the proof that there is an intelligent author of nature and natural governor of the world, the present question, which the analogy before mentioned* suggests, and which, I think, it will answer, is thiswhether the opinion of necessity, supposed consistent with possibility, with the constitution of the world, and the natural government which we experience exercised over it, destroys all reasonable ground of belief that we are in a state of religion; or whether that opinion be reconcileable with religion, with the system and the proof of it.

Suppose then a fatalist to educate any one, from his youth up, in his own principles; that the child should reason upon them, and conclude that since he cannot possibly behave otherwise than he does, he is not a subject of blame or commendation, nor can deserve to be rewarded or punished: imagine him to eradicate the very perceptions of blame and commendation out of his mind, by means of this system; to form his temper, and character, and behaviour to it, and from it to judge of the treatment he was to expect, say from reasonable men, upon his coming abroad into the world; as the fatalist judges from this system what he is to expect from the author of na ture and with regard to a future state. I cannot forbear stopping here to ask, whether any one of common sense would think fit that a child should be put upon these speculations, and be left to apply them to practice. And a man has little pretence to reason, who is not sensible that we are all children in speculations of this kind. However, the child would doubtless be highly delighted to find himself freed from the restraints of fear and shame, with which his playfellows were fettered and embarrassed, and highly conceited in his superior knowledge so far beyond his years. But conceit and vanity would be the least bad part of the influence which these principles must have, when thus reasoned and acted upon, during the course of his education. He must either be allowed to go on and be the plague of all about him, and himself too, even to his own destruction, or else correction must be continually made use of, to supply the want of those natural perceptions of blame and commendation which we have supposed to be removed, and to give him a practical impression of what he had reasoned himself out of the belief of, that he was in fact an accountable child, and to be punished for doing what he was forbid. It is therefore in reality impossible, but that the correction which he must meet with, in the course of his education, must convince him that if the scheme he was instructed in were not false, yet that he reasoned inconclusively upon it, and some how or other misapplied it to practice and common life; as what the fatalist experiences of the conduct of Providence at present, ought in all reason to convince him that this scheme is misapplied when applied to the subject of religion. But supposing the child's temper could remain still formed to the system, and his expectation of the treatment he was to have in the world be regulated by it, so as to expect that no reasonable man would blame or punish him for any thing which he should do, because he could not help doing it-upon this supposition it is manifest he would, upon his coming abroad into the world, be insupportable to society, and the treatment which he *Page 97.

would receive from it would render it so to him, and he could not fail of doing somewhat very soon for which he would be delivered over into the hands of civil justice. And thus, in the end, he would be convinced of the obligations he was under to his wise instructor. Or suppose this scheme of fatality in any other way applied to practice, such practical application of it will be found equally absurd, equally fallacious in a practical sense. For instance, that if a man be destined to live such a time, he shall live to it, though he take no care of his own preservation; or if he be destined to die before that time, no care can prevent it; therefore all care about preserving one's life is to be neglected, which is the fallacy instanced in by the ancients. But now on the contrary, none of these practical absurdities can be drawn from reasoning upon the supposition that we are free; but all such reasoning with regard to the common affairs of life is justified by experience. And therefore, though it were admitted that this opinion of necessity were speculatively true, yet with regard to practice it is as if it were false, so far as our experience reaches; that is, to the whole of our present life. For, the constitution of the present world, and the condition in which we are actually placed, is as if we were free. And it may perhaps justly be concluded, that since the whole process of action, through every step of it, suspense, deliberation, inclining one way, determining, and at last doing as we determine, is as if we were free, therefore we are So. But the thing here insisted upon is, that under the present natural government of the world, we find we are treated and dealt with as if we were free, prior to all consideration whether we are or not. Were this opinion therefore of necessity admitted to be ever so true, yet such is in fact our condition and the natural course of things, that whenever we apply it to life and practice, this application of it always misleads us, and cannot but mislead us, in a most dreadful manner, with regard to our present interest. And how can people think themselves so very secure then, that the same application of the same opinion may not mislead them also, in some analogous manner, with respect to a future or more general and more important interest? For, religion being a practical subject, and the analogy of nature shewing us that we have not faculties to apply this opinion, were it a true one, to practical subjects, whenever we do apply it to the subject of religion, and thence conclude that we are free from its obligations, it is plain this conclusion cannot be de pended upon. There will still remain just reason to think, whatever appearances are, that we deceive ourselves; in somewhat of a like manner, as when people fancy they can draw contradictory conclusions from the idea of infinity.

From these things together, the attentive reader will see it follows, that if upon supposition of freedom the evidence of religion be conclusive, it remains so upon supposition of necessity, because the notion of necessity is not applicable to practical subjects, i. e. with respect to them, is as if it were not true. Nor does this contain any reflection upon reason, but only upon what is unreasonable. For to pretend to act upon reason, in opposition to practical principles, which the author of our nature gave us to act upon, and to pretend to apply our reason to subjects, with regard to which our own short

views, and even our experience, will shew us it cannot be depended upon, and such at best the subject of necessity must be, this is vanity, conceit and unreasonableness.

But this is not all; for we find within ourselves a will, and are conscious of a character. Now if this in us be reconcileable with fate, it is reconcileable with it in the author of nature. And besides, natural government and final causes imply a character and a will in the governor and designer; a will concerning the creatures whom he governs. The author of nature then being certainly of some character or other, notwithstanding necessity, it is evident this necessity is as reconcileable with the particular character of benevolence, veracity and justice in him, which attributes are the foundation of religion, as with any other character; since we find this necessity no more hinders men from being benevolent than cruel, true than faithless, just than unjust, or if the fatalist pleases, what we call unjust. For it is said indeed, that what, upon supposition of freedom, would be just punishment, upon supposition of necessity becomes manifestly unjust, because it is punishment inflicted for doing that which persons cannot avoid doing; as if the necessity which is supposed to destroy the injustice of murder, for instance, would not also destroy the injustice of punishing it. However, as little to the purpose as this objection is in itself, it is very much to the purpose to observe from it how the notions of justice and injustice remain, even whilst we endeavor to suppose them removed; how they force themselves upon the mind, even whilst we are making suppositions destructive of them; for there is not, perhaps, a man in the world, but would be ready to make this objection at first thought.

But though it is most evident, that universal necessity, if it be reconcileable with any thing, is reconcileable with that character in the Author of nature which is the foundation of religion, "yet, does it not plainly destroy the proof that he is of that character, and consequently the proof of religion?" By no means. For we find, that happiness and misery are not our fate, in any such sense as not to be the consequences of our behaviour; but that they are the consequences of it. We find God exercises the same kind of government over us with that which a father exercises over his children, and a civil magistrate over his subjects. Now, whatever becomes of abstract questions concerning liberty and necessity, it evidently appears to us, that veracity and justice must be the natural rule and measure of exercising this authority or government, to a Being who can have no competitions, or interfering of interests, with his creatures and his subjects.

But as the doctrine of liberty, though we experience its truth, may be perplexed with difficulties, which run up into the most abstruse of all speculations, and as the opinion of necessity seems to be the very basis upon which infidelity grounds itself, it may be of some use to

*

By will and character is meant that which, in speaking of men, we should express, not only by these words, but also by the words,temper, taste, dispositions, practical principles; that whole frame of mind, from whence we act in one manner rather than an

other.

†Chap. ii.

offer a more particular proof of the obligations of religion, which may distinctly be shewn not to be destroyed by this opinion.

The proof from final causes of an intelligent Author of nature is not affected by the opinion of necessity, supposing necessity a thing possible in itself, and reconcileable with the constitution of things.* And it is a matter of fact, independent on this or any other speculation, that he governs the world by the method of rewards and punishments;t and also that he hath given us a moral faculty, by which we distinguish between actions, and approve some as virtuous and of good desert, and disapprove others as vicious and of ill desert. Now this moral discernment implies in the notion of it a rule of action, and a rule of a very peculiar kind; for it carries in it authority and a right of direction: authority in such a sense, as that we cannot depart from it without being self condemned. And that the dictates of this moral faculty, which are by nature a rule to us, are moreover the laws of God, laws in a sense including sanctions, may be thus proved. Consciousness of a rule or guide of action, in creatures who are capable of considering it as given them by their Maker, not only raises immediately a sense of duty, but also a sense of security in following it, and of danger in deviating from it. A direction of the Author of nature, given to creatures capable of looking upon it as such, is plainly a command from him; and a command from him necessarily includes in it, at least, an implicit promise in case of obedience, or threatening in case of disobedience. But then the sense or perception of good and ill desert, which is contained in the moral discernment, renders the sanction explicit, and makes it appear, as one may say, expressed. For since his method of government is to reward and punish actions, his having annexed to some actions an inseparable sense of good desert, and to others of ill, this surely amounts to declaring upon whom his punishments shall be inflicted, and his rewards be bestowed. For he must have given us this discernment and sense of things, as a presentiment of what is to be hereafter; that is, by way of information beforehand what we are finally to expect in his world. There is then most evident ground to think, that the government of God, upon the whole, will be found to correspond to the nature which he has given us; and that in the upshot and issue of things, happiness and misery shall, in fact and event, be made to follow virtue and vice respectively, as he has already, in so peculiar a manner, associated the ideas of them in our minds. And from hence might easily be deduced the obligations of religious worship, were it only to be considered as a means of preserving upon our minds a sense of this moral government of God, and securing our obedience to it; which yet is an extremely imperfect view of that most important duty.

Now I say, no objection from necessity can lie against this general proof of religion. None against the proposition reasoned upon, that we have such a moral faculty and discernment, because this is a mere matter of fact, a thing of experience, that human kind is thus constituted; none against the conclusion, because it is immediate and

募

P. 97, &c. † Chap. ii.

#Dissertation II. § Sermon 2, at the Rolls.
Dissertation II.

wholly from this fact. For the conclusion, that God will finally reward the righteous and punish the wicked, is not here drawn from its appearing to us fit* that he should, but from its appearing that he has told us he will. And this he hath certainly told us, in the promise and threatening which it hath been observed the notion of a command implies, and the sense of good and ill desert which he has given us, more distincly expresses. And this reasoning from fact is confirmed, and in some degree even verified, by other facts; by the natural tendencies of virtue and of vice;t and by this, that God, in the natural course of his providence, punishes vicious actions as mischievous to society, and also vicious actions, as such in the strictest sense. So that the general proof of religion is unanswerably real, even upon the wild supposition which we are arguing upon.

It must likewise be observed farther, that natural religion hath, besides this, an external evidence, which the doctrine of necessity, if it could be true, would not affect. For suppose a person, by the observations and reasoning above, or by any other, convinced of the truth of religion; that there is a God, who made the world, who is the moral Governor and Judge of mankind, and will upon the whole deal with every one according to his works; I say, suppose a person convinced of this by reason, but to know nothing at all of antiquity, or the present state of mankind; it would be nataural for such an one to be inquisitive what was the history of this system of doctrine; at what time, and in what manner, it came first into the world, and whether it were believed by any considerable part of it. And were he, upon inquiry to find, that a particular person in a late age, first of all proposed it, as a deduction of reason, and that mankind were before wholly ignorant of it; then, though its evidence from reason would remain, there would be no additional probability of its truth, from the account of its discovery. But instead of this being the fact of the case, on the contrary he would find, what could not but afford him a very strong confirmation of its truth, first, that somewhat of this system, with more or fewer additions and alterations, hath been professed in all ages and countries, of which we have any certain information relating to this matter. Secondly, that it is certain historical fact, so far as we can trace things up, that this whole system of belief, that there is one God, the Creator and moral Governor of the world, and that mankind is in a state of religion, was received in the first ages. And, thirdly, that as there is no hint or intimation in history, that this system was first reasoned out, so there is express historical

*However, I am far from intending to deny that the will of God is determined, by what is fit, by the right and reason of the case; though one chooses to decline matters of such abstract speculation, and to speak with caution when one does speak of them. But if it be intelligible to say, that it is fit and reasonable for every one to consult his own happiness, then fitness of action, or the right and reason of the case, is an intelligible manner of speaking. And it seems as inconceivable to suppose God to approve one course of action, or one end, preferable to another, which yet his acting at all from design implies that he does, without supposing somewhat prior in that end to be the ground of the preference, as to suppose him to discern an abstract proposition to be true, without supposing somewhat prior in it to be the ground of the discernment. It doth not therefore appear, that moral right is any more relative to perception than abstract truth is; or that it is any more improper to speak of the fitness and rightnes of actions and ends, as founded in the nature of things, than to speak of abstract truth, as thus founded. + P. 66, &c.

† P. 70.