ly, with such a disease as this, let us take it where we may. And here we can see how wrong the proverb was, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' They meant, our fathers sinned and we have to suffer for it, though we are upright. The truth was, they both ate sour grapes, both they and their fathers. It would be wrong for children to suffer with their sinful parents, if they did not partake with them in their sin. It would be inconsistent with impartial justice for God to make us bear the misery of the fall, if we had not also received the rebellious spirit of it. And it was right for God to connect with Adam's apostacy the loss of holiness in all his posterity.

If there be any thing difficult in the divine conduct in this matter, it is in so ordaining, that Adam should communicate his sinful nature to his children: for surely we cannot say, that it is any more unjust to punish children when they are wicked, than to punish their wicked parents. But where is there any injustice in this divine appointment, that every thing should produce its like? God is under no obliga tion, unless it be by express covenant, to preserve any of his creatures in a state of holiness; but he is under a natural obligation, to render those happy, who remain holy. If God had been under a natural obligation, to preserve the holiness of his creatures, the fall of angels and of man would have been impossible. Their fall therefore proves, that God is under no such obligation to his creatures. In case our first

parents had remained obedient, would God have been under any obligation in point of justice, separate from an express covenant engagement, to have brought all their children into the world in a state of holiness? Is it not the natural prerogative of a Creator, to make such creatures as he pleases, if he does but treat each creature according to its nature and character. If it had been so, that holy Adam could have had unholy

children, I cannot see that there would be any injustice in their being punished, i. e. treated according to their character. Whether evil characters are formed by a divine efficiency, or a divine withdrawment, does not affect the subject before us. Whether it be one way, or the other, it makes no difference, when the character is formed. If God has a natural right to withdraw his special influence from holy creatures, and if the withdrawing will issue in their becoming sinful, then God has a natural right to form, and suffer to be formed just such characters, as will be for his glory. The forming of characters is not a thing which is to be examined in the light of justice, though it may suitably be tried in the court of wisdom; but the rewarding of characters already formed, is cognizable in the court where justice presides. There might have been a want of wisdom displayed in ordaining it so, that the first pair remaining obedient, should have had a sinful and miserable progeny, or that becoming disobedient, they should have one holy and happy; but separate from an express covenant, I cannot see, that either they, or their children could have complained of injustice: For, in the case supposed, God would treat every man according to his own work. If we do not grant that this prerogative, to form characters according to his own pleasure, belongs to the great Creator, it will be difficult to reconcile with justice the original depravity of all the sons and daughters of Adam. All that are born of

woman, the man Christ Jesus excepted, begin their existence in a state of total depravity. We ought to feel blame-worthy, because we are sinful, even without taking into view that we, being in the loins of our first father, were once in a better state.

We have been more particular in speaking upon the first covenant, because it is known, that some have thought the doctrine of original sin, coming as

a fruit of the apostacy of our first parents, is inconsistent with what is said in the prophecy of Ezekiel, about the child's not bearing his father's sin. I have also supposed, that if the covenant with Adam for himself and his posterity were to be properly understood, the covenant with Abraham for himself and his seed, and with other believers and their seed,.. would be greatly elucidated. Adam's covenant was a federal covenant, and so is Abraham's. The covenant with Adam was virtually this. Walk before me and be thou perfect, and I will be a God un-, to thee and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is the tenor and words of the covenant with Abraham. Both covenants, lay up good for the seed, upon conditions to be performed by their parents; yet in neither, could the seed enjoy the favor of God,, without personal holiness. Had Adam kept covenant, we have seen that the consequence would have been, his children would have been perfect. And of Abraham it is, said by the Most High, I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.? There are two points of difference in these covenants which now occur to mind. Adam's covenant not being ordained in the hands of a Mediator, proffered no good to himself or to his children on any condition short of perfect obedience; but in the covenant made with Abraham, God promises geat good to sinners, who repent and believe on his Son Jesus Christ. In the first covenant, Adam could not enjoy the divine favor himself, without doing that, which would ensure the happiness of his children; but in the covenant of grace, every true believer will be saved, but it is not every true believer, whose children will be saved with him. Though there are these dissimilarities; yet the covenants operate on the same general principle, of shaping the character of the child according to that of the parent. It is only in view of the

character of the child being shaped, by the character of the father, that the conduct of the father fixes the destiny of his child. Abraham's children could no more have the Lord for their God, without 'faith and obedience than any other children. Aud here we see what false notions the Pharisaic Jews had of this covenant, in the time of John and of Christ. They say, "We have Abraham to our father.' They intended to cover over all their impiety with the mantle of Abraham's covenant. Christ tells them, 'If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.' Their being destitute of Abraham's faith and works made it unsuitable, that they should plead an interest in the promises made to him and his seed.

It would sully the justice and purity of the Supreme. Being, if he suffered pious parents to take their wicked unconverted children to heaven. Pious parents, In the exercise of unfeigned love to God, would not wish it. But such parents may have great desires for the conversion of their children: They may long to have them saved, in such a way as to glorify, as well as enjoy God. And I do not see why God may not, without tarnishing his glory, or contradicting his most solemn declarations in the text and context, condescend to promise believers, whom he calls his jewels, his lambs, his hidden ones, that he will gratify them in these holy longings after the souls of their dear children. And be assured, christian parents, that there are none but holy longings, and boly yearnings over your children, to which God has ever deigned to make a promise. Graceless parents have selfish desires, that their children may not be sent to hell, but that they may be received to happiness when they die. Such parents, however, do not have earnest desires that their children may serve, please and glorify the blessed God, to all eternity. But the friends of God will desire, that their children may be saved to the praise of the glory of grace.

When the God of Abraham was manifest in the flesh and dwelt among men, he received into his arms and blessed all the little ones, which his pious friends brought to him for this purpose. Why is it not as consistent, that he should leave a standing promise with his church, that he will in all generations, bless all their children, which shall be presented to him in the arms of faith? To excite the faith of parents, to rouse up all their attention, and make them wrestlers in prayer, and to engage them in persevering faithfully in the holy education of their children, why may not he make a covenant, promising on his part, that he will add his blessing to their holy endeavors to disciple their children and bring them under the yoke of Christ? Why may he not make a covenant, to be a God unto them, and also to their seed after them, and make parental faithfulness the condition of claiming the promise for the seed? Why may he not to strengthen their faith in his promise, and also to seal their engagements concerning these precious immortal souls, command some token to be placed upon the children, to seal the compact? Did not the administering of the seal of circumcision to the children of Abraham, and of other believers, imply some good promised to them for these sealed children? Was it not so understood by the ancient church, and was it not so understood by the apostle, when he declared, that the Jews had much advantage, and circumcision much profit every way? And has not the administering of baptism to the infants of believers in Christ been almost universally considered by the christian church, as a token of some blessings contained in the covenant of grace for our little ones?* We have no

* This discourse takes infant baptism for granted, as the objectors have no controversy with the writer on this account. They agree with him in believing in the baptism of infants; but they think he makes it mean to . much.