fhould be fold for a flave until the year of jubilee; and out of his price, or so much of it as was neceffary, that reftitution fhould be made.

But fo far as the reasonableness of this law doth extend, fo far we still continue to be bound by it; though not by the law, yet by the reafon upon which it is founded, And this brings me to the

II. THING I propounded, which was to fhew, that this duty of reftitution is reaSonable in itfelf.

And here the argument depends on this principle, that it is fit every man should have his own, and that every man should part with that which is not his own. That one man should riot in luxury and voluptuoufnefs, out of that which he hath no confcionable title to, and that another whofe right it is fhould be poor and deftitute, is unreasonable and hard; and although God sometimes permits it to be fo, to convince us how fmall account he makes of riches, and because this life is of no regard in respect of eternity, yet it is nevertheless

theless unreasonable in the person who is the cause of it.

And if it is a base thing to rob and spoil a man of his goods, only for this wicked reason, because he is weak and not able to resist us; or to cheat and defraud him, only because God hath imparted to him an inferior degree of understanding, or hath not granted to him the means of cultivating his natural endowments, by that improvement and education which others enjoy; and if it is equally unreasonable to keep and with-hold that, which hath been unjustly acquired by force or by ftratagem: then in the fame proportion it is reasonable to restore it.

If to do no wrong be an high degree of wisdom, the next to that must be, when we have done wrong, to put things right again. If an injuftice hath been done, that is no argument why it should be repeated, which yet is repeated every hour, until reftitution is made.

out of the right way, the

to return; and if we lead

When we go fafeft course is others aftray,

to

we ought in all reason to bring them back again.

If we think it is hard to give back that which is another's, let us reflect on the other hand, how much harder it is for that other, to want what is his own. Let us but fuppofe ourselves for a while in the injured perfon's circumftances, and that will difpel the mift from before our eyes, and clear up the difficulties with which our intereft may have incumbered this duty Which will bring the matter to the test of that golden rule of our religion, To do to others, as we would have them to do unto

us.

And so much for the reasonableness of this duty. I proceed now,

IIIdly. To fhew the neceffity of it. And here the argument comes with its full weight upon us. What is neceffary to be' done, leaves no room for difputation, and excludes all other inforcements as fuperfluous. If then I can make it appear, that restitution must be made, or else we must never hope to enjoy the happiness of hea

ven, I think no more need to be done to prove this neceffity.

The Chriftian religion requires, if we have done amifs, that we undo the fame again by repentance: Otherwife, if we die in a fin unrepented of, it shuts us out from the kingdom of heaven. Repentance implies, that be forry for what we have done, that we implore God's pardon and forgiveness of it, that we do all in our power to restore ourselves into the fame condition which we were in before we had finned, and that we continue in the fame unto our lives' end.

Now what fort of a thing repentance must be without reftitution, it is easy to judge. It is a folemn provocation of God's juftice; declaring our forrow for having done that, which we are not willing to undo; profeffing our grief that we have done wrong, when we would be more grieved to do right; and praying unto God to forgive us those fins, which at the fame time we are refolved to continue in. Hereby we propofe to undo our former fins, by doing juft nothing; and to re

move into our former innocent state, without altering our prefent finful one.

I might, upon this head, go through the whole New Teftament, and fhew all along, that to continue in fin, without making reftitution, is contrary to the general purport and defign of the gofpel: But having mentioned the cafe of repentance, I fhall chufe to leave it upon you under that confideration, as containing one of the strongeft arguments that can be offered; namely, that without reftitution there can be no repentance, and without repentance there will be no forgiveness. And fo I proceed to the

IVth THING I propofed, which was, to add, if yet it be needful, fome motives to quicken the practice of this duty.

THE FIRST fhall be drawn from the principles of common prudence; even the fame which directs us in our ordinary temporal concernments; not to defer what muft be done, till the morrow, when it may as well be done to-day. There is no objection

7