had none; so as Adam was a perfect man before he propagated, so was he a perfect man without them. The doctrine is this: That the seminal relation between Adam and his seed, could not make their eating his, suppose they had eaten, nor his eating to be theirs; neither indeed could their eating have brought themselves under that sentence, thou shalt die.-I propose,

First. How their eating could not have ascended to Adam by generation.

Secondly.

whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first born. And why are any in bitterness for an only son? Why did David exclaim in all the emphasis of parental woe,-Oh, Absalom, my son, Oh Absalom, my son, my son, &c.?-Why? because he loved him.-For the same reason does that soul in whose heart the spirit of God hath planted an eye of faith, weep and feel all the wormwood of distress,-when a suffering Savior is brought to the view. It first of all holds out a sure proof of the love of that God against whom he rebelled, -it contains the commendation of divine love,"God commendeth his love,-not by words-but by enabling the soul to form a contrast between the conduct of God towards us, and the state of our minds towards God ;"—" in that while we were enemies,"

Secondly. If Adam's act was his posterity, because he begot them, and so by generation, how was Eve guilty that never was generated?

Thirdly. Why was not Adam's posterity guilty of all his other acts as well as of that?

Fourthly. If Adam's acts were theirs' by generation, why are not his posterity guilty of all the acts of their immediate fathers?

Fifthly. If acts and habits are conveyed by generation, why are not all the acts of faith and grace

enemies," and according to our determination, irreconcilable.

Christ died for us, his death applied, is the destruction of our enmity; this Paul acknowledges, when he gives an account of the end he had in view, and the motive that impelled him to renounce all for Christ-that he might be found in him, (in Christ) to know him, to feel the power of his resurrection, and to have fellowship with his sufferings. There is a divine partaking of his sufferings by faith, a divine planting in the likeness of his death, which produces that which Paul means, when he says, I am crucified with Christ

The effect of such a discovery is a knowledge of the removal of those internal impediments to our happiness, our guilt is removed by a divine righteousness, the source from whence it sprang, was planned in eternity." Being justified the

4

grace in Adam and in our immediate fathers conveyed so too?

Sixthly. If their eating had laid them under that sentence of death, how was Adam a head? Seventhly. If he was not a federal head, how are all his posterity born in sin?

Eighthly. If his posterity are not born in sin, how doth all his posterity die in him, and many of them before they committed sin in their own persons?

Till

moment Christ undertook to die for us," by faith we have peace towards God.—The peaceful consequences of that plan is enjoyed in time, and that only by faith.

This part of our subject is beautifully illustrated by the parable of the prodigal son:-the prodigality of the son did not dissolve the relation, though it interrupted the communion between him and his father. The effect of that prodiga lity produced an unfitness for familiar intercourse with the family; but the interruption of communion, the unfitness for fellowship, neither rescinded the resolution of the parent's heart, nor prevented the individual at a proper season from having the best robe, the best entertainment. The prodigal therefore, incapable of sinning away his sonship, though he sinned away the declarative right of such a favor, was as much the son of

the

·

Till those enquiries are answered, I conclude, that the sin of Adam cannot be ours by natural relation, nor conveyed, by generation, but by imputation, neither is there the same cause for his posterity's eating to have redounded upon him, as there was for his wife's eating. I shall offer but one argument, and that is this:

If the man was not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, then the man could not receive the law without the woman, neither

could

the father, when splashing his hands in the hogtrough and gathering the swinish husks, as he was when he extended forth his hand to his father, or an attending relative to ornament his finger with the sparkling diamond.

This is exactly the case of those that are sensibly qualified for an enjoyment of the divine comforts of religion. In themselves they are altogether unworthy, in themselves they are altogether unfit, the few rags, the effect of their moral prodigality, are not only filthy, but filthy as they are, they are not sufficient to cover their nakedness, having been adopted into God's family in an eternal covenant, there is a robe provided for them," In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall glory.

This sensibly applied removes their guilt,"The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin,"-they

are

could the woman eat without the man; but the former is true; ergo, Gen. i. 27, Gen. ii. 7, 1 Cor. xi. II.

If it be objected that the husband cannot be guilty of the wife's sin, I answer, that there never was any husband and wife that had that relation that Adam and his wife had, (Christ only excepted) for the mystery of Adam and his wife is so intermingled, that the mystery is so great that it is inseperable, Eph. v. 32, though distinguished;

are now cloathed in the garments of salvation and blessed with the spirit of praise, instead of the heaviness of affliction. The consequence is, they are disarmed, and seeing all this produced by the death of Christ, that he might reconcile both unto God (Jews and Gentiles) in one body the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; they mourn.

The enmity, as was hinted before, is the necessary consequence of that awful ignorance that has violently seized every power of the mind. This enmity is slain or removed by the doctrines exhibited by the cross of Christ; the understanding is justly considered as the leading faculty of the soul;" all its powers are under its government when, the mind, is under the government of darkness, the works of darkness necessarily follow; but when that passage of scripture which contrasts the present with the past state of believ

ers