every particular man, or whether he made it with one universal head? Thirdly. Whether it was with every particular person? If with every particular person, what is every particular duty? Fourthly. If it was with one general head, what was his obedience required, or your's, to interest you in it? Fifthly. What do you call that law or covenant? From New Testament Saints, and those too who have been most eminently distinguished by divine favor and protection. Noah, for instance, was a man highly favored of the Lord, he was a preacher of righteousness,-he was prevalent with God in prayer ;---him and his, of all the families of the earth, God was pleased to spare, when he broke up the fountains of the great deep, to drown the world. He prepared an ark for Noah, and God shut him in. After the water subsided, Noah planted himself a vineyard,- drunkenness was the consequence in himself, and destruction to Ham. I know that some have more ingeniously than justly said, that Noah was unacquainted with the effect of wine, if he was, how came he to understand the nature of a vineyard, and the use of the vine? The plain truth is, Noah was but a poor, guilty, vile, and sinful creature, like our ་ From these premises I lay down this doctrine, that there is no act of the sons of Adam that can entitle them in either of these covenants, or any act of theirs that can prevent their being in either of these covenants. But you will say, what is it then that doth put them in these covenants, and give property to them thus procured in these covenants? I answer, the question is twofold: First. It was neither thy acts, nor the acts of Adam, that put thee in this covenant, but God's or selves,---and his cry was, "not according to works of righteousness which we have done." Before men attempt to explain matters of fact out of the Bible, and out of the world, ---let them recollect that neither God, nor his people, need their lies to maintain the cause of the former, or substantiate the happiness of the latter. While the names of Sodom and Gomorrah retain a place in the pages of sacred history, we shall necessarily be led to view the awful vengeance that God takes upon his enemies, and the wonderful mercy of his heart to the objects of his compassion. When the inflammable brimstone descended, armed with the vengeance of a God, Lot was to be removed beyond its reach, before the execution of the dreadful commission; unable to climb the steep mountain, he cries in an agony of tender distress, Behold now this city is near to flee ordination and constituting him a general head of all mankind; but it was his act of disobedience alone that brought death to thee; so it was not thy act of faith, nor the obedience of Christ that put thee in his covenant, but it was God's ordaining and constituting him a head over his body, that put thee in that covenant, but it was his obedience alone that brought life to thee, and entitled thee to it. Where is original sin, and actual sin now? Let the offence of that one con stituted flee unto, and it is a little one; O let me escape thither, (is it not a little one) and my soul sha live: Gen. xi. 20. Though beyond the reach of the flame, the fire of sin was as strong as ever. While yet the air remained impure from the ascending filth of Sodom and Gomorrah 1; while yet impregnated with the brimstone that consumed them, we find Lot, ah! poor Lot, implicated in a crime, a very few removes (and the transition is invisible to us) in point of malignity from that, which, with its dreadful vortex, ingulphed Sodom and Gomorrah in the bosom of Hell. As God has never thrown a veil over the sins of his people,-why should we? They are saved, not because men think well of them, but because God is determined to save them:-Gen. xix. 20. 31, 32. Before 'stituted head, be laid on the other constituted Before I dismiss the above circumstances, let me ask those, who upon every occasion are ready to make the Scriptures speak what they think, and not what the Scriptures mean themselves. Were Noah and Lot guilty of sin in those in- Noah V stances, or were they not? If they were,-did Lot. not that guilt deserve Hell?-and if it deserves Hell, why attempt to extenuate the guilt by palliating the crime? for if you leave the relation in its full force, (and I cannot see what right you have to do otherwise) they could have deserved no more;-and had God not pardoned their sins, Hell would have been their portion in either in stance. and of "What shall I say more? for the time would fail me," to tell of David and of Peter, all that we have read of and seen, great guilt were:---boundless was the mercy as their that co shews, that one end of the law being added, was, that the offence might abound: that is, that offence might be divided or distinguished in its particular members. Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound; for except sin had thus been distinguished by the law, the riches of his grace had never so appeared, yet it is but one offence, and its curse that Christ bore. Now, for our better understanding, let us consider that text, Rom. vi. 23, The wages of sin is vered it. Is man's nature more refined now than then?Attend to the experience of christians now, as well as to your own. What is the lanConscicguage of conscience? That sin haunts, and dread ful temptations infest the mind. Who quickens conscience? The spirit of God. Then the H: Gott spirit of God gives us to see---that we are as unclean as ever,---equally incapable of guiding and supporting ourselves. Yes, this we feel. cle. the spirit of God bear his testimony to a lie? Impossible, for he is the fountain of truth. Does Then, if christians feel that they are as unclean as ever, and the quickening influences of the divine spirit gives them that feeling, the inference is plain, that in themselves, they are as polluted as ever If, says an objector, that these sins you have been speaking of did not, neither could condemn the soul, is it not evident, that the warfare you |