Let. 25. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 17

Theſe things he enlarges upon in ſeveral of his Fragments and Eſſays in the fifth volume of his works. See particu larly the forty-third, forty-fourth, forty-eighth, forty-ninth, fiftieth, „firſt, fifty-ſecond, fifty-third, and fifty-fourth of thoſe

IIt) 1,

Fragments.

It will be neceſſary here to make ſome obſervations; and a few will be ſufficient.

And 1. My firſt reflection is this, That Lord Bolingbroke had no juſt pretenſions to value himſ if upon be Lins an adyvi 0- cate for the goodneſs and righteouſneſs of divine providence; nor could properly attempt to vindicate it in a conf liſten acy with his ſcheme. He had taken Mäins to ſh

che hew, thau moral attributes are not to be aſcribed to God as diſtinguiſhed from his phyſical attributes: That there is no fuch thing as juſtice and good- neſs in God according to our ideas of them, nor can we form any judgment concerning them; and that there are many phæ- nomena in the preſent courſe of things which are abſolutely repugnant to thoſe moral attributes. But in that part of his book where he undertakes to juſtify the providence of God in this preſent ſtate, he not only ſuppoſes juſtice and goodneſs in God, but that they are conſpicuous in the whole courſe of bis diſpenſations, and that the preſent ſtate of thing gs is agree- able to our ideas of thoſe attributes. Aut er c0 uſiderati ion which ſfiews his great inconſiſtency is, that at the ſame time that he ſets up as an advocate for tlie Sbocheſs and juſtice of providence in this preſent ſtate, he yet will not allow thar pr vidence conſiders men individually at all, though he hi owns that juſtice has neceſſarily a reſpect to ir occaſion to obſerve in my laſt letter, that he ** juſtice requires moſt certainly that rewards and puniſhn * fhould be meaſured out in every Particulat ca aſe in pi ««ction to the me rit and demerit ef each individu: 3

C nſ 3* CO nſiſtene v

provide

0 in this een ſtate, when he ial to juſtice, that regard ſhou had to th citcumſtane2 of individuals, and in this preſent f ſtate hath no regard s not extending to indiv t0 them

8

feems to r

1 5 ment’ that it

B₰ 3

5

d

he mentions

*the proce— future ſtate will be the very reverſe * of t every individual human crea-