon.

Modum tenere nescia est.

the