to actual death, fooner than the offender would otherwise have died, in many cafes did. Death Itself, or the being deftined to die at fome time or other, was to the Jews, in common with All the Sons of Adam, an Original Condition of their Nature; not a punishment for any tranfgreffion of their Law. Accordingly, the Jewish Law did not promife Exemption from death, but only long Life; that is, a mere delay of Death only; even to complete obedience. And thus likewife St. Paul exprefsly teaches us, that Death paffed upon All men, the Jews as well as the reft of Mankind, eventually in confequence of the tranfgreffion of Adam . ; It appears then, that no one individual of the Human Race ever did live under a Dispensation, in which "God required a full, perfect, finless "obedience to the Law of Reason, or Nature t upon this condition, that the least omiffion, "flip, or failure, fhould be punished with eternal "Death, or Annihilation."-Every individual of the human race has neceffarily lived under the Law of Reason, because, to be a Rational Creature, is, in other words, being fubject to That Law; and a very great part of mankind have lived under Pofitive Difpenfations added to it: but the Law of Reafon has never, in any inftance, been enforced under the penalty of Annihilation for every the leaft tranfgreffion of its Commands. No objection therefore can be drawn from the nature of fuch a Dispensation, to those accounts of God's dealings with mankind which the Scriptures themselves contain; fince they clearly teach us that no fuch Difpenfation ever took place. Hence, when the Author fays, The ex"cellency of the Law of Reafon is no proof that our heavenly Father would have punished every, y Rom. v. 10. "the ' "the leaft breach of it with eternal death; even though CHRIST had never come into the "world";"- the point is agreed. But this is no objection to the Scriptures, because they nowhere teach us that he would; and confequently, that in fact he never did. On the contrary, they teach us that Death was inflicted on no one but Adam, as a Punishment; and that in a very peculiar cafe; but that it has been eventually brought on all the Sons of Adam, merely as a Condition of their existence. And they teach us likewife, that as the Condition of Death was brought upon us, through Adam, without our own fault; fo the effects of it will be removed by our being restored again to life, through CHRIST, without our own merit. And fince the wifdom, and the goodness of God are unchangeable, the fame excellent defigns, which have thus been carried on, and will at length be completed, through CHRIST, would undoubtedly have been accomplished by fome other difpenfation; if any other could have better answered all the ends for which this may be defigned. And in this fenfe, but in this only, it may be truly faid, that the dealings of God towards Man would have been finally the fame, that they now will be; "Even though CHRIST "had never come into the world." So that when the Author fays again," To fuppofe God "would bring a creature into being, and give "him a Law enforced with the fanctions of eter"nal life and death;" (meaning for every the leaft tranfgreffion;) "When at the fame time he "knew that this creature would not (exactly) keep it; appears quite inconfiftent with his "notions of the fupreme Being "The only neceffary answer is, that this fuppofition is not only unwarranted by, but even inconfiftent with b P. 302, 303. U 3 66 a P. 302. those thofe accounts of the Divine Difpenfations, which the Scriptures of the Old and New Teftament, contain; fince they clearly teach us, that no individual of the human Race was ever placed under fuch a Difpenfation as is here fuppofed; or will be dealt with agreeably to it. When it is afked, "Whether the perfection "of God's nature is a reafon why he fhould "require perfection in any other Being? And 66 whether, because he is himself infinitely pure, "he must require perfect purity of fuch a Crea"ture as Man?" All the feeming difficulty is owing to the mere ambiguity of the term, require. Not only the perfect nature of God, but even the reasonable nature of Man, prohibits any Law from being given to man, but the pure and perfect Law of Reafon. But Man being compofed of paffions as well as reafon; of weakneffes as well as powers; the perfect nature of God will, at the fame time, induce him to make all reasonable allowances, for those particular instances, in which mankind fhall eventually fall fhort of the performance of the duty of a rational Creature only, confidered as free from man's weakneffes and paffions. And this is exactly what the Scriptures inform us God certainly will do, and always intended to do, They teach us, that all the Difpenfations of God to Man were known to God from the beginning, before Adam himself was created: And they teach us further, that CHRIST died for the fins of the whole world; of the whole human Race, from Adam himfelf included; and that every individual of the Human Race will hereafter be acquitted or condemned, and moreover punished or rewarded, in proportion to their fincere, though imperfect, obedience f. P. 302. 5 • Acts xv. 18. Ephef. i. 4. 1 Pet. i. 20. tg to That particular Law, under which they have lived; whether the Law of mere Reason only, or of any additional Revelation. And if this is not perfectly equitable, what poffibly can be? But even this is not all. They teach us further, that fuch happiness will then be graciously beftowed, through CHRIST, upon fuch as have been fincerely, though not completely, obedient to the Laws of Duty; as we could have had no manner of right to, even if our virtue had been perfectly complete. And what will the Author allow to be a difplay of the most confummate Goodness, if this is not? But the Author fays, fpeaking of the Law of Reafon," A Law which had not been kept "(that is, exactly,) by even a fingle One, through "all the fucceffive generations of mankind from "Adam to the days of the Apoftles, must be ex"tremely hard, and carry in it fomething very unfuitable to the nature and conftitution of the Human Species "."-g And therefore he afks, -"How it can be fuppofed, that God "would give fuch a Law, to his imperfect creature "Man; when he foreknew that no man would ever (exactly) keep it?-Such a supposition, "he fays, appears to him abfurd"." f Rom. ii. 6, 9, 12. N. T. paffim. g P. 300. P. 301.-It is neceffary to obferve, that upon this occafion the Author afferts, almoft pofitively, that Man could not, strictly fpeaking, keep the Law of Nature; that it was abfolutely impoffible for him to keep it; and quotes St. Paul as authorifing his opinion, where he fays, (Rom. iii. 20 ;) Therefore by the works of the Law there fhall no flesh be justified.-But the unquestionable meaning of St. Paul in this paffage is, not that it was really impoffible for any man to have kept the Law he was under; but that, as all men had actually tranfgreffed it, fo no man "could pretend to justify himself upon the footing of his obe"dience to the Law under which he was placed." Whether Man was ftridly speaking capable of exactly keeping the Law of Reafon, is a queftion which St. Paul had not here in his thoughts. But what can be more irrational than this? The Law of Reason is nothing more than that very Law, which Reafon itself, if properly improved, neceffarily points out, as right and fit for Rational Creatures to obey. Since man therefore is a Rational Creature, how can the Law of Reason be unfuitable to the Nature of man? Or, how was it poffible, poffible in the nature of things, for God to avoid giving this Law to Man? To create a creature Rational, and to give that creature the Law of Reason, is one and the fame thing. To afk therefore, how God could give Man the Law of Reafon; is really, in other words afking, how God could create fuch a Rational Creature as Man? And to fay, that it seems abfurd to fuppofe God fhould do fo; is really faying, that it feems abfurd to fuppofe, that God fhould create fuch a Rational Creature as man. If indeed the Author had faid, that it feems abfurd to him to fuppofe; that God should give Man the Law of Reason, and not at the fame time be difpofed to make all equitable allowances for the paffions and imperfections of his nature; or, in other words, that God should confider only a part of Man's nature, and neglect the reft; that he fhould regard only the Reasonable part of man, and forget the Animal part of his compofition; if he had faid this, we would have joined in the fentiment: but then this would not have been an objection to any thing the Scriptures reveal; because the exprefs doctrine of the Scriptures is, that God will make every equitable, nay every merciful allowance for all the weakneffes and imperfections of our Nature. And what Revelation thus exprefsly declares is abfolutely certain, to us who live under the Gospel; Reafon alone, if duly cultivated, was capable of fhewing to be in the highest degree probable, to thofe who had no 5 other |