fee others fuffer for; or, thirdly, to remove or cut off from fociety fuch criminals who have rendered themfelves dangerous members of it? These are the natural, uncorrupted notions that men must entertain concerning punishments, and the reasonable ends for which they are inflicted. But which of these ends can be answered by EVERLASTING punishments, or what other good purpose will they serve, in a place, and at a time, (if I may fo fay) where and when, according to these people's opinions, firft, no offender can be reclaimed, or if he could, it would answer no purpose to him; for, reclaimed or not, he must be for ever tormented: fecondly, where there can be no occafion to deter others from offending; for every one's behaviour, as well as his fate, will be invariable and fixed: and, laftly, where it is impoffible that any criminal can be dangerous to fociety?

Do men represent God as a being of infinite mercy and goodness, or even of common justice, when they believe or teach, that he punishes his creatures in this manner? Do they not rather, and indeed, represent him as an evil dæmon, an unjust being of infinite cruelty? To create man, merely by an act of his will, and then fentence the works of his hands to eternal mifery! and this many times, perhaps

2

H 3

perhaps always, for events not depending on themselves.

Is there a man, even a vile man, fo more than brutally cruel, who, if it were in his power, would on any account coolly and deliberately doom his own children, or any one of his fellow-creatures, even his worst enemy, to ETERNAL TORMENTS? Nay, is there a man fo void of compaffion, who, if able, would not prevent any being from fuffering fuch boundless, inconceivable mifery? And as to a good man, he would be fo far from acting by any creatures in this manner, that he would confer and diffuse happiness to the -utmost of his ability, and wish he were able to make the whole creation happy.

THO' these abfurd and unworthy notions of the Deity are originally derived in many perfons from the implacable difpofitions they find in themselves, as before mentioned, yet others receive them by different means; they are taught these opinions; and if their own tempers are cruel, they the more readily imbibe them.

BUT men fhould confider, that by teaching this doctrine of everlasting punishments, they are fo far from ferving the cause of religion, that they take the most likely method, on one hand, to occafion and establish atheifim, and thereby deftroy all religion; and on

the

the other, to drive many innocent, honest, poor creatures into despair, and the most deplorable kind of diftraction; and that this hath been often the cafe, there are too many melancholy proofs.

A

SECTION II.

S it is reasonable to think, and I fuppose will be readily granted, that men generally form their religion, and believe they ought to form their conduct, agreeably to the ideas they conceive of God, it is highly neceffary for them, on that and many other accounts, to be exceedingly careful what opinions they entertain or teach concerning the Deity. The pious author of the Whole duty of man has wrote a chapter "on "the mischiefs arifing from mistakes con"cerning God." Great mischiefs indeed

arife from them.

IF men believe God to be partial, unjust, wrathful, revengeful, tyrannical, and cruel; then to be god-like, which they are frequently advised and urged to afpire to, they must also be partial, unjuft, wrathful, revengeful, tyrannical, and cruel. It is certainly true, that men ftand in no need of this imaginary example or incentive to be wicked:

but furely, if fuch opinions concerning the Deity prevail, they muft greatly tend to increase vice and wickedness in the world.

To pretend that any particular persons, or the people of any one nation, are, or ever were chofen by God as his peculiar favourites, in the capricious manner that men too commonly chufe their favourites, is to ascribe folly and partiality to the Deity. If these fuppofed favourites fhould be fome of the worst and vileft of mankind, and it should nevertheless be afferted, that God for their fakes plagued and destroyed other nations, this would not only be to ascribe folly and partiality to him, but injuftice and cruelty alfo.

WHAT ideas does it raise of the Deity, to denominate a king who was unjuft, ungrateful, an adultererer, cruel, a tyrant and a murderer, a man after God's own heart? If in

deed

h By the accounts given of David in the Scriptures, there are ample proofs that all here faid of him is true. As to his cruelty in particular, befide the complicated crimes of adultery and murder in the cafe of Uriah and his wife, the barbarity of which is so beautifully and emphatically represented by Nathan in the parable of the ewelamb beside these and many other vile actions,-when he had taken the city of Rabbah, "he brought forth the "people that were therein, and put them under faws,

and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, "and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus "did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon." 2 Samuel xii. 31.

"The

deed the word Prieft, or Priests, in this and divers other places in a certain book, was to be fubftituted in the room of the word God, it might tend greatly to elucidate that and many other obfcure paffages, and would certainly render them much more intelligible '.

For

"The Jewish rabbies, far from endeavouring to exte"nuate the cruelty ascribed to David, do not fcruple to "affirm, that the execution of the Ammonites was per"formed with the utmost barbarity. Some of them, fay "they, were fawed; others, and even the women (espe

cially those who were with child) were put under har"rows of iron, or threshing carts, and fo crushed to "death; others were cut into pieces with iron axes; "others were burnt alive in brick-kilns. Tho' the Jewish "doctors acknowledge that it was a very barbarous ac❝tion, yet they undertake to justify David. This cru"elty, fay they, was neceffary to strike a terror among "the neighbouring nations, that none of them for the fu"ture should despise the Ifraelites, but rather pay a due "refpect to the people whom the Lord had chofen." Memoirs of Literature, by Mr. La Roche, vol. II. art. 82. 8vo ed.

Sanctius, a christian commentator, fays, "The Am→ "monites were thrown into a furnace like bricks; and "that David was not more concerned for their torment, "than a potter who puts bricks into a furnace. The "fame commentator calls this punishment a barbarous 66 action, and such as no man can be guilty of without divesting himself of all sense of humanity, and becom"ing as furious as a wild beaft." Ibid.

i Many examples of this kind might be given, but the following fingle inftance may fuffice. As David and all the house of Ifrael, in a grand proceffion, playing on mu̟fical inftruments, were accompanying the ark, which

they