SECT. XVIII.

The Author's Objections founded on fome further miftaken Notions of the DIVINE DISPENSATIONS, Confidered.

Th

O confider the Author's objections against the principles advanced in Mr. Lock's Account of the Reasonableness of Chriftianity, merely as they relate to Mr. Locke himfelf; or to enquire particularly, how far the Author may have mifreprefented the principles of that admirable Writer; would, as was faid at firft, be foreign to our purpose. But as fome things he has advanced, in the course of his obfervations on Mr. Locke, tend to confuse our notions of the Divine Difpenfations themselves; it feems abfolutely neceffary to take notice of what he has faid, so far as this may be the cafe.

The Author fays Mr. Locke's First Principle' is this: "That God required of man a full, perfect, "and finlefs obedience to the Law of Nature;

and that the leaft omiffion, flip, or failure, was σε punishable with eternal death, or annihila

w

❝tion "."

And with regard to this Principle the Author himself asks; Is it reafonable to fuppofe, that "a God of infinite mercy would require of his "frail, and imperfect creature, Man, a full, "complete, perfect, and finlefs obedience to his "Laws; or that he would punish the least breach "of them with eternal death? Surely there is fomething horrid in the fuppofition, and which appears to be inconfiftent with all our ideas of "infinite perfection *."

* P. 298.

* P. 299

Now

Now were it true, that Mankind had been placed under fuch a Difpenfation as is here fuppofed, it must be acknowledged, that the only Law which God could give to Man, and which man ought to observe, is That of perfect reason, and the will of God. To a Rational Creature no other Law can be given. And were Man to obferve this Law of Reafon exactly, God might nevertheless extinguifh his being at any time, without the leaft injuftice; if he had made no contrary promife, and provided his being had not been worse upon the whole than non-existence. Certainly therefore God might without any injuftice do this on the leaft difobedience.

But, the fact is, That we have no authority, either from Reafon or Scripture, to affert, that any individual of Mankind ever was under fuch a Difpenfation as that here fuppofed: Nay fuch a fuppofition is utterly inconfiftent with what the Scripture has clearly revealed.

Reafon alone cannot poffibly authorise us to befieve, that any part of Mankind ever was under the Difpenfation here fuppofed. For, though reafon teaches us, that God might without injuftice extinguifh our being, even without difobedience on our part, and therefore certainly upon the least disobedience; under the reftrictions just mentioned; yet Reafon could not poffibly teach any man, That God certainly would do this: That is, in other words, Reafon could never fhew to man, that he actually was under fuch a Difpenfation as is here fuppofed. And what Reafon alone could never prove to be the cafe; Scripture will clearly teach us never actually

was.

If ever any individual of the human race was under this Difpenfation, it must have been Adam himself. Adam was neceffarily under the Law of

Reason,

Reason, as a rational and free creature; and likewife under a Positive Difpenfation, delivered to him immediately from God. His reafon alone, as far as that was concerned, we have juft feen, could never teach him, that God would punish him with eternal death; though it was capable of informing him, that God might without injuftice do fo; upon any the leaft tranfgreffion of those duties it pointed out.

૮

έσ

If then Adam was really under the Difpenfation in question, it must have been made known to him by a Pofitive Revelation from God. And certain it is, as the Scripture informs us, that Adam was indeed under a Pofitive Revelation from God; but what was the condition of it? Was it this: "If thou acteft in any inftance whatever, "in the least degree inconfiftently with those duties, which thy own reafon is able to point out; thou shalt be punished for fo doing with "eternal death, or annihilation? On the contrary, as far as appears in Scripture; our only poffible informer in this point; the extraordinary Difpenfation under which he was placed was fo widely different from that in queftion, as to con tain One fingle Prohibition only; and That of fuch a Nature as his own Reafon could never have pointed out to him; and denounced the Punishment of death upon him, not for offending against any duty whatever of mere reafon; but for the contempt of That fingle Pofitive Prohibition only. -And the Lord commanded the man, faying, of every tree of the garden thou mayeft freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eateft thereof, thou fhalt furely die. And certainly, as the ftate in which Adam is reprefented to have been placed, must have been exceedingly defirable in itself, and y Gen. ii. 16, 17. U

infinitely

infinitely preferable to non-existence; God might, without any injuftice have extinguished his being at any time, even if he had not tranfgreffed at all; and much more therefore, when he had prefumptuously broke through a positive Prohibition; and That, the only one enjoined him; and to the contempt of which the penalty of Death was even exprefsly annexed.

But had Adam offended in any particular againft the mere law of his own Reafon, or Natural Religion only, he was left, as far as Scripture informs us; and in this point we can go no further than the Scripture itfelf goes; to the honeft dictates of his reafon, to judge of the manner in which God would act towards him. And his reason, we have feen already, could never teach him, that God would punish him with eternal death, or annihilation, for any, the leaft contempt of its commands. Nay furely his Reafon, reflecting on his own nature, (which his being placed in a ftate of probation, as well as his actual tranfgreffion of the one pofitive precept, proves to have been liable to imperfections; ) would have encouraged him to hope; though his hopes must ever have been liable to uncertainty, and bounded by ignorance; that if he did not allow himself in the habitual practice of what he knew to be wrong, but lamented his occafional tranfgreffions, and fincerely endeavoured to act up to what he knew to be right; God would regard him with favour; though what particular effects that favour might produce, it must have been utterly impoffible for his Reason only, in any degree, to discover.

Thus then ftood the cafe with Adam, as far as Scripture informs us: He was under the Law of his own Reason, and moreover under a Revealed Command from God; but neither by the One,

nor

nor the Other, was he made fubject to Death for every the leaft tranfgreffion of the Law of his own Reafon, or Nature. And as to all his Pofterity, they came into exiftence, not only naturally mortal, but originally deftined actually to die: Dying was to Them the natural confequence of living, or exifting at all; not a punishment brought upon them by any tranfgreffion whatever, either of the Law of Reason alone, or of any pofitive Revealed Law; nor were They ever placed under That particular Prohibition, which was revealed to Adam; and by tranfgreffing which he had brought Death judicially upon himself, and eventually upon them. Reason, as we have feen before, could not inform any of the Sons of Adam, that they were under fuch a Difpenfation as that in queftion; fuch a Difpenfation must therefore have been revealed to them, or they could not really, be under any fuch; and Scripture, we know, contains no fuch Revelation, either to the Patriarchs, the Ifraelites, or the Difciples of CHRIST.

If any of the Sons of Adam had been placed under fuch a Difpenfation, it must have been the Jews; the fentence of whofe Law was, Curfed is every one, which continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them 2. But the meaning of this is nothing more, than that the Jewish Law itself provided no means, by which a tranfgreffor of it could efcape the punishment it denounced against his tranfgreffion. Whereas there were many tranfgreffions of the Jewish Law against which it did not denounce death. Nay, the truth is, that Death Itfelf; that is, the being actually deftined to cease to exift, at fome time or other; made no part of the Sanctions of the Jewish Law in any inftance whatever; though the being put

z See Deut. xxvii. 26. Gal. iii. 10.

1