1. On the first, it is the decision of the word of God, and of the church, that the depravity of human nature pervades it in its whole extent. Its rational powers are perverse in their application, or rendered impotent through sinful tendency; and all its moral faculties, in their habitual action, have become criminal, by excess in their pursuits, by defect in their principles, or their motives, or by misapplication in their objects. The first moments of existence are cer tainly not chargeable with actual crimes, but with such perversion of nature from its original rectitude, that its earliest propensities, emotions, and affections, are directed to wrong ends, or to those that are lawful in a vicious degree. And, however the conduct of mankind may, in many parts of it, be beneficial to their fellow men, and, in so far, worthy of ap probation, yet, in the sight of God, all acts are unholy in which the supreme desire of the soul in pursuing, and its sopreme end in performing them, is not to render obedience, and glory to him from whom all existence is derived.

2. With regard to the second question, if we mean to ask how an impure and depraved nature may be imparted to the posterity of Adam without involving a deep reproach on the Author of our being? It is sufficient to answer, as the suc cession of all animals is continued.

The whole nature of the

But in what manner this,

parent is imparted to the offspring. or any of the works of creation is produced, is utterly beyond our knowledge. The modus operandi is the secret of God.

But to say, as some weak men have done, in the hope of avoiding the impiety of making God the author of a sinful act, that God formed the soul pure, but uniting it to a sinful, disordered, or merely animal body, it has, by this junction, become necessarily infected with sin, is certainly an errant absurdity of pious folly. As if it were less contrary to the purity of the divine nature to form a being innocent, and immediately subject it to a state of necessary infection, than to suffer the laws of the universe freely to operate, by which an impure effect must proceed from an impure cause-a sinful progeny from sinful parents. Of much more moment is it to us, saith Saint Augustine, to understand how we are delivered from sin by Jesus Christ, than to be able to explain in what manner we have derived it from Adam.

OF THE

COVENANT OF GRACE.

1. OF VICARIOUS SUBSTITUTION, AND ATONEMENT.

FROM the declarations of holy scripture it appears that, immediately after the Fall, our condemned and unhappy parent, together with his whole race were, in the infinite mercy of God, transferred from the Covenant of Works, now broken, and cancelled as the condition of life, and placed under the protection of the Covenant of Grace, organized and administered under a Mediator, through whom their repentance might be accepted with their heavenly Father, and the Ho ly Spirit imparted to sanctify and restore their fallen nature. In treating of this covenant to which I now proceed, the first consideration which requires our attention, and that, indeed, which is fundamental to its existence, is the necessity of full and complete satisfaction for the sin of man. On no other condition could the holiness and justice of God receive the repentance of the sinner, and admit him to a new probation, on a new covenant, for eternal life. In discussing this subject, three preliminary questions present themselves to our inquiry. 1. In the first place, was satisfaction, or atonement for the sin of man indispensable to the existence of any

new covenant in his favour? 2. As man is utterly unable to offer an atonement adequate to the demerit of sin, is vicarious satisfaction, in the person of another, either possible, or just in itself, or useful in the administration of the divine government over mankind? 3. Could satisfaction offered by any being less than a divine person, be accepted in the room of the sinner?

OF THE NECESSITY OF ATONEMENT.

There are writers who affirm that Almighty God might by an act of sovereignty, have mercifully dispensed with any satisfaction for sin, and freely forgiven the offender, on his sincere repentance.-What God might, in sovereignty, have done, or could not, in consistency with the laws of eter nal justice, do, seems impossible to be wisely and safely determined by us, and cannot be decided without presumption. We are infinitely more concerned to understand what God hath actually done, and, from the fact, to pronounce upon its justice, and utility. I may, however, be permitted to observe, that this opinion seems to be founded on very inadequate apprehensions of the necessary nature, and the inflexible claims of his holiness. And there are many important considerations which render it reasonable to believe that the punishment of the sinner, or a vicarious satisfaction to the justice of the law, in the person of a mediator, in all respects competent to this offering, was an indispensable require