5.) And it also follows that a thing’s being done by necessity does not exclude _design_. =2.= It does not exclude a belief that we are in a state of religion. 1.) Suppose a fatalist to educate a child on his own principles,--viz.: that he cannot do otherwise than he does; and is not subject to praise or blame. (It might be asked, _would_ he, if possessed of common sense, so educate his child?) --The child would be delighted with his freedom; but would soon prove a pest, and go to destruction. --He would meet with checks and rebuffs, which would teach him that he _was_ accountable. --He would, in the end, be convinced either that his doctrine was wrong, or that he had reasoned inconclusively upon it, and misapplied it. 2.) To apply fatalism to practice, in any other way, would be found equally fallacious: _e.g._ that he need not take care of his life. 3.) No such absurdity follows the doctrine of freedom. --Reasoning on this ground is justified by all experience. --The constitution of things is _as if_ we were free. 4.) If the doctrine of necessity be true, and yet, when we _apply it_ to life, always misleads us; how, then, can we be sure it would not mislead us with respect to future interests? 5.) It follows that if there are proofs of religion on the supposition of freedom, they are just as conclusive on the supposition of necessity. =3.= It does not refute the notion that God has a will and a character. 1.) It does not hinder _us_ from having a will and a character; from being cruel, or benevolent, or just, &c. 2.) If necessity be plead as the excuse for crime, it equally excuses the _punishment_ of crime; for if it destroys the sin of the one, it destroys the sin of the other. 3.) The very assumption of injustice in punishing crime, shows that we cannot rid ourselves of the notion of justice and injustice. _Objec._ If necessity be _reconcilable_ with the character of God, as portrayed in Christianity, does it not destroy _the proof_ that he has that character; and so destroy the proofs of religion? _Ans._ No. Happiness and misery are not our fate, but the results of our conduct. God’s government is that of a father and a magistrate; and his natural rule of government must be veracity and justice. We shall proceed to show that, II. _Necessity does not destroy the proofs of religion._ =1.= It is a plain fact that God rewards and punishes. 1.) He has given us a moral faculty, by which we discern between actions, and approve or disapprove, &c. 2.) This implies a _rule_, a peculiar _kind_ of rule; _i.e._ one from which we cannot depart without being self-condemned.