he had happily experienced, and therefore could not be denied; and that there was the fame reafon for him, to fhew mercy to his fellow-fervant, as there was for his lord to have pity on him was a truth as clear and evident as the former. This was fuch reafoning as he could not gainfay, and therefore he was fpeechlefs; Shouldeft not thou also have had compaffion on thy fellow-fervant, even as I had pity on thee? The true answer to this question is, that he ought to have shewn the like pity in a like cafe; but he would not. And as he would not do as he ought, in a cafe upon which the happiness of his fellow-fervant depended, the question is, how he ought to be treated upon fuch an occafion. And the anfwer is, that in reafon and equity he ought to be made to bear the weight of that burthen which he fo unkindly and unreasonably had laid upon another. This, I fay, in reafon and equity ought to be the cafe: and this was the fentence which his lord, as a righteous judge, pronounced upon him. And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors till be should pay all that was due unto him.

A cafe like this we have in Nathan's parable to David, 2 Sam. xii. 1,--4. And the lord Jent Nathan unto David, and he came unto him and faid unto him, There were two men in one city, the one rich, and the other

poor.

poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing fave one little ew lamb, which he had nourished up, and it grew up together with him, and with his children, it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bofom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he Spared to take of his own flock and of his own berd, to dress for the way-faring man that came unto him, but took the poor man's lamb, and dreffed it for the man that was come unto him. This was fuch a notorious inftance of injuftice and cruelty, performed under fuch aggravating circumftances, as rendered the actor worthy and deferving of punishment. And tho' David himself was that unjust and cruel man, yet when the cafe was represented to him, in the person of another, he could not but abhor the action and condemn the actor; and as the minifter of publick justice, could not forbear pronouncing judgment upon him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and be faid unto Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall furely die. And he shall reftore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity, ver. 5, 6.

Happiness is the end of being to intelligent beings. Whoever therefore freely and generously contributes to the happiness of others, by this he becomes a benefactor to the

intelligent world, and by this the intelligent world become in reafon obliged gratefully and generously to return the kindness, by contributing to the increase of their benefac tor's felicity, when power and opportunity ferve: which contribution is, (as I obferved above,) properly called reward. And as happinefs is the end of being to intelligent beings, fo whoever viciously opposes, and endeavours to fruftrate and disappoint the general end of being, by barring the happiness, and contributing to the mifery of others, fuch an one is an enemy to the intelligent world, and by this the intelligent world becomes in reafon obliged to return the evil upon his head, by contributing to his mifery, in proportion to the vicioufnefs of his actions; which contribution is (as I have already obferved) properly called punishment. It was a just fense of this that made Cain, after the cruel and barbarous murder of his brother, to fear and expect that every one who met him would flay him. Gen. iv. 14. Cain by his wicked action had rendered himself an

my and an oppofer of the general end of being, which is a general happiness; and as fuch he had rendered himfelf the proper object of difpleafure and refentment to every other intelligent being, and therefore might justly fear and expect that every one who met him would flay him. So that rewards and punishments, when juftly distributed, are

found

founded, not in paffion or affection, but the reafon of things. And therefore when punishment is justly inflicted upon a proper object, this is not punishing for punishment 'fake, nor is it the effect of mere refentment, but it is punishing upon juft grounds, and when the reafon of things requires it. Neither is it contrary to, but perfectly confiftent with true goodness; yea it refults from it. For a being who has the greatest concern and regard for a general good, has in confequence thereof the greatest diflike of, and a just indignation againft, those who oppose

it.

I do not take upon me to ftate the proportion betwixt virtue and reward, and vice and punishment: but this I fay, that as an action may be more or less virtuous or vicious; fo the actor may in reafon deferve a greater or less reward or punishment on the account of it. Neither do I fay that every action which is agreeable to reafon renders the actor in reafon rewardable, or that every action which is repugnant to reafon, renders the actor in reafon punishable; but this I fay, that fome actions render the actor worthy of reward, and that other actions render the actor worthy and deferving of punishment. Whoever contributes freely and generously to the happiness of others, fuch an one is in reafon rewardable; and whoever viciously

and

1

and wickedly bars the happiness, and con-
tributes to the mifery of others, fuch an
one is in reafon punishable. This is a
point which I have already elsewhere con-
fidered more at large, to which I refer my
reader. See my collection of tracts, page
449, &c.

Our Saviour having related the forefaid
parable, applied it to a future judgment and
retribution. So likewife shall my heavenly Fa-
ther do alfo unto you, if ye from your hearts
forgive not every one his brother their tref
paffes. Chrift did not enter upon a formal
proof of the equity and reasonableness of a
future retribution, (fuch kind of reasoning
was what poffibly his audience had not been
ufed to, and therefore might not have re-
ceived much inftruction from it) but chofe
rather to exemplify the thing by relating a
parable, in which two different characters
are introduced, the one greatly benevolent, and
the other most unmerciful and cruel. And from
which his hearers, even of the lowest un-
derstanding, muft plainly perceive the equity
and reafonableness of rewarding the one, and
punishing the other. The cafe, with refpect
to the unmerciful fervant, was fo clear and
evident, that every one must join in approving
that righteous fentence which his lord pro-
nounced against him, of delivering him to
the tormentors, till he should pay the debt.

And