question of subjection to an unknown Sanction, we should do well to consider his words, "The servant "which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not him

self, neither did according to his will, shall be "beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, "and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be "beaten with few stripes." Now the will of a Master or Sovereign, declared in his Laws, never includes in it more than the Sanctions of those Laws. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly distinguishes the sanction of the Jewish law from that of the Gospel; and makes the difference to consist in this, that the one was of temporal punishments, and the other of future. He that despised Moses's Law DIED without mercy, under two or three witnesses: Of how MUCH SORER PUNISHMENT, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God? Which appeal is without common sense or honesty, on a supposition that the apostle held the Jews to be subject to future punishments, before that Sanction was promulged amongst them. From the. GOSPEL therefore it cannot be inferred, that the Israelites, while only following the Law of Moses, in which the sanction of a future state is not found, were liable or subject to the punishments of that state.

Let us see next, Whether NATURAL THEOLOGY, or natural Religion (as his Lordship is pleased, for some reason or other, to distinguish the terms), hath taught us, that a people, living under an extraordinary Providence or the immediate government of God, to whom he had given a Law and revealed a Religion, both supported by temporal sanctions only, could be deemed subject to those future punishments, unknown to them, which natural Religion before, and revealed * Luke xii. 47, 8. ↑ Heb. x. 28, 9.

Religion

Religion since, have discovered to be due to bad men living under a common Providence.

NATURAL RELIGION standeth on this Principle, "That the Governor of the Universe REWARDS and PUNISHES moral Agents." The length or shortness of human existence comes not primarily into the idea of Religion; not even into that complete idea of Religion delivered by St. Paul, in his general definition of it. The Religionist, says he, must believe that God is, and that he IS A REWARDER of those who seek him.

While God exactly distributed his rewards and punishments here, the light of reason directed men to look no further for the Sanctions of his Laws. But when it came to be seen, that He was not always a Rewarder and a Punisher here, men necessarily concluded, from his moral attributes, that he would be so, hereafter and consequently, that this life was but a small portion of the human duration. Men had not yet speculated on the permanent nature of the Soul: And when they did so, that consideration, which, under an ordinary Providence, came strongly in aid of the moral argument for another life, had no tendency, under the extraordinary, to open to them the prospects of futurity: because, though they saw the Soul unaffected by those causes which brought the body to destruction, yet they held it to be equally dependent on the Will of the Creator: Who, amongst the various means of its dissolution (of which they had no idea), had, for aught they knew, provided one, or more than one, for that purpose.

In this manner was a FUTURE STATE brought, by natural light, into Religion: and from thenceforth became a necessary part of it. But under the Jewish THEOCRACY, God was an exact Rewarder and Punisher,

Punisher, here. Natural light therefore evinced that under such an administration, the subjects of it did not become liable to future Punishments till this sanction was known amongst them.

Thus NATURAL and REVEALED RELIGION shew, that his Lordship calumniated both, when he affirmed, that according to the hypothesis he opposed, MOSES DECEIVED the people in the Covenant they made, by his intervention with God: Or that, if Moses did not know the doctrine of a future state, then GOD DECEIVED both him and them

Should it be asked, how God will deal with wicked men thus dying under the Mosaic Dispensation? I will answer, in the words of Dr. SAM. CLARKE, on a like occasion. He had demonstrated a self-moving Substance to be immaterial, and so, not perishable like Bodies. But, as this demonstration included the Souls of irrational animals, it was asked, "How these were to be disposed of, when they had left their respective habitations?" To which he very properly replies,

Certainly, the omnipotent and infinitely wise God may, without any great difficulty, be supposed to "have more ways of disposing of his Creatures” [I add, with perfect justice and equity, and with equal measure, to all his creatures as well accountable as unaccountable] "than we are, at present, let into the

secret of*."-But if the Author of the Divine Legation has not promised more than he can perform (as his long delay gives his well-wishers cause to suspect and his ill-wishers to hope) this matter will be explained at large, in his account of the SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE REDEMPTION, which, he has told us, is to 'have a place in his last Volume.

Octavo Tracts against Dodwell and Collins, p. 103.

Nothing

Nothing now remains of this objection but what relates to the sanction of future rewards: And I would by no means deprive the faithful Israelites of these. His Lordship therefore has this to make his best of: and, in his opinion, the bestowing even of a reward, to which one has no title, is foul dealing; for he joins it with punishment, as if his consequence, against God's justice and goodness, might be equally deduced. from either of them.-A covenant, says he, was made, wherein the conditions of obedience and disobedience were not FULLY, nor, by consequence, FAIRLY stated.. The Israelites had BETTER THINGS TO HOPE, and worse to fear, than those which were expressed in it. Though it be hard on a generous Benefactor to be denied the right of giving more than he had promised; it is still harder on the poor Dependant, that he is not at liberty to receive more. True it is, that, in this case, the conditions are not FULLY stated; and therefore, according to his Lordship's Logic, BY CONSEQUENCE NOT FAIRLY. To strengthen this Consequence, his Lordship concludes in these words-And their whole History seems to shew how much need they had of these additional motives [future Rewards and Punishments] to restrain them from Polytheism and Idolatry, and to answer the ASSUMED purposes of Divine Providence.

Whoever puts all these things together-" That Moses was himself of the race of Israel--was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt-and capable of freeing his People from their Yoke- that he brought them within sight of the promised Land; a fertile Country, which they were to conquer and inhabit-that he instituted a system of Laws, which has been the adniration of the wisest men of all ages---that he understood the doctrine of a FUTURE STATE; and, by his knowledge

23

knowledge gained in Egypt, was not ignorant of the efficacy of it in general; and by his full experience of the rebellious and superstitious temper of his own People, could not but see how useful it would have been to them in particular."--Whoever, I say, puts all these things together (and all these things are amongst his Lordships CONCESSIONS) and at the same time considers, that Moses, throughout his whole system of Law and Religion, is entirely silent concerning a future state of Rewards and Punishments, will, I believe, conclude, that there was something more in the OMISSION than Lord BOLINGBROKE could fathom, or, at least, was willing to discover.

But let us turn from Moses's conduct, (which will be elsewhere considered at large) to his Lordship's, which is our present business.

1. First, he gives us his conjectures, to account for the Omission, exclusive of Moses's Divine Legation: but, as if dissatisfied with them himself (which he well might be, for they destroy one another),

2. He next attempts, you see, to prove, that the Legation could not be divine, from this very circumstance of the omission.

3. But now he will go further, and demonstrate that an EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE, such a one as is represented by Moscs, and which, the Author of the Divine Legation has proved, from the circumstance of the OMISSION, was actually administered in the Jewish Republic, could not possibly be adininistered, without destroying free-will; without making Virtue servile; and without relaxing universal benevolence.

4. And lastly, to make all sure, he shuts up the account by shewing, that an extraordinary Providence could answer no reasonable end or purpose.