repetition of it, but a different application of it to a new question. And every dif ferent application will give additional credit to the folidity of the argument, when it is feen how many various purposes it may be made to ferve, and how many various Truths it is fitted to illuftrate. This is one of thofe FRUITFUL ArguMENTS, frequently to be met with in this Work, which I have enforced again and again, in the support of fome new Truth 3 and which, I make no doubt, a lefs attentive Reader has as often condemned for a repetition of the fame thing.

From this Argument, fo referred to, as it lies in the Introduction, we may fafely conclude, that a good man hath a claim to reward: And this, I think, Religionists, confulting no more than their natural ideas, have generally agreed in; and yet have generally concurred to deny that other part of the propofition (though it stand upon the fame Principle) which teacheth, that God will re-establish the repentant Sinner in his original claim to divine favour.

This may feem unaccountable; but there is a fecret in it, which will deferve to be explained, for more reafons than one; but at prefent, principally for the fake of removing this difficulty.

The truth is, thofe Divines, who doubted of this re-establishment, laboured under a groundless apprehenfion, that to allow the Doctrine of reconciliation, on fincere repentance alone, might tend to fuperfede the ncceffity of the Chriftian Revelation; which they erroneously fuppofed taught nothing concerning a future ftate but what was difcoverable, and had been actually discovered, by the light of Nature: So that if natural Religion taught ONE means of Reconciliation, and Revelation taught ANOTHER, both could not be true. They, therefore, rejected that, as falfe, which natural Religion was faid to teach. And modern Unbelievers being under the like delufion, viz. that natural Religion and revealed taught the fame doctrine concerning a future ftate, reject, as falfe, that means of reconciliation which Revelation pretends to have dif

covered.

G

But

But we have bestowed our pains to little purpose, if, by this time, the attentive Reader doth not perceive, that the Rewards, taught by natural Religion, are very different in kind, as well as in degree, from thofe taught by the Revealed: However, if he hath not yet been fufficiently inftru&ted in this important truth, the fequel of our Difcourfe, to which we are now haftening, will, we hope, give him entire satisfaction.

I had faid, and on the Authority of St. Paul himfelf, that natural Religion taught, that God is a Rewarder of them that diligently feek him*. Now, from his being a Rewarder, which fprings from his nature and attributes, I have ventured to found Man's claim to reward.

But it may be asked, WHERE are thofe rewards to be expected, and of WHAT quality do they confift?

To the first part of the queftion, I reply-That, at what time foever God's Providence hath been difpenfed EQUALLY to

*Heb. xi, 6.

the

the Sons of Adam, living under the direction of natural Law, they could expect their reward only HERE. But, whenever they began to obferve, that God's Providence was grown UNEQUAL, and that rewards and punishments were not regularly difpended here, they would look to have the diforder rectified HEREAFTER. But of this, more as we proceed.

To the fecond part of the queftion, Of WHAT quality thefe rewards confift? I reply, We are taught to believe, they shall be abundant, as fuited to that better ftate of existence to which they are reserved; and as bestowed by an all-bountiful Master, to whofe more intimate prefence they fhall be admitted: yet ftill bearing fome adequate proportion to Man's merit and defert.

If REASON, on the one hand, feems to revolt at the thoughts of everlasting Punishment; (for, as God is a Rewarder of the Good, we must conclude, the Apostle would have us infer, that he is a Punisher of the Bad; fince this exercife of his power, over both Good and Bad, ftands on the

fame attributes of Goodness and Justice ;) If REASON, I fay, doth, on the one hand, feem to revolt at everlasting Punishment, we muft confefs, that FANCY, on the other, (even when full plumed by Vanity), hath fcarce force enough to rife to the idea of infinite rewards. How the heart of Man came to conceive this to be an adequate retribution for his right conduct, during the fhort trial of his Virtue here, would be hard to tell, did we not know what Monfters PRIDE begot of old upon Pagan Philofophy; and how much greater still thefe latter ages have difclofed, by the long incubation of School-divinity upon Folly.

What hath been urged from natural reafon, in fupport of this extravagant prefumption, is fo very flender, that it recoils "that as you inforce it. 1. First, you fay, the SOUL, the subject of these eternal rewards, being immaterial, and fo therefore unaffected by the causes which bring material things to an end, is, by its nature, fitted for eternal rewards." This is an argument ad ignorantiam, and holds no farther-Because an immaterial Being is not

fub