This is clear. And this is the arguing of the Holy Spirit in the former case, and seems to me equally applicable in the latter. Accordingly, this argument hath been frequently made use of for this purpose, by many orthodox divines, and theological writers. But I am aware this objection may be started: "If the sin of Adam is imputed to us, be❝cause we were in his loins at the time of his disobedience; then, why are not the sins of our immediate parents reckoned ours, seeing we were in their loins before our birth, and while they com"mitted many sins? But the sins of our immediate "progenitors are not placed to our account ;* there fore, why should Adam's?" In answer to this objection we rejoin, and, there The Lord Secondly, That Adam was our covenant head, and, therefore, his sin is imputed to us; but our immediate parents are not covenant heads, fore, their sins are not charged upon us. God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eutest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Gen. ii. 16, 17. These words have the nature of a covenant; for here God gives man a command, and annexes a threatening to the violation of it, which implies that a promise was added to the ob * Ezek. xviii. 20. servation thereof. Adam actually consented to this covenant; he accepted the terms and conditions of it, and entered into it, not only for himself, but also for his natural progeny. Conseqently, if Adam had fulfilled the conditions of this covenant, all his children would have enjoyed the benefits of it; but since he broke the law God gave him, he involved not only himself, but all his offspring in eternal misery and destruction, i. e. rendered them justly obnoxious thereunto. We were all one in Adam and with him; in him legally, in regard of the stipulation and covenant between God and him, we were in him parties in that covenant, had interest in the mercy, and were liable to the curse which belonged to the breach of that covenant.* And herein appears the justice of God; for as on the one hand, if Adam had stood, áll men would have shared in the blessings of the covenant; so on the other, since he fell, it cannot be thought hard or unjust, that they all should be partakers of the curse and penalty thereof. If Adam had kept the covenant, men would have liked well enough to have been his companions in happiness; why then since he broke it, should they murmur or repine at their being followers of him in his misery? Does it not argue too much partiality to make a distinction here? If men admit one of these, why should they not admit the other? Are not these terms very fair and equitable? but then proud nature is ready * Sinfulness of Sin, by Bishop Reynolds. to ask, how could God make Adam our head in covenant without our consent? or how can we justly share in the penalties of a covenant to which we Inever consented? To solve this difficulty, let it be observed, that actual consent cannot be had in persons who do not exist. It may be asked then, could they be obliged without their consent? the answer is, Adam was the representative of all men, he consented, and so they are looked upon as consenting in him. Their consent, therefore, was included in his, and his act is imputed to them. Hence, they suffer the penal effects of his first transgression. Thirdly, God is sovereign of all: he created man at first, and he was at liberty to fix his happiness upon what terms and conditions he pleased. Since, therefore, our almighty Creator chose to appoint Adam to be a federal head for all the human race, so that if he stood, they should stand in him; if he fell, they should fall with him; we ought to submit our wisdom to the wisdom of God, and bow our wills to the sovereignty of his will. God was under no obligation to create man at all; and when he did create him, he placed him in what circumstances he thought best and it does not become such mortals, and withal such sinners as we, to cavil or find fault with the dispensations of our Maker. Yea, I believe, had it been possible for the whole bulk of mankind, to have been consulted upon this important affair, they would infinitely sooner have chose to have been created upon these conditions than not to have existed at all. Indeed, God could, (if he had pleased,) have prevented the fall of Adam; but his infinite wisdom did not think fit. The Lord knew, upon the whole, that by the fall of Adam, the divine glory and human happiness would be most promoted. The Lord brings light out of darkness, good out of evil. AC cordingly, by means of the lapse of our great ances-. tor, an effectual door is opened for the display of God's vindictive justice, and of his infinite mercy : the one upon those to whom the gospel is the savour of death unto death, the other upon those to whom it is the savour of life unto life. "Tis true, if we had stood in Adam, our happiness would have been great. But as we stand in Christ, our happiness is infinitely greater. We have no reason, therefore, to quarrel with God, for imputing Adam's sin unto us, but we ought to bless him for providing a Redeemer for us. The redemption of Christ, must needs silence all our complaints, and swallow up all our cavils and objections at once. Many preachers speak much of the corruption of human nature, and insist frequently and, earnestly upon that topic; they set forth the natural depravation of the soul, and our obnoxiousness to God's wrath upon that account. But then, they seldom mention the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Perhaps, then, it may be asked, of what use is this doctrine? it hath several uses: First, it shows the extreme misery and deplorable condition of man by nature, and so is a proper motive to humiliation and self-abasement. This will especially appear, if we consider how exactly we tread in the steps, and imitate the rebellion of our first parents. How often do we believe the devil before God? How often do we doubt of the truth of God's promises, and the execution of his threatenings! How basely are we enslaved by our sensual appetites ? especially how frequently are we drawn away by the lust of the eye* to covet forbidden fruit? and how common is it for men to destroy themselves by an inordinate fondness for wisdom? and how ready are we all to desire a thing, if for no other reason, yet for this, because it is forbidden us? Lastly, how greedily do men commit such sins as ruin not only themselves, but also hurt and destroy their posterity? All these are footsteps and traces of our forefather's apostacy. And ministers should perpetually show how Adam and his children resemble each other in wickedness. Secondly, preachers are to declare this doctrine because it greatly enhances the value of the gospel salvation, for the greater our misery, and the deeper our distress, the greater is the mercy of the Son of God manifested in delivering us. Thirdly, the imputation of Adam's sin and Christ's. righteousness run parallel each to the other, (as we * Gen. iii. 6. |