GOD obferv'd, that the imagination of mans heart. (the firft fœtus and figment of it) is only evil, and that continually. In confequence of all which,a confiderate man would, perchance, incline to the opinion of a French Divine, who fays, Amyraldus in ea fententia eft, ut putet non modo in rebus fupernaturalibus, & quæ ad cultum divinum pertinent; Jedetiam in civilibus, atq; moralibus, corruptionem natura hominum, tantam effe tamq; deploratam, ut fi Deus fibi permitteret, nemo fit, qui non eo nequitie perveniat, ut cum perditiffimis, atq; profligatiffimis, comparari poffit. Fid. Amyrald. Declar. p. 5.

The cafe being thus or nearly thus; at least, fince all have finn'd, and incurr'd the divine hatred and difpleasure; it was needful, the philofopher fhould fay and fhew what hope or expectation he has, of the divine favour and forgiveness. For, if there be no forgiveness with GOD, I am afraid, there will be no religion. The philofopher's light will be but small if he cannot defcry the iniquity and rebellion of human nature, against GO D. And it will be (I fear) but a falfe light, if it does not defcry, that iniquity and rebellion against the infinite GOD, and Creator and Preferver of all things, is an unmeafurable evil and indignity. He must not be an infinite GOD (as he is confefs'd to be) whofe difpleasure and punitive power is not dreaded; and whofe pardon and favour is not moft highly valued. If there is no profpect of pardon and reconciliation, defpair fure, will prevent repentance, and confequently, religion. As alfo the wrath of the Almighty will blast the soul, and deny b 2

the

the means, or a blessing on the means that are to lead us to repentance.

We fhould have been pleas'd now to hear, what fuch a rational philofopher has to fay in the discovery and affurance of divine forgiveness. If he had truth and reason, to ascertain himself of fo great a bleffing, it is ftrange, that fo little notice should be taken of it, in a discourse of the Religion of Nature, which must so much depend upon forgiveness (either in hope or poffeffion) and in a difcourfe of happiness too, which muft either be introduced by, or actually begun in, divine forgiveness. The philofopher, that acknowledges fuch an incomprehenfible GOD, as is here described, muft needs fay, Bleed is he whofe tranfgreffion is forgiven, and whofe fin is cover'd.

The pardon, that is indulged by a mortal prince, is an act of grace, much more muft the forgiveness of the fupreme Governour of the world be fo. How then the light of nature, or law of reafon will affure us of a free, gracious act of the eternal GOD, let the rationalist judge.

If the light of nature proclaims to the world, forgiveness of fin, we fhould fuppofe, that it is either a total or a partial forgiveness. If it is only a partial forgiveness, then, though we fit under the patience and forbearance of GOD, at prefent; though we enjoy fun and rain, and fruitful seasons, in this world, we may be fent to fearful punishment in the next may be remitted to a flaming purgatory, or, at beft,

to

to those low-fpirited pleasures the poets fancied in their Elyftan fields. The territories of the dead will be hung all in darkness. If a total remiffion be, by the philofopher's light, opened to us, it will fhew us a discharge in due time, from the penalty, that is inflicted on the body. And a discharge from that will fhew us a difimiffion from the grave. And that dif miffion will be a refurrection from the dead. Which

yet neither the old philofophers, nor this modern one (with all his reafon) fays any thing of. Strange, there fhould be fo deep a filence, in fo important a matter, and so neceflary, (as remiffion of fins, is) in the Religion of Nature.

And here we should have been glad to have had the philofopher confider the difinal Phenomenon of death; and to have heard what he would argue concerning it. As, whether it were the attendant of innocent nature, or of the guilty only. If of the innocent nature, would the good Creator make pure and honourable veffels, fo foon to be broke to pieces? If of the guilty only, how long has nature been thus guilty? Is there any hiftory of the world, that makes mention of an immortal people? And then how comes it to reign over thofe that have not actually finn'd, and thereby contracted guilt? How great a part of mankind dies in infancy? And therefore how can they be supposed to have been fet in a state of probation? They are not arrived at a due state of intelligence, moral will and capacity. And fo they cannot be remitted properly to a state of retribution hereafter; but muft either be treated by divine fovereignty, or according to the relation, in which their

parents

parents ftand towards GOD. But if primitive anceftors finn'd, how comes it, that penalty must be produced down to lateft pofterity? Does natural light fhew us, that pofterity may be punish'd for the tranfgreffion of remote ancestors? And if it may, and fuch a visible penalty (with all the forerunners and confequents of it) continually lics upon mankind, how fhall we be delivered from it? Or must we never be delivered from death and the grave? Does not the philofopher's light here leave him; And the darknefs call for fome fupernal revelation? But what religion of nature fhall we now have without remiffion of fins?

IV. It will doubtlefs be faid, that it is man's duty to repent; and that, upon repentance, we may be affured, GOD will pardon the fin, and be reconcil'd.

But this important cafe fhould be a little further confider'd; and it may feem ftrange, that it was not fo, by the grave Author of the Religion of Nature. It may feem rational indeed to conceive, that an offending creature is obliged to repent of his offence against his great and good CREATOR. Repentance may feem his firft duty, or the first part of his return to duty to his GOD. What can be accepted from an impenitent fpirit? It may feem then a ftrange omiflion that facred repentance has no more explicite a place in the Religion of Nature Is rcpentance due for injury to man (as p. 176. he ought to examine his own actions, and conduct, and where he finds he has tranfgrefs'd, to repent). And is it not

much

much more due towards the bleffed GOD? Is not impenitence a tranfgreffion of the rule of truth? Does it not implicitly fay, either that the criminal has not finn'd, or that he did well to fin aganft the munificent CREATOR?

But fuppofing repentance to be a duty belonging to the religion of nature, how does it appear, that repentance must needs obtain a pardon, or that all the penitent must needs be forgiven ? For,

I. It will not be faid that all temporal governors are oblig'd (in reason and equity) to pardon all the penitent criminals in alltheir dominions. Juft execution may be due to the community. The honour and dignity of the government must be fupported. It is fuppofed, that the divine Legiflator himself has foreftalled his vicegerents (the fecular princes) from the pardon of wilful murder, much lefs will he be oblig'd (by any of our regret and repentance) to pardon that and all other fins of fuch defpicable fubjects as we.

II. A wife governour would fcarce publish a law, before-hand, in which he promised pardon and impunity to the most flagrant tranfgreflors of all his laws, in cafe they fhould repent. Let us fuppofe, there was once a ftate of innocency (and there muft have been fo, as long as we are fure, that GOD made man good) we cannot rationally fuppofe, that man, in that state, had a law (in reafon and nature) afsuring him, that in cafe he tranfgrefs'd any of the laws, or all the laws, he was then under, he fhould, upon his repentance,

I