"fhould hereafter believe on him to life

everlasting." There are fome of thofe Corinthians who were once the fcandal of their country, and the reproach of human nature (1 Cor. vi. 11.); but being " washed, "and fanctified, and juftified, in the name "of the Lord Jefus, and by the Spirit of "our God," are now walking in white, following the Lamb whitherfoever he goeth, and contemplating with wonder and joy the extent of that love" which paffeth "knowledge." Nay, there are some of the murderers of the Lord of glory, three thousand of whom were converted by the ministry of Peter in one day: and now they are rejoicing in the prefence of that Jefus whom they crucified, and afcribing their eternal falvation to that blood which was fhed by their own wicked hands: In one word, with fuch examples as thefe the Scripture is replenished; and God every where appears like the father in the parable ftretching forth his arms to the prodigal fon, and delighting to difplay the riches of his grace.

Such then are the pofitive and direct evidences

dences of the goodnefs of God, and of his tender concern for the welfare of his creatures. -I proceed now, as was propofed, in the

Second place, To examine fome of the most plaufible objections which are urged against the mildness and equity of the divine administration..

Say, then, O finner, wherein hath God dealt rigorously with you? and what cause he hath ever given you to charge him with feverity?" Teftify against him," in what respect he hath shown himself an enemy to your happiness?

It, Is it the holiness and perfection of his law that you complain of? Hath he given you too accurate a rule of life? and laid too many restraints upon your natural inclinations?—This complaint is both foolish and ungrateful. The law of God requires nothing, but what tends to make us happy; nor doth it forbid any thing which would not be productive of our mifery. The very defign of it is to defcribe and recommend that holiness,

66 without which no man

"fhall

"fhall fee the Lord:" So that the perfection of it is no lefs a proof of the goodness, than of the wifdom of its Author. Were holinefs indeed unneceffary, or were vice the road to happiness, the objection would in that cafe be juft. But as there is an infeparable connection between fin and mifery; and as holiness is indispensably neceffary, to qualify us for the enjoyment of God; it must follow, that to find fault with the purity of his law, is to find fault with it for being too much adapted to our intereft. It is not therefore lefs abfurd, than if a scholar were to blame his master for the excellence of the example which he had given him to copy; or than if a traveller fhould quarrel with his guide, for directing him with too much exactnefs in the way.

2dly, Do you complain of the threatenings with which this law is enforced? Doth God appear fevere, because he hath faid, that the wicked muft either turn from his evil ways or die? This complaint is furely as unreasonable as the former. Shall God be reckoned an enemy to your happiness, because he useth the most effectual means to promote it? Can he be fuppofed to defire your

your misery, who fo earnestly warns you of your danger, and who fo warmly pleads with you to avoid it? Should one find you running towards a precipice in your fleep, would you blame him for stopping you, though perhaps he might interrupt you in the enjoyment of fome pleafant dream? Were you ready to fink in deep water, would you not reckon that man your friend, who fhould fave you from drowning, even though he dragged you out by the hair of the head ?—This is the very purpose, or the friendly defign of all God's threatenings. He publisheth them, that they may never be executed; he makes them terrible, that the terror of them may perfuade men to avoid them. Had God publifhed a law, and concealed the importance of it, with respect to our happiness or mifery; would not the objection, in that cafe, against his goodness, have been far more just and rational ?—If his threatenings prevail with you, never fhall you have caufe to complain of their severity and if they do not prevail, with what face can you allege, that the penalties are too high, when at the fame time, your

་

own

own practice confutes you, and proves, that they are not high enough to restrain you from incurring them. But,

3dly, Perhaps your objection doth not lie so much against the publication of the threatenings, as against the final execution of them. You fee their ufe to overawe mankind in this world; but you think that it would be cruel in God to inflict them in good earnest, and to punish men eternally, for fins committed during the short period of their abode on earth. Now, in anfwer to this, let me only afk you, whether those threatenings would be of any use at all, if the finner knew that they would never be executed, or even if the execution of them were in the leaft degree doubtful? He who can make fubjects believe that their governor means only to frighten them with his penalties, will eafily make his laws of no effect, and fet offenders loofe from every restraint. The belief of the execution is therefore abfolutely neceffary to the efficacy of the law, which otherwife could only be an engine to work upon fools. And if it be neceffary in all cafes that fubjects fhould believe