fome avail, at leaft to mitigate the Rigour of the Penalty, but it cou'd not, if left to it felf, give a fatisfying Affurance that God wou'd abfolutely pardon all Sins upon Repentance, how heinous foever, though frequently repeated and long perfifted in, and reftore the guilty Tranfgreffors to Favour, much lefs that he wou'd confer a glorious Reward upon them; it wou'd still leave room for many anxious Fears, and afford no fufficient Comfort to appease the Clamours of an awakened Confcience, and to remove the Jealoufies of a guilty Mind. For the Acts of the Divine Mercy are not neceffary, but govern'd in their Exercife by rectoral Wisdom and Righteoufnefs, and what these may require we cannot of our felves pretend certainly to determine.

Mr. Locke goes on," The Law is the eternal im"mutable Standard of Right, and a Part of that "Law is, that a Man fhou'd forgive not only his "Children, but his Enemies upon their Repentance,

afking Pardon, and Amendment." But it is no part of that Law that a Magiftrate fhou'd be oblig'd abfolutely to pardon all the Crimes even of thofe that are truly penitent; this Law does not at all hinder the Magiftrate from difcharging his Office in punifhing Crimes for the publick Good, though to the particular Damage and Hurt of the Offender. Yea, the very Law of Nature requires this. Nor is the Criminals afking pardon, repenting, and amending, always a fufficient Reason why they fhou'd not be punish'd; but it may often be proper and neceffary, for many valuable Ends, that they fhou'd be punish'd, notwithstanding fuch Repentance and Amendment. Mr. Locke adds, " And therefore he "cou'd not doubt, that the Author of this Law, "and God of Patience and Confolation, who is "rich in Mercy, wou'd forgive his frail Offspring, "if they acknowledg'd their Faults, difapprov'd "the Iniquity of their Tranfgreffions, begg'd his "pardon

L 3

Chap. 6. pardon, and refolv'd in earneft for the future to "conform their Actions to this Rule, which they

own'd to be juft and right; this Way of Recon"ciliation, this Hope of Atonement, the Light of Nature reveal'd to them." But it does not follow that the Author of this Law (which tho' it obliges private Perfons to forgive the private Injuries of those that repent, yet does not oblige Magiftrates always to pardon Criminals even when they are truly penitent:) I fay it does not follow that the Author of this Law, who is himself to be confider'd as the great Governor of the World, will in all Cafes forgive the Tranfgreffions of his Law even to the truly Penitent. He does not by ordering his Creatures to forgive private Injuries, bind himself as the great Ruler of the World, not to vindicate his own Authority by punishing the prefumptuous Tranf greffions of his Law; or to pafs by those Tranfgreffions with Impunity: nor does the Repentance of the Tranfgreffors bar him from infifting on fuch a Reparation as is proper for fecuring the Majefty of his Law, and the Authority of his Government. Tho the Author of this Law be the Parent of Mankind, it does not follow that he muft abfolutely forgive all their Sins upon Repentance. In human Governments, where the fame Perfon is a Parent and a Magiftrate or Judge, he may be oblig'd to punish his own Children where the publick Good and the Authority of the Laws requires it, even tho they fhou'd repent; and not to do fo wou'd in fuch Cafes be a partial Fondnefs: now God is to be confider'd not only as the Father but as the Judge and righteous Governor of the World and of Mankind, and may therefore fee it neceffary, for the Prefervation of the publick Order, and in Vindication of the Laws and of his own Authority, to punish his offending Creatures.

Mr.

Mr. Locke concludes, "this Way of Reconcilia❝tion, this Hope of Atonement, the Light of Na"ture reveal'd to them." But 'tis certain that the Heathens generally had a Notion that fomething farther than mere Repentance was neceffary to propitiate an offended Deity. Hence the many ways of Atonement ufed amongst them; and the human Sacrifices that obtain'd almoft univerfally amongst all Nations. Our Author will afcribe this to Superftition, but it has its Foundation in the natural Dread of divine Justice, and in the natural Fears and Jealoufies of a guilty Mind, which is apt to turn it felf every way without finding Satisfaction in any. And their Philofophers had many of them no other way to quiet thofe Fears, but by saying the Gods were never angry with any; deftroying the Notions of divine Juftice, as if God were not difpleas'd with Sin, nor wou'd punifh any for committing it; a Notion which our Author fometimes feems to advance, but which (as I fhall fhew afterwards) fubverts the Foundations even of natural Religion.

After having produc'd thefe Paffages from Mr. Locke and Mr. Nye, this Gentleman declaims after his Manner, that nothing can be more fhocking

than to fuppofe that God was not at all times e

qually willing to pardon repenting Sinners, and "equally willing that they fhou'd have the Satif"faction of knowing it; or to fuppofe that he left

all Mankind for fo many Ages, and the greatest "part even at prefent in a moft miferable State of "Doubt and Uncertainty about the Pardon of Sin,

and confequently about the Poffibility of any Man's being fav'd; and that the beft and wifeft Men -"were abfolutely ignorant of what was of the higheft Importance for Men to know, p.392, 393*.” It is not denied that they might have fome Hopes L 4

of

*P. 355.

Chap. 6. of Pardon upon Repentance, tho' mix'd with many Fears and Jealoufies; and if they fell (as this Author fometimes owns they did, fee p. 379 *.) from the true primitive Religion, then tho' God had never feen it fit to give them any abfolute Certainty in this matter, they cou'd not justly have complain'd of him, for leaving them under that Uncertainty, and under thofe Fears that were the natural Effects of their own Guilt. But all thofe that hold that God made a Promise of a Saviour immediately after the Fall to the common Head and Parent of Mankind, do alfo maintain that he made gracious Discoveries of his Mercy to penitent Sinners from the Beginning. To keep alive a Senfe of his pardoning Mercy, as well as of his Juftice, upon the Minds of Men, was the Design of inftituting Sacrifices, which were of fer'd to God from the Beginning, and were univerfally fpread throughout all Nations, for which there is no Reafon fo probably to be affign'd as a Tradition deriv'd from the Fountains of the human Race. If Men afterwards loft or corrupted this Promife, and funk into a State of univerfal Corruption and Degeneracy, if they forfook the living and true God, and turn'd to bafe Idols, I don't know how this Gentleman will prove that it was inconfiftent with the Divine Wisdom and Goodness to leave them in that State of Uncertainty into which they had brought themselves. And if in that time that feem'd moft fit to his infinite Wisdom, it pleas'd him again to give an exprefs Revelation, containing the fulleft Difcoveries of his rich Grace and Mercy, this was infinite Goodness, and to be acknowledg'd and receiv'd with the highest Thankfulness. But to inquire why he did not do this fooner, or did it not equally to all Mankind, is to divert to another Queftion, viz. that if giving a Revelation be a remarkable Inftance of the Divine Goodness, he is oblig'd

* P. 343.

to

to give it equally to all and at all Times; which will come properly to be confider'd, when we an fwer the Author's Objection against Revelation, drawn from its not being universal.

But to pass this by at prefent: I fhall take fome Notice of what he advances afterwards, p. 417, 418*. because it relates to the prefent Subject." Can "any thing (fays he) be more evident, than that "if doing evil be the only Foundation of God's Dif "pleasure, ceafing to do evil and doing the con

trary muft take away that Difpleafure?" But the Confequence is by no means evident. By Dif pleasure we are here to underftand God's Will to punish; and though a Perfon fhou'd afterwards ceafe to do evil, the Difpleafure may ftill remain for the evil he hath already done. And I have fhewn that there may be juft and wife Reasons for punishing the evil a Man hath done, even though he repents of having done it. If doing evil be the juft Foundation of God's Difpleasure, and what he moft difapproves, then it may juftly be concluded, that in making his Laws, and annexing Sanctions to thofe Laws and executing them, he will take that Method which is moft effectual to prevent the doing evil, and deter his reasonable Creatures from committing it; and whether the pardoning all Sins at all times barely and immediately upon Repentance, without any other Provifion for declaring his Juftice, and vindicating the Authority of his Laws and Government, wou'd be a proper Method to anfwer this End, and restrain the doing evil, hath been already confider'd.

But he adds, "As long as Men continue in their. "Sins, they muft continue the proper Objects of God's Refentment; but when they forfaking their Sins at a part fuitable to their rational Nature, they of courfe become the proper Objects of his "Appro

* P. 37.8.