1 theirs also, for if the covenant had required any other obedience than his, it might have required more disobedience than his. Now, if one man's disobedience has made them all sinners, then the covenant of life and death was made but with one man, but the former is true, Rom. v. 12. 19. Now, if the covenant was made but with one man, there is no man that could break it or keep it but that one man, but the former is true; Gen. ii. God speaking to individuals situated in similar circumstances, informs them, that the time should come when he should "appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he mighi be glorified. Do these trials appear to us incompatible with the infinitude of Jehovah's love, the profound mysteries of his goodness, the unfathomable merits of a gracious Redeemer? Let the eye of observation explore in the spirit of enquiry, every region where any degree of happiness forms a part of their feelings, let it first of all fix upon him in whom all incommunicable attributes of deity inhere as his native right, from whence sprung his mediatorial glory,-from the agonies of the cross, ---not a gem sparkles in his diadem, but received all its divine hues from the obscurity of his birth, the ii. 16, 17, besides what is proved before.-The doctrine is this: That none of Adam's sons could or can be justified by any personal act of theirs, for their personal obedience or disobedience was never required as the conditions of life and death, upon which the judicable sentence of life or death eternal should be passed. But to clear God in this point of imputation, I answer, that the disobedi the meanness of his parentage, and the ignominy of his death. And who can tell but that the dif ferent orders of all the angels might have felt a tremulous distress when they saw their comrades implicated in the foulest guilt, and chained for ever in the darkest dungeon-until it was revealed to them, that they were elected in Christ. -Do you see the innumerable company of saints cloathed in white, they came out of the great tribulation--though plunged in many a dreadful ditch,-though their garments caused them to be abhorred while here, yet their robes were washed in the blood of the lamb; they walk with God, for they are worthy, and we believe that we shall be saved even as they, for every temptation of Satan, with all its concomitant circumstances, shall answer the end of their permissive existence.-Respecting all our trials, we can only say, "From all our affliction his glory shall spring, U 3 ence N: B: the notes terminate with these two poetical lines. ence of Adam is the proper act of their nature, though not the proper act of their persons, and so not imputed to their nature, for their flesh has eaten, but imputed to their persons, and that justly, being the proper act of their flesh. So if Adam had obeyed, his obedience would have been the proper act of their nature, and would have imputed to their persons, and that justly. Dogs may bark at the moon, but this will remain a truth. My doctrine is this,--that Adam was crowned with all the glory that was due to man, and must have had all the honor from his family, or all mankind, as he that should be honored with the glory. First. Of their health, peace, liberty, and Lordship over all the creatures. Secondly. With the glory of their Righteousness, holiness, occupation, life spiritual, temporal, and eternal. Now, as the apostle saith with respect to Melchizedeck, consider how great this man was, to whom the whole world must have brought their glory to. We have hitherto considered the glory of the man, let us now consider the glory of the woman, for she is the glory of the man; and though she had not the glory that her own personal obedience or disobedience should make her righteous or unrighteous in a judicable sentence;' I mean, to be justified or condemned in, as to eternal death, yet she she must have had power over her head, so far as to bring him under condemnation; but how is the mystery? First. I observe, she was in the transgression, 1 Tim. ii. 14, but the offence is Adam's, Rom. v. Secondly. She was in the transgression, that is, she had a hand in it, and the first hand too. Now, if we observe the Apostle to Tim. ii. 12, we find that he will not suffer a woman to teach not usurp authority over the man. First. Because the man was first formed. Secondly. Because the man was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgres sion. I observe, that her being deceived was the cause of her transgression, or going out of bounds,; but Adam was not deceived, therefore knew what he did, for deceit is in opposition to true knowledge; so that Adam did eat with knowledge, both of what he did eat it for, and of what would come of it, but Eve was deceived in both. Now, why Adam did eat shall be handled by and by; but I observe, that Eve is a part of Eve. 26 Adam's body, though not a part of his person. Eve transgressed, the body of Adam transgressed also, but it was his person that was the substituted head of all mankind, so that except he personally sins his posterity cannot be sinners; and I cannot see but if Eve had been part of his person as she was part of his body, that her disobedience must 57-Note have been imputed to all her posterity as well as unto Adam. Enough has been said before, but to clear it more, Was Christ's obedience imputed to us, and our disobedience imputed to him, in one covenant or two? If but one covenant we need not wonder at this, being that Adam was a figure of him that was to come, Rom, v 14. Now let us enquire into this mystery, to what end Adam eat, being he was not deceived? Some may say he was not deceived by the serpent, but he was deceived by his wife. I answer, had he been deceived by his wife, that was deceived by. the serpent, it had been all on, for he would have been deceived by the serpent, though more remotely; Eve by the serpent, and he by the serpent through Eve, which would have been all one; but he was not deceived, saith the Apostle, there. fore he must have eat to the intentment of the covenant itself, for had he eaten to any other end, but to draw his wife and all his posterity with him, he must have been deceived. Now, if he was not deceived, then he eat in the full intentment of the covenant, but he was not deceived, therefore if he eat in the full intentment of the covenant, he did eat to draw all men after him. Let us look to the antitype Christ, John xii. 32, And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto or after) me. Why not as though he had said, the first man did well to disobey, to draw |