says the hearer, "I see in those objects that which is lovely, or at least lovely to my apprehensionthat which is agreeable to me, and the possession of which is calculated to render me blest." Very well. On the other hand, why do you look on other objects with a disgusted eye? "Because," you answer, "there is no beauty in such objects: there is no loveliness in them. I see nothing in them agreeable to me." I ask you, Is it not in your power to love a disagreeable object as well as an agreeable one?"Why, indeed," you respond, "it is impossible!" Could you not, my friends, love that disagreeable object, if you were threatened with some punishment, if you did not love it? Suppose I stated to you, if you would love such an object of disgust, you should receive great preferment; but on the other hand, if you did not love that object, you should suffer great deprivation, and at last miserable destruction. Then would you not love it? Why," says the bearer, "to be honest about it, I would become a hypocrite, and say I loved it, when I did not; but if it was disagreeable to me, I could not love it, though I lost my life if I did not." This is all true. This is simple nature. There is no mystery about it: then I ask the same question relative to my subject. Why do not men love God? The answer is simply this; because they see no beauty-no loveliness-they see nothing in him that is agreeable. This is the reason and all the reason. Let us be careful how we proceed. Does this suppose that there is no beauty--no loveliness-no worth in the object? No; it does not; but it supposes we do not see these qualities. To render this more simple, I will suppose that I had the confidence of your little children, and I should tell them that you

were their implacable foes, who had planned their destruction, and that they were by no means safe, while in your hands. If they should believe all this, and look up to their parents through the medium of this misrepresentation, they would see no beauty, no excellence, that they could admire ; but they would leave the door of your house, and your children would be gone at once. In this situation, knowing the cause that led them away, what would be your feelings towards them? Would you hate your children, because I deceived them, and through the medium of this deception, caused them to dislike you? No, my hearers, you would love them still, knowing them to be deceived, and that this deception was the only cause of their not loving you; but what would you think of me, who came into your house, and deceived your children in this way, and turned their tender hearts from having any affection, any love towards you, by representing you, as their enemy? My friends, I do not suppose any man would be so wicked, as to tell your children such a story, unless he was deceived himself. But if I were so deceived, as to think your children unsafe in your hands, I might honestly deceive your children. And it was just so with our teachers. They really thought that we were unsafe in God's hands; they represented him as our enemy; and while man believes this of God it is impossible, in the very nature of things, for him to love his Maker. The result of this reasoning is simply this; that the whole reason why mankind do not love God, is, because, they do not know him to be a lovely being. They do not understand his true character; they have fixed on God a character which does not exist; but, when you know his character, you will love him, as when your deceiv

ed children, are undeceived, they will love you. Unless they know your true character, it is impossible for them to love you. When we make this discovery, we will suppose we have answered the question. What is the reason why we do not love God? Our answer is because we do not know his nature, because mankind have been deceived, as to his character. They believed him to be their enemy, whereas, he is in fact their friend. I will not consume the precious time, in describing to you the impropriety that your humble servant discovers, in the labors of so many men, who have come forward and preached to the world, that mankind were not safe in the hands of their Maker. My hearers, it makes my heart bleed to think how many sorrows and miseries are endured in consequence of this deception. But I have a sweet truth to console you. For God loved us, when we were entirely destitute of love to him; when we knew not his divine character, he was engaged in one steady invariable action of divine benevolence, and the bosom of God our author and our Creator, was cherishing all his offspring. "Herein was love; not that we loved God, but he loved us." Oh! that you could hear the sentence, and understand its full import; then would you let God have an everlasting obedience in all your hearts; then should I hear you exclaim, "In every situation, and under every circumstance, my God loves me !"What indescribable peace, what confidenne, what rest of soul would you constantly enjoy.

The next proposition in our text is, that God loved us when we did not love him; and a question, necessarily arrises concerning the justice of such a love. I name it, because our opposers insist this is against his mercy, and even deny that he is disposed to

save us. I ask you to come then to the consideration of this question-Is it right for God to love mankind, when man does not love him? "Why," says the hearer, "no doubt it is right." That, however, does not answer the question, though it may serve to assist us. It does not discover, you perceive, the nature of the justice of God, in loving us, when we do not love him. But we can see

the answer in the case I have already stated, of a child who is deceived, and who because he is deceived, does not love his parent. Is it not perfectly right for you to love the child notwithstanding this deception? You would look upon the child and say, "That child is deceived; it does not know my heart, it does not know that my real will and pleasure is to guard its welfare." Certainly in this case, you would love the child, and it would be perfectly right for you to do so. I ask, would it not be wrong for you not to love it? Very wrong. Then, my hearers, it is just in the nature of the thing for God to love his creatures. He knows that none would hate him, if they knew him. If they knew his real character, it would tend to put a confidence in him-it would tend to enlighten every understanding, and bring all to the knowledge of himself; and this is declared in the scriptures to be eternal life. For, saith our divine Teacher, "This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." There is the perfect justice of God's loving the world. We are under obligation to take care of our children, never removing the hand of our providence from them, on account of any imperfection in them, but always acting for their benefit. And so does our heavenly Father act towards all the creatures he has made. I ask you, does not.

this reasoning in the result come to this, that the cause of our not loving God, is, that we take him to be an enemy to the works of his hand. Do we

not reduce him below the creatures of the earth, and disallow God in heaven, the virtues which we boast? Thus we tear the beautiful garment of our heavenly Father's character, and represent it as unlovely.

1

Thirdly: Love is always an active principle, and delights to manifest itself to the beloved object. So a parent who loves his child, is always doing good to that child. If you love your neighbor, you will signify that love, by some act of kindness, of friendship, of affection. If any want, if any misery is endured by the object of your affection, how soon do you fly to her relief. How soon do you administer what is requisite and necessary! is with God. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us." What did he do! Did he manifest his love by any act! Yes, he "loved us and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins." Mankind were enveloped in transgression-were covered with a veil of sin; yet God's love was such that he sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins. Here then observe, the text entirely disproves the doctrine that Jesus came here, to suffer and die for us to appease God's wrath, to satisfy his justice and to reconcile God to mankind. All such doctrine is lost, for ever, when we come into the light of the text under consideration. How so? Because the love of God, was the occasion of Christ's coming into the world.. It would be an egregious error to conceive that God sent his Son into the world to die, for the purpose of appeasing his wrath towards the world. Can I state an absurdity greater, than to say God sent his Son into