the dominion of the carnal mind. The effects of fin, as fin, are not endless, but limited to the ftate in which it is committed. This, perhaps, will be contrary to the opinion of many who read this treatise, as they are wont to fuppofe, that there are three cardinal confequences produced by fin, viz. Death temporal, death fpiritual, and death eternal.

As to the first of these confequences, I think I have plainly refuted it. Men die natural deaths, because they are naturally mortal; but they are not mortal because of fin, for man was mortal before he finned; if he were not, he never could have finned. My opponent will fay, that the death of the body is the confequence of fin, when one man murders another; to which I reply, one man could not murder another, if men were not mortal. Sin cannot be said to be the cause of natural death, any more than of natural life. I will acknowledge that fin is often the mean whereby natural life is ended, and my oppofer muft acknow ledge, that it is often the mean of perfons being introduced into natural life. Perhaps an hundred are introduced into existence by illicit connections, where one is taken out by malice prepenfe. But the meaning of the objector is, that man became mortal by fin; to which I reply, if immortality be corruptible by fin, the chriftian hope of immortality is a vain one. The death which Adam died, in confequence of fin, happened on the day of tranfgreffion, if we may believe the fcripture account about it; but Adam did not die a natural death, on that day, nor for fome hundreds of years afterwards.

The way in which many have tried to reconcile the scriptures with their traditions, in this matter, appears ftrange to me; they quote 2 Peter, iii. 8.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord, is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day ;" and as Adam died fhort of a thousand years, he died in the day of tranfgreffion. But, in order for the text to read to their meaning, it ought to read thus, “One day with the Lord is a thousand years, and a thoufand years is one day;" as they understand the text, the conjunction as has no poffible meaning. In refpect to spiritual death, I believe it was all that was meant by the word, " in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt furely die." But, if eternal death were alfo intended, there was no recovery for man. Why divines have carried this matter fo erroneoufly beyond all fcripture tenets, I cannot imagine. But, it is faid, fpiritual or moral death would be eternal, were it not for the difpenfation of the gofpel, by which death is fwallowed up of life. So we might fay of any thing else, even of a momentary nature; it would be eternal, if it were never to end. The days of a man's life would be eternal, if they were never to end. The fpring would be eternal, if it were not fucceeded with the fummer. A rose would be an eternal flower, if it never withered. And youth would be eternal, if it were not for old age and death. But what do all fuch arguments avail? The grand, fublime and 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 wisdom and goodness of the Almighty, fin may be of advantage even to the finner himfelf; 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 respect to

the divine intention, is not fin. I have introduced a circumstance, in the fore part of this work, in which, what I am now endeavoring to illustrate, may clearly be feen. It is evident that, that which Jofeph's brethren meant unto evil, God meant un-. to good. Now the immediate confequences. of their fin, to them, was guilt of the firft 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 purpofe 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 together againft 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 queftion, will anfwer, 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 aik, was not the determination of the murderers of Chrift, the fame, with the determination of Divine Wifdom? Says the reader, I cannot say it was not, and yet, I dare not say it was. I will then anfwer, the Almighty intended all they did, fhould be done; but he intended it for a very different purpofe from what they did, who did it. They intended the deftruction and overthrow of the doctrine which Chrift preached, and they hoped the things

F

which he had fpoken, concerning them, would fail of taking place. But the means which they ufed to oppofe the cause of Chrift, were thofe with which God intended to promote it. They miffed of their intentions, and the Lord carried 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 those 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 please the appetite, unless we firft experienced hunger; the cooling fpring would not be fought for, if men were never thirsty; health could never be prized, could we not contraft it with ficknefs; cafe is appreciated, by the remembrance of pain; and a physician 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 haft 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 Jerusalem 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 stated to me, in converfation on this fubject. My reply is fhort. There is a self-contradiction in the objection; to do any thing whatever, for good, is not a moral tranfgreffion. Had Jofeph'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, fin would have been out of the queftion. St. Paul afks the question to his oppofers, after he had argued, that, where fin abounded, grace did much more abound," Shall we continue in fin, that grace may abound?" And anfwers 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 causes us to die to fin; and if we are dead to fin, we shall 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 fulness 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 trangreffed; but I argue, that the law tranfgreffed, is a law formed in the mind of an imperfect being, by the imperfect 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 endless confequences. The facred oracle declares, "the foul