APOSTASY and the doctrines connected with that event. I need not repeat the terms employed in our Confession of Faith and Catechism, to express these doctrines, as these are familiar to you already; but will state my views of the subject in as simple a manner as possible.

At the creation of Adam, God entered into a covenant with him, regarding him as the head of the race, and suspending on his conduct, the holiness and consequent happiness, or the sinfulness and consequent unhappiness of all his descendants. In this transaction Adam is called a federal head, or representative, from the fact that his obedience or disobedience was to benefit or injure his posterity. Adam failed in the prescribed act of obedience, and thus not only forfeited the favour of God and became a depraved being, but agreeably to the terms of the covenant, brought all his posterity under the curse of God. Every individual of the race is thus regarded by God, as chargeable with the first sin of their representative, just as if they had individually committed it themselves. That is, the sin is imputed to them; it is set to their account; and in the eye of the law, they are guilty of it, or liable to its legal consequences. As a consequence of this sin, the whole race have become totally depraved, having lost their original righteousness and become corrupt in their whole nature. Having made this brief statement, I will now wait for your objec tions.

Parishioner. Your view of this subject is precisely the one which I had been accustomed to receive until important objections were suggested to my mind. And first permit me to inquire, what evidence you have that God ever entered into a covenant with Adam? I cannot find the terms covenant or representative in the whole transaction, neither can I see that God dealt with Adam in any other than a personal manner.

Pastor. Well then, let us ascertain what a covenant is. It is an agreement between parties, containing a stipulation of something to be performed, with the annexed conditions. of a promise and a penalty. Thus in the present case, God and Adam were the parties contracting; the duty or service required was abstinence from a particular fruit; the promise, evidently implied, was life and happiness in case of obedience; the penalty for disobedience, was death. These particulars evidently imply the idea of a covenant. Whether the terms themselves are found in the record is not mate

rial, if the idea is evidently conveyed. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and yet it is generally adopted by evangelical Christians to express a cardinal doctrine of Scripture. Paul in his comparison between Christ and Adam, proceeds on the assumption of a covenant; and Hosea alludes to it, as might be shown, when he says, "But they like men (in the margin, like Adam) have transgressed the covenant." Hosea vi. 7.

Parishioner. Permit me to interrupt you. You say a covenant implies an agreement between parties; but where have we the evidence that Adam expressed his consent? And even if he did, how do we learn that this covenant had respect to any but himself?

Pastor. As to his agreement, although not in so many words expressed, yet can we imagine any possible grounds on which it could have been withheld? He was a holy being; he had entire confidence in his Maker; and he could not have objected to the difficulty of the terms. God gave him access to all the trees of the garden except one, and merely required of him to abstain from that one. In the nature of things he could not have murmured at such an easy test of obedience. I will not urge, that God as a Sovereign had a right to demand his consent, but I do insist, that Adam could not have objected to a stipulation so reasonable and advantageous. Besides, if his consent had not been freely given, would he not have urged this after his transgression, as a reason why the penalty should not be exacted of him? This he might plausibly have done; yet, instead of thus expostulating, he attempted merely to excuse his disobedience, by pleading the enticement of Eve. Instead of saying, Lord, thou knowest I never consented to this arrangement, he merely urged that he failed on his part of it through strong temptation. So certain therefore was his concurrence, that there was really no necessity that it should be recorded.

The

But again, you ask, where is the proof that his act was to affect any other than himself! The event proves that it affected his posterity. Thus, since his failure of obedience, the curse threatened against him has been transmitted through all ages, to every individual of his race. earth was cursed, and all men suffer on that account; the peculiar curse pronounced against Eve in relation to pain. in child-bearing, affects her sex; the loss of God's favour, and the depravation of nature, were not confined to Adam,

but fall upon all his posterity. These facts certainly prove that Adam acted in a public character. But still further, the first promise of a Saviour, which was given immediately after Adam's fall, was certainly not confined to him. It had a reference to the race, as ruined by this act of the first man. If God had not foreseen that the whole family of mankind were to be involved in sin and misery, in consequence of this transaction, there would have been no propriety in this early announcement of the advent of a Saviour who was to become a propitiation for the sins of the world.

Parishioner. You say, that in consequence of Adam's representative character, his first sin was so imputed to all his posterity, that they are regarded as guilty of it; now it appears difficult for me to conceive, how the personal sin of Adam could become my personal sin, or how I could become criminally involved in it.

Pastor. You misapprehend my statement. I never supposed the possibility of any such transfer of moral character as you allude to. Adam's personal sin is not my personal sin, nor is his criminality in that sin, my crimi nality. This is no part of the faith of our church, although many, to serve a purpose, have so represented it. The true doctrine of imputation is, that agreeably to a divine constitution, the descendants of Adam are held legally responsible for his first sin, and are individually answerable for its consequences. The act by which he broke covenant was his own act, and cannot possibly be so transferred as to become the personal act of any other individual; the criminality of the act is also his own, and cannot be transferred; but, as that act was performed by him as a public person, it is legally reckoned to all whom he represented, and the penalty incurred by it, is exacted from them.

Parishioner. Still it appears to me that it would be unjust to charge to me the consequences of an act, in which I had no agency, and which was committed thousands of years before I was born.

Pastor. With our imperfect and partial view of God's arrangements, there are many occasions in which the charge of injustice may be urged with the same plausibility. Thus you might allege, that God was unjust in electing some to everlasting life, and in passing by others; and you might also say, he was unjust in making such wide dis

tinctions in the worldly conditions of men. Such charges, however, are always rashly made. But let us consider the charges in relation to the present transaction. By a legal arrangement, the justice and propriety of which are not questioned, a child is put under the care of a guardian, often without his consent, and yet he is bound to abide by the consequences of the acts of this guardian. In law, the acts of the guardian are the acts of the ward, and he is held answerable for them. Thus, also, the man who becomes security for another, in relation to a debt, is regarded by the law as answerable for the debt, and in case of the failure of the original debtor, he takes the place of the principal, and is treated exactly as if he himself had contracted the debt. This is illustrated in the case of Paul and Onesimus. (Philemon 18, 19.) An employer also becomes responsible for the acts of his agent; a country becomes liable for the acts of its ambassador at a foreign court; and, in our own land, although comparatively few have the right to vote for representatives in Congress, yet men, women, and children, are held alike responsible for the acts of their representatives. These few representatives may, for instance, declare war, which, in its consequences, may not only affect the lives of many, but the interests of every man, woman, and child in the nation. In all these cases, we have the idea of imputation, in which the acts of one man are reckoned to the account of those whom he represents, and yet we never hear the charge of injustice seriously urged against the law which has sanctioned this principle.

Parishioner. I confess that this view of the subject obviates in a great measure the objections which I had conceived against it; yet still, might not our relation to Adam be merely a natural one, such as that between son and father, and might not our sinfulness of character be merely the natural result of such a relation; just as the children of drunkards suffer poverty and disgrace from the intemperance of their parents?

Pastor. I have already shown that more than a natural relation subsisted between Adam and his posterity; but suppose your conjecture to be true, how would it alter the case? Would it not be as unjust in this case as in the other, that we should be made to suffer for the sins of another? Nay, would it not be much more strikingly unjust? For in the one case we would certainly suffer innocently, but in the other we would suffer according to a divine, and

therefore a just arrangement-just such an arrangement as we have already seen is recognized as wise and just, by all legal codes of civilized countries. Besides, this supposition of a mere natural relation, will not answer for want of analogy. Thus Adam sinned and his posterity without a single exception have become corrupt; but a drunkard sins, and yet his children are oftentimes temperate, respected, and prosperous,

Parishioner. This seems plausible, and yet I confess I should like additional proof of the existence and effects of this covenant relation.

Pastor. I would refer you then to Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chapter v. 12-21, in which, for the purpose of illustrating the doctrine of justification, a comparison is instituted between Christ and Adam, in their representative character; I say in their representative character, for in no other respect, as I conceive, could the comparison hold good; and this view is confirmed by the expression of the Apostle, in which he styles Adam the figure or type of him that was to come, evidently meaning Christ; and also to 1 Cor. xv. 45, in which Adam and Christ are respectively styled the first and last Adam, plainly referring to their public character, as standing at the head of their respective races. Adam represented the whole family of mankind, Christ the whole family of believers. As the first Adam brought death and woe, on all whom he represented, so the last Adam, or Christ, purchased life and immortality for all whom he represented.

Keeping this in view, we will now revert to the passage, Romans v. and examine it together. It reads thus:

14.

"12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 13. For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that is to come; 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift; for the judgment was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17. For if by one man's offence