254 Sin neceffarily leads to mifery in this world and the next. [JAN.

and to enquire diligently after the knowledge of his will, and carefully to obey it!

[To be continued.]

Sin neceffarily leads to mifery in this pleasures of earth to the joys of

1801.] Sin neceffarily leads to mifery in this world and the next. 255

nature is giving them daily evidence, if they could but fee it, that all the words of the Moft High fhall be fulfilled.

mufement or worldly intereft, or an unmolefted opportunity to indulge a finful wifh which lays it afleep.

The confiderate finner never approves himfelf-he always condemns himself.-It is fo in this life-it will be fo in death-and it must be fo in the world to come. In the world to come, thofe caufes which now impede confideration will all be removed. And no finner, who confiders, either here or there can approve himself for being oppofed to God, his law and his government. Standing in the divine prefence, his own confcience will be both a witnefs and a judge against him. He never can ap prove himself for being opposed, or for neglecting the duties which he owes to a God of infinite rectitude, wifdom and goodnefs; nor for be ing oppofed to a law and government which his own reafon must juftify as right. In the world to come, we have reafon to think, that the powers of conscience will be renovated, or in other words, that the caufes which prevent their operation here, will be removed; and the finner's punishment will be, in a great degree, wrought out by the exercise of his own temper, and the judgment which he paffes on himself, thus fulfilling the defcription of the text, that "the end of these things is death."

2dly. Another of the caufes, which there is in the nature of things, to prove the truth of the Apostle's defcription, that, "the end of these things is death" is the unhappiness which creatures experience in the convictions of an evil and a condemning confcience. Although the confciences of evil men may often be afleep, it is fcarcely credible that this should always be the cafe. The calls of earthly pleasure are fometimes difcontinued-a laffitude of animal nature fometimes deftroys the high wish for fenfual gratification-and misfortunes in their perfons, or families, or properties, fometimes gives a paufe for confideration, and then confcience whispers alarming words to the finful and guilty mind. They will be words creative of mifery; for a confiderate finner cannot approve himself; and felf-disapprobation must be mifery. As the appetites, through natural caufes, lofe their ftrength; as curiofity abates; and as approaching old age furnishes reafons for confideration, confcience will begin to fpeak more freely. In this period of life, unlefs a man be very ftupid, he muft fometimes think of coming be fore his God; and if his confcience 3dly. If it should pleafe God, difapproves, this will be an alarm- to place finners in a state of coning thought.-Affliction, bereave-nexion with each other in the world ment, lofs and difappointment to come, this must be another will, alfo, at any period of life, natural four e of unhappiness and produce the fame effects. Hence woe. The greater part of the we commonly fee them who are woes, which finners experience in deeply afflicted, to be confiderate, this world, arife from caufes in and feel the need of a preparation their own temper and conduct.before they can come peacefully 'They afflict themselves, and they into the prefence of God. Here afflict each other. They afflict is a natural fource for mifery to the themselves by their own exceffive finful. A confcience is paced appetites and paffions which cannot. every breaft, and it is only a-be fatisfied; by their impatience

in

ing, felf-grafping fpirit, and deftitute of friendship, confidence and love, through the whole body! This must constitute a state of woe and punishment, far exceeding what we have feen here on earth at any time. I might go much farther on this fubject, and point out various other natural fources for a fulfilment of all the awful predictions against the ungodly. Nature is filled with evidence to confirm Revelation, but, at prefent, I fhall proceed no farther, leaving the reader to his own obfervation and experience to fuggeft other fources of unhappiness to the finally impenitent which fhall fulfil the holy word "the end of these things is death."

and difcontent; and by that felf-tred, malignity, and an overbear accufation, which arifes from a temper and conduct that is contrary to reason, to their own beft good, and to the revealed will of God. They afflict each other by felfishness, avarice, pride, malignity and the works of contention. Thefe are the fruits of fin. Wherever fin is found, these are found; for the curfe goes as far as the tranfgreffion. Wherever the curfe extends the effect will be confpicuous. This is witneffed by the hiftory of a whole world, in all ages, from the beginning down to the prefent; and it will be witnessed through eternity. Eternity will give higher evidence of the awful effects of fin in fociety, than can poffibly be experienced in this world. To make finners miferable to a very extreme degree in another state, the Almighty, who upholds and governs the univerfe, will only have to uphold their exiftence and the univerfe which they inhabit, and to place them in a fituation where they can mutually act on each other, and they will to a great degree execute the penalty of the law on each other. Pride and felfifhnefs in difpofition and practice, under the direction of a common created intellect, with no greater means than are afforded in

It there be in nature these fources of unhappiness to those who tranfgrefs the law of God and live in fin, we must then believe with

the Apostle "that the wages of

fin is death" and that there can be no escape for us, but by a gracious renovation and forgivenefs thro' the mercy and by the fpirit of God.

MINORIS.

FOR THE CONNECTICUT EVAN-
GELICAL MAGAZINE.

of the law, and the threatenings of the gospel.

Quef. D threaten Adam, that

ID God explicitly

this world, will conftitute a hell of The difference between the penalties torment. How often do men make this for themfelves in this world! Look on an earth filled with forrow, and woe! Look on the myriads of finful minds in the eternal world, and fee how it muft probably be there. Conceive these minds, by fome laws of exifting and acting on each other, with which we are now probably unacquainted, brought into connexion, with a power of mutually afflicting, as a finful temper difpofes finners to do !—All filled with pride, ha

in cafe of difobedience, he fhould fuffer the penalty of the divine law, whatever that was? If fo, and yet God could, and did difpenfe with it, have we fure evidence, that God cannot, and will not in fome future period, difpenfe alfo with the threatenings of the gospel, against such as die in unbelief?

The question divides itself into

Answer. 1. The language, in which the penalty of the law was expreffed to Adam, was explicit. "Thou shalt furely die," or as tranflated in the margin, Dying thou shalt die. In this penalty, annexed to the command, there was no ambiguity. No penalty affixed to any law was ever given in more unequivocal terms. In this refpect it was as explicit as poffible.

two. The firft enquiry is, Whe-er oblige God, in point of veracither God explicitly threatened A-ty, to fee it executed. Had it dam, that in cafe of difobedience, done this, there could have been he fhould fuffer the penalty of the no room left for a difpenfation of divine law? grace,confiftently with divine truth, and God could not have extended mercy to him, on any terms whatever, or in virtue of any atonement, without a fatal wound to his own glory, and without fhaking the foundation of the confidence of all his creatures in his word. Divine truth is too facred to admit of any commutation. If it fhould appear that in one instance God had forfeited his word, there could no longer remain any real fecurity, that he would execute any of his threatenings, or fulfil his promifes: Therefore God, in providing a way of mercy, muft be confidered, as having informed us, that he had not pledged his word to execute the penalty, or we cannot reconcile his conduct, in this inftance, with any grounds of future confidence in his truth.That it may be manifeft, that God had not bound himself, by his word, to inflict the penalty of his law on the tranfgreffor, it will be ufeful to confider the obvious diftinction, between a pofitive threat

2. This penalty gave no encouragement to Adam to hope for a difpenfation of grace, or that he fhould by any means efcape the evil denounced. But he had juft reafon to conclude, in cafe of difobedience, that he should fuffer the punishment. For there was no unreasonable severity, either in the prohibition or the penalty, nor any intimations of grace made by revelation, or the light of nature, or to be inferred from any former difpenfation of mercy to finners, which might fuggeft the idea to Adam, that God might, perhaps, difpenfe with the penalty of his law. Therefore, when he be-ening, given as a prediction, that came a tranfgreffor, he had fufficient reafon to confider his cafe hopeless.

in the cafe defcribed, the punishment fhall be inflicted, and a penalty, confidered only as an expreffion of the demerit of tranfgreffion, and the punishment to which the tranfgreffor becomes juftly expofed. In the firft cafe, he who threatens is bound to execute as much as his word can bind him in any cafe whatever. But in the other, a mere penalty is not a pof

3. Notwithstanding this, the penalty of the law was fo far difpenfed with, that Adam had, thro' the atonement of Chrift, an opportunity given him to efcape the evil denounced. This needs no proof, as it is admitted in the queftion: And if this is infufficient, the whole word of God, and the de-itive affertion, that the punishment clarations of Chrift in particular on fhall be inflicted. And I conceive this fubject, bring fufficient evi- it may be made manifeft, that there was no pofitive threatening made to 4. The declaration made in the Adam, diftinct from a penalty, in penalty of the law did not howev-the fenfe that has now been defcri

dence.

qualified fenfe of the word was explicit.

The fecond part of the question will now be confidered. Whether fince God could, and did dispense with the penalties of the law, we have fure evidence, that he can not, and will not, in fome future time, difpenfe also with the threat

as die in unbelief? The enquiry amounts to this. Whether God in difpenfing with the penalties of his law, fo as to provide a way of falvation for finners, does not give

er he will finally execute the threatenings of the Gofpel? To this I reply.-1. If God had broken his word in the first cafe, we might well question whether he would regard it in the fecond, or in any thing else that he has engaged to do.

bed. It is true, the penalty of the law was given in the words, Thou shalt furely die :' But this is no more than the ordinary language of all penalties, divine and human. They are always, and very fitly expreffed in this manner; and according to the known ufe of language, it means no more, than that in the view of the legifenings of the Gospel, against fuch lator, the offender deferves the punishment expreffed. When a man breaks the laws of a ftate or kingdom, to which he belongs, and incurs the penalty, no one fuppofes, that fuch ftate or king-room for fome uncertainty, whethdom is bound, in point of veracity, to execute the punishment. Such penalties are not confidered as engaging its truth. States may be, and ufually are bound to ex ecute the penalties of their laws upon offenders, by confiderations of public fafety, and the fupport of government. But thefe are different from the obligations of veracity. And hence, all governments, notwith!tanding the penalties annexed to their laws, feel themselves at perfect liberty to pardon offenders, when they conceive that this will be confiftent with the public good And fo in the cafe under confideration, Adam could not have known, or have had any just reafons to conclude, that the general good would not have required that he should suffer. He was fatisfied that God was juft, and that the law was righteous, both in its precepts and penalties; and on this account; and not be caufe he supposed that God had pledged his word, he had reafon to expect that he should fuffer without mercy. Thus the penalty of the law was explicit, and if penalties can properly be called threatenings, and they certainly af fume a threatening afpect over the finner, then the threatening in this

2. If the threatenings of the Gofpel are mere penalties, and in this refpect, of the fame nature as the penalties of the law, and it appears that God could, and did make fuch arrangements, that it was confiftent with the fupport of government, and the public wel fare, that he should dispense with thofe penalties, then we cannot certainly conclude that he may not make fome fuch new arrangements by which it may confift with the general good, that he should also difpenfe with the threatenings of the Gofpel, altho' expreffed in the strongest language. Therefore,

3. If the safe of fuch as die in unbelief be indeed defperate, the evidence of it to us, muft arife from a material difference in the nature of the penalties of the one, and the threatenings of the other. and this I conceive is truly the cafe, and that it is most manifeftly revealed to be fo in the Gospel.