These probabilities of a future life, though they do not satisfy curiosity, answer all the purposes of religion, as well as demonstration.
1.) Even a demonstration of a future state, would not demonstrate religion, but would be reconcilable with atheism.
2.) But as religion implies a future state, any presumption against such a state, would be a presumption against religion.
3.) The foregoing observations remove all presumptions of that sort, and prove to a great probability, a fundamental doctrine of religion.
The question of a future life is rendered momentous by our capacity for happiness and misery.
Especially if that happiness or misery depends on our present conduct.
We should feel the deepest solicitude on this subject.
And that if there were no proof of a future life and interest, other than the probabilities just discussed.
1. We see them to be consequences of our actions.
2. And we can foresee these consequences.
3. Our desires are not gratified, without the right kind of exertion.
4. By prudence we may enjoy life; rashness, or even neglect may make us miserable.
5. Why this is so is another matter.
1.) It may be impossible to be otherwise.
2.) Or it may be best on the whole.
3.) Or God’s plan may be to make only the good happy.
4.) Or the whole plan may be incomprehensible to us.
Objec. It may be said “this is only the course of nature.”
1. The course of nature is but the will of God. We admit that God is the natural governor of the world: and must not turn round and deny it because his government is uniform.
2. Our natural foresight of the consequences of actions, is his appointment.
3. The consequences themselves, are his appointment.
4. Our ability to foresee these consequences, is God’s instruction how we are to act.
Objec. By this reasoning we are instructed to gratify our appetites, and such gratification is our reward for so doing.
Ans. Certainly not. Foreseen pleasures and pains are proper motives to action in general; but we may, in particular cases, damage ourselves by indulgence. Our eyes are made to see with, but not to look at every thing: – for instance the sun.
It follows, from what has been said, that
1. Admitting that there is a God, it is not so much a matter of speculation, as of experience, that he governs us.
2. The annexing of pleasures and pains to certain actions, and giving notice them, is the very essence of government.
3. Whether by direct acts upon us, or by contriving a general plan, does not affect the argument.
1.) If magistrates could make laws which should execute themselves, their government would be far more perfect than it is.
2.) God’s making fire burn us, is as much an instance of government, as if he directly inflicted the burn, whenever we touched fire.
4. Hence the analogy of nature shows nothing to render incredible the Bible doctrine of God’s rewarding or punishing according to our actions.
As men object chiefly to future punishment, it is proper to show further that the course of administration, as to present punishment, is analogous to what religion teaches as to the future.
Indeed they add credibility to it.
And ought to raise the most serious apprehension.
1. They often follow acts which produce present pleasure or advantage.
2. The sufferings often far exceed the pleasure or advantage.
3. They often follow remotely.
4. After long delay they often come suddenly.
5. As those remote effects are not certainly foreseen, they may not be thought of at the time; or if so, there is a hope of escaping.
6. There are opportunities of advantage, which if neglected do not recur.
7. Though, in some cases, men who have sinned up to a certain point, may retrieve their affairs, yet in many cases, reformation is of no avail.
8. Inconsiderateness is often as disastrous as wilful wrong-doing.
9. As some punishments by civil government, are capital, so are some natural punishments.
1.) Seem intended to remove the offender out of the way.
2.) Or as an example to others.
1. They are matters of daily experience.
2. Proceed from the general laws, by which the world is governed.
e. g. Proverbs, ch. i.
The analogy sufficiently answers all objections against the Scripture doctrine of future punishment, such as
1.) That our frailty or temptations annihilate the guilt of vice.
2.) Or the objection from necessity.
3.) Or that the Almighty cannot be contradicted.
4.) Or that he cannot be offended.
1. Such reflections are terrific, but ought to be stated and considered.
2. Disregard of a hereafter cannot be justified by any thing short of a demonstration of atheism. Even skeptical doctrines afford no justification.
3. There is no pretence of reason for presuming that the licentious will not find it better for them that they had never been born.
As the structure of the world shows intelligence, so the mode of distributing pleasure and pain, shows government. That is, God’s natural government, such as a king exercises over his subjects.
But this does not, at first sight, determine what is the moral character of such government.
1. Not mere rewarding and punishing.
2. But doing this according to character.
3. The perfection of moral government is doing this exactly.
Objec. God is simply and absolutely benevolent.
Ans. Benevolence, infinite in degree, would dispose him to produce the greatest possible happiness, regardless of behaviour. This would rob God of other attributes; and should not be asserted unless it can be proved. And whether it can be proved is not the point now in hand.
The question is not whether there may not be, in the universe, beings to