ture, and as he cannot poffibly be under any temptation to misapply his natural properties; fo from hence it will follow, that his actions will always be conformable to the strictest rules of wisdom, goodness, juftice and equity. So that, were God from his fovereign pleasure to call a creature or creatures into being, with this view, and to answer this end, viz. that those creatures might be greatly and laftingly miserable; as malevolence or ill nature would be the spring of action to God in fuch a cafe; fo it plainly appears to be fuch an application of his knowledge and power as is contrary to wisdom, goodness, juftice and equity; and therefore, it never will be the cafe. And from hence we are certain that the forementioned Doctrine is falfe. And if the appeal is made to the Bible, in order to know certainly whether the forementioned Doctrine be true or falfe; then the question will be, how comes the Bible to be fuch a judge, or rather a rule to judge by, and from which fuch a judgment may be formed? If it should be anfwered, that the Bible is the word of God, and as fuch it is the oracle of truth; then the question will be, whether this is the cafe of the whole Bible, or only of fome parts

A a 2

parts of it? and if of fome parts only, then how fhall thofe parts be diftinguished? and what are the evidences to prove either? And of those evidences, the enquiry will be, whether they are evident and certain in themfelves? And whether they are proper evidences, and do plainly prove what they are brought to vouch for? With respect to all which an appeal must be made to the eternal rule of right and wrong, for the fettling thofe points: And when that is done, the enquiry will be, what is the true fenfe and meaning of what is contained in the bible? and who must be a judge of that meaning, fo as that truth will certainly attend that judgment? And if all these points could be fairly fettled, (which is a very difficult task) and, upon enquiry, it fhould appear, that the doctrine referred to is not contained in the bible, (the bible being quite filent with regard to it) then fuch a negative conclufion would not prove that doctrine to be either true or false, because the bible's filence would leave the case just as it found it. And if, upon enquiry, the contrary to this doctrine should appear to be taught in the bible, viz. that God has not, from an act of meer will, pre-ordained any

of his creatures to great and lasting misery; yet, I think, strictly speaking, that would not prove that the Deity has not acted thus, because that is a point which is evident and certain, whether it be contained in the bible, or not; like as this propofition, viz. the whole is equal to all it's parts; this is evidently and certainly true, and is perceived to be fo, independent of the bible; and therefore, I think, ftrictly speaking, it would not be proved by it, were it contained therein. And if, upon enquiry, the doctrine above mentioned should appear to be taught in the bible, this would not prove it to be true, because it appears to be evidently and certainly false, when tryed by the ftandard of moral truth; and what would follow from it would be apparently this, viz. that the bible at large cannot poffibly be the oracle of truth, nor the word of God, be cause in this inftance it would be the fource of error; fo that, I think, fuch an appeal would be a certain way to perplexity and dif Satisfaction, but not to find out truth. For, at the winding up of the bottom, truth would be very uncertain and precarious ; that is, it would be very doubtful whether truth be on this, or that fide of the question under

A a 3

under confideration. If it fhould be faid, that the forementioned doctrine is not contained in the bible; then this opens a door to contention and disputation, as each party will infft, that their fenfe of fcripture is the true fenfe; from which truth is not likely to gain the advantage of being rendered indifputable thereby. Befides, who are there, amongst the multitudes of mankind, that are equally interested in this question, who are capable of examining thofe points upon which the weight of fcripture-evidence does moft obviously depend, so as to obtain folid and rational fatisfaction from it? I dare fay, scarce one in a thousand. Whereas, if an appeal be made to the common fense and reafon of mankind, then who is there but will perceive, at firft fight, the great impropriety and unfitness of God's calling into being a multitude of creatures, on purpose to make them greatly and laftingly miferable? and, confequently, who is there but will plainly perceive that the forementioned doctrine is falfe? This, I fay, will certainly be the cafe, except men's judgments are prepossessed and frongly biaffed by the force of education, or otherwife, antecedent to fuch enquiry. From what I have observed, I

think, it appears how improper it is to appeal to the bible, or any other promulged revelation to which a divine character has been annexed, as a final and decifive judge in any queftion of this kind; because it is not likely to give any rational or folid fatisfaction, excepting in fuch cafes where truth may eafily be discovered, and confequently, fatisfaction may eafily be obtained without it. Indeed, there is another fort and easy way of obtaining fatisfaction, tho', perhaps, not fo certain to come at truth, namely, by implicitly believing every thing that may be put upon us by those who, by chance, or by our choice, or by the appointment of the civil-government we live under, either have, or would have, the direction of our understandings, that is, our fpiritual guides; and then we may shake hands with the church of Rome. Tho', perhaps, this is very much the cafe of a multitude of believers, both among Jews, Chriftians and Mahometans; each one's judgment having been foreftalled, if I may so speak, by those who have taken upon them to fettle the boundaries of truth; in which cafe the enquiter makes it his business to fupport what has been delivered to him as truth, and not