glorious fyftem of God, carries every thing away that has its birth from mortality and time.

I have already hinted, that fin might have confequences which were not evil, but not as fin. By the infinite wifdom and goodness of the Almighty, fin may be of advantage even to the finner himself; but I fay again, not as fin. If the infinitely Wife and Good intended any one thing for good, which we rightly call fin, that event, in refpect to the divine intention, is not fin. I have introduced a circumftance, in the fore part of this work, in which, what I am now endeavoring to il luftrate, may clearly be feen. It is evident that, that which Jofeph's brethren meant unto evil, God meant unto good. Now the immediate confequences of their fin, to them, was guilt of the first magnitude. Who could calculate the one half of what they endured, in confequence of the wrong which they had done? But the confequences which God intended, in the iffue of the event, were altogether beneficial; and thofe who committed the fin, by the mercy of God, were made the partakers of the benefits contained in the purpose of him who meant it for good.

Again, it is evident from the fcriptures, that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Ifrael, were gathered

1

together against Jefus, to do what the council and the hand of the Almighty had determined to be done. See Acts iv. 27, 28. Had Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Ifrael, any better meaning, in crucifying Chrift, than Jofeph's brethren had, in felling Jofeph to the Ifhmaelites? All who read the quef tion, will answer, no. But the facred

text fays, they were gathered together to do whatfoever God's hand and council had determined to be done. Now I afk, was not the determination of the murderers of Chrift, the fame with the determination of Divine Wifdom? Says the reader, I cannot fay it was not, and yet, I dare not fay it was. I will then anfwer, the Almighty intended all they did, should be done; but he intended it for a very dif ferent purpofe from what they did, who did it. They intended the destruction and overthrow of the doctrine which Chrift preached, and they hoped the things which he had fpoken, concerning them, would fail of taking place. But the means which they used to caufe of Chrift, were thofe God intended to promote it.

oppofe the with which They miff

ed of their intentions, and the Lord carri*ed the whole of his into effect. What christian is there in the world, who will

fay, the confequences of the death of Chrift are not good? or, that thofe who were his murderers, for whom he prayed on the cross, will not receive an advantage from his death, which they meant for evil? Or, who can limit the good contained in the defigns of the Almighty? But will this rule do, fays the reader to apply to all fin? I answer, without hefitancy, that I fully believe it. Food for the body would never pleafe the appetite, unlefs we first experienced hunger; the cooling spring would not he fought for, if men were never thirfly; health could never be prized, could we not contraft it with fick nefs; cafe is appreciated, by the remembrance of pain; and a phyfician would never be wanted, if it were not for our infirmities; a Saviour would never have been praised by his redeemed, had they never been in bondage; the fong, "Thou hast redeemed us to God, out of every kingdom and nation," could never be fung, had redemption not been needed; a fountain would never have been opened, for Judah and Jerufalem to wash in, from fin and uncleannefs, had it not been for fin and uncleannefs. Then, fays my opponent, we may do evil, that good may come.

This objection has often been flated to me, in converfation on this fubject. My reply is fhort. There is a felf-contradiction in

the objection; to do any thing whatever, for good, is not a moral tranfgreffion. Hadjofeph's brethren been taught of God, that it was neceffary for them to fell Jofeph to the Ishmaelites, that he might go down to Egypt, and there prepare for the famine, and they had done it, for the good which God intended, it would have been no more fin, in them, than there was in the defign of God. Then it is plain, that to do evil, that good may come, is impoffible.

Again, had Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Ifrael, intended the good which God intended, in the crucifixion of Chrift, sin would have been out of the queftion. St. Paul afks the question to his oppofers, after he had argued, that, where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," Shall we continue in fin, that grace may abound?” And an1wers it thus, God forbid. How fhall we, who are dead to fin, live any longer therein? If we are truly enlightened into the nature of the all-abounding grace of the gofpel, it caufes us to die to fin; and if we are dead to sin, we fhall not live in it. God has forbidden it, in the nature of things, and rendered it impoffible.

As I have limited fin in its nature, the reader will not expect to find unlimited confequences attached to it, in this work.

Were it fo, that the fullnefs of the divine law was perfectly comprehended in the mind of the creature, and he should go contrary thereto, his fin would then be as infinite as the law tranfgreffed; but I argue, that the law tranfgreffed, is a law formed in the mind of an imperfect being, by the imperfe& knowledge which he obtains of the divine law, which is no other than God himself. This knowledge being imperfect, forms a law like itfelf, imperfect and mutable; and an imperfect mutable law does not afford data, from which to argue endlefs confequences. The facred oracle declares," the foul that fins fhall die :" If it had added and faid, "and fhall never live again," it would have carried the confequences of fin infinitely farther than the Holy Ghoft intended. Sin is death to the foul, as long as it fins, be that time longer or shorter. In order to argue an endless confequence, we muft firft ftate an infinite cafe; and as I have argued fin on a finite fcale, and in a limited circle, I muft rationally limit its confequences.

I will now ftate two particulars, which the reader will find argued in the course of this work, ftate my oponent's objections against them, answer those objections, and introduce my fecond general inquiry, by ftating a third objection.