The reasoning is fophiftical, and very fallacious; because the provision which a man is thus making for his well-doing in a conftitution of things to come, muft afford him more pleasure from the profpect, than any quantity of perifhing good can: which, by the train of Mr. Chubb's argumentation, is the thing intended, when he fays, his prefent well-doing muft needs be the fpecial and more immediate object of his prefent regard. So that the reasoning is not juft. Moreover, a man's relations, obligations, and duties, do not all arife from his prefent existence, and from what he now is and has: for the very reafon, that by acting fuitably to his manly character, and properly filling up the poft affigned him, he is faid to make provifion for his welldoing in a constitution of things to come. The fallacy of the conclufion must hence be allowed, unless any man can fhew, that no relation, obligation, or duty does arife from the end of a man's purfuit. But if this cannot be fhewn, then it muft follow, that a man's relations, obligations, and duties do not all arise from his prefent existence, and from what he now is and has. Surely relation, obligation and duty, muft all arife from an end; the attainment of which, man is now by right action making provifion for. Nay, it is amazing, that Mr. Chubb did not fee that this final end thus providing for, has relations, obligations, and duties arifing from it, that plainly demand man's fpecial, and more immediate regard! This is the truth of the cafe; the very reverse of what this writer has affirmed. And it fo happens, that that man, who is laying up in store a good foundation against the time to come, is hereby best prepared and furnished unto every good work at prefent.

Yet,

Yet, it is faid, that to fuppofe the prefent con-
ftitution of things fo imperfect, as that another con-
ftitution of things to come is neceffary to rectify the
diforders, and fupply the deficiencies of this, is, I
think, to caft a severe reflection on the founder of
this world. And that our obligations to God and
men must be the fame, whether there will be a fu-
ture retribution or not. Vol. I. p. 401, 402.

This is mere jargon, and difcovers a great con-
fufion of ideas: for there is no manner of defect
fuppofeable in the prefent conftitution, whilft we
allow that it is every way well fuited to the place
it has in the scale of God's operations and infti-
tutions; even tho' it fhould be more perfect than
a former, and less perfect than a fucceeding con-
ftitution. But that our obligations to God and
men must be the fame, whether there will be any
future retribution or not, is altogether untrue:
because we can neither confider the relation fub-
fifting between us and God, or between us and
men to be the fame, in this fuppofition, and in
the other oppofite one.
We cannot take in the
fame compass and extent of concern we have with
God's wifdom, power, and goodness: nor even
retain the fame ideas of them, fuppofing no fu-
ture retribution, as in the fuppofition of its cer-
tainty. And in our concern with men, how dif-
ferent must be our ideas of them?

To palliate this monftrous pofition, we are be- Set. fore told, that a future retribution does not fo pro- XLVII. perly depend upon the inequality of mens circum- A future ftances, as upon their having contributed to the good, or to the burt of the public. Vol. I. p. 394 not to de

399.

retribu

tion faid

pend on

One may fee plainly how Mr. Chubb laboured prefent to remove what he found incommoded his fcheme inequalities, in He had imagined, that this prefent conftitution this con might be esteemed perfect in itfelf, irrelative to, ftitution.

U

and

Sect.

The au

and independent on another: and to fupport this, he will not allow of any inequalities in the present conftitution, that shall make needful a fubfequent one. But, poor man, what has he done? why he has fuppofed that man's being beneficent, or injurious to fociety, may be a ground of expecting a future ftate of retribution. But will not this include in its idea, neceffarily include in it, prefent inequalities or deficiencies in the reward of virtue, and in the punishment of vice? Surely it will. And at the fame time it fhews, that this conftitution of things cannot rationally be supposed irrelative unto, or independent on another. Nay more, it will unavoidably infer the fitness of a revelation being made to man of that future conftitution; and one that fhall point out clearly to him the concern which he has in it. Which at a

fingle brush, fweeps down the whole web of Mr. Chubb's reafoning.

Mr. Chubb fays, that both Jefus Christ and St. XLVIII. Paul were of opinion that the Jews believed a future ftate: but what their opinion was grounded thority of Jefus, and upon does not appear, otherwife than from the quoSt. Paul, tation Christ made out of the Pentateuch, Matth. rejected. xxii. 32. as from Exod iii. 6. And as to Chrift's

implication, Mr. Chubb fays, he thinks, those words may poffibly bear another conftruction, which may not be greatly forced nor unnatural, and in which no fuch implication is contained, nor does fuch doctrine follow from it: as thus, I that speak unto thee out of the burning bush, am that very fame perfon that was with, spoke to, and was the God of Abraham, &c. and therefore thou mayeft rely on me, as they have done before thee. Vol. I.

p. 92, 93.

This is, I think, a finishing ftroke in the farewel of this writer: and could it have been fupported, would have fecured him from a cenfure

that will unavoidably fall upon his pen, tho' he is perfonally removed out of the reach of our notice. But what could the unhappy man mean by correcting our Lord? His own more correct conftruction is quite impertinent, and has no affinity with the argument; for our Lord is answering a queftion which refpects a given case, viz. of a woman who died after having had feven husbands. The queftion put upon it, was, whofe wife fhe fhould be in the refurrection?-Our Lord, in reply, fays, in the refurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the refurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was Spoken unto you by God, faying, I am the God of Abraham, &c.-God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. This laft is the implication that Mr. Chubb prefumes to call forced and unnatural. And his conftruction is, that Mofes might rely on God, as Abraham, &c. had relied on him.-Which conftruction, be fays, is to the speaker's purpose: whereas for him to have informed Mofes, that Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob were then alive, or that there would be a future existence to men, feems to be lefs fo. Vol. I. p. 94. — Is not this to declare, that he thought himself a better judge of the fpeech made to Mofes, than Jefus was? A matchlefs piece of prefumption, furely, to fay this, without any apology!-No foundation for this correction, as it will not agree at all with our Lord's reafoning. And in the fpeech made to Mofes, nothing could have been more to the purpose than to have affured him, that he remained the God of Abraham, of Ifaac, and of Jacob. That they had no more loft their exiftence, than the bufh in which he dwelt: which bufh remained unhurt, tho' in the midst of flame! that whatever difficulties might be before him,

U 2

and

and perils, he would have him take courage; for in obeying his voice, he would remain his God after death, as he did the God of the patriarchs.Our Lord's implication will admit no blemi, from the very impertinent correction. Befides, as to his faying, that neither our Lord, nor St. Paul, appear to have any other ground of their opinion, is notoriously falfe; for there are numbers of other paffages. I will mention a few; the tranflation of Enoch, and Elijah, the Jews gave. credit to; tho' Mr. Chubb did not. And the manner of Mofes, their law-giver's dying, was another event, on which the Jews most probably did believe a future ftate, as well as from Pf. xvi. 8, 9, 10, 11. xvii. 15. Eccl. xii. 14. Ezek. xviii. 19.-end. Dan. xii. 2. Job xxvii. 5, 8. Befides, both our Lord and St. Paul knew, by their converfe with the Jews, that the most reigning fect, the Pharifces, did profeffedly believe in a future ftate.

How could Mr. Chubb fay of Jefus Chrift and St. Paul being on the affirmative fide the queftion, (viz. that the Jews did believe a future ftate) tho' a hat fuch their opinion was grounded upon, I think, does no otherwife appear, than from the quotation Chrift made from the Pentateuch.

Admit that the argument Mr. Chubb is upon,. refers to the divine legation of Mofes,-the tranflation of Enoch, and the hiftory of Abel, of Abrabam, and the other patriarchs, were fufficient intimations of a future ftate. Efpecially when we add, that our Lord, by this anfwer, put the Sadducees to filence, Matth. xxiii. 34. a proof, that as they owned the pentateuch to be of divine authority, they faw the force of the argument; and they only were affected by it, not the Pharifees; fince the former difbelieved, and the latter believed a future ftate.

More