i £ MAR 
 
 \ 4 . 
 
 X°/« 
 
 
 Sartin,'Barnes, 1796-1846. 
 
 A short treatise on the 
 imputation of Adam’s first 
 
 -- rr * * * *• - * - • - • *m 
 

 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I 
 

IMPUTATION 
 
 OF ADAM’S SIN. 
 

A 
 
 SHORT TREATISE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 IMPUTATION 
 
 OF 
 
 ADAM’S FIRST SIN TO HIS POSTERITY. 
 
 BY JAMES MARTIN, 
 
 Minister of the Gospel, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HOFFMAN AND WHITE. 
 
 1834 
 
Copy right secured according to Act of Congress. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The watchman on the walls of Zion is com¬ 
 manded, under the most fearful denunciation, 
 “ to blow the trumpet and warn the people/’ 
 on every approach of danger. In obedience 
 to this heavenly mandate, the Author, above 
 two years ago, was lead, in a particular man¬ 
 ner, to raise his warning voice against the 
 danger arising from the rapid propagation, 
 both from the pulpit and the press, of erro¬ 
 neous sentiments respecting the doctrine of 
 Original Sin. Having, carefully examined the 
 subject, with a special reference to the Imputa¬ 
 tion of Adam’s First Sin to his Posterity , 
 both, as revealed in the Scriptures, and as pre¬ 
 sented in the writings of some of the ablest 
 divines, he delivered to the people of his 
 charge, in the ordinary course of his minis' 
 trations, the substance of what appears in the 
 following Treatise. Afterwards, a consider¬ 
 able portion of the main argument was publish¬ 
 ed in numbers, in the Religious Monitor. 
 
VI 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The earnest solicitation of friends, in whose 
 judgment the Author greatly confides, has in¬ 
 duced him, though with reluctance, to present 
 the result of his labors to the public, in the pre¬ 
 sent form. The subject treated of is certainly 
 one of immense importance. But whether the 
 present attempt will have a beneficial result, in 
 checking error and promoting the truth, de¬ 
 pends upon the favor of Zion’s King. And to 
 Him and his attendant blessing, this little book, 
 designedly written in defence of His truth, is 
 hereby humbly and prayerfully commended. 
 
 Albany, June 20th, 1834. 
 
CONTENTS! 
 
 Page. 
 
 CHAPTER I.—Introductory remarks,••• IS 
 
 CHAPTER II.—Exegesis of Romans v. 12 
 — 19,.. 20 
 
 Sec. 1 .— Of the Connection and General 
 
 Scope of the Passage,. 21 
 
 Sec. 2.—Of the Parenthesis contained in 
 the Passage, according to the Common 
 
 Translation, .*. 24 
 
 Sec. 3.—Of the “One Man” spoken of, 
 and the Sin and Death which entered 
 
 by him,. 25 
 
 Sec. 4.—Of the passing of Death upon 
 
 all Men,. 29 
 
 Sec. 5.—The Apostle’s Proof of the fore¬ 
 going,. 31 
 
 Sec. 6.—Of the Resemblance between 
 
 Adam and Christ,. 37 
 
 Sec. 7.—Of the Contrast between Adam 
 and Christ,. 39 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTEXTS. 
 
 Page, 
 
 ►Sec. 8.— Of the Apostle’s conclusion in 
 
 the 18th verse,. 42 
 
 Sec. 9. —The Reason of the foregoing 
 Conclusion more explicitly stated,* • • • 45 
 
 CHAPTER III.— The foregoing exegesis 
 
 DEFENDED IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF 
 THE NEW HAVEN SCHOOL,.. 47 
 
 Sec. 1.—An Extract from the Christian 
 Spectator, with an Advertisement to 
 
 the Reader,. 47 
 
 Sec. 2.—Of a Misrepresentation con¬ 
 tained in the Extract,. 51 
 
 Sec. 3.—A Mistake corrected, in respect 
 to the meaning of the term “ Death,” 
 
 as used by the Apostle,. 53 
 
 Sec. 4.—Concerning the Statement, that 
 “Temporal Death forms no part of the 
 
 Legal Penalty,”.. *. 55 
 
 Sec. 5. —The Introduction of an “Econ¬ 
 omy of Grace,” no Proof of the Repeal 
 of any Part of the Legal Penalty,* * • ♦ 58 
 
 Sec. 6.—Proofs that Temporal Death 
 does belong to the Legal Penalty.* • • * 61 
 
 Sec. 7.—The Ante-Mosaic Period not 
 Peculiarized by the Fact, that “ There 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IX 
 
 Page, 
 
 was no Law threatening Death, as its 
 
 Penalty,”* . 6G 
 
 Sec. 8.—Temporal Death, under what¬ 
 ever Form it comes, Proves the Pre¬ 
 vious existence of Sin in its Subject,- 73 
 Sec. 9.—Of the Kind of Sin of which the 
 Apostle treats,. 77 
 
 CAPTER IV. —Adam the federal repre¬ 
 sentative of his POSTERITY,. 84 
 
 Sec. 1.—Of the Reality of a Federal 
 
 Transaction with Adam,. 8 b 
 
 Sec. 2.—Of the Representative Charac¬ 
 ter of Adam,... 93 
 
 Sec. 3.—The Representative Character 
 of Adam Proved from Romans, v. 12. 96 
 
 Sec. 4.—The Same Proved from 1. Cor. 
 
 xv. 22,. 98 
 
 Sec. 5. —The Same Proved from the 
 Special Notice which the Apostle takes 
 
 of the “One Offense,”. 100 
 
 Sec. 6.—The Same Proved from a Con¬ 
 sideration of the Representative Char¬ 
 acter of Jesus Christ, .. 102 
 
 Sec. 7.—The Same Proved from the 
 Comparison, drawn in Scripture, be- 
 
X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 tween Adam and Christ,.• • • * 103 
 
 Sec. 8.—The Same Proved from a Con¬ 
 sideration of the Moral condition of 
 Infants, • • • •... 110 
 
 CHAPTER V.— Imputation defined, and 
 
 THE POINT IN DEBATE PRESENTED, .. • 119 
 
 CHAPTER VI.— The imputation of adam ; s 
 
 FIRST SIN TO HIS POSTERITY PROVED, •. 1£8 
 
 S^c. 1.—The Doctrine Proved from the 
 Fact of Adam’s Sustaining a Repre¬ 
 sentative Character at the Time he 
 
 Sinned,.• • 128 
 
 Sec. 2.—From the Apostle’s Declaration, 
 
 Romans v. 19,. 129 
 
 Sec. 3.—From the Condemnation of all 
 Men on Account of Adam’s Sin,..... 132 
 
 CHAPTER VII.— The same subject con¬ 
 tinued, . 135 
 
 Sec. 1.—The Doctrine Proved from the 
 Universal loss of the Image of God,.. 135 
 Sec. 2.—From the Innate Corruption of 
 Human Nature,... • 153 
 
CONTENTS'. 
 
 XI 
 
 rage. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. —The same subject con¬ 
 tinued,. 166 
 
 Sec. 1.—The Doctrine Proved from the 
 Inability of Adam’s Descendants to keep 
 
 the Commandments of God,.* • • • 166 
 
 Sec. 2.—From the Sufferings and Death 
 
 oflnfants,.. 179 
 
 Sec. 3. —From the Salvation of Infants, 189 
 
 CHAPTER IX. —Objections answered, •• • 193 
 
 Sec. 1.—The Objection, that the Doc¬ 
 trine is contrary to Common Sense, 
 
 Answered, ..* 194 
 
 Sec. 2. —That it Militates against the 
 Justice of God, Answered,. 197 
 
 Sec. 3. —That it strips Man of a Free¬ 
 will and State of Probation, Answered, 206 
 Sec. 4. —That it divests Man of the Char¬ 
 acter of a Moral Agent, Answered, •• 2L1 
 Sec. 5. —That it is Contrary to the Divine 
 Declaration, that “the Son shall not 
 bear the Iniquity of the Father,” An¬ 
 swered,* •... 214 
 
 Sec. 6. —That it makes God the Author 
 
 of Sin, Answered,. 220 
 
 Sec. 7.-—That it is Inconsistent with the 
 
Xll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page, 
 
 Commandments of God, Answered,** 222 
 ►Sec. 8.—That it Contradicts the very 
 
 Nature of Sin which Consists in Vol¬ 
 untary Action, Answered,. 226 
 
 Sec. 9. —The Objection, that Original Sin 
 cannot be Repented of, Answered, • • • 228 
 
 CHAPTER X.—The conclusion,*.235 
 
A SHORT TREATISE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 IMPUTATION OF ADAM’S FIRST SIN 
 TO HIS POSTERITY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 i 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The term original sin, was first introduced by 
 Augustine, in his controversy with the Pelagians, 
 as being a convenient and significant name for an 
 article of truth, which had not till that time been 
 controverted in the Christian Church. But, al¬ 
 though Augustine ably defended the doctrine of 
 the imputation of Adam’s first sin to his posterity, 
 yet by the term “ original sin,” he only designated 
 the innate corruption of human nature; and he so 
 designated it, not merely to express its derivation 
 from our first original, but as being itself the ori¬ 
 gin , or fountain, from which proceed all actual 
 transgressions. By the early Reformers, this term 
 was generally used in the same restricted sense— 
 the imputation of the first sin being maintained by 
 them under a distinct head of doctrine. The term, 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 however, soon came to be used in a more exten¬ 
 sive sense, including both the imputation of the 
 first sin, and also the corruption of nature conse¬ 
 quent upon that imputation. And lest there should 
 be any confusion of ideas, or any subterfuge for 
 opponents, created by such a comprehensive use 
 of the term, it was distinguished into “ original sin 
 imputed,” and “ original sin inherent”—a distinc¬ 
 tion which has ever since been carefully observed 
 by the generality of Calvinistic writers upon the 
 subject. And the observance of this distinction is 
 very necessary. For, there are many, who pro¬ 
 fess to hold the doctrine of Original Sin, who, 
 when they come to explain themselves, only mean 
 “original sin inherent,” or native corruption, total¬ 
 ly renouncing the idea of “original sin imputed,” 
 or the imputation of Adam’s sin, as the ground of 
 that corruption. When, therefore, we speak of 
 Original Sin, in the following Treatise, without 
 any qualification, we would be understood as in¬ 
 cluding both these ideas. 
 
 Various have been the opinions of professed 
 Christians in relation to Original Sin. The first 
 departure from the Orthodox faith, on this subject, 
 was made by Pelagius, about the beginning of the 
 fifth century. Although, there had existed, in the 
 church, disputes respecting almost all the other 
 
15 
 
 heading doctrines of Christianity, yet history gives 
 us no hint of any discrepancy on this subject, until 
 the time just specified. Pelagius, however, afid 
 his followers, fiercely assailed the received doe- 
 trine of the church on this head, boldly maintain¬ 
 ing, on the contrary, that man, as born into the 
 world, neither possessed a corrupted nature, nor 
 was chargeable with the guilt of Adam’s sin. This 
 heresy, through the energy and zeal of AttGtrsTiNfr, 
 and other champions of the truth, was soon con¬ 
 demned by various ecclesiastical councils. But, 
 although the doctrine of Original Sin was, at that 
 time, triumphantly maintained by the church, yet 
 during the long night of Papal darkness, which 
 succeeded, it became corrupted to such a degree, 
 that at the commencement of the Reformation, it 
 was, in the mouths of Papists, an entirely different 
 doctrine, from that which Augustine had so ably 
 defended. At that period the general belief in the 
 Church of Rome was, that the ill-desert of Adam’s 
 sin was not imputed to his posterity, but only an 
 exposure or liability to the endurance of evils; and 
 that, although man was now born destitute of po¬ 
 sitive holiness, yet he possessed no contrary habit 
 of sin. Or, if it was allowed, that there was any 
 thing sinful about the infant seed of Adam, the 
 early administration of Baptism was supposed to be 
 
16 
 
 sufficient to wash it entirely away. In reforming 1 , 
 however, the doctrines of the church from the 
 gross corruptions which a dark age had heaped 
 upon them, the early Reformers were at particular 
 pains to restore the doctrine of Original Sin to its 
 primitive purity. But soon new and deadly ene¬ 
 mies to this doctrine sprung up. The Socinians 
 adopted the errors of Pelagius. Even the Ana¬ 
 baptists derided this doctrine as “the figment of 
 Augustine.” The Arminians followed the foot¬ 
 steps of the Socinians^ and contended, with them, 
 “that man had lost nothing by the fall , had in¬ 
 curred no damage by the fall” After this, Qua¬ 
 kers and other fanatics sprung up amidst the Re¬ 
 formed churches, embracing the same perverted 
 and anti-scriptural sentiments. The Wesleyan 
 Methodists, though on the whole Arminian in 
 sentiment, nevertheless, acknowledged a sinful 
 corruption of nature, with a will, however, left free 
 to the choice of good : But in regard to the guilt 
 of Adam’s first sin, so far as it had any bearing 
 upon his descendants, they maintained that it was 
 taken away by the death of Christ. There are 
 many in this country, who, though they discard 
 “ original sin imputed,” nevertheless maintain “ori¬ 
 ginal sin inherent,” or an entire corruption of na¬ 
 ture, And, in this respect, they are the followers 
 
17 
 
 of one Placauis, (de la Place,) a French Professor, 
 whose heresy was condemned by a National Sy¬ 
 nod, held at Charenton, a. d. 1644, in these words: 
 “The Synod do condemn this doctrine, as it so re¬ 
 stricts the nature of original sin to the hereditary 
 corruption of Adam’s posterity, as to exclude the 
 imputation of that first sin, by which Adam fell; 
 and do, therefore, determine, that Pastors, Pro¬ 
 fessors, and all others, be subjected to ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal censures, who, in discoursing on this doctrine, 
 have departed from the common sentiment of the 
 Reformed Churches, all of which have as yet ac¬ 
 knowledged both that corruption and this imputa¬ 
 tion, as descending to all the posterity of Adam.” 
 This same doctrine, however, which was thus so¬ 
 lemnly condemned by a Protestant Synod, in ac¬ 
 cordance with the universal sentiment of the Re¬ 
 formed Churches, has long existed among us, un¬ 
 der the protecting and nourishing embrace of the 
 Hopkinsians. But even that remaining portion of 
 truth, on this subject, which the Hopkinsian tenet 
 preserved to us, has been meataphysically murdered 
 by the introduction of a new system ; which, in¬ 
 deed, is not a new system, but an old system, which 
 had its rise in the dark minds of a Pelagius and 
 Socinus. This New Light, or New School sys¬ 
 tem, as it is familiarly termed, and which is very 
 
18 
 
 Extensively embraced by Congregationalists and 
 Presbyterians, throughout our country, repre¬ 
 sents mankind as born into the world, to be neither 
 holy nor unholy, neither charged *with Adam’s 
 guilt, nor tinctured with any innate corruption; 
 but placed, at the same time, under such a divine 
 constitution, as will secure in them, the moment 
 they arrive at the period of moral agency, a sinful 
 choice; which sinful choice is made essential to 
 the very being of sin. To this catalogue of opin¬ 
 ions respecting Original Sin, it may be added, that 
 among those who would be esteemed orthodox upon 
 the subject, and firm adherents to the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith and Catechisms, there are 
 many, who give such an explanation of the doc¬ 
 trine, as entirely destroys it, so far as the u impu¬ 
 tation of Adam’s first sin” is concerned. Profess¬ 
 ing to believe, that “ the guilt of Adam’s first sin is 
 imputed to all his posterity,” by guilt, they only 
 mean a liability or exposure to punishment, entirely 
 excluding the idea of ill-desert; and hence, they 
 coincide, very exactly, with the doctrine of the Pa¬ 
 pists, as before noticed. And as this is the way in 
 which some individuals, who would be considered 
 at the head of Orthodoxy, in the General Assembly 
 of the Presbyterian Church, hold to t he imputation 
 of the guilt of Adam’s sin, as mentioned in their 
 
19 
 
 Subordinate Standards, it will be noticed more par¬ 
 ticularly afterwards. 
 
 Such, then, are some of the sentiments which 
 have been, and still are, entertained, on the very 
 important subject of Original Sin. And, indeed, 
 it may be safely affirmed, that at no former period 
 of the Church, at least since the days of the Re¬ 
 formation, has this doctrine been so extensively 
 corrupted, as at the present. And since it is the 
 doctrine of “original sin imputed,” which is so 
 obnoxious to the multitude, so hated, derided and 
 rejected, it is proposed in the following Tteatisk 
 to illustrate and establish this doctrine; and in so 
 doing, the truth of “ original sin inherent” will also, 
 at the same time, be confirmed. 
 
 / 
 
20 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 EXEGESIS OF ROMANS V. 12 - 19 . 
 
 Before proceeding directly to the execution of 
 the purpose intended, and as a proper foundation 
 of the whole discussion, a brief exegetical view 
 shall be taken of the following interesting portion 
 of Divine Revelation: 
 
 Rom. v. 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 im¬ 
 puted when there is no law. 
 
 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over 
 them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s trans¬ 
 gression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 
 
 15. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if 
 through the offense 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 
 offenses unto justification. 
 
 17. For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much 
 more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of 
 righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ:) 
 
 18. Therefore, as by the offense of on & judgment came upon all 
 men to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the 
 free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 
 
 19. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sin¬ 
 ners ; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
 
 This portion of God’s Book, ever since it was 
 written, has been considered by the advocates of 
 the doctrine of Original Sin, as decisive on that 
 subject. And indeed if that doctrine be not taught 
 in this place, at, least so far as it regards “ the impu¬ 
 tation of Adam’s first sin to his posterity,” we 
 
21 
 
 might the more readily bear with persons for not 
 finding it elsewhere taught in the Holy Oracles. 
 It behooves, therefore, every friend of truth to 
 study this passage with an unprejudiced mind, 
 with prayerfulness and care, that he may under- 
 stand and “keep the sayings” of the Spirit of truth, 
 which it contains. 
 
 Sec. 1 . —Of the Connection and General Scope of 
 
 the Passage. 
 
 The passage, above quoted, is united to its pre¬ 
 ceding context by the connecting particle “where¬ 
 fore.”* The precise idea which forms the basis of 
 the connection is not so obvious. There does not 
 appear to be any reason advanced immediately be¬ 
 fore, from which this passage can be regarded as a 
 legitimate conclusion ; nor any reason contained in 
 the passage itself, to which this conjunctive parti¬ 
 cle, as is frequently the case, can have a prospect¬ 
 ive reference. We are inclined, therefore, to re¬ 
 gard this particle to be here used by the Apostle, 
 simply for the purpose of giving intimation that he 
 was about to sum up and draw to a close the whole 
 discourse contained in the preceding part of the 
 epistle ; much in the same manner that the phrase 
 
 # (ha rouro. 
 
22 
 
 u on the whole then,” is used by us in similar cases. 
 Accordingly, we consider the verses quoted as re¬ 
 duplicating, not only upon the preceding discus¬ 
 sion respecting justification, but also upon what 
 had been proved in the first part of the epistle, con¬ 
 cerning the universal guilt and condemnation of 
 mankind. And as the Apostle had said nothing 
 there , in relation to the manner in which guilt and 
 condemnation had originally entered into the world, 
 he here explicitly states it, and that for the particu¬ 
 lar purpose also, of explaining the manner in which 
 justification comes to believing sinners by Jesus 
 Christ. It does, indeed, appear manifest, from the 
 matter and structure of the passage, that the great 
 and leading object of the Apostle, in it, is to ex¬ 
 plain the manner , in which the righteousness of 
 Christ comes to be the ground of a sinner’s justifi¬ 
 cation before God; or how ungodly and condemned 
 sinners become righteous through his righteous- 
 , ness. And this he does by comparing it with the 
 manner *, in which sin and condemnation entered into 
 the world by Adam. For had not sin and con¬ 
 demnation come by Adam, there would have been 
 no occasion for righteousness and justification, 
 coming by Jesus Christ. The matter appears to 
 stand thus—the Apostle had been treating largely 
 of the doctrine of justification, and had fully estab- 
 
23 
 
 iisiied the point, that it is not by works , but by faith f 
 that any child of Adam can become justified in the 
 sight of a holy God. But this free justification, 
 we are told, is owing to the finished work of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Although persons are “jus¬ 
 tified freely by grace,” yet it is “ through the re¬ 
 demption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath 
 set [forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
 blood.” (Chap. iii. 24.) In the first and eleventh 
 verses of this chapter, we are said to have “peace 
 with God,” and to receive “ the atonement” (re¬ 
 conciliation) “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 Thus, the Apostle had shown, that justification, 
 with all its blessed consequences, comes to us by 
 and through our only Mediator, Christ Jesus. To 
 this point he had conducted the discussion. Now 
 a question arises, or an objector may be supposed 
 to ask it, by way of cavil: How, or in what way, 
 can ungodly sinners, without any meritorious do¬ 
 ings of their own, obtain justification through the 
 obedience of another, even Jesus Christ? The 
 Apostle, in conclusion , will answer this question ; 
 which he does by referring to the case of sin and 
 condemnation entering into the world by Adam. 
 ‘‘Wherefore,” as to the manner in which right- 
 eousness comes to us for justification by Jesus 
 Christ, it is the same “as by one man sin entered 
 
24 
 
 into the world, and death by sin, and so death pass¬ 
 ed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” &c. 
 
 Sec. 2. —Of the Parenthesis contained in the Pas¬ 
 sage , according to the Common Translation, 
 
 It will be perceived, that according to the pre¬ 
 sent translation, a comparison is begun in the 12th 
 verse, which is left uncompleted. For the other 
 part of the comparison, termed the reddition , our 
 translators refer us to the 18th verse, having mark¬ 
 ed all the intervening words as a parenthesis. The 
 ellipsis may, indeed, be supplied from the latter 
 part of that verse ; but as that verse forms a ge¬ 
 neral conclusion from the foregoing, and contains 
 in itself a complete comparison of the same im¬ 
 port, and as it presents no grammatical connection 
 with the 12th, we think the intervening verses 
 should not be regarded as parenthetical. On the 
 contrary, they contain in themselves several dis¬ 
 tinct propositions and homologous comparisons, 
 all bearing directly upon the general argument. 
 It is no unusual thing in scripture, to have a com¬ 
 parison with only one side of the resemblance 
 stated, especially when the other side is so obvi¬ 
 ous, that it cannot be mistaken. (See 1 Tim. i. 3.) 
 Hence the scope of the Apostle must be consulted 
 in order to supply the ellipsis in this 12th verse. 
 
V 
 
 25 
 
 \ 
 
 And by attending to what goes before and what 
 follows, there is no difficulty in forming the true 
 supplement;—which may be done as has already 
 been stated—“Wherefore,” justification comes to 
 us by Christ, in the same manner, “as by one man 
 sin entered into the world and death by sin,” Sic. 
 Or the sentence may be completed thus—“as by 
 one man sin entered,” Sic., so by one man, Jesus 
 Christ, righteousness entered into the world, and 
 life by righteousness, and so justification unto life 
 passes upon all believers, for that they are all made 
 righteous in Him. If this be the doctrine of the 
 context, in relation to justification, the Apostle 
 obviously designed, that the comparison should be 
 completed in these or similar terms. And indeed 
 the meaning would not be materially changed, if 
 the verse were regarded as expressing a perfect 
 comparison, and read thus: “ Wherefore, as by 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
 sin, even so , or .so also,* death passed upon all 
 men,” Sic. 
 
 Sec. 3. —Of the “ One Mari' spoken of and the 
 Sin and Death which entered by him. 
 
 By the “one man” here mentioned, Adam is un- 
 
 *' xwt ouVwg being used for ourw xai. 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 questionably intended. It was by him that sin was 
 introduced into the world of mankind. Death is 
 here presented as the concomitant of sin; but it is 
 stated in the 14th verse, that “ death reigned from 
 Adamsin, therefore, must have commenced its 
 reign with Adam, and as he was the first of men, 
 he must be the “ one man” here intended, by whom 
 “ sin entered into the world.” Indeed, every 
 doubt in regard to the particular person here 
 meant, is completely removed by the Apostle’s de¬ 
 claration to the Corinthians, that “in Adam all 
 die.” 
 
 The term sin used in this verse, does not relate, 
 so much, to sin in general, as to some particular 
 sin, called emphatically, in the original, “ the sin,” 
 the great, the mother sin. All manner of sin did, 
 indeed, enter in by the door of Adam ; but the 
 Apostle here refers to the first sin , that entered 
 into the world ; for, he adds, “ and death by sin.” 
 Now it is evident, that death was threatened 
 against the very first sin of Adam. Accordingly, 
 when the Apostle asserts, that “ by one man sin 
 entered into the world, and death by sin,” he ma¬ 
 nifestly speaks of the first sin of Adam, his first dis¬ 
 obedience, his eating of the forbidden fruit. For 
 by that act of transgression, it was, that death en : 
 tercd into the world. 
 
27 
 
 The term death , in this place, is not to be con¬ 
 sidered as simply denoting “natural death.” It is 
 here put for the whole penalty threatened against 
 transgression. It was said to Adam, in relation to 
 “ the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,”— 
 “ in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely 
 die.” The death then threatened, is that , which 
 the Apostle here declares to have entered “ by 
 sin.” Now natural death forms but a very unim¬ 
 portant part of the divine penalty—the dissolution 
 of the union between soul and body is hardly wor¬ 
 thy of being mentioned, when compared with the 
 full amount of evil embraced by the term death , as 
 denounced against man’s disobedience. The want 
 of original righteousness, corruption of nature, 
 loss of God’s favor, loss of all communion with 
 him, disability, misery, eternal torment, these are 
 the bitter ingredients of that death, which was 
 threatened, and which entered into the world “by 
 one man’s sin.” By death, then, wherever found 
 in this context, we are not to understand so much 
 a natural as a spiritual death. It is the penalty 
 with which God has sanctioned his holy law, that 
 is intended. This is evident, from the contrast, 
 which is repeatedly made in this passage, between 
 life and death. If the life spoken of, signifies a 
 spiritual life , and of this there can be no doubt, 
 
28 
 
 then the death, to which it stands 'opposed, must 
 signify a spiritual death. In the 17th verse, the 
 death whicli reigns “ by one man’s offense,” is con¬ 
 trasted with the life, which believers receive “ by 
 one, Jesus Christ.” In the 18th verse, the con¬ 
 demnation , (to wit, of death,) which comes “by 
 the offense of one,” is opposed to the justification 
 of life , which comes as a free gift, “by the right¬ 
 eousness of one.” The 21st verse, presents the 
 same contrast in the most striking manner—“ That 
 as sin hath reigned un^o death, even so might 
 grace reign through righteousness unto eternal 
 life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.” And again in 
 the next chapter, at the £3d verse, similar language 
 is employed—“The wages of sin is death, but the 
 gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord.” Now, it cannot reasonably be sup¬ 
 posed, that the Apostle uses the word death in a 
 more restricted, or less significant sense, in any 
 one part of this context, than he does in those just 
 specified. Hence, when he tells us, that “by sin 
 death entered into the world,” he must mean that 
 death which is the full “ wages of sin,” and which 
 is the very opposite of that gift of God which is 
 “ eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 
 
29 
 
 Sec. 4. —Of the passing of Death upon all Men» 
 
 But notwithstanding that the penalty, death , 
 entered by the first sin of Adam, he was not its 
 only subject; it did not stop with him ; it “ pass¬ 
 ed upon all men.” And it so passed, as it entered, 
 death entered by the sin of one man, “ and so [that 
 is, by the sin of one man,] death passed upon all 
 men.” It passed (Si ?jX0sv) through him to (sig) 
 all men. This action is spoken of as already com¬ 
 pleted. It is not said, death will pass, but death 
 passed upon all men. And if we inquire after the 
 particular time when this happened, it was, when 
 “ by one man sin entered into the world.” But as 
 the penalty, in its full extent, has not been actual¬ 
 ly endured by all men, some having been pardoned 
 and saved, and millions of others being yet un¬ 
 born, the meaning must be, that all became, from 
 that moment, “ dead in law,” or that a sentence ot 
 death was then judicially passed upon all. But as 
 this could not have taken place in justice, but upon 
 the supposition, that all were involved in guilt, 
 and thus rendered obnoxious to the penalty, the 
 Apostle adds, “for that all have sinned.” Here 
 he assigns the reason why “ death passed upon all 
 men.” And it by no means affects the meaning of 
 this clause, whether we rest in the present trans- 
 
 S* 
 
J 
 
 30 
 
 ]ation of it, or adopt the marginal reading, “in 
 whom all have sinned.” This latter is the more 
 literal translation of the original, and was general¬ 
 ly adopted by the ancient fathers, as also by most 
 of the Reformers. The only difference, however, 
 between the two readings is, that while the one as¬ 
 serts, in so many words, that all men sinned in 
 Adam, the other implies this by necessary infe¬ 
 rence. For if, injudicial procedure, sin must have 
 precedence of the penalty, and if at some former 
 period of time, death, the penalty of the divine 
 law, passed judicially upon all men, and as all men 
 had not then sinned personally, not having, as yet, 
 been brought into existence, it follows that all 
 must have sinned in Adam. The opponents of the 
 doctrine of Original Sin prefer the common trans¬ 
 lation of this clause. The other, however, may 
 justly be regarded as entitled to the preference. 
 Because, of the two, it is the more easy and natu¬ 
 ral rendering; especially, when it is considered, 
 that the words “and so,” or “even so,” require a 
 repetition of the words “ by one man,” to complete 
 the sentence : and had this implied repetition been 
 expressed by the Apostle, perhaps there never 
 would have been any dispute respecting the true 
 rendering of the clause in question. Let the el¬ 
 lipsis, then, be supplied, and the verse will une- 
 
31 
 
 quivocally read as follows: “Wherefore, as by 
 one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
 sin, and so, (or even so,) death passed upon all 
 men, by that one man , in whom all have sinned." 
 And besides, this reading seems to express more 
 forcibly the mind of the Apostle, as intended in the 
 context; and surely we are bound to give to the 
 language of any writer its greatest force in support 
 of his declared sentiments. And why should the 
 declaration, that “ all mankind sinned in Adam, 5 ' 
 be pronounced more harsh and inconsistent than 
 the following?— “In Adam all die.” (1 Cor. xv. 
 22.) “Levi paid tithes in Abraham.” (Heb. vii. 
 9.) “God hath raised us up together, and made 
 us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” 
 (Eph. ii. 6.) he. 
 
 Sec. 5 . —The Apostle's Proof of the foregoing. 
 
 But is it a fact, that the all men , spoken of in 
 this verse, includes the whole human family? The 
 opponents of the doctrine of imputation will not 
 allow, that the terms all men and all designate, in 
 this place, all mankind universally. They restrict 
 these terms to such as have sinned actually. But, 
 we apprehend, that the Apostle’s express design, 
 in the next two verses, is to prove that all men. 
 without any exceptions, sinned in Adam, Accord- 
 
 c 
 
32 
 
 
 ingly he fixes upon a period, when, if ever, such 
 exceptions must have existed; viz : the period be¬ 
 tween Adam and Moses, when the law possessed 
 a comparative obscurity, there not being that clear 
 external dispensation of it, as was the case after¬ 
 wards. Now, it is an obvious dictate of reason, 
 that when there is no laiv , there can he no imputation 
 of sin; for sin must be imputed according to the 
 rule of law. But let none maintain, that Adam’s 
 breaking of the law of God annihilated it, until it 
 was afterwards given by Moses, and that, conse¬ 
 quently, during that period, there could be no sin 
 imputed, there being no rule, according to which, 
 it might, in justice, be imputed.' For the Apostle 
 plainly affirms the contrary. He says, (v. 13,) 
 “ For until the law, [that is, before it was given 
 by Moses] sin was in the world.” During all that 
 period of more than twenty-five hundred years sin 
 existed. Consequently there was also a law in 
 existence, even the moral law, which Adam had 
 violated : “ For sin is not imputed when there is 
 no law.” But sin was imputed during that period; 
 for, adds the Apostle, “nevertheless death reigned 
 from Adam to Moses.” (v. 14.) And surely, if 
 the penalty reigned, sin, the cause of it, must have 
 existed, and also the law, according to which, the 
 penalty was inflicted. Now the Apostle will ad- 
 
vnit of no exception, as to the extent of the reign 
 of the penalty, during the period which preceded 
 the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. He de¬ 
 clares, that u death reigned from Adam to Moses, 
 
 EVEN OVER THEM THAT HAD NOT SINNED AFTER THE 
 
 similitude of Adam’s TRANSGRESSION/’ Infants, 
 no doubt, are here characterised. For whom else 
 can the Apostle mean ? During the period specified, 
 he intimates, that some had sinned u after the simili¬ 
 tude of Adam’s transgression,” and others had not. 
 This his language evidently conveys. For in saying 
 that “ death reigned even over them that had not 
 sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transsfres- 
 sion,” he plainly intimates, that others had so 
 sinned. By Adam’s transgression, therefore, he 
 cannot mean the simple act of his eating of the for¬ 
 bidden fruit; for none ever sinned, after the simi¬ 
 litude of his transgression, in this way, by person¬ 
 ally partaking of that fruit; but he means certain 
 qualities of that act, which rendered it a sinning 
 actually and voluntarily against God. And in this 
 way, all his adult offspring sin after the similitude 
 of his transgression. They sin actually and vo¬ 
 luntarily. But the case is different with infants : 
 they are incapable of sinning in this manner:* 
 
 * Since this Treatise was written, Dr. Spring, of New-York, 
 has published A Dissertation on Native Depravity, in which he ad- 
 
34 
 
 they are, therefore, intended by the Apostle, by 
 “them that had not sinned after the similitude of 
 Adam’s transgression.” And yet it is affirmed, 
 
 vances an entirely new theory in relation to the moral condition 
 of infants; viz: that they are guilty of actual sin from the first 
 moment of their birth. This is not only a novel, but a most extra¬ 
 ordinary sentiment. We do not recollect to have ever seen or 
 heard any thing like it; except that among the Jews there were 
 some who held that infants committed actual sin before they were 
 born. The Dr. learns from the Bible, (what every person ought 
 to learn from it,) that infants are really sinners as soon as they 
 are born ; but he cannot see any other way in which they can be 
 so, save by the commission of actual sin. Having rejected the 
 avowed doctrine of his own church, respecting the imputation of 
 Adam’s sin to his posterity, and the consequent inborn corruption 
 of human nature, he is forced to take the position he does, in order 
 to account for that sinfulness of condition which the scriptures 
 ascribe to infants: And hence, although he uses considerable se¬ 
 verity against the divines of the New-Haven school, the differ¬ 
 ence between him and them is scarcely perceptible, unless it be 
 that he fixes the time when infants begin to commit actual sin, a 
 little earlier than they do; both parties harmoniously agreeing 
 that “ there is no other sin in the empire of Jehovah.” Indeed, 
 the New-Haven divines, in their Review of the Dissertation, tell 
 us, that the only point of difference between him and themselves 
 is, “ that while he maintains that infants knowingly and volun¬ 
 tarily transgress law at the instant of their creation, they have 
 neither denied or affirmed this position.” No great difference, 
 truly 1 
 
 We agree with the Dr. in maintaining, that infants, from the 
 moment they are created human beings, or in other words, from 
 the moment in which the union of soul and body is constituted, 
 (though we would not confine that to the moment of their birth, 
 
35 
 
 that death reigned even over them. But, if they 
 were made subjects of the penalty threatened 
 against sin, the Righteous Judge must have re- 
 
 as he does,) become the subjects of law and possess a moral cha¬ 
 racter : But they may be all this without possessing an immediate 
 fitness for the commission of actual sin. We could also agree 
 with him in calling infants, inasmuch as they possess human 
 souls, intelligent beings ; provided the term “ intelligent” be ta¬ 
 ken passively, and not actively: that is, taken for the faculty, and 
 not for the act of intelligence: For a faculty may long exist, be¬ 
 fore it performs any of its appropriate functions. In a word, we 
 agree with Dr. S. in ascribing to the souls of infants all the es¬ 
 sential powers or faculties which belong to the human soul: For 
 if a soul be divested of its essential properties, it is no longer a 
 soul—any more than a block of marble would be a block of mar¬ 
 ble if stripped of its essential attributes of length, breadth, thick¬ 
 ness and solidity. But we maintain, in opposition to him, that a 
 soul may possess all its essential faculties, without having those 
 faculties actually discharging their peculiar functions. Their ap¬ 
 propriate functions may not be exercised immediately, any more 
 than the bodily organs do not all immediately perform their pro¬ 
 per functions. The new born infant possesses all the organic 
 bodily parts of a perfect man; but these are not at once developed 
 in appropriate acts. It possesses legs, but it does not walk; 
 arms, but it does not assist itself; organs of speech, but it does 
 not talk, &e. In like manner we contend that the infant, though 
 possessing a soul, and consequently its essential moral powers , 
 does not as soon as born exercise those powers in voluntary 
 transgression of the law of God. The Dr.’s arguments to the 
 contrary are far from being convincing. They are all based upon 
 the assumption, that because infants have souls, those souls must 
 be exercised, either in the way of obeying or disobeying the moral 
 law of God. There is one text of scripture without refering to 
 
yarded them as being chargeable with sin.- And 
 since they had committed no sin in their own per¬ 
 sons, they must have committed it in a representa¬ 
 tive, even in Mm, by whom sin and death entered 
 into the world. Besides, it is not a mere natural 
 death, that the Apostle speaks of, as thus reigning 
 over infants, (though this would be sufficient to 
 prove them sinners by Adam,) but, as has been 
 before shown, death , the 'penalty of the divine law, 
 spiritual death by way of eminence. This death 
 reigned over every one of them, and none of them, 
 though dying in infancy, could have escaped from 
 
 any other; which, we think, entirely overthrows the Dr.’s posi¬ 
 tion. The distinguished child, spoken of in the seventh chapter 
 of Isaiah, is represented in the 16th verse, as existing for a time 
 after his birth, without having the knowledge to refuse evil and 
 choose good—“Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and 
 choose the good,” &c. Choosing and ref using are acts of the will. 
 Infants, according to Dr. S., sin voluntarily , that is, with the con¬ 
 sent of the will—they choose the evil and refuse the good. Yet 
 this text explicitly declares, concerning the extraordinary child 
 alluded to, that some time would intervene between his birth and 
 his knowing to refuse the evil and choose the good. And surely 
 none will pretend to say, that that child was less quick of appre¬ 
 hension than other children ordinarily are. 
 
 Some may consider, that we might have suffered the novel opin¬ 
 ion of this writer to pass unheeded; because, as has often been 
 said, few, if any, will be found to adopt it besides the author 
 himself. We do not entirely think so. For we do not see, that 
 his opinion is more difficult to be believed, than the ravings of 
 Jrving, ihe fooleries of Mormonism, or the dogma of the New- 
 
37 
 
 its eternal reign and thraldom, but by the free and 
 sovereign grace of God, which “reigns through 
 righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ 
 our Lord.” 
 
 Sec. 6 .—Of the Resemblance between Adam and 
 
 Christ. 
 
 At the close of the 14th verse, Adam is called 
 “ the figure of him that was to come,” that is, of 
 Jesus Christ, who, from the beginning, was pro¬ 
 mised to come, as “ the seed of the woman, to 
 bruise the head of the serpentand afterwards as 
 
 Haven school, that there are multitudes of human'beings that are 
 neither holy nor unholy —all which things are adopted for truth by 
 many in the present day. And this being the case, we cannot 
 pretend to know how many things of similar wildness may not 
 be embraced by the men of this generation. One thing, however, 
 we do know, touching the point in hand, that the relinquish¬ 
 ment of the long established doctrine of the church respecting the 
 “ imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity,” necessarily gives 
 rise, so far as the moral condition of infants is concerned, to wild 
 conjecture, extravagant speculation, vain philosophy. For hav¬ 
 ing abandoned that doctrine, persons must either fly in the face 
 of divine revelation and dogmatically assert, with the New-Ha- 
 ven school, that infants are neither holy nor unholy: or, with Dr. 
 Spring, maintain that they actually and voluntarily transgress 
 the moral law, as soon as they are born: or they must set their 
 ingenuity to work and invent some other system upon the subject, 
 equally at variance with the sober dictates both of reason and of 
 revelation'. 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 
 “ the seed of Abraham, in whom all the families oi 
 the earth should be blessedand who is repre¬ 
 sented in Psalm xl. as saying, u Lo, 1 come,’^ 
 kc., and whose praise is celebrated by the church 
 in Psalm cxviii., “Blessed is he that cometh in 
 the name of the Lord.” Now in what sense is 
 Adam called the “ figure,” type, or emblematical 
 representation of our Lord Jesus Christ ? It can 
 only be, because he was the head and representative 
 of his natural seed, and acted in their room, even 
 as our Lord Jesus Christ is the head and represent¬ 
 ative of his spiritual seed, and acts in their room. 
 This is the only prominent point of resemblance, 
 that can possibly be traced between them. And 
 if this be not the Apostle’s meaning, it would be a 
 task of endless conjecture to tell what he means. 
 But, that this is his meaning, is evident from the 
 whole scope of this passage, which exhibits these 
 two distinguished personages, as acting in public 
 representative characters—the disobedience of the 
 one entailing sin and death upon all whom lie re¬ 
 presented, and the obedience of the other procuring 
 righteousness and life for all whom he represented 
 —and also from what this same Apostle declares to 
 the Corinthians, “ as in Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive.” Here then we 
 have a full developement of the way, in which 
 
“death passed upon all men,’' even upon infants; 
 it is, because they sinned in him, who was consti¬ 
 tuted and acted the part of their federal head and re¬ 
 presentative ; and who, in this grand particular, 
 “ was the figure of him that was to come.” 
 
 Sec. 7. —Of the Contrast between Adam and Christ 
 
 Although there be the most manifest and strik¬ 
 ing resemblance between Adam and Christ, in point 
 of representative headship, each representing his 
 respective seed federally and universally, yet, in 
 point of conduct , and the effects resulting from that 
 conduct, the most awful contrast is to be marked. 
 (Verse 15.) “But not as the offense, so also is 
 the free gift. For if through the offense 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.” The conduct 
 of the one representative was a total failure in 
 point of duty, “an offense,” a lapse, a fall; that 
 of the other, righteousness , which, from the free 
 and gracious manner in which it was performed, 
 and from the free and gracious manner in which it 
 is conveyed to sinners, may well be called the “free 
 gift,” the “grace of God,” and the “gift by 
 grace.” And as to the effects resulting from the 
 public conduct of these representatives, they are 
 
40 
 
 / 
 
 infinitely different. The conduct of the one re¬ 
 sulted in death , that of the other in life* Yea. 
 such is the goodness of God, and such the superi¬ 
 ority of Christ to Adam in respect of personal dig¬ 
 nity, that his righteousness avails more abund- 
 antly for the justification of his seed, than does the 
 offense of Adam for the condemnation of his seed. 
 “ For if through the offense of one many be dead ; 
 much more the grace of God,” fee. It may be far¬ 
 ther remarked on this verse, that the Apostle makes 
 the sin of Adam to be the sin of his posterity. For 
 he says, “through the offense of one many are 
 dead,” spiritually dead, deprived of the favor of 
 God, destitute of righteousness, full of corruption, 
 without God, without hope in the world. They 
 are thus dead by the offense of one , viz : Adam, 
 And they that are thus dead are called many , not 
 to the exclusion of any of the human family ; for 
 it is afterwards asserted, that “by the offense of 
 one, judgment came upon all men to condemna¬ 
 tion,” but they are called many for the purpose of 
 keeping up the parallel between them and the many 
 
 who live bv Jesus Christ. 
 
 %> 
 
 In the 16 th verse, the Apostle continues to pur¬ 
 sue the contrast between the public acts of Adam 
 and Christ, in relation to their consequences : 
 “ And not as it was bv one that sinned, so is 
 
41 
 
 the gift : for the judgment was by one to condem¬ 
 nation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto 
 justification.” The term “judgment,” denotes a 
 judicial sentence, proceeding upon the assumption 
 of legal guilt; and the term “condemnation,” de¬ 
 notes the condition of a criminal, after sentence is 
 pronounced against him, and by which he is de¬ 
 clared to be guilty, and stands adjudicated to un¬ 
 dergo the merited punishment. Now it is here 
 asserted, that “ the judgment to condemnation,” 
 spoken of, arose from “one” offense. We have 
 no concern in any of the sins of Adam, save his 
 “one offense.” And that “one offense,” the 
 Righteous Judge viewed as the legal guilt of all 
 men, and accordingly, as is here implied, and as is 
 expressly stated in the 18th verse, he issued a ju¬ 
 dicial sentence, involving the condemnation of all. 
 But, although the “ one offense” of Adam was thus 
 efficacious for the ruin of all men, still in respect 
 of intrinsic efficiency, it falls short of the gift of 
 righteousness by Jesus Christ. For his obedience 
 abundantly avails, not merely to justification, but 
 to the justification of condemned sinners, and not 
 to their justification from the “one offense” of 
 their representative, only, but to their justification 
 from their many personal offenses, also. “The 
 free gift is of many offenses unto justification.” 
 
 4* 
 
tn the 17th verse, the Apostle contrasts the death, 
 which came by the sin of Adam, with the life , 
 which is enjoyed through the righteousness of 
 Christ; and, in the way of magnifying the work of 
 of the second Adam, he concludes, however cer * 
 tain it be that death reigned by the first Ad¬ 
 am, that there is, if possible, a greater certainty, 
 that ail, who receive the grace of God, and em¬ 
 brace the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life 
 by Jesus Christ. What a most glorious and dig-* 
 nified personage, therefore, is Jesus Christ! How 
 infinitely meritorious has been his conduct as our 
 representative ! Why should any speak against his 
 righteousness, as being vicarious ? And why should 
 any refuse to appropriate it as their own righteous¬ 
 ness 1 Since it is in this way, and in this way 
 alone, that we can, with the assurance of absolute 
 certainty, escape death and reap everlasting life. 
 “For, if by one man’s offense, death reigned by 
 one; much more they who receive abundance of 
 grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reigil 
 in life by one, Jesus Christ.” 
 
 Sec. 8.—* Of the Apostle's conclusion in the 18 th v. 
 
 The 18th verse is a general inference, embody¬ 
 ing the substance of all that had been proved in the 
 foregoing verses; and in making it, the Apostle, 
 
43 
 
 at the same time, observes the comparative method 
 which he had before adopted. “ Therefore, as by 
 the offense of one, judgment came upon all men un¬ 
 to condemnation ; even so by the Righteousness of 
 one, the free gift came upon all men unto justifica¬ 
 tion of life.” The reader will observe, that the 
 words, judgment came , in the former clause, are a 
 supplement borrowed from the 16th verse. Be¬ 
 tween an offense and a state of condemnation, on 
 account of that offense, there necessarily inter¬ 
 venes a judgment, or judicial sentence founded on 
 law ; hence this supplement is natural and is ob¬ 
 viously implied in the Apostle’s argument. This 
 must be borne in mind ; because, some of the op 
 ponents of imputation are ready to admit, that, if 
 the term “judgment” had been here expressed by 
 the Apostle, and if by the term condemnation , 
 which lie uses, he-mean any thing more than na¬ 
 tural death, then the doctrine of the imputation of 
 Adam’s sin, is established. This, indeed, is ho¬ 
 nest ; but to the force of truth are we indebted for 
 the concession. For a child may know, if the con¬ 
 demnation, here mentioned, imply an adjudication 
 to suffer the whole penalty of the divine law, and 
 this condemnation extend to all men, and that by 
 a judical sentence, grounded upon the “one of¬ 
 fense” of Adam, that, then, all must have been 
 
44 
 
 held guilty in Adam. But can any one seriously 
 doubt that the term “ condemnation,” expressed 
 in this verse, relates to death , the penalty of the 
 law, even to spiritual and eternal, as well as to 
 temporal death ? How unreasonable such a doubt, 
 since that term stands directly opposed to “justi¬ 
 fication of life !” For surely no person will main¬ 
 tain, that this “justification of life” signifies an 
 exemption from natual death ! Candor must ad¬ 
 mit, that it implies spiritual and eternal life, even 
 such a life as is consequent upon justification be¬ 
 fore God. And when we also consider, that the 
 supplying of the ellipsis, by the word “judg¬ 
 ment,” is, as we have seen, indispensably necessa¬ 
 ry, it follows, in spite of all opposition and cavil, 
 that Adam’s offense is charged as the guilty cause 
 of the spiritual condemnation of all.—The words, 
 “the free gift came,” in the latter clause of the 
 verse, are also for the same reasons, properly sup¬ 
 plied, by our Translators, from the 16 th verse. It 
 must not, however, from the language here em¬ 
 ployed, be supposed, that “justification” by 
 Christ, is co-extensive with “condemnation” by 
 Adam. This would glaringly contradict what is 
 elsewhere taught us, concerning the everlasting 
 destruction of all, “ who know not God and who 
 obey not the gospel.” The “all men,” therefore. 
 
45 
 
 in both clauses, does not denote identically the 
 same persons, but only the whole number which 
 each of those great federal heads, who are con¬ 
 trasted throughout the whole of this passage, re¬ 
 spectively represented. By the offense of the one * 
 “judgment came” upon all his representees to 
 “condemnation ;” and by the righteousness of the 
 other , “the free gift came” upon all his repre¬ 
 sentees to “justification of life.” 
 
 Sec. 9. — The Reason of the foregoing Conclusion 
 more explicitly stated. 
 
 The 19th verse explains more fully the reason 
 of the divine procedure, mentioned in the 18th. 
 If it be asked, why were all men subjected to a 
 state of condemnation, on account of the offense 
 of one man? We are here furnished with the an¬ 
 swer, viz: that “by one man’s disobedience they 
 were made sinners,” constituted sinners, consi¬ 
 dered as being guilty of that disobedience. Hence 
 they were condemned, not as innocent creatures, 
 but as being sinners , chargeable in the sight of 
 heaven with the guilt of their representative. 
 And so on the other hand, if it be asked, how are 
 those, who are guilty and condemned sinners, put 
 in possession of that incomparable privilege, “jus¬ 
 tification unto life?” The answer is, that such. 
 
46 
 
 by the obedience of one,*’ Jesus Cnrist, are made 
 righteous, constituted righteous, treated as right¬ 
 eous. Hence they are justified, not as guilty 
 creatures, but as being righteous, legally righteous, 
 through the righteousness of their representative 
 imputed to them. In respect, then, of God’s pro¬ 
 cedure relative to the condemnation and justifica¬ 
 tion of men, the Apostle’s declaration, in this 
 verse, is not only plain but highly instructive. 
 “ For as by one man’s disobedience many were 
 made sinners ; so by the obedience of one shall 
 many be made righteous.” 
 
 The foregoing explanatory remarks, it is be¬ 
 lieved, exhibit the true mind of the Spirit in this 
 confessedly important, though much perverted 
 scripture, and will be helpful in the further prose¬ 
 cution of the subject. 
 
47 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE FOREGOING EXEGESIS DEFENDED IN 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF THE NEW" 
 
 HAVEN SCHOOL. 
 
 Sec. 1 .—An Extract from the Christian Spectator , 
 with an Advertisement to the Reader. 
 
 The Quarterly Christian Spectator for June, 
 4831, commenting on the passage, which we have 
 been considering in the foregoing chapter, holds 
 the following language: 
 
 44 The apostle teaches, that death, considered as 
 an event common to all men, is not a legal penalty. 
 We suppose it will be admitted, that the apostle 
 here refers to the sentence denounced after the fall 
 upon Adam and his race, as disclosing the facts 
 respecting his sin and its consequences. Here 
 then we might rest our present position. For, as 
 we have shown, (p. 314.) that sentence was not 
 the sentence of the law , nor was its execution the 
 penalty of the law. Many die the death denounced 
 in that sentence, who are delivered from the leoal 
 penalty. This we regard as absolutely decisive on 
 the point now at issue. 
 
 44 But we are not obliged to leave the question 
 here. The apostle, in the very passage under 
 consideration, has directly and formally disproved 
 the doctrine, that death comes on men as the pe¬ 
 nalty of any law whatever. He first asserts, that 
 the sin which is in the world, came into it by one 
 man. He next affirms, that death is by sin, and 
 
48 
 
 that death, as the consequence of sin, passed on 
 all men, because all had sinned. In confirmation 
 of this statement, he appeals to a known and ac¬ 
 knowledged matter of fact, viz., that before the 
 Mosaic law, sin was in the world. “But, he adds, 
 “sin is not imputed where there is no law;” i. e., 
 sin is not charged and punished, where there is no 
 law. Nevertheless, death the consequence , (not 
 the penalty,) of sin, prevailed from Adam to Mo¬ 
 ses, a period in which there was no law of which 
 death could be the penalty. Sin, therefore, was 
 in the world, (as death its consequent decisively 
 proves,) even when there was no law with death 
 as its penalty. Thus, while the apostle decisively 
 teaches that death is the consequence of sin, he 
 proves that it is not the legal penalty of sin, ac¬ 
 cording to any law whatever. 
 
 “In confirmation of this view of the passage, 
 we ask, why did the apostle appeal to the preva¬ 
 lence of death from Adam to Moses? This period 
 was obviously distinguished by some peculiarity , 
 decisive in its bearing on the apostle’s argument. 
 By what peculiarity ? This is a vital question. 
 We answer, then, not by the fact, that death 
 during this period, was at all more a consequence 
 of Adam’s sin, or was more clearly shown to be 
 a consequence of Adam’s sin, than at any other 
 period. Not that during the period there was 
 no law, by which was the knowledge of sin, and 
 by which sin could be charged, for it is beyond all 
 denial, that there was such a law. What then 
 was the fact peculiar to this period ? Plainly this, 
 and only this, that there was no law threatening 
 death, as its penalty. To suppose the apostle, 
 then, to speak of death, in this case as a legal pe- 
 
49 
 
 nalty, is to suppose him to argue from a fact, 
 which directly contradicts his own doctrine,—to 
 argue from the prevalence of death during a pe¬ 
 riod, in which there was no law that had death as 
 its penalty. The object of the apostle, then, in 
 referring to this period, is obvious. It was to 
 show, that death as an event common to all men , 
 did not come upon them as the penalty of any law 
 whatever; but as an immediate consequence of 
 personal sin, and remotely (in the manner before 
 described) as the consequence of Adam’s sin. 
 Thus he proved from the universality of death, ac¬ 
 cording to the original sentence under an economy 
 of grace , that all men were under sin and con¬ 
 demnation. 
 
 But our brethren think, that the apostle ap¬ 
 pealed to the prevalence of death from Adam to 
 Moses, for the very purpose of showing, that 
 death during this period, came on men as the le¬ 
 gal penalty of Adam’s sin. If this opinion can 
 be shown to be wholly groundless, the main point 
 at issue will be decided. We ask, then, how does 
 the prevalence of death from Adam to Moses, 
 prove that it was the legal penalty of Adam’s sin ? 
 The vast multitude destroyed by the deluge and 
 in Sodom and Gomorrah, are well known to have 
 deserved death themselves ; to have died, in some 
 respect at least for their own personal sins. How 
 then would such a case prove that men died solely 
 for the sin of another? Surely, the apostle was 
 unfortunate in referring to this fact to prove, that 
 death reigned as the legal penalty of Adam’s sin 
 exclusively, or in any respect whatever.” 
 
 We insert the above extract in this place, be- 
 
 0 
 
50 
 
 cause, in connection with another position, that 
 the sin of which the Apostle speaks, is exclusively 
 actual sin , it expresses, in general, the views of 
 all, on the subject we are discussing, who have 
 adopted the New-Haven creed, or, as it is termed 
 by others, the New School system; and because 
 a few remarks upon it may tend to farther eluci¬ 
 date and confirm the exposition that we have given 
 of the whole passage under consideration. The 
 • Spectator is published at New-Haven, and is un¬ 
 derstood to be under the supervision of Drs. Tay¬ 
 lor and Fitch, and some others of the same faith. 
 The system, which they have adopted and are 
 strenuously endeavoring to propagate, though com¬ 
 monly greeted with the epithet neiv, is, in its prin¬ 
 cipal features, as old as Pelagius himself. The 
 view, which they take of the law, prior to the time 
 of Moses, as containing no threatening of death 
 against its transgressors, originated we believe 
 with Mr. Locke, and was embraced by Drs. Whit¬ 
 by and Taylor of Norwich, all three being deeply 
 tinctured with Pelagianism on the subject of origi¬ 
 nal sin, and especially the last, of whom, a cotem- 
 poraneous writer observed, that, “ being mounted 
 as it were on the shoulders of Dr. Whitby and Mr. 
 Locke, he has pretended to see farther than either 
 of them, and to reject every particular article al- 
 
51 
 
 most, even the most essential, of Christian faith 
 and gospel doctrine.” Between this English Dr. 
 Taylor and our own Dr. Taylor there appears to be 
 the closest harmony of sentiment, respecting the 
 great leading “articles of Christian faith and gos¬ 
 pel doctrine.” Hence, what is called Taylorism 
 among us may be regarded as the progeny of either 
 of these fathers , without any serious injury to the 
 lawful claims of paternity. 
 
 The foregoing extract is, in our opinion, replete 
 with bold assertion, specious sophistry, gross con¬ 
 tradiction and palpable error: And under this con¬ 
 viction, we proceed to make some strictures upon 
 it, in the following sections : 
 
 Sec. 2 .—Of a Misrepresentation contained in the 
 
 Extract. 
 
 The gentlemen of the Spectator entirely mis¬ 
 understand, or misrepresent the views of genuine 
 Calvinists, when they represent them as maintain¬ 
 ing, that “men die solely for the sin of another,” 
 and that “death is the legal penalty of Adam’s sin 
 exclusively.” This they regard as a very horrible 
 doctrine. And perhaps an Atheist, or Deist might 
 regard as equally horrible their doctrine, in making 
 death to be the consequence of Adam’s sin; espe¬ 
 cially when they cannot or will not tell us what 
 
52 
 
 kind of consequence they mean. But do Calvin¬ 
 ists maintain the sentiment here imputed to them ? 
 We aver, that in no case, do they make death to 
 be exclusively the legal penalty of Adam’s sin. In 
 the case of adults , they find many actual sins , as 
 well as the imputed sin of Adam, all demanding 
 the infliction of death. It’is in the case of infants 
 alone, who are chargable with no actual, personal 
 sin, that they have recourse to the “imputed sin 
 of Adam,” to account for their death. And even 
 here, they do not consider, that it is the sin of 
 Adam as such, but his sin as being their federal 
 representative, and as imputed to them, or judi¬ 
 cially reckoned theirs , that procures their death. 
 Nor is this all; they also take into the account, 
 the corruption of their nature, which penally flows 
 from that imputation, and which justly classifies 
 them with legal delinquents, and accordingly ex¬ 
 poses them to the penalty of the law. Hence the 
 unbiassed reader will perceive, that Calvanists (pro] 
 perly so called) hold an entirely different creed on 
 this point, from that which the New-Haven School 
 would unjustly impute to them. 
 
53 
 
 Sec. S. —A Mistake corrected , in respect to the 
 
 Meaning of the term “ Death f as vsed by the 
 
 Apostle. 
 
 In the foregoing extract it is taken for granted, 
 that the Apostle, in the passage under considera¬ 
 tion, means, by the term death , nothing more than 
 temporal death. The gentlemen say, “We sup¬ 
 pose it will be admitted, that the Apostle here re¬ 
 fers to the sentence denounced after the fall upon 
 Adam and his race.” This is not admitted by Cal¬ 
 vinists. They understand the Apostle as referring 
 to the penalty threatened before the fall, in those 
 words of awful import, “Thou shalt surely die 
 concerning which, the gentlemen themselves, in 
 another part of the article from which we have 
 extracted the above, say, “The penalty annexed 
 to the law was 1 Thou shalt surely die.’ It was 
 death as the full retribution of sin. It was death 
 in sin; and considered as the language of a Jewish 
 historian, and as Jewish phraseology, perpetuated 
 and fully explained in the New Testament, we can 
 be at no loss concerning its comprehensive and aw¬ 
 ful import, when applied to an immortal being.” 
 But where in the New Testament is this “ Jewish 
 phraseology perpetuated and fully explained,” with 
 greater clearness and with more manifest and ex- 
 plicit intention, than by the Apostle in this very 
 
 5 * 
 
54 
 
 passage ? Is lie not contrasting the death , which 
 came by the disobedience of Adam, with the life , 
 which comes by the obedience of Christ? Can 
 he, then, be understood as speaking only of tem¬ 
 poral death and contrasting it with that eternal 
 life , which is by Jesus Christ our Lord ? Surely 
 the life , of which he speaks, is comprehensive of 
 the greatest good, nay, of all the good, which the 
 believer in Jesus will ever enjoy ; must not the 
 death, then, with which it is contrasted, comprehend 
 the greatest evil, and all the evil, which mankind 
 deserve on account of sin ? But what is temporal 
 death, that the Apostle should be supposed to take 
 such particular pains in drawing a contrast be¬ 
 tween it and eternal life ? Is it the principal evil 
 which arises from sin ? Is it the greatest evil de¬ 
 nounced against sin ? Indeed, if we understand 
 these divines, they will scarcely allow it to be an evil 
 at all; they expressly deny that it is a penal evil, 
 and seem to insinuate, that it is a blessing, because 
 resulting from a sentence pronounced under an 
 economy of grace. Bo they, then, really “sup¬ 
 pose it will be admitted,” that the Apostle is here 
 diverting himself by forming a contrast between 
 that death, which according to them is not a penal 
 evil, but perhaps a blessing, and that life, which 
 flows through the merits of a Saviour—even that 
 
55 
 
 eternal life which is the gift of God through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord ? Moreover, what conclusively 
 settles the meaning of the term “death,” in the 
 passage referred to, is, that it alternates with the 
 term “ condemnation.” Thus, while in one verse 
 the Apostle declares, that ‘ ‘ death reigned by one,” 
 in another he declares, that ‘ ‘ the judgment was by 
 one to condemnation.” And while he again as¬ 
 serts, that “ by one man’s sin death entered into 
 the world and passed upon all men,” he repeats 
 the assertion, saying, that “by the offense of one, 
 judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” 
 Now can any person seriously affirm, that the 
 Apostle by the term “condemnation” (xctraxpipu') 
 only intends temporal death ? And if he intends 
 by it something more than temporal death, so he 
 must also, by that other term, with which it is 
 made to alternate. 
 
 Sec. 4. —Concerning the Statement , that “ Tempo¬ 
 ral Death forms no part of the legal penalty.'" 
 
 These divines, with great confidence, assert, 
 that “the Apostle teaches, that death considered 
 as an event common to all men, is not a legal pe¬ 
 nalty that “in the very passage under consider¬ 
 ation, he has directly and formally disproved the 
 doctrine, that death comes on men as the penalty 
 
56 
 
 of any law whateverand again, that “ he proves 
 that it is not the legal penalty of sin, according to 
 any law whatever.” This is making the Apostle, 
 indeed, teach strange doctrine. But if he teaches 
 such doctrine, how came they to tell us, that 
 “the vast multitude destroyed by the deluge and 
 in Sodom and Gomorrah, are well known to have 
 deserved death themselves ; to have died, in some 
 respect at least, for their own personal sins.” If 
 the persons alluded to ‘ 1 dese7'ved death and died 
 for their own personal sins,” does not this look as 
 if their death were “the legal penalty of sin'?” 
 Surely if they deserved death it must have been 
 according to the sanction of the law ; and if they 
 died for their own personal sins, their death must 
 have happened according to the “ legal penalty” 
 threatened against sin. We think, that by refer¬ 
 ring us to the death of the Antediluvians Sic., 
 these divines have disproved their own position, 
 that “death is not the legal penalty of sin, ac¬ 
 cording to any law whatever.” But they may 
 tell us, that they only mean, that those sinners 
 deserved death as the consequence of sin, and un¬ 
 derwent death, as a consequence , for their own per¬ 
 sonal sins. They make a great parade of the 
 term “consequence.” They are willing to admit, 
 that death is “an immediate consequence of per- 
 
57 
 
 sonal sin, and remotely the consequence of Adam’s 
 sin.” Their manner of using this term is calcu¬ 
 lated to deceive. We might suppose, they meant 
 to express, by it, the penal effect of sin, did they 
 not occasionally use it in contrast with the term 
 “penalty.” We acknowledge, that death is the 
 consequence of sin ; but alas, it is its penal con- 
 consequence ! They ought therefore to define to 
 the Christian community what they exactly mean 
 by that term, as they use it in the present contro¬ 
 versy ; and especially since they elsewhere inform 
 us, that “ there are many modes of consequence.” 
 Presuming to set aside a term long used in the 
 Christian Church, and to introduce a new one, 
 they should have clearly and unambiguously de¬ 
 fined it. 
 
 But is it really so, that temporal death forms no 
 part of “the legal penalty of sin?” Has it never 
 come upon any of the race of Adam as a penal 
 infliction ? Must we, indeed, believe, that persons, 
 who have perished from the earth by the manifest 
 judgments of heaven, and been cut off in the most 
 terrible manner in the very act of sinning against 
 God, suffered nothing of a penal nature in the 
 death which overtook them, nothing of “the legal 
 penalty of sin, according to any law whatever?” 
 These divines say of our doctrine concerning 
 
58 
 
 Original Sin, that “it is contrary to the decision 
 of the competent unperverted reason of mankind.” 
 Were we sure that mankind possessed such reason, 
 touching “the things of the Spirit of God,” we 
 should certainly be willing to leave to its decision 
 their doctrine respecting death. 
 
 Sec. 5. —The Introduction of an “ Economy of 
 
 Grace f no Proof of the Repeal of any Part 
 
 of the Legal Penalty. 
 
 Let us see how these divines prove, that death 
 is not the penalty of sin. This they do by refer¬ 
 ring us to the time, when the sentence of death 
 was first pronounced upon fallen man. Immedi¬ 
 ately after the gracious declaration, respecting the 
 Seed of the woman, was made, God said to Adam, 
 “dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” 
 Hence they tell us, that death, being denounced 
 under an economy of Grace , cannot be a legal pe¬ 
 nalty. “For,” say they, “as we have shown 
 (p. 314,) that sentence was not the sentence of 
 the laiv , nor was its execution the penalty of the 
 law.” We have examined the place referred to, 
 but cannot discover the proof of what they here 
 assert. Now, when they speak of “ a sentence 
 denounced , after the fall, upon Adam and his race,” 
 and elsewhere of “men being doomed to temporal 
 
59 
 
 death by a sentence under grace,” are we not to 
 understand them as making death an evil f For 
 certainly it is not usual to denounce a benefit on 
 people, or doom them to a blessing! Accordingly, 
 we have here a sentence denouncing evil upon 
 man, which, they say, is “not the sentence of the 
 law, nor its execution the penalty of the law !” 
 A very strange sentence, indeed, to issue from the 
 righteous tribunal of Jehovah ! We should say, 
 that a sentence denouncing evil, was a penal sen¬ 
 tence, and if given correctly, a legal sentence. 
 But according to these divines, this sentence was 
 not by the “law of works,” but by the “law of 
 faith,” or law of grace, for before it was issued, 
 mankind were placed under an economy of grace . 
 From this we ought to infer, that death in every 
 instance, from the fall of Adam till the present 
 time, has been a blessing and not an evil. There¬ 
 fore, though the Antediluvians, the Sodomites, 
 the Egyptians, the Amorites &lc., all died in the 
 most fearful manner, yet their death was a blessing 
 and not an evil, at least no part of the legal pe¬ 
 nalty; for they all died under “an economy of 
 grace !” 
 
 We acknowledge, indeed, that immediately af¬ 
 ter the fall, a merciful God revealed a plan of sal¬ 
 vation by free grace: But that revelation, by no 
 
60 
 
 means, repealed any part of the penalty of God’s 
 unalterable law ; so far from this, it distinctly 
 showed in the predicted bruising of the heel of 
 the woman’s Seed, that the penalty was to be 
 fully endured and not one iota of it to be discard¬ 
 ed : And hence it also showed, that the only way 
 to escape the penalty was to embrace by faith the 
 promised Redeemer. 
 
 We object to the notion, that would place, m con¬ 
 sequence of the first promise, all mankind of every 
 age and nation under “ an economy of grace;” if 
 by that phraseology, it be meant, that they have 
 all enjoyed sufficient means of grace and would 
 have been saved, had they only used them aright. 
 And we have reason to believe, that such are se¬ 
 cretly the views of the divines, whom we are op¬ 
 posing, from a consideration of the source, whence 
 they have borrowed this notion about “ an econ¬ 
 omy of grace.” But it is not our business at pre¬ 
 sent to examine this point. The question is, whe¬ 
 ther the revelation of Grace in the first promise 
 repealed that part of the penalty of the divine law, 
 which related to temporal death. And we most 
 unequivocally assert, that it has not. For, except 
 in the case of believers in that promise, the scrip¬ 
 tures invariably teach, that temporal death consti¬ 
 tutes a part of the legal penalty. 
 
61 
 
 Sec. 6. —Proofs that Temporal Death does belong 
 to the Legal Penalty. 
 
 That temporal death constitutes a part of the 
 legal penalty we feel bound to maintain : 
 
 Because, the Apostle assures us, in (Rom. vi. 
 23,) that “the wages of sin is death, 55 without 
 distinguishing between the first and the second 
 death; clearly intimating that death, under every 
 form, in itself considered, is the wages , or just de¬ 
 sert of sin. 
 
 Elsewhere he informs us that “ the stino- of 
 death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 55 
 (1. Cor. xv. 56.) Is it possible to assert in plain¬ 
 er or stronger terms, that “death is the legal pe¬ 
 nalty of sin.” Here are three things, the law , sin 
 and death. Sin is the connecting link between the 
 law and death, and receives from the law its 
 strength or power to render death hurtful. The 
 death spoken of is obviously temporal death ; sin 
 is called its sting —a sting containing the venom of 
 of the curse, otherwise it would be a harmless 
 sting ; and this sting (which is sin) we are told, 
 has all its power from the law , that is, from its au¬ 
 thority and sanction. Is there, therefore, nothing 
 legal in that strength or power to injure, which 
 sin derives from the law? And is there nothing 
 penal in that death, which has sin for its sting, or 
 
 6 
 
02 
 
 comes armed with it, as its mortal weapon? Be¬ 
 sides, the believer is presented to us as glorying 
 over death, triumphantly shouting, “ O death 
 where is thy sting?” Is there nothing peculiar 
 in his case ? Or is it the privilege of all men with¬ 
 out exception to greet “the king of terrors” as an 
 unstinged and harmless enemy ? Surely then, the 
 scripture referred to, solemnly teaches, that all, 
 who do not obtain “the victory through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ,” must meet death as “ the legal pe¬ 
 nalty of sin.” 
 
 And corresponding to this, the Apostle (1 Cor. 
 iii. 21, 22,) says to believers, “all things are 
 yours,” and expressly names “death” as one of 
 these things. Now, does not this imply, that death 
 comes to a believer in a different manner from 
 what it does to an unbeliever ? And wherein lies 
 the difference, except that to the one it comes as a 
 penalty, while to the other it comes divested of its 
 penal form ? To say, indeed, of the dying repro¬ 
 bate, that there is nothing penal in his death—to 
 say, that he whom Jehovah pronounces to be 
 “ cursed in his basket and store, and in his lying 
 down and rising up,” is not cursed in his dying, or 
 does not undergo a cursed death , sounds, to say 
 the least of it, exceedingly strange! “Christ hath 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 
63 
 
 made a curse for us ; for it written cursed is 
 every one that hangeth on & tree.” Was there 
 nothing of the curse ? was there nothing penal in 
 the temporal death of the Son of God in our na¬ 
 ture? This will be denied by none but Socinians, 
 or such as are socinianizing. But if Christ’s death, 
 viewed in its temporal aspect, as relating to the 
 dissolution of the union between his human soul 
 and body, was penal , was the effect of the curse , 
 let no man or body of men have the presumption 
 to tell us, that death is not a “ legal penalty.” 
 Will it then, we ask, be said, in the face of the 
 foregoing testimonies, that death is never “the 
 legal penalty of sin according to any law what¬ 
 ever ?” 
 
 But besides the evidence already adduced, we 
 have abundance of other proof in the word of God, 
 to convict these divines of holding an egregious 
 error. The same Apostle declares concerning 
 the Gentiles, (Rom. i. 32) that they “ knew 
 the judgment of God, that they who committed 
 such things [as he had been specifying] were worthy 
 of death.” These blinded heathen, without the 
 aid of supernatural revelation, or even much learn- 
 ing, appear to have had a more correct knowledge 
 of the penal sanction of God’s law, than the Rev. 
 gentlemen, we are opposing. From their natural 
 
64 
 
 i 
 
 impressions respecting the nature of the divine 
 law, and respecting the judgment , threatening , or 
 righteous appointment of the Great Lawgiver, they 
 knew , that death was justly merited, as a punish¬ 
 ment for such sins as the Apostle specifies. For 
 to know , that men are worthy of death , by the 
 judgment of God , for a violation of his law , is un¬ 
 questionably to know that u death is the legal pe¬ 
 nalty of sin.” And that the Gentiles had this 
 knowledge the Apostle expressly declares; and, 
 indeed, the same is manifest from the whole his¬ 
 tory of their sacrifices. Did they not frequently 
 offer up sacrifices and some of these of the most 
 costly nature, on purpose to appease the wrath of 
 Deity, that it might not visit them with temporal 
 calamities, with temporal death, on account of 
 their transgressions ? And does the Apostle inti¬ 
 mate, that their knowledge on this point, so far as 
 it extended, was incorrect 1 Does not his manner 
 of expression clearly imply, that he regarded their 
 knowledge as being truly consistent with the char¬ 
 acter of the divine law ? 
 
 Again, the scriptures furnish us with some no¬ 
 table instances, where sin is expressly assigned as 
 the penal cause of death. In relation to the death 
 of the Antediluvians by the deluge, we read, 
 “And God saw that the tiickedness of man was 
 
65 
 
 great in the earth—And the Lord said I will de¬ 
 stroy man, whom I have created from the face of 
 the earth.” In relation to the death of the in¬ 
 habitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, by fire and 
 brimstone from heaven, we read, “And the Lord 
 said, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is 
 great, and because their sin is very grievous; I 
 will go down now,” &c. The angels ordered Lot 
 to take his family and depart from Sodom, “ lest,” 
 say they, “thou be consumed in the iniquity of 
 the city,” or as judicious interpreters understand 
 it, “ in the punishment of the city.” Were not 
 the Egyptians also drowned in the Red Sea for 
 their most deliberate rebellion against God ? The 
 
 o 
 
 Israelites, in their song of deliverance, say, “ In 
 the greatness of thine excellency, thou hast over¬ 
 thrown them that rose up against thee; thou sent- 
 est forth thy wrath, which consumed them as 
 stubble.” And how are we to justify God’s pro¬ 
 cedure, in cutting off the nations of Canaan and 
 giving their land to the children of Israel, if their 
 death was not merited by their crimes, and was not 
 sent upon them as a penal infliction ? Besides these 
 instances, look also at the case of Er and Onan ; 
 concerning whose death and the cause of it, we 
 thus read, (Gen. xxxviii. 7. 10.) “ And Er was 
 
 wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord 
 
 6 * 
 
66 
 
 slew him.” “ And the thing, which he (Onan) 
 did, displeased the Lord; wherefore he sleiv him 
 also.” Now if their death was not deserved, as a 
 punishment for their sins and inflicted on them as 
 such, it is impossible to understand the plainest 
 language. Indeed, to view their death in any oth¬ 
 er light, would be to represent the righteous Lord 
 as having acted towards them in an arbitrary and 
 capricious manner, giving vent to his displeasure, 
 as earthly tyrants are sometimes wont to do. 
 Thus, we apprehend that we have conclusively 
 proved from the Holy Scriptures that death is to 
 be considered, as included in the “ legal penalty of 
 sin. 
 
 Sec. 7. —The Ante-Mosaic Period not Peculiarized 
 by the Fact , that “ There was no Law threaten¬ 
 ing Death , as its Penalty .” 
 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing proofs, the New*- 
 Haven gentlemen tell us, that “ the Apostle, in 
 the very passage under consideration, has directly 
 and formally disproved the doctrine, that death 
 comes on men as the penalty of any law what¬ 
 ever.” How ? Why, say they, by referring us to 
 a period, viz: that from Adam to Moses, “in 
 which there was no law threatening death as its 
 penalty.” Supposing this were so, it by no means 
 
67 
 
 proves their assertion, “that death is not the pe¬ 
 nalty of sin according to any law whatever for 
 they admit, that during the Mosaic economy, there 
 was a law threatening death as its penalty. But is 
 it true that during the period referred to, “there 
 was no law threatening death as its penalty?” 
 The falsity of this position must appear obvious 
 to the unbiassed reader, from what has already 
 been stated. The moral law of God is unchange¬ 
 able in its threatenings against sin. Its preceptive 
 nature and its penal threatening are essentially 
 and inseparably connected together. It did not, 
 therefore, threaten any thing yesterday, which it 
 does not to-day, and will not to-morrow. It is 
 not to be charged with partiality; as if it threat¬ 
 ened greater evils against the men of one age than 
 those of another; or greater evils against a par¬ 
 ticular nation, than all other nations. But accord¬ 
 ing to the doctrine of these divines, the law of the 
 Lord, “ which endureth forever,” is both alter¬ 
 able and partial: According to them, it is not 
 founded in principles of eternal rectitude, but flows 
 from the mere will and caprice of an arbitrary 
 Lawgiver. We cannot subscribe to a sentiment 
 so abhorent both to reason and revelation. 
 
 Now, the testimonies, which we have adduced, 
 to prove, that “ death is the legal penalty of sin,” 
 
 7 
 
08 
 
 
 are directly in the face of this ingenious contri¬ 
 vance respecting the state of the law from Adam 
 to Moses : For they apply to that period with as 
 much force as to any other whatever. Surely the 
 Apostle cannot be understood as referring to the 
 law as existing under some Jeivish ’peculiarity , 
 when, in writing to churches composed principally 
 of Gentiles, he declares, that “ the wages of sin 
 is death”—that, “ the sting of death is sin and the 
 strength of sin is the law”-—and that, the Gentiles, 
 who were without the written law, u knew the 
 judgment of God, that they, who commit such 
 things, are worthy of death.” We have seen, 
 that for their peculiar wickedness and rebellion, 
 God in the most terrible manner destroyed the old 
 world by a flood, burned up the inhabitants of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, and 
 drowned the Egyptians in the Red Sea. And all 
 this destruction of human life happened within the 
 period, concerning which, it is maintained, that 
 there “ was no law threatening death as its pe¬ 
 nalty !” The deaths also of Er and Onan took 
 place in the same period, and are declared (if there 
 be any certainty of meaning in language) to have 
 been inflicted upon them for their personal sins. 
 “ And Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord ; 
 and the Lord slew him—And the thing, which he 
 
 0 
 
 l 
 
60 
 
 (Onan) did, displeased the Lord ; wherefore lie 
 slew him also.” Now we ask, according to what 
 rule of equity, were these men, and the others refer¬ 
 red to, destroyed from the face of the earth, on 
 account of their sins, if there were fio law in ex¬ 
 istence threatening death as the punishment of 
 sin? Let this question be answered if it can, 
 without implicating the judicial character of the 
 Governor among the nations. 
 
 But, say the gentlemen of the Spectator, “ This 
 period was obviously distinguished by some pe- 
 culiarity , decisive in its bearing on the Apostle’s 
 argument and they conclude, that this pe¬ 
 culiarity could be no other than the fact, that then 
 “there was no law threatening death, as its pe¬ 
 nalty.” This peculiarity, they inform us, ceased 
 when the law was given by Moses; then , as in the 
 case of Adam before the fall, the law was made to 
 threaten death as the penalty of sin; then , that 
 threatening of the law was revived, which had lain 
 dead about the space of twenty-five hundred years, 
 ever since Adam ate the forbidden fruit. And was 
 this the peculiar kindness, which Jehovah showed 
 towards the chosen seed of Abraham his friend ? 
 Is this what the Psalmist means, when he says, 
 “ He hath not dealt so with any nation?” It i3 
 indeed difficult to conceive how it comports with 
 
70 
 
 mat special goodness , which the scriptures every 
 where represent Jehovah, as manifesting to his 
 “peculiar people,” if, when he took them into 
 external covenant with himself at Mount Sinai, he 
 added to the law a threatening of death, which 
 had been repealed for so many ages, and which 
 was still left repealed, in the case of all other na¬ 
 tions ! Besides, if the nation of Israel existed un¬ 
 der a law, threatening them with death for every 
 transgression, and, in this respect, differed from 
 those, who lived in the Ante-Mosaic period, and 
 from all other nations of the earth; might we not 
 have expected to find them suffering death in a 
 more terrible and exemplary manner, or in a man¬ 
 ner more indicative of the righteous displeasure 
 of Jehovah, than all other people of all other ages 
 and nations? But was this the case? Or will 
 any dare assert it?—From all these considerations, 
 then, is it not plain ? is it not proved, that the 
 gentlemen, as well as Mr. Locke and all who have 
 adopted his sentiment, have entirely mistaken the 
 peculiarity, which the Apostle identifies with the 
 Ante-Mosaic period, and have erred in making him 
 teach (what he never taught,) that during that 
 period “there was no law threatening death as its 
 penalty ?” 
 
 But might there not have been some peculiarity 
 
71 
 
 connected with that period, “ decisive in its bear¬ 
 ing on the Apostle’s argument,” other, than the 
 one we have now considered, and which we have 
 shown was no peculiarity at all ? It must be ad¬ 
 mitted, that from Adam to Moses, the law was 
 not so clearly and so fully made known, both in its 
 precept and penalty, as it was at the expiration of 
 that period. That was emphatically a “dark age” 
 in respect of divine revelation. A sufficiency of 
 light was indeed enjoyed, to conduct the chosen 
 of God from this dark world to realms of light and 
 glory; but still when compared with the Mosaic 
 economy, and much more so, with the New Testa¬ 
 ment economy, it possessed a comparative obscu¬ 
 rity. Every economy has its peculiarity in point 
 of light. The present in this respect excels the 
 former. And were we, while speaking on the 
 subject of faith and salvation, to say, that 
 even before Christ came in the flesh, persons 
 believed in him and were saved; none would be 
 at a loss to understand the intended peculiarity of 
 the period referred to. So the Apostle, speaking 
 of sin and death, which can have no existence 
 when there is no law, informs the church at Rome, 
 that these existed in the world, even before the 
 law was promulged to Israel, from the top of Sinai, 
 m that clear, glorious and truly magnificent man- 
 
72 
 
 ner, with which all were acquainted who posses¬ 
 sed “ the lively Oracles.” There could be no dif¬ 
 ficulty in tracing the existence of sin and death, 
 after the fiery law was issued from Mount Sinai; 
 but the Apostle, to strengthen his argument, in his 
 wisdom, refers to a period in which the law was 
 less clearly revealed. And comparative obscurity , 
 being the grand peculiarity of the Ante-Mosaic pe¬ 
 riod, the Apostle refers to that period, in proof of 
 the proposition, which he had just stated, viz : 
 “ all have sinned.” Because, if there were any 
 exceptions, they must surely have been found in 
 the darkness of that period, on the principle, “to 
 whom little is given of them little will be re¬ 
 quired.” But no such exceptions were then to be 
 found, as was evident, from the universal reign of 
 death. And indeed, as death is an evidence of 
 the previous existence of sin, the Apostle’s mind 
 seems to have been directed to the period in ques¬ 
 tion, on account of the immense destruction of hu¬ 
 man life, which happened in the deluge and in the 
 overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities 
 of the plain, by the manifest judgments of God ; 
 and particularly, also, on account of the vast mul¬ 
 titude of infants, which must have perished in 
 those fearful catastrophes. Hence his allusion to 
 the death of them, “ that had not sinned after the 
 
73 
 
 similitude of Adam’s transgression.” Those, whose 
 views we are opposing, suppose that the Apostle 
 by this circumlocution intends actual sinners, who 
 had not sinned against a law threatening death as 
 a penalty, as Adam did. To admit that he in¬ 
 tended infants and that their death was any part of 
 the legal penalty, would be to admit the truth of 
 the doctrine of “ Original Sin imputed.” Hence 
 their position that the Ante-Mosaic period was pe- 
 -culiarized by the fact, that “there was no law 
 threatening death, as its penalty.” But as we 
 have disproved their position, we feel warranted 
 to rest in the good old interpretation of the words 
 referred to, that the Apostle intends infants, who 
 had not sinned actually and voluntarily , as Adam 
 did, when with a knowledge of the sin and dan¬ 
 ger, he ate the forbidden fruit. And to account 
 for their death, he refers to the representative 
 character of Adam, “who” he adds, “was the 
 figure of him that was to come.” 
 
 Sec. 3. —-Temporal Death , under whatever Form 
 it comes , Proves the Previous Existence of Sin 
 in its Subject. 
 
 The geritlemen of the Spectator, finally, give 
 as a proof, that death is never “the legal penalty 
 of sin,” the fact, that “many who die are delivered 
 
 7 
 
74 
 
 from the legal penalty.” Now, we cheerfully ad¬ 
 mit, that all, who die in the Lord , are delivered 
 from the whole penalty of the law, and conse¬ 
 quently from temporal death, viewed as a penalty: 
 For, u Christ was made a curse for them.” But 
 this is no proof, that death is not a part of the pe¬ 
 nalty in the case of all others, of whom it is writ¬ 
 ten, they are driven away in their wickedness. 
 When we admit, however, that there is nothing pe¬ 
 nal in the death of the righteous, it by no means 
 follows, that we destroy the argument, in favor of 
 the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, 
 drawn from the death of infants : Because, it be¬ 
 ing once proved, that death, by the appointment 
 of God, is the penalty of sin, the fact of its com¬ 
 ing to a human being in another form, only shows, 
 that that , which renders it penal, viz : sin, has been 
 removed by a pardon. Had not grace removed the 
 sin, the death would have been penal. When a 
 person dies, his death is either penal, or it is not: 
 If penal, he dies in his sin ; if not penal, then, his 
 sin has been remitted through the merits of a Sa- 
 viour : So that, in either case, the fact of death 
 proves the antecedent existence of sin in its sub¬ 
 ject. The pardon of sin was not, by the divine 
 constitution, to prevent death entirely, but only to 
 change its penal nature and convert it into a bles- 
 
 » 
 
75 
 
 sing. Hence, when the gracious promise was 
 made to our first parents, respecting a Saviour, it 
 was plainly intimated, that although believing in 
 the promise would afford security from the whole 
 penalty of the violated law, yet that branch of it 
 which related to temporal death, though really 
 changed in its nature, should nevertheless still 
 continue in its outward form. It was, as if God 
 had said to Adam, “ in believing this promise, 
 which I have now revealed, thou shalt indeed be 
 saved from all the penalty involved in the threat¬ 
 ened death—still, as dust thou art, unto dust 
 thou shalt return.” And such is the language of 
 God to every one of his children : By his grace 
 he pardons them and delivers them from all penal 
 evil, both here and hereafter, yet death in its out¬ 
 ward and visible form must still be undergone— 
 “ dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.” 
 For wise and obvious reasons, God retains the out¬ 
 ward form of a penal evil, while all that is penal in 
 it, he removes by his grace. Accordingly, we see 
 what the law makes death, and what pardoning 
 grace makes it—The one makes it a penalty , the 
 other a blessing . And hence, the death of infants, as 
 they are subjects of law, shows conclusively that 
 they are reckoned sinners, whether they be re~ 
 
/» 
 
 /6 
 
 yarded, as dying under the curse of the law, or de¬ 
 livered from it by the grace of the New Covenant. 
 
 In connection with this point, we must confess 
 our dullness of apprehension, as to the meaning 
 of these divines, according to their own scheme, 
 when they tell us, that the Apostle, in the passage 
 under consideration, “ proves from the universality 
 of death that all men are under sin and condem¬ 
 nation.” It seems to be here acknowledged, that 
 sin and condemnation must be as universal as 
 death. But within the range of death’s univer¬ 
 sality, numberless infants are found ; therefore, 
 the Apostle proves that infants are under sin and 
 condemnation. Or do they mean to say, that 
 “ from the universality of death, deducting about 
 one fourth for the death of infants, the Apostle 
 proves all men to be under sin and condemna¬ 
 tion?” Or do they only mean to exclude infants 
 from the all in that part of the sentence, which 
 contains their conclusion, and assert, that “from 
 the universality of death over both adults and in¬ 
 fants, the Apostle proves all adults only to be un¬ 
 der sin and condemnation ?” We cannot tell 
 what they mean, on their own principles. It 
 would seem, they had lost sight, for a moment, of 
 their favorite system, and were unconsciously led 
 to the very threshold of truth. 
 
77 
 
 Sec. 9. —Of the Kind of Sin of which the Apostle 
 
 Ti'eats. 
 
 In the same article, from which the foregoino- 
 extract is made, the New-Haven divines most per¬ 
 tinaciously maintain, that the sin of which the 
 Apostle speaks, in the scripture under considera¬ 
 tion, is exclusively actual sin. Now, if there be 
 no such thing in existence as imputed sin , if there 
 be no other sin, in the empire of Jehovah, than 
 actual sin , as they contend, it follows as a matter 
 of course, that “the sin, of which the Apostle 
 speaks, is not imputed sin, but actual , personal sin.” 
 Hence they might have saved themselves the labor 
 of attempting to prove a truism. Indeed, if their 
 definition of sin, which they have given us in an¬ 
 other place, be correct, there is an end at once to 
 all controversy respecting Original Sin. They 
 boldly tell us, that all sin consists in the Icnown 
 transgression of law , and is the voluntary exercise , 
 or act of a free moral agent; or, according to 
 their abridged and more convenient form of it, 
 that all sin consists in voluntary action. Thus 
 Original Sin, both imputed and inherent, which 
 some good men have been weak enough to believe 
 in, these divines have banished from the universe 
 in a moment, by the magic power of a definition ! 
 But why did they not proceed a little further, and 
 
78 
 
 define “ actual sin,” also, out of the universe T 
 They have, by their definition, already reduced it 
 to comparatively small limits, and why did they 
 not annihilate it altogether? “All sin, say they, 
 consists in the known transgression of law.”— 
 Then, there is nothing like that amount of sin in 
 the world, that some jealous , suspicious , iniquity - 
 hunting persons would have us believe. Let the 
 blinded Pagan worship the sun, moon and stars; 
 let him bow down to stocks and stones ; let him 
 sacrifice his own children to devils ; yea, let him 
 immolate himself upon the altar, which he has 
 erected to a false god, he commits no sin in all 
 this, for he does not knowingly transgress the law 
 of his Creator ! According to this definition, 
 Paul committed no sin in persecuting the church, 
 because he did it ignorantly , in unbelief, and actu¬ 
 ally thought, he was doing God service ! Accord¬ 
 ing to this definition, none of the thoughts , words 
 or deeds of mankind are sinful, except those, which 
 at the time are known to be transgressions of the 
 law of God! If “all sin consists in the known 
 transgression of law,” then, only bring mankind 
 into a state of profound ignorance concerning the 
 law, and you most effectually put it out of their 
 power to commit sin ! Accordingly, Satan, “the 
 god of this world,” must be of very great benefit 
 
79 
 
 \ 
 
 to the children of men, since we are assured, that 
 he blinds the minds of them that believe not, the 
 very thing they need in order to keep them from 
 sinning ! Yes, the more of ignorance, the more of 
 holiness! 
 
 But how does this definition accord with the 
 scriptures ? Our Saviour says, “If the blind lead 
 the blind, both shall fall into the ditch— blind¬ 
 ness, then, is no preservative against sin and de¬ 
 struction. Again he prays for his murderers, 
 “ Father forgive them for they knoiv not what 
 they do —he does not accuse them of known 
 trangression of law, but nevertheless he regards 
 them as guilty, for he prays that they might be 
 forgiven. David confesses and prays—“ Who can 
 understand his errors! Cleanse thou me from 
 secret faults. ” Job prays—“Make me to know 
 
 my transgression and my sin.” In a word, we 
 find, that, under the law, sin-offerings were 
 expressly appointed by Jehovah, in the case of 
 persons, who might sin through ignorance against 
 any of the commandments of the Lord, and thus 
 become guilty. (Lev. iv. 2, 13, 22, 27.) With 
 out adducing any other proof, we will leave the in¬ 
 telligent reader to judge for himself, how far these 
 divines have wandered from the rule of the Holy 
 Scriptures, when they assert, that “all sin con- 
 
80 
 
 sists in the known transgression of law.” And 
 indeed when we consider that there are “ desires 
 of the flesh and of the mind,” which are sinful, 
 according to the word of God, and which, never¬ 
 theless, do not proceed from the will , nor can be 
 identified with voluntary action , it is evident that 
 their definition, even in its abriged form, is un- 
 scriptural and to be rejected. There may be sin 
 where there is no voluntary action. “ The thought 
 of foolishness is sin.” “To will is present with 
 me, but how to perform that which is good I find 
 not. For the good that I would I do not, but the 
 evil which I ivould not, that I do .” “ Let us cleanse 
 
 ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the 
 spirit.” “ They that are Christ’s have crucified 
 the flesh, ivith the affections and lusts.” Such 
 scriptures, if we mistake not, are very far from 
 making “ all sin consist in voluntary action.” 
 
 In attempting to show, that the Apostle is 
 speaking exclusively of actual sin, these divines 
 assert, that when he says “all have sinned,” the 
 word (^jfxaprov) which he uses “ denotes actual 
 'personal sin and that only.” But from what has 
 been said respecting their definition of sin, it will 
 be seen, how little they are entitled to belief in 
 making this assertion. Do they not know, that 
 the word litterally signifies “ to miss the mark V* 
 
81 
 
 But the arrow misses the mark, not only when it 
 passes over it, but also when it falls short of it, 
 or when it passes on either side of it. The law is 
 the mark , and sin is the missing of it, not only 
 where there is a transgression of it, whether 
 known or unknown , but even where there is the 
 least want of conformity to it. This corresponds 
 with the scripture defnition of sin. “ Sin is a 
 transgression of the law.” (1. John iii. 4.) The 
 merest novice, in the Greek, knows, that the words 
 a transgression of the law , form but an imperfect 
 translation of the single term,* which the Apostle 
 uses. There is no single word in our language, 
 that fully conveys the idea intended by it. Per¬ 
 haps the term illegality comes as near to it as 
 any other. It expresses in fact any deviation from 
 the law , whether by omission or commission , by act 
 or by defect —it denotes non-conformity to the law — 
 it denotes the want or absence of any thing which 
 the law requires. Accordingly, if prayer be want¬ 
 ing , it is sin ; if charity be wanting , it is sin ; if 
 holiness be wanting , it is sin ; if righteousness be 
 wanting , it is sin, for all unrighteousness f is sin; 
 if love to Christ be wanting , it is sin, for “ if any 
 man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be 
 
 * dvofioc. t d-Sixicc, want of righteousness. 
 
82 
 
 Anathema Maranatha in a word, if there be any 
 thing wanting which the law requires , it is sin. 
 
 From these considerations, we cannot, possibly 
 believe, that the Apostle is speaking of sin in such 
 a restricted sense as would correspond with the 
 definition given of it by these divines. He is 
 speaking of sin in the broadest acceptation of the 
 term. And whether he includes “ the imputed sin 
 of Adam,” depends upon the fact of its existence. 
 The design of the present Treatise is to prove this 
 fact. Hence, at present, we would only remark, 
 that when the Apostle says, u by the disobedience 
 of one many were made sinners,” we have, at 
 least, prima facie evidence of the reality of im¬ 
 puted sin : For he does not say, that by the diso¬ 
 bedience of one, many made themselves sinners , 
 but, were made , constituted , or set doom as sinners , 
 by a sentence of Jehovah, the righteous Judge of 
 all; which could only be, as we apprehend, by 
 • his imputing to them , or judicially charging to 
 their account the offense of their federal repre¬ 
 sentative Adam. 
 
 The foregoing strictures, without adding any 
 more, will, we trust, be considered sufficient to 
 show the reader, that the views expressed in 
 the Spectator, on the passage of scripture re¬ 
 ferred to, are untenable and exceedingly erroneous, 
 
83 
 
 and that they by no means affect the correctness 
 of the exposition, which we have given of that 
 plain, but much perverted portion of scripture. 
 
84 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ADAM THE FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE OF 
 HIS POSTERITY. 
 
 As the exposition, which we have given of the 
 scope and argument of the Apostle in Rom. v. 1£ 
 —19, and which we have defended against the in¬ 
 terpretation of the same passage by the New- 
 Haven School, was only intended to lay a founda¬ 
 tion for some further remarks on the subject of 
 “the imputation of Adam’s first sin to his pos¬ 
 terity,” we will now proceed to the execution of 
 that intention. And surely when we contemplate 
 the many false and dangerous sentiments that are 
 now so universally entertained respecting this im¬ 
 portant subject, it becomes those, who would sup¬ 
 port the character of witnesses for the truth , to 
 maintain an intelligent adherence to this part of 
 the Church’s Testimony, and boldly to stand forth 
 in its defence. 
 
 The first step, which we will now take upon the 
 subject, shall be to prove, that Adam by a federal 
 arrangement was constituted the representative of 
 the whole human race. If this position cannot be 
 proved, the doctrine, respecting the imputation of 
 Adam’s sin to his posterity, can never be main¬ 
 tained. But if, on the contrary, this position be 
 
85 
 
 susceptible of proof, then the doctrine in question 
 follows, in a measure, as a matter of course. 
 
 There are, here, two topics for discussion. The 
 reality of a federal transaction with Adam ; and 
 the representative character under which he 
 appeared and acted in that transaction. 
 
 Sec. 1. — Of the Reality of a Federal Transaction 
 
 with Adam. 
 
 That Adam, as soon as created, was placed un¬ 
 der a law, can scarcely be denied. He was made 
 “in the image of God;” but as one feature in 
 that image was holiness, (Eph. iv. 24.) and as 
 holiness is conformity to a moral law, it follows, 
 that he was created under a law, which was the 
 rule and measure of his holiness. He could not 
 have been called upright or holy, had there not 
 been a moral law written in his heart, in his very 
 creation, with the requirements of which he pos¬ 
 sessed a perfect conformity. As soon, therefore, 
 as he found himself a living creature, he found 
 himself “ under law to God.” And, moreover, 
 this law, under which he was created, possessed 
 the force of a covenant-law ; that is, it impliedly 
 promised the bestowment of good, in case of con¬ 
 tinued obedience, and threatened evil, in case of 
 disobedience. None can deny, that the moral law. 
 
86 
 
 as originally given to man, was sanctioned with 
 an implied penalty, otherwise it had been unworthy 
 of the name of a law. And on the other hand, 
 that it contained an implied promise is plain from 
 some declarations of the Apostle Paul. Speaking 
 of this same moral law, he declares, that “the 
 commandment was ordained to life,” (Rom. vii. 
 10.) and again “what the law could not do, in that 
 it was weak through the flesh, God sending his 
 own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin 
 condemned sin the flesh.” (Rom. viii. 3.) Here 
 he intimates, that there was something, which the 
 law could once accomplish, before it became 
 “ weak through the flesh,” or before man became 
 so weak through sin, that he could no longer obey 
 it: And what else was that, than the procure¬ 
 ment of eternal life, the very thing which em¬ 
 braced the design of the mission of God’s Son into 
 the world? And our Saviour undoubtedly refer¬ 
 red to the promise of life inherent in the law, as 
 originally given to man, when he replied to a cer¬ 
 tain young legalist, “ If thou wilt enter into life 
 keep the commandments.” “ Do this and live,” 
 is the natural dictate of the divine law. And in¬ 
 deed no law is deserving of the name, if it do not 
 intrinsically possess the formal nature of a cove¬ 
 nant. Even human laws do so; for, while they 
 
87 
 
 threaten punishment against their violation, they 
 also impliedly promise governmental security and 
 protection to their observance. 
 
 But when we speak of God’s having made a 
 covenant with Adam, we mean something more 
 than this natural covenanting , to which we have 
 alluded. We find, that shortly after Adam’s crea¬ 
 tion, there was a positive covenanting transacted 
 between God and him. “ And the Lord God com¬ 
 manded 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 shaltnot eat 
 of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou 
 shalt surely die.” (Gen. ii. 16, 17.) Now, that 
 this was really a federal regulation between God 
 and Adam, the transaction itself bears ample proof. 
 Here,— 
 
 1. There are two distinct parties mentioned— 
 the Lord God, the Supreme Sovereign and Law¬ 
 giver of the Universe, and the man, the subordi¬ 
 nate lord of the lower creation. And the great 
 
 o 
 
 inequality of the parties is no valid objection 
 against their mutually covenanting together, when 
 it is recollected, that the whole matter originated 
 with, and was proposed by the superior party, and 
 that too, in the way of manifesting sovereign con¬ 
 descension and goodness to the inferior- party. 
 
 % 
 
88 
 
 There is nothing to prevent a master from entering 
 into a federal compact with a servant. 
 
 2. There is a law given. “The Lord God 
 commanded the man.” And this was a positive 
 law , proceeding, not from the nature, but from the 
 sovereign will of God ; as it related to a matter, 
 which in its own nature, was indifferent, viz : the 
 eating of a certain fruit. Now if the natural law, 
 under which man was created, contained in itself 
 the force of a covenant, much more may this posi¬ 
 tive law be regarded as a covenant-law. 
 
 3. There is a condition specified. The precise 
 object, about which the regulation was made, was 
 “ the fruit of the trees of the garden.” And, with 
 one solitary exception, a free use of the fruit of 
 all the trees growing in Eden was granted to the 
 man. “ Of every tree of the garden thou mayest 
 freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of 
 good and evil thou shaft not eat of it,” And let 
 it not be said, that this matter was too trifling to 
 constitute an object worthy of a solemn covenant. 
 Because nothing could have been a more satisfac¬ 
 tory test of the man’s obedience to the will of his 
 Creator : which was the great object propounded 
 by this transaction. Obedience to this one precept 
 would have secured obedience to the whole moral 
 law ; and disobedience to it was disobedience to 
 
89 
 
 the whole moral law. u Whosoever offendeth in 
 one point is guilty of all.” Hence the immediate 
 condition, proposed to Adam, was not so much 
 doing , as refraining from doing . ‘-But of the 
 tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt 
 not eat of it.” What condition could be more 
 easy, considering the great object to be accom 
 plished by it 7 
 
 4. There is a penalty annexed, as a solemn 
 sanction of the transaction. u In the day thou 
 eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” The evil 
 threatened to be inflicted, in case of disobedience, 
 was death ; and not only a present but also a 
 future death: u dying thou shalt die”—one con¬ 
 tinued death, from the moment of transgressing 
 to all eternity—involving a painful separation, not 
 merely of the union between soul and body, but 
 what is infinitely more terrible, a spiritual and 
 eternal separation between the covenant-breaker 
 and his God, accompanied with loss, shame, suf¬ 
 fering and everlasting infamy. 
 
 5. There is a promise implied. Since death 
 was expressly threatened as the penalty of diso¬ 
 bedience, a promise, including the very opposite of 
 death, must be inferred as having been made to a 
 course of obedience. And as the penalty em¬ 
 braced the greatest amount of evil, the promise 
 
 3 * 
 
90 
 
 may be considered as embracing the greatest 
 amount of good, viz : life —natural, spiritual and 
 eternal. And, 
 
 6. There is the consent of Adam to the terms 
 proposed. By revelation he was made acquainted 
 with the sovereign will of the Lord God, in this 
 matter; and being a trtily intelligent being, he 
 perfectly understood the nature of the whole trans¬ 
 action. And accordingly he communicated a 
 knowledge of the eventful affair to the woman, 
 whom God shortly afterwards gave to be with 
 him, and who also considered herself bound by the 
 same deed* For, in the next Chapter she is re¬ 
 presented as saying to the Serpent, “we may 
 eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but 
 of the fruit of the tree, which is in the 
 midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not 
 eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” 
 Now this is enough to show, that there was actu¬ 
 ally a consent, on the part of man, to the proposed 
 stipulation. For, being in possession of the 
 knowledge of his Creator’s will, as an upright and 
 holy creature, he could not do otherwise, than yield 
 a free, immediate and cordial consent to it. In¬ 
 deed in his state of innocence, and while eno-acred 
 in active obedience, his Creator’s will was his 
 will. And hence, when called to account for his 
 
91 
 
 disobedience, he does not plead that he had never 
 consented to what had been proposed : on the con¬ 
 trary, the apology which he offers plainly indi¬ 
 cates, that he had given his consent. “Hast thou 
 eaten of the tree,” says God, “ whereof I com¬ 
 manded thee, that thou shouldst not eatAnd 
 the man said, “ The woman, whom thou gavest 
 to be with me, she gave me of the tree 3 and I did 
 eat.” Here he acknowledges guilt, but endeavors 
 to palliate it, by laying the blame upon her, who 
 was first in the transgression. 
 
 Now, from the foregoing considerations, it can¬ 
 not, with any color of reason, be denied, that God 
 did actually enter into a covenant with Adam. 
 But the scriptures furnish us with many additional 
 proofs upon the subject. Two only shall be no¬ 
 ticed. 
 
 1. It is written in Hosea, (chap. vi. 7.) “But 
 they like men have transgressed the covenant.” 
 With more propriety, these words may be trans¬ 
 lated, “But they like Adam have transgressed 
 the covenant.” The same phraseology occurs in 
 Job, (chap. xxxi. 33.) “ If I have covered my 
 
 transgression as Adam.” Here the first man, 
 Adam is unquestionably intended. In the eighty- 
 second Psalm, we meet with the same expression 
 •—“But, ye shall die like men” —which clause 
 
92 
 
 would have been more forcibly expressed, and 
 more in accordance with the scope of the Psalmist, 
 had our Translators rendered it—“But ye shall 
 die like Adam.” But admitting, that the passage 
 in Hosea is correctly translated, who would ever 
 think of excluding Adam from “the men” to 
 whom the prophet compares covenant-breaking 
 Israel ? And if he be included, then what cove¬ 
 nant was he ever chargeable with transgressing, 
 other than the covenant of which we are speaking I 
 £. In Hebrews, (chap. xii. £4,) we read of 
 “Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant.” This 
 language suggests, that there was an “ old cove¬ 
 nant,” of which Jesus was not the Mediator. And 
 what else could that covenant have been, than the 
 covenant of works, which had been made with 
 Adam I For, granting, that there is in these 
 words a reference to the new, in opposition to the 
 old testament dispensation of the covenant of 
 Grace ; still as Jesus is the mediator of that cove¬ 
 nant, under both dispensations of it, and as there 
 is evidently an allusion, here to a covenant of 
 which he was not the Mediator, we must conclude 
 that the covenant made with Adam is intended. 
 The Covenant of Grace, in respect of origin, is 
 an “ everlasting covenant,” but in respect of reve¬ 
 lation and execution, it succeeds the Covenant of 
 
93 
 
 Works; and in comparison with which it receives 
 the name of the New Covenant. 
 
 Thus, then, we have shown, that the Lord God 
 made a covenant with Adam : and if any further 
 evidence of this be required, it may be found in 
 those proofs, which shall now be offered in the 
 discussion of the other topic proposed, viz : that 
 Adam, in this covenant, appeared and acted in 
 the relation of a representative to all his posterity. 
 
 Sec. 2 . —Of the Representative Character of 
 
 Adam. 
 
 Adam, being the first man God created, was the 
 “natural head” of all his descendants; or to vary 
 the expression, the “natural root,” from which 
 they all sprung. But this is not what we mean by 
 his being constituted the representative of his 
 offspring. This circumstance, indeed, laid a pro - 
 per foundation, and proved his fitness for sustain¬ 
 ing a representative character, but was something 
 entirely distinct from that character. Had Adam, 
 in the covenant, been regarded merely as a natural 
 head, we are free to acknowledge, that his de¬ 
 scendants could not, according to our ideas of jus¬ 
 tice, have been charged with the guilt of his sin¬ 
 ful conduct, however they might have suffered 
 temporal evils in consequence of his conduct, a," 
 
94 
 
 children, though not chargeable with the sins of 
 their parents, frequently become sufferers in con¬ 
 sequence of their immoral conduct. But when we 
 speak of Adam as a representative, we mean, that 
 he appeared and acted in the name of his posterity, 
 so that in law, his acts became virtually their acts, 
 they, as well as he, being held responsible for 
 them. This remark, therefore, will shew the 
 reader the bearing, that the fact of Adam’s repre- 
 senative character has upon the doctrine of Origi¬ 
 nal Sin. 
 
 Now, that Adam acted as the federal head and 
 representative of his posterity, may be presumed 
 from the fact of his being placed under a positive 
 Jaw. The natural law, under which Adam was 
 created, was, as we have seen, a covenant-law, 
 and was sufficient to have secured him eternal life, 
 in virtue of the implied promise of Jehovah. 
 Why, then, was he put under a positive law re¬ 
 lating to “ the fruit of the tree of the knowledge 
 of good and evil'?” Was it, that his obedience 
 might be more easy ? This could not affect the 
 facility of his obedience : For, being upright and 
 holy in his nature, he could have obeyed God’s 
 law in every respect with more ease than he could 
 have violated it. Indeed, no act of disobedience 
 could have been committed by him, without offer- 
 
ing resistance to the holy propensities of his na¬ 
 ture. And admitting, what was probably the case, 
 that the moral law could only be broken through this 
 positive law, still we cannot see, how this could 
 be any advantage to a perfectly holy creature, to 
 whom obedience was more congenial than diso¬ 
 bedience. The true reason, therefore, of this new 
 arrangement seems to have been, that Adam mio-ht 
 sustain a representative character, a character 
 which he did not sustain while existing simply un¬ 
 der the original law given him in his creation ; 
 under which law he was only personally consider¬ 
 ed, acting for himself alone. And had no other 
 arrangement been effected in relation to him, all 
 his children would have been immediately and per¬ 
 sonally placed under the same law as a covenant- 
 law, the moment they were brought into exis¬ 
 tence, and would have stood or fallen, according 
 to their respective personal conduct. Moreover, 
 when we consider, that Adam, when created, could 
 have had no consciousness of standing as a repre¬ 
 sentative of others, we see a very glorious pro¬ 
 priety in God’s entering into a positive arrange¬ 
 ment with him relative to that matter. And that 
 lie might be constituted the representative, or 
 moral head of his posterity, as he was created 
 their natural head, seems obviously to have been 
 
96 
 
 the principal design of that positive establishment , 
 relative to u the tree in the midst of the o-arden ” 
 
 © 7 
 
 and which is commonly called the covenant of 
 works. But we do not rest the argument upon 
 mere presumptive proof. The following considera¬ 
 tions, if duly weighed, must by every unbiassed 
 mind, be regarded as proofs positive upon this in¬ 
 teresting subject. 
 
 Sec. 3. —The Representative Character of Adam 
 Proved from Romans , v. 12. 
 
 The word of God represents all mankind as 
 having sinned in Adam. (Rom. v. 12.) The last 
 clause of this verse, as we have already seen, may 
 with the utmost propriety, be translated, in whom 
 ale have sinned. According, however, to the 
 common translation, the same idea is implied, as 
 the scope of the Apostle abundantly shows. And, 
 indeed, there is nothing stronger in the expres¬ 
 sion, u in whom, (Adam,) all have sinned,” than 
 in the expression, used in the 19th verse, “by one 
 man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” 
 If many were made or constituted sinners by the 
 disobedience of Adam, does it not follow, that they 
 sinned in him? And it is impossible to conceive, 
 how mankind, being as yet unborn, could have sin¬ 
 ned in him , or been constituted sinners by his diso~ 
 
97 
 
 bedience , had he not sustained the character of their 
 representative and acted for them. An attempt, 
 however, is made to evade this argument. And 
 how? Simply by denying, that the Apostle in¬ 
 tends all mankind , when he asserts, that “ death 
 passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” It 
 is said, adults only are intended ; and the reason 
 why they die, is because they sin actually ! But 
 the word, which the Apostle uses, denotes human 
 beings without any respect of age or sex. And if 
 all human beings are not intended, the Apostle’s 
 declaration sinks into tameness, to say nothing 
 worse. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered 
 
 INTO THE WORLD, AND DEATH BY SIN, EVEN SO 
 DEATH PASSED UPON ALL ADULTS, FOR THAT ALL 
 
 adults have sinned actually ! What a mighty 
 Apostolical conclusion ! But why lay it down as 
 a basis , that sin and death entered into the world 
 by one man, if he only intended to build upon it 
 the fact, that actual sinners die? Could not tlieir 
 death be accounted for without referring to the 
 
 O 
 
 sin of Adam ? And why are infants excluded from 
 the Apostle’s ‘‘all men” that die? Do not they 
 die ? Then, why not let the Apostle account for 
 their death, as well as for that of adults ? He does 
 account for their death, for the death of all, as the 
 context abundantly proves, and that by declaring, 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 that they “all have sinned.” And since a very 
 large portion of human beings that die, are in¬ 
 capable of actual sinning, they must have sinned 
 “in Adam;” which could only have been, by vir¬ 
 tue of his representation of them in the Covenant 
 of Works. 
 
 Sec. 4. —The Same Proved from 1. Cor. xv. 22. 
 
 Inspiration declares, that “ In Adam all die/’ 
 (1. Cor. xv. 22.) Now, even admitting, that it is 
 a temporal dying only, that is here spoken of, this 
 is sufficient to answer our purpose. For in what 
 sense can all men be said to “ die in Adam in a 
 person, who lived and died before they were called 
 into existence, unless that he represented them at 
 the time, when death was first incurred by trans¬ 
 gression? Nor can this conclusion be evaded, by 
 saying, that the Apostle only means, that as Adam 
 became mortal by transgression, so he propagated 
 a mortal nature to all his offspring. Because the 
 Apostle is not speaking of Adam as a natural , 
 but as a moral head. He ascribes to him the same 
 kind of headship, that he does to our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. When he assures us in the same place, 
 in regard to the resurrection of the just, that 
 “they shall all be made alive in Christ,” most, 
 certainly, he is not to be understood as represent- 
 
mg the Saviour to be their natural, but their moral 
 head. Believers “ shall all be made alive in 
 Christ; that is, in virtue of their union to him, 
 and on the ground of some meritorious act per¬ 
 formed by him, as their moral Head or Represen¬ 
 tative. And this, we are assured, bears the most 
 exact and striking similarity to the undeniable 
 fact, that “in Adam all die,” in virtue of their 
 union to him, and on the ground of some sinful 
 act performed by him, as their representative. 
 The nature of the headship in both cases is the 
 same; and if viewed otherwise, the aptness of the 
 Apostle’s comparison ceases to be obvious. If 
 then Adam propagated a mortal nature to all his 
 offspring, this, we contend, arose from the fact of 
 his having represented them in that covenant, 
 whose threatening was death—“In the day, thou 
 eatest thereof thou shalt surely die or as Eve 
 expresses it, “ Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall 
 ye touch it, lest ye die.” It must be granted, 
 that if Adam, prior to the fall, possessed immor¬ 
 tality of body, as well as of soul, that immortality 
 was not absolute but conditional. Its continuance 
 depended on his continued obedience. Disobe¬ 
 dience to the will of his Creator would render him 
 mortal; in that case, he would “surely die.” 
 Disobey he did; and accordingly he forfeited his 
 
100 
 
 immortality and became deservedly mortal. And 
 hence, his offspring are also mortal in the same 
 sense. Their mortality does not necessarily take 
 place from the fact, that they are the descendants 
 of a mortal. It is not absolute. Enoch and Elijah 
 were translated. The last generation of Adam 
 will not properly die. “We shall not all sleep.’’ 
 When, therefore we are told, that “in Adam all 
 die,” the meaning is not, that all do absolutely and 
 necessarily die, but, that “ in him” all became ob¬ 
 noxious to death, or deserving of death. And 
 surely this involves his representative character. 
 For, death, is in its own nature, a punishment ; 
 and a punishment presupposes guilt—hence, if 
 “ all die in Adam,” it is because they are regarded 
 as having incurred death “ in him which could 
 only be on the ground of his having acted as their 
 representative, when, by him, sin and death enter¬ 
 ed into the world. This argument is conclusive 
 with all those, who believe with the Apostle, that 
 “ death is the wages of sin.”* 
 
 Sec. 5.— The Same Proved from the Special No¬ 
 tice which the Apostle takes of the “ One Offense .” 
 
 That Adam was a representative in the cove¬ 
 nant, is evident from the special notice, that is 
 
 * See Chap. iii. Secs. 6 and 8. 
 
101 
 
 taken of his “ one offense.” This one offense of 
 Adam, the Apostle repeats again and again* in the 
 passage before explained. Now why this particu¬ 
 larity ? Why insist so much upon that one of¬ 
 fense ? Why not attribute the evils, of which 
 he speaks, to the offenses of Adam in general ? 
 Or, why not rather attribute them to the offenses 
 of our more immediate parents ? Surely our natu¬ 
 ral connection with them is more immediate than 
 with Adam? The reason is obvious. When 
 Adam committed the “ one offense,” to which the 
 Apostle alludes, he sustained the peculiar charac¬ 
 ter of a federal representative. But as soon as 
 that offense was committed, he lost that peculiar 
 character, and went back to the private station which 
 he occupied under the natural law. And hence 
 we have no concern in any of his other offenses 
 any more than we have in the offenses of Noah, 
 or any other individual in the line of our ancestry. 
 If Adam, then, was not our representative, at the 
 time he ate the forbidden fruit, what can the Apos¬ 
 tle possibly mean, by speaking so emphatically of 
 that one offense , and bringing all mankind under its 
 baleful influence? 
 
 
102 
 
 Sec. 6. —The same proved from a Consideration 
 of the Representative Character of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Adam was a representative head, otherwise he 
 could not be called “the figure,” or type of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, (Rom. v. 14.) But do the 
 scriptures attribute to Christ a representative or 
 federal headship I Unless this can be shown, the 
 present argument falls to the ground. The mat¬ 
 ter, however, is susceptible of the clearest proof. 
 That a covenant was formed, in eternity, between 
 the Father and the Son, relative to the salvation 
 of fallen and guilty man, is evident. For, Jehovah, 
 the Father, expressly declares,^ “I have made a 
 covenant with my chosen ; I have sworn unto Da¬ 
 vid my servant.” (Ps. lxxxix. 3.) Jesus Christ is 
 here principally intended; for he is elsewhere call¬ 
 ed the Father’s servant, and his elect, or chosen 
 one : “ Behold, my servant, whom I uphold ; mine 
 elect, in whom my soul delighteth.” (Isa. xlii. 1.) 
 And he is also called David: “They shall serve 
 the Lord their God, and David their king, whom 
 I will raise up unto them.” (Jer. xxx. 9.) And 
 again: “I will set tip one shepherd over them, 
 and he shall feed them, even my servant David,” 
 &c. (Ezek. xxxiv. 23.) Indeed Christ himself is 
 expressly called a covenant ; implying that both he 
 
103 
 
 and all the blessings of his purchase come to be 
 enjoyed by believers, in virtue of a covenant, of 
 which he is the head. “I will give thee for a co¬ 
 venant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, 
 to open blind eyes,” fee. (Isa. xlii. 6.) Do we 
 not also read of “an everlasting covenant:” and 
 of “the blood of the everlasting covenant;” and 
 of “Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant?” 
 These expressions are calculated to mislead us, if 
 they do not point to a covenant of grace, estab¬ 
 lished, before time, with our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Besides, we have the express terms of this cove¬ 
 nant mentioned in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. 
 “When [if] thou shalt make his soul an offering 
 for sin, he shall see his seed, and the pleasure of 
 the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see 
 of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. 
 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the 
 great, [the great for a portion] and he shall divide 
 the spoil with the strong, [the strong for a spoil] 
 because he hath poured out his soul unto death,” 
 &c. And corresponding to this, the Apostle Paul, 
 when speaking of Christ’s having “humbled him¬ 
 self, and become obedient unto death, even the 
 death of the cross,” adds, “wherefore also God 
 hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, 
 that is above every name.” This exaltation took 
 
 / 
 
104 
 
 place upon the performance of a condition, and as 
 the result of a promise, and, therefore, incontro- 
 vertibly proves the existence of a covenant between 
 Christ and his Father. And, indeed, the whole 
 tenor of the gospel proves the same thing. But it 
 is not so much the reality of this covenant, that we 
 are now inquiring after, as the evidence of Christ’s 
 representative character in this covenant. And 
 that he sustained this character, and still sustains 
 it, is evident: Because, 
 
 1. A certain number of our fallen race is spoken 
 of, as having been given to him, to be redeemed 
 and saved. “ All that the Father hath given me 
 shall come unto me.” “Thou hast given him 
 power over all flesh, that he might give eternal 
 life to as many as thou hast given him.” “ And 
 I looked, and lo, a Lamb stood on the Mount Zion, 
 and with him an hundred and forty and four thou¬ 
 sand, having his Father’s name written in their 
 foreheads. These were redeemed from among 
 men, being the first fruits unto God and the 
 Lamb.” “Thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he 
 shall save his people from their sins.” 
 
 2. Christ speaks as acting in the name and room 
 of these. “ I lay down my life for the sheep.” “I 
 pray for them.” “ For their sakes I sanctify my¬ 
 self,” &c. And corresponding to this, the Apostle 
 
105 
 
 maintains, that “ Christ loved the church and gave 
 himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse 
 it,” &c. 
 
 3. Christ’s people are represented as being his 
 seed and the travail of his soul. “He shall see 
 his seed.” “He shall see of the travail of his soul 
 and be satisfied.” 
 
 4. It is difficult to conceive, how Jesus Christ, 
 “the holy one of God,” should be made under a 
 broken law, and have obedience and sufferings ex¬ 
 acted of him, if he were not really sustaining and 
 truly acting in the character of a public head and 
 representative of others. 
 
 5. He is expressly called a surety. “By so 
 much was Jesus made a surety of a better testa¬ 
 ment,” or covenant. A surety is one who under¬ 
 takes the payment of another’s debts. In law¬ 
 reckoning, the surety and the debtor are viewed as 
 one person. If the surety pay the debt, the law 
 discharges the debtor, the same as if he himself 
 had paid it. Now our blessed Lord has acted the 
 part of a surety towards his people ; he has paid 
 all the debts which they owed to law and justice ; 
 and hence they become legally discharged. From 
 this Christ’s representative character is easily in¬ 
 ferred. 
 
 6. We find him called by the same name by 
 
106 
 
 which his people are denominated. Thus, he is 
 called Israel : But in what other sense, than that 
 he is the representative of the whole Israel of God ? 
 Hence, we have his language, as originally appli¬ 
 ed to his own individual case, so interpreted by an 
 inspired Apostle as to refer to all the elect. Thus 
 says Christ, “He is near that justifieth me, —who 
 is he that shall condemn me? (Isa. 1. 8, 9.) But 
 says the Apostle, with his eye on these words, 
 “ Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s 
 elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is lie that 
 condemneth?” &tc. (Rom. viii. 35, 34.) And it 
 may be here added, that not only is Christ called 
 by the name of his church, but they are also called 
 by his name. “ For as the body is one, and hath 
 many members, and all the members of that one 
 body, being many, are one body ; so also is Christ. 
 (1 Cor. xii. 12.) But how can the Church be 
 called Christ , unless he be their representing head? 
 But not to multiply arguments on this point, we 
 will only add, 
 
 7. That Christ’s resurrection is plainly spoken 
 of, as being that of a representative. In his resur¬ 
 rection he appeared as “the first fruits of them 
 that slept.” (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23.) Under the law, 
 “ the first fruits” were offered to the Lord as are- 
 presentation of the whole fruits of the coming har- 
 
107 
 
 vest; and their consecration to the Lord was ac¬ 
 cepted and regarded as a consecration of the whole 
 harvest. Christ’s resurrection, therefore, was of 
 a representative nature, and secured the actual 
 resurrection of all his followers. But if Christ re¬ 
 presented his people- in his resurrection, he must 
 also have represented them in his death, nay, in the 
 whole of his mediatory undertaking and work. 
 
 Having thus proved Christ to be the federal re- 
 presentive of his chosen people, we can appreciate 
 the force of the Apostle’s words, when he asserts, 
 that Adam was u the figure of him that was to 
 come.” All the types of Christ, spoken of in scrip¬ 
 ture, manifestly refer to his character and work as 
 Mediator. Now, how could Adam have been a 
 type of the Mediator, except by reason of his sus¬ 
 taining a representative character ? Adam is no 
 where called, either a prophet, priest or king. He ' 
 is not called a Mediator, as Moses was; he is not 
 celebrated for destroying the enemies of the church, 
 like Sampson ; he was never in a whale’s belly, as 
 Jonah was. How then was he a type of Christ? 
 View him as the representative of all his natural 
 seed, as Christ is of his spiritual seed, and his ty¬ 
 pical character becomes apparent, the phrase un¬ 
 der consideration freed from an unmeaning obscu¬ 
 rity, that must otherwise cover it, and the Apos- 
 
108 
 
 tie’s argument, in that place, triumphantly sus¬ 
 tained. 
 
 Sec. 7. —The same proved from the comparison , 
 drawn in Scripture , between Adam and Christ. 
 
 Adam’s representative character is proved 
 from the comparison which the scriptures draw 
 between him and our Lord Jesus Christ. This 
 comparison is very particularly stated in the fol¬ 
 lowing words of the Apostle—“ If through the of¬ 
 fence 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. If 
 by one man’s offense death reigned by one ; much 
 more they which receive abundance of grace, and 
 of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life, by 
 one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offense 
 of one, judgment came upon all men to condem¬ 
 nation ; even so by the righteousness of one, the 
 free gift came upon all men unto justification of 
 life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were 
 made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall 
 many be made righteous.” What a striking con¬ 
 trast is here drawn between the effects resulting 
 from the acts of these two characters! These 
 surely must have been public or representative acts ; 
 for they involve the condition of millions. Here 
 
1G9 
 
 are sin, condemnation and death resulting from the 
 “ one offence” of the one ; and righteousness, jus¬ 
 tification and life resulting 1 from the “ obedience” 
 or “righteousness” of the other! The Apostle 
 also introduces this same comparison, in writing 
 to the church at Corinth—“ As in Adam all die, 
 even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 
 xv. £2.) And afterwards, “ The first man Adam 
 was made a living soul, the last Adam was made 
 a quickening spirit—The first man is of the earth, 
 earthly; the second man is the Lord from hea¬ 
 ven.” (Verses 45, 47.) Now, if Adam did not 
 sustain a representative character, how is the Apos¬ 
 tle, here, to be understood, in calling Jesus Christ 
 “the second man,” and “the last Adam?” In 
 what sense is Christ the second to Adam, unless it 
 be in respect of his sustaining a representative 
 headship? And in what sense is he the “last 
 Adam,” unless it be that he possesses some distin¬ 
 guishing characteristic, which gives him a resem¬ 
 blance to the “first Adam,” and which never will 
 be found in any other ? And what else can this 
 characteristic be, than representative headship? 
 Besides, these two personages are here presented 
 to us, as each having a numerous body, or class of 
 individuals, resembling himself. “As is the 
 earthy, (Adam,) such are they also that are 
 
 10 
 
110 
 
 earthy ; and as is the heavenly, (Christ,) such 
 are they also that are heavenly.” (v. 48.) From 
 the scope of the Apostle, these words, in their sig¬ 
 nification, are certainly to be considered as paral¬ 
 lel to, and illustrative of those contained in v. ££— 
 “As in Adam all die ; even so in Christ shall all 
 be made alive.” And hence, unless Adam and 
 Christ be viewed as representatives of others, it is 
 difficult to conceive the reason why they should be 
 singled out, in the manner that is here done, and 
 the condition of all mankind be inseparably coupled 
 with them, either for good or for evil. We think, 
 therefore, that the conclusion is unavoidable— 
 when the comparison, instituted in scripture, be¬ 
 tween Adam and Christ, is duly considered, and 
 
 m n 
 
 when it is also remembered, that Christ is, as was 
 before proved, the representative of the election of 
 grace—that Adam in the covenant of works did 
 really sustain the character of a representing head 
 to all his natural offspring. 
 
 Sec. 8 .—The same proved from a consideration of 
 the moral condition of infants. 
 
 The same truth is proved from a consideration 
 of the moral condition of infants. The scriptures 
 most unequivocally teach, that infants are sub¬ 
 jects of law, and consequently possess a moral 
 
Ill 
 
 character. Their being called children , identifies 
 them as human beings . Indeed, they must be hu¬ 
 man beings from the moment they possess human ¬ 
 ity , or linman nature , in its two great constituent 
 principles of body and soul. Now, to say, as do 
 our modern Pelagians, that these human beings are 
 not subjects of law, or do not possess a moral char¬ 
 acter, is to classify them with the brute creation, 
 and consequently to make such of them as die in 
 infancy, share the portion of “the beasts which 
 perish.” For certainly, on their principles, such 
 could not be received into heaven, unless we ab¬ 
 surdly suppose, that there are beings admitted to 
 the glory of the upper world, who are not subjects 
 of law, and whose reception there was not in ac¬ 
 cordance with any judicial sentence founded on 
 law ! But that infants, from the earliest period of 
 their existence as human beings, are subjects of 
 law, may be inferred from what is said respecting 
 our Lord in his incarnation —“ God sent forth his 
 Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” 
 (Gal. iv. 4.) No sooner was he possessed of hu¬ 
 manity, than he was under law for, in his being 
 made of a ivoman , he was made under the law . It 
 is true, he w T as not made under the law for him¬ 
 self, but as the surety of others ; nevertheless, his 
 case obviously teaches, that every person posses- 
 
 * 
 
112 
 
 sing humanity , must be under the law ; and since 
 infants cannot be supposed to stand surety for 
 others, they are made under the law for themselves. 
 
 The rite of circumcision, as administered to in¬ 
 fants under the former economy, recognized them 
 as possessing a moral character : they were to be 
 circumcised on the eighth day after their birth. 
 Now, had they not been subjects of law, how could 
 they have been the proper subjects of circumcis¬ 
 ion, which, according to the Apostle, was a seal of 
 the righteousness offaith? And the ordinance of 
 baptism, under the present dispensation, teaches 
 the same thing: for if infants are not subjects of 
 law, why baptize them ? 
 
 Besides, the scriptures represent infants, as be¬ 
 ing capable of sustaining an ecclesiastical relation. 
 The Abrahamic covenant in particular, proves this. 
 The Lord said to Abraham, “I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
 thee, in their generations, for an everlasting cov¬ 
 enant, to be a God unto thee and thy seed after 
 thee.” And immediately upon the revelation of 
 this promise, circumcision was appointed as “a 
 token of the covenant.” “He that is eight days 
 old, shall be circumcised among you, every man- 
 child in your generations.” v. 12. Here, then, 
 we have infants recognized as bearing an ecclesias- 
 
1 IB 
 
 tical relation, and as having a claim to an ecclesi ¬ 
 astical ordinance, called “ a token of the covenant,” 
 “ a seal of the righteousness of faith.” And this 
 relation is still retained by the infant seed of be¬ 
 lievers. For says Peter, with his eye upon the 
 forecited passage, “the promise is unto you and 
 to your children.” Acts ii. 39. And Paul declares 
 to the Corinthians, that “the unbelieving husband 
 is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbe¬ 
 lieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband ; 
 else were your children unclean; but now are 
 they holy.” 1 Cor. vii. 14. This text proves, 
 that the matrimonial union is so far sanctified by 
 the faith of one of the parties, that the offspring of 
 that union sustains an ecclesiastical relation : in¬ 
 deed, the ingenuity of man cannot give to it any 
 other rational interpretation. In like manner, al¬ 
 so, our saviour took up infants* in his arms and 
 blessed them, which shows that he regarded them 
 as possessing a moral character; and in saying, 
 “ of such is the kingdom of God,” he declared that 
 they were capable subjects of an ecclesiastical re¬ 
 lation—that they were proper subjects of the king¬ 
 dom of grace here, and of glory hereafter. But if 
 
 <ra fipSCpV} sucking children. Luke xviii. 16. 
 Mark x. 16. 
 
114 
 
 infants are capable of sustaining an ecclesiastical 
 relation, it inevitably follows, that th'^y are subjects 
 of law—that they possess a moral character. 
 
 Having thus proved that infants aie subjects of 
 law, let us, for a moment, enquire after their true 
 moral condition. And a little reflection most con¬ 
 vince all, that, as born into the world, they are to 
 be regarded as sinners under the curse of a broken 
 law. It will not be denied, we trust, that some of 
 the infant seed of Adam are received into heaven. 
 The fact of their being embraced in the promise, 
 recognized as sustaining an ecclesiastical relation, 
 and made subjects of church-privileges, most deci¬ 
 dedly establishes this. Besides, our Saviour dis¬ 
 tinctly says, “ suffer little children to come unto 
 me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the king¬ 
 dom of God.” But in what way, or through what 
 channel are they received into heaven ? Unques¬ 
 tionably through the channel of the covenant of 
 grace, and in virtue of the merits of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. For we have seen, that the covenant of 
 grace, of which Christ is the surety, embraces such 
 in its promise ; and that such have an ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal relation, or constitute a part of the church. 
 They are, therefore, saved by the merits of Christ: 
 For we read, that “ Christ loved the church, and 
 gave himself for it ; that he might sanctify and 
 
115 
 
 cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word ; 
 that he might present it to himself a glorious 
 church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing; but that it should be holy, and without 
 blame before him in love.” Eph. v. 25, £7.* 
 
 * The above considerations, it is presumed, sufficiently show 
 how utterly groundless is the position, slyly advanced in the fol¬ 
 lowing interrogatories: 
 
 “ What if those of the human race who die in very early in¬ 
 fancy, never truly and properly come under the moral govern¬ 
 ment of God in this world ? In respect to many of our race, who 
 do come under the moral government of God in the present life, 
 its rich provisions of grace and mercy, through their perversion, 
 only become the occasion of augmenting their guilt and endless 
 ruin. What then, if God, to avert these evils from one class of 
 the human race, before they become accountable subjects of his 
 moral government in this world, translates them to another, that 
 they may never partake in the pollution of sin, but wake up there 
 in the beauty of holiness?”— Christian Spectator , vol. v., p. 324. 
 
 Children were embraced in the Abrahamic covenant, which 
 was a revelation of the covenant of grace: children, both under 
 the former and the present economy, have sustained an ecclesias¬ 
 tical relation; children, therefore, are “ under the moral govern¬ 
 ment of God in this world.” Moreover, such of the infant seed 
 of believers, as die in infancy and are received into heaven, must 
 be indebted for their happiness, to the merits of the Saviour: 
 otherwise, Christ did not give himself for the whole church that 
 he might sanctify and cleanse it—a suggestion most palpably at 
 variance with the express declaration of God’s word. It would 
 seem, that the divines of the New-Haven school are determined 
 to set every thing in theology at loose ends. Hence their method 
 of starting new theories in the way of interrogation, and after¬ 
 wards changing them from the interrogatory to the assertive form, 
 
116 
 
 Hence, since there are infants that belong to 
 “ the church of the first-born, whose names are 
 written in heaven,” it follows, that they have been 
 purchased by the vicarious sacrifice of the Son of 
 God, and consequently must be viewed, in respect of 
 their antecedent moral condition, as guilty and defi¬ 
 led sinners, yea, as being “by nature children of 
 wrath.” Indeed, it is most obvious, that there are 
 none received into heaven from our world, save 
 such as have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. 
 
 The hundred and forty and four thousand, whom 
 John saw standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion, 
 were “redeemed from among men.” Besides, if glo- 
 
 when they find the community sufficiently prepared to receive 
 them. This has been the manner of heretics in all ages.—In stri¬ 
 king out a new way for the reception of infants into heaven, 
 why did not these very acute divines make it broad enough for 
 the whole brute creation ? On their principles there would be no 
 difficulty in placing in heaven all the reptiles that infest our globe. 
 True, they are not “ under the moral government of God in this 
 world”—true, they are neither holy nor unholy , just like infants! 
 but, notwithstanding all this, “ what if God translates them to 
 heaven, that they may wake up there in the beauty of holiness ?” 
 Besides with these divines, death must possess some very potent 
 charm, since it can metamorphose a being, that has no moral 
 character, into one possessing a moral character—can place a be¬ 
 ing “ under the moral government of God,” that was never be¬ 
 fore under a moral government—and can, in a moment , in the 
 twinkling of an eye, cause a being that was neither holy nor 
 unholy'" to wake up in heaven in the beauty of holiness !” 
 
117 
 
 rifled infants, were not redeemed, they could not 
 unite in singing the song of redeeming love, (Rev. 
 i. 5.) Now all the redeemed were, prior to their 
 redemption, under the curse of the law, that is, 
 under a broken law, and subjected to its curse, or 
 penalty. “When the fullness of the time was 
 come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, 
 made under the law, to redeem them that were 
 under the law.” (Gal. iv. 5, 6.) “Christ hath 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 made a curse for us.” (Chap. iii. 13.) Redeemed 
 infants are, therefore, to be viewed as being- orio-i- 
 nally under the curse of a broken law. Such truly 
 is their moral condition by nature. But how came 
 they into that deplorable condition, a condition 
 which rendered necessary a redemption , before 
 they could be happy with God? They were not 
 brought into it in consequence of their own sinful 
 conduct ; for they are incapable of sinning. It 
 must, therefore, have been the conduct of some 
 other that subjected them to the curse. And what 
 other, but Adam"? Do the scriptures point out to 
 us any other ? And if Adam, by transgression, 
 brought all his infant seed under the curse of that 
 law which he violated, it necessarily follows, that 
 he acted in the character of their representative. 
 The conclusion is inevitable. 
 
118 
 
 Thus, then, we have proved, that by a federal 
 arrangement, Adam was constituted the represen¬ 
 tative of the human race. And thus, also, we have 
 paved the way for proving, what many either igno¬ 
 rantly or wilfully deny, the imputation of Adam’s 
 first sin to his posterity. 
 
119 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 IMPUTATION DEFINED, AND THE POINT IN 
 DEBATE PRESENTED. 
 
 That the judge of all the earth would do right, 
 was the firm conviction of Abraham, in relation to 
 the threatened destruction of Sodom. Indeed, in¬ 
 justice is infinitely far from having a place in the 
 character of the Holy One of Israel. “He is a 
 God of truth, without iniquity ; just and right is 
 he.” No thought, therefore, that would militate 
 against the most perfect justice of God, should 
 ever be entertained for a moment. Every such 
 thought should be banished from the mind with 
 abhorrence and indignation. He, with an infinite 
 knowledge of his own character, says, “ I, the 
 Lord, am a just God.” And to this declaration 
 every intelligent mind must respond, in the lan¬ 
 guage of the Psalmist, “ Justice and judgment are 
 the habitation of thy throne.” Accordingly, in 
 maintaining the “ imputation of Adam’s sin to his 
 posterity,” we also maintain, that this imputation 
 is an act of justice on the part of the divine gov¬ 
 ernment. For, Jehovah’s justice, in this matter, 
 we hold to be clearly vindicated on the ground of 
 the federal representative character, which Adam 
 sustained at the time when the sin, which is de- 
 
120 
 
 dared to be imputed to us, was Committed by him. 
 That Adam did really sustain such a character, we 
 have abundantly proved. And now, according- to 
 the plan previously proposed, we proceed to prove 
 the imputation of his breach of covenant to his off¬ 
 spring—his representees. A few explanatory re¬ 
 marks, however, must first be made, with the view 
 of presenting the precise point in discussion. 
 
 Imputation, according to scriptural usage, de¬ 
 notes a charging, or setting over of something to 
 one’s account in a judicial manner—it is simply a 
 judicial reckoning , having either sin or righteous¬ 
 ness for its subject, and a moral being for its ob¬ 
 ject. Thus, when God is said “ to impute sin” to 
 a person, the meaning is, that, as a Judge, he 
 reckons or accounts that person to be a sinner, and 
 consequently a fit subject of punishment, on ac¬ 
 count of the sin or sins thus reckoned to him, or 
 placed to his charge. Hence the non-imputation 
 of sin, is equivalent to the pardoning of sin, or the 
 holding of a person guiltless. “Blessed is the 
 man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” 
 (Ps. xxxii. £.) Again, when God is said to impute 
 righteousness to a person, (as in Rom. iv. 11.) the 
 meaning is, that he judicially reckons or accounts 
 that person to be righteous and entitled to his fa- 
 
I 
 
 121 
 
 vor, in consequence of the righteousness thus reck¬ 
 oned or set over to his account. 
 
 Sometimes “ to impute,” in scripture, is to charge 
 to the account of persons that which is properly 
 and personally their own, with a view to their in¬ 
 jury or benefit, according to the nature of the thing 
 imputed. Thus Shimei said to David, “Let not 
 my Lord impute iniquity unto me, for thy servant 
 doth know that I have sinned.” And thus, also, 
 the good deed of Phinehas, in executing justice up¬ 
 on Zimri and Cosbi, “ was counted,” or imputed, 
 “ to him for righteousness unto all generations.” 
 But according to the more ordinary and theologi¬ 
 cal use of the term, it denotes God’s judicial act in 
 charging to the account of persons that, which is 
 not properly and personally their own, antecedent¬ 
 ly to such act of imputation. Thus Adam’s eating 
 of the forbidden fruit was not the proper, personal 
 act of his descendants, yet the sin of that act, as 
 we will endeavor to prove, is imputed to each of 
 them. Neither are those acts of obedience and 
 suffering, which constitute the righteousness of 
 Jesus Christ, the proper, personal acts of believers, 
 yet the scriptures manifestly teach, that they have 
 that righteousness imputed to them, or placed over 
 to their account; and that God deals with them 
 in the same manner as if they had wrought it out 
 
 11 
 
122 
 
 personally by themselves. And when the sins of 
 the church are said to be imputed to Christ, so 
 that “ he was made sin for us,” it is never imagin¬ 
 ed that these became really his personal sins, but 
 only, that they became his in law-reckoning, in 
 such a manner as that he was treated as a sinner, 
 having voluntarily assumed those sins with a view 
 to their expiation. 
 
 But when God imputes to a person that which 
 is not properly and personally his own, it must not 
 be supposed that he acts arbitrarily in the matter ; 
 as if the thing imputed were, in no sense , the per¬ 
 son’s antecedently to the act of imputation. Such 
 procedure would seem to savor of injustice. No 
 imputation of this kind, we believe, ever takes 
 place in the administration of Jehovah’s righteous 
 government. The thing imputed, although not 
 actually , is nevertheless virtually , the person’s, 
 before the imputation of it takes place. And there 
 are tw r o ways in which sin may become virtually 
 and legally a person’s before imputation, although 
 he had no personal agency in the commission of 
 it ; viz : by suretiship , and by representation. 
 The sins of elect sinners were imputed to the 
 Mediator in virtue of his undertaken suretiship; 
 that is, having assumed them by a voluntary 
 sponsion, they became virtually his. and were ac- 
 
123 
 
 cordingly charged to his account, and he was held 
 obligated to endure their punishment. Corres¬ 
 ponding to this, Paul, presenting himself as the 
 surety of Onesimus, says to Philemon, “If he 
 hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that 
 on mine account,” or impute it to me. But in re¬ 
 lation to the imputation of Adam’s sin to his pos¬ 
 terity, that imputation takes place, not in virtue of 
 suretiship, (for his posterity never stood surety for 
 him,) but in virtue of representation. When he, 
 as a representative sinned, all his representees vir¬ 
 tually sinned in him. In consequence of this legal 
 connection between him and them, his sin was le¬ 
 gally their sin ; and it is charged to their account, 
 not merely as the sin of another , but as the sin of 
 their own representative , and in this respect, vir¬ 
 tually theirs ; and as such, it is imputed, or judi¬ 
 cially reckoned to them. In the same manner 
 also, does the righteousness of Christ come to be 
 imputed to believers. When he wrought out that 
 righteousness, he was acting in the character of a 
 representative ; it was, therefore, virtually and 
 legally their righteousness as soon as it was com¬ 
 pleted. It is not theirs, however, actually, and so 
 as to enjoy justification before God on the ground 
 of it, until God imputes it to them for this pur¬ 
 pose, in the day of their union to Christ by faith. 
 
124 
 
 It may, moreover, be proper to remark, that 
 Christ’s righteousness is ours, even more than is 
 the sin of Adam, prior to its imputation. For in 
 addition to representation, faith also gives us an 
 interest in Emmanuel’s righteousness. It appro¬ 
 priates, or takes into possession that righteous¬ 
 ness, on the ground of the free grant made of it 
 to sinners in the Gospel. And then God imputes 
 it to the believer, sets it down to his account, (the 
 moment he thus appropriates it by faith,) not in¬ 
 deed as the righteousness of another, with whom 
 he has no connection, but as the righteousness of 
 his representative, and now taken into his posses¬ 
 sion by an appropriating act of faith ; and accord¬ 
 ingly, he forthwith issues the sentence of his justi¬ 
 fication. “Abraham believed God, and it was 
 counted (imputed) to him for righteousness.” 
 Rom. iv. 3—6. 9. 11. 22—24. 
 
 In our present discussion, then, the point to be 
 maintained is, that the sin of Adam is imputed, or 
 judicially charged to the account of all his pos¬ 
 terity, not as being their own personal sin, but as 
 being the sin of their legal representative, and 
 moral head, and in this sense, their sin; they be¬ 
 ing federally unted with him, at the time it was 
 committed. 
 
 And that this point may be fairly presented, and 
 
125 
 
 the subject properly guarded, we would farther re¬ 
 mark, that it is only the first sin of Adanq and not 
 any of his other sins, for the imputation of which 
 to his posterity we contend ; as his representative 
 character ceased with the perpetration of his first 
 offense—the covenant being then broken, the 
 federal relation, which had been constituted be¬ 
 tween him and his children, was for ever dissolved. 
 
 It may also be noticed here, that the distinction, 
 which some make, when treating of this subject, 
 between the guilt and ill-desert of Adam’s sin, is 
 unwarrantable; and then to maintain the imputa¬ 
 tion of the former, and not of the latter, is un- 
 scriptural and absurd. If the term guilt be pro¬ 
 perly defined, if it be understood in the sense, in 
 which it is unquestionably used in the Westmin¬ 
 ster Confession of faith and Catechisms, then we 
 are satisfied with the declaration, that “the guilt 
 of Adam’s first sin is imputed to his posterity.” 
 But to define “ guilt,” as only denoting a mere 
 liability or exposure, or even obligation to punish¬ 
 ment , is not only to pervert the meaning of that 
 term, as used by the old divines, but also to per¬ 
 vert and corrupt the doctrine of original sin, as 
 taught in the Scriptures, and set forth in all the 
 Confessions of the Reformed churches. The term 
 guilt has always, until lately, been understood to 
 
 11 * 
 
126 
 
 signify “ obligation to punishment arising out of 
 sin,” or, that in sin which obligates to punish¬ 
 ment ; and what can that be but ill-desert ? The 
 Reformers distinguished “guilt” into potential and 
 actual. By the former they intended the “in¬ 
 trinsic demerit of sin,” that which is damnable in 
 sin, and which can never be separated from sin: 
 By the latter they intended “a judicial ordination 
 to punishment,” and which may be separated from 
 sin ; a thing that happens in the case of all those 
 who are justified : For, although sin still remains 
 in them, their actual guilt is removed, so that 
 there will be no condemnation to them for ever. 
 Now, it is evident, that when the old divines 
 spoke of the guilt of Adam’s sin being imputed to 
 his posterity, they meant guilt in both of these 
 acceptations, viz : the real demerit of Adam’s sin, 
 together with actual obligation to punishment, on 
 account of that demerit : Because, their usual 
 mode of speaking on the subject was, that Adam’s 
 disobedience , his sin , his transgression , his offense , 
 the blame of his act, &lc., was imputed to his de¬ 
 scendants. And that the term “ guilt,” is used in 
 this extensive sense in our Confession of faith and 
 Catechisms, appears from this, that all mankind 
 are there said to have sinned in Adam, and to iiave 
 fallen with him in his first transgression. Besides, 
 
127 
 
 how absurd is it, yea, how unjust is it, to repre¬ 
 sent God as laying men under obligation to suffer 
 punishment, without, at the same time, charging 
 them with any blame-worthiness, ill-desert, or 
 demerit! Mr. Fisher, in his Catechism, very pro¬ 
 perly remarks, that “there can be no condemna¬ 
 tion, passed by a righteous judge, where there is no 
 crime.” Accordingly, while we deny that the 
 personal act of Adam, in eating the forbidden fruit, 
 is imputed to his posterity, we, at the same time, 
 maintain that the sin of that act, its demerit , its 
 guilt , both potential and actual , is imputed to 
 every soul of them; which imputation was virtu¬ 
 ally made when our first parents transgressed the 
 covenant of God, and is actually made, the mo¬ 
 ment they are successively brought into existence. 
 
 Having made these preliminary statements, we 
 will now proceed to advance the contemplated 
 arguments, which go to prove the imputation of 
 Adam’s Jirst sin to his posterity. • 
 
128 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE IMPUTATION OF ADAM’S FIRST SIN TO 
 HIS POSTERITY PROVED. 
 
 Sec. 1 . —The Doctrine Proved from the Fact of 
 Adam's Sustaining a Representative Character 
 at the Time he Sinned. 
 
 That Adam’s first sin is imputed to his posterity 
 is proved from the fact of his sustaining a repre¬ 
 sentative character, when that sin was committed. 
 This fact has been sufficiently proved.* A denial 
 of it must betray a reckless disregard of the truth. 
 Why, then, did God invest Adam with such a char¬ 
 acter 1 ? Why did he establish a covenant with him 
 in that character? The whole of that solemn trans¬ 
 action must, indeed, have been a piece of divine 
 mockery, if “ the Lord God” did not intend that all 
 Adam’s posterity should be implicated in his con¬ 
 duct. Did the representative sin ? and shall the re¬ 
 presentees be held innocent ? If God do not 
 impute the sin of the representative to those 
 whom he represented, he must disregard an ar¬ 
 rangement of his own making, he must turn 
 his back upon a constitution of his own set¬ 
 tling. Justice, therefore, to his own character, 
 respect to his own institution, and faithfulness to 
 
 * See Chap. iv. 
 
129 
 
 his own word, all demand of him the imputation 
 of Adam’s sin to his posterity. Had Adam per¬ 
 formed the stipulated condition, even the enemies 
 of this doctrine would, no doubt, consider it right 
 and proper to have his obedience imputed to all 
 those in whose name he acted. And is it not 
 equally just and proper in God, since he failed in 
 performing that condition, to charge them all with 
 his disobedience 1 Indeed, for God not to impute 
 Adam’s sin to his posterity, would be to overturn 
 all that he did in constituting him their federal re¬ 
 presentative. Were not the conduct of the re¬ 
 presentative charged to the account of the repre¬ 
 sented, his representation would have been no re¬ 
 presentation ! The truth of our doctrine, there¬ 
 fore, is clearly established, from the fact of Adam’s 
 representative character. 
 
 Sec. 2. —From the Apostle's Declaration. Rom. 
 
 v. 19. 
 
 That Adam’s first sin is imputed to his posterity 
 the Apostle proves, when he declares, that “By 
 one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” 
 Rom. v. 19. The context sufficiently shows that 
 the word “many,” in that place, denotes the 
 whole posterity of Adam, as was formerly stated. 
 Now, it is not said that they became sinners by 
 
 \ 
 
130 
 
 the actual commission of sin, nor by the imitation 
 of Adam’s sinful conduct, but that they “were 
 made sinners by one man’s disobedience.’’ They 
 are represented as being passive in this matter. 
 They were constituted sinners , or set down as sin¬ 
 ners. It is not said, that they made themselves sin¬ 
 ners. The Apostle obviously intends that it was 
 God, the righteous Judge, who made or constitut¬ 
 ed them sinners. But God makes none sinners, in 
 any other way, than by imputing , or judicially 
 reckoning sin to them. And the sin imputed, in 
 the case specified, is expressly called “the one 
 man’s disobedience.” Thus it is plain, that God 
 has constituted all men sinners, has placed them 
 under that denomination, by having charged to 
 their account “ the disobedience of one man.” 
 And this conclusion, which is so manifest from 
 the Apostle’s language, cannot be avoided by say¬ 
 ing, as some do, that all that is here meant is, 
 that “ God treats men as if they were sinners on 
 account of Adam’s sin, in subjecting them to tem¬ 
 poral death.” Because, God is a God of justice, 
 and he never treats any as sinners, unless they 
 really be so in the eye of the divine law. And if 
 we say that “God treats men as sinners on ac¬ 
 count of Adam’s sin,” a respect to the justice and 
 holiness of God, should also lead us to say, that 
 
131 
 
 his sin must first be imputed to them, or legally 
 charged to their account. If we overlook this 
 divine imputation, we run ourselves into inextri¬ 
 cable difficulties ; we dishonor the character of 
 Gcd; we injure the truth of his holy word. 
 
 What a perversion of the Apostle’s language is 
 it, to maintain as others do, that all he intends by 
 this declaration is, that “men became actual sin¬ 
 ners in consequence of Adam’s disobedience !” 
 To elicit such a meaning, two important changes 
 must be made in the Apostle’s words; the word 
 “ by,” must be changed into “in consequence of,” 
 and the words “ were made sinners,” into “ made 
 themselves sinnerschanges, which the struct¬ 
 ure of the Apostle’s language utterly refuses. 
 Nor is this all, the next clause would also need to 
 be changed, and read, “ so in consequence of the 
 obedience of one shall many make themselves 
 actually righteous !” a sentiment at variance with 
 the whole tenor of the Gospel. This latter clause, 
 however, in which the Apostle does say, “so by 
 the obedience of one shall many be made righte¬ 
 ous,” obviously confirms the view we have taken 
 of the former. For is it possible to conceive of 
 any other way in which sinners can be constituted 
 righteous by Christ's obedience , except that obedi¬ 
 ence be imputed to them, or placed over to their 
 
132 
 
 account ? Without such an imputation, what in¬ 
 fluence can his obedience have in changing* a sin- 
 ner’s state before God? Without such an impu¬ 
 tation, how can his obedience become the sinner’s 
 righteousness, in such a manner as to obtain for 
 him, in law, a sentence of justification on the 
 ground of it? Now, the Apostle asserts, that in 
 precisely the same manner in which we are made 
 righteous by Christ’s obedience, we were made 
 sinners by Adam’s disobedience. His declaration, 
 then, that “by one man’s disobedience many were 
 made sinners,” most assuredly contains the doc¬ 
 trine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his pos¬ 
 terity. 
 
 a 
 
 Sec. 3. —From the Condemnation of all Men on 
 Account of Adam's Sin. 
 
 “ The judgment was by one [offense] to condem¬ 
 nation.—By the offense of one, judgment came 
 upon all men to condemnation.” Rom. v. 16 . 18 . 
 Here, on the ground of Adam’s first offense, all 
 men are represented as being judicially condemned 
 to endure the penalty of the divine law. No other 
 reasonable construction can be put on these words. 
 In our former explication of them, we proved that 
 this was necessarily their meaning. Here, then, 
 we are taught, that Jehovah, the righteous Judge. 
 
133 
 
 gives “judgment” against all men; that this judg¬ 
 ment involves their “ condemnation and that all 
 this is grounded upon the single “offense of the 
 one man.” Now, who is so blind as not to dis¬ 
 cover, in this divine procedure, the imputation of 
 Adam’s offense to all his seed? Does not this 
 “judgment to condemnation,” proceed on the as¬ 
 sumption of legal guilt? Would God condemn 
 the guiltless ? If then he condemns men on ac¬ 
 count of Adam’s offense, as the Apostle asserts, 
 must he not have viewed them as charged with 
 that offense ? But as they never "personally com¬ 
 mitted that offense, how can he condemn them as 
 being charged with it, unless it had been imputed , 
 or judicially reckoned to them ? God’s act of con¬ 
 demnation, in this case, most certainly supposes a 
 previous act of imputation. He does not con¬ 
 demn, and then impute, but first imputes, and 
 then condemns. Hence it is utterly inconceivable, 
 how we can maintain with the Apostle, that “by 
 the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to 
 condemnation,” and yet deny the imputation of 
 that offense to his posterity. 
 
 The fact, that the sentence of condemnation 
 spoken of, is not fully executed upon all , argues 
 nothing against the fact of all having been laid 
 under it, in the first instance. A criminal may be 
 
 12 
 
134 
 
 condemned to the gallows, and yet, before the 
 execution of the sentence, obtain a pardon. God 
 reverses this sentence of condemnation in the case 
 of believers, by pronouncing in their favor a sen¬ 
 tence of justification. The righteousness of 
 Christ, being imputed to them, entirely cancels 
 the legal guilt, not only of Adam’s offense, which 
 had been committed in their name, and charged 
 to their account, but also of all their own personal 
 offenses. Condemnation, therefore, universally 
 precedes justification. And justice requires that 
 condemnation, in all cases, should be preceded by 
 a guilty cause; which guilty cause is expressly 
 called, in the passage referred to, the “ one of¬ 
 fense” of “ the one man.” It, therefore, must be 
 regarded as being imputed to as many as have 
 been laid under “ the judgment of condemnation,’ 
 that is to “ all men.” And the argument is 
 strengthened, when it is considered, that among 
 the “all men” designated, infants are included, 
 who are chargeable with no personal offenses of 
 their own, having never sinned “after the simili¬ 
 tude of Adam’s transgression.” 
 
135 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
 
 Sec. 1 . —The Doctrine Proved from the Universal 
 loss of the Image of God. 
 
 Adam’s posterity being deprived of that image 
 of God, in which he was created, proves the impu¬ 
 tation of his sin to them. Moses informs us, that 
 “ God created man in his own image.” The 
 moral image of God, according to the Apostle 
 Paul, consists in “knowledge, righteousness, and 
 true holiness.” He says to the Colossians, “ye 
 have put on the new man, which is renewed in 
 knowledge, after the image of him that created 
 • him,” chap. iii. 10; and to the Ephesians, “put 
 on the new man, which after God is created in 
 righteousness and true holiness,” chap. iv. 24. 
 Adam, accordingly, was created with knowledge 
 in his understanding, rectitude in his will, and 
 holiness in bis affections. This was his “original 
 righteousness.” This gave him an exact conform- 
 ity to the moral law, under which he was created. 
 As he could not have been, for a single moment, 
 without such a law, without being also, at the 
 same time, independent of his Creator ; so he was 
 no sooner a living soul, than, as has been already 
 remarked, this law, which was given him in his 
 
136 
 
 creation, found him perfectly conformed to all its 
 requirements. It found him not only as a crea¬ 
 ture, but as possessing all the requisites of an in¬ 
 telligent and upright moral agent. It found him 
 possessing an intellectual aptitude for knowing 
 the great object of his love and worship, and all 
 the duties which devolved on him in the relation 
 of a creature : It found him possessing a will char¬ 
 acterized with perfect rectitude, “lying straight 
 with the will of God,” and powerfully inclined to 
 choose whatever God chose, and to refuse what¬ 
 ever God refused: And it found him also possess¬ 
 ing affections, which were holy, pure, undisor¬ 
 dered, and bent on the enjoyment of suitable ob¬ 
 jects. Thus, man, in his creation, was constitut¬ 
 ed morally upright. On his soul was engraven, 
 “ holiness to the Lord.” That image of God, 
 of which we are speaking, gave perfection to his 
 nature, as a rational, moral, and accountable crea¬ 
 ture. Without it, he would not have been com¬ 
 plete, his nature would not have been adapted to 
 answer the moral ends of his creation. 
 
 But when we speak of Adam’s receiving, in his 
 very creation, this “divine image,” which, for the 
 time being, constituted his righteousness before 
 God, we are not to be understood as speaking of 
 moral acts 'performed by him , but of moral princi~ 
 
137 
 
 pies implanted in him.* We mean, that he was 
 righteous in principle , before that he was righteous 
 in act; or, in other words, that he possessed 
 righteous principles , before he performed righteous 
 actions. Many, we know, deny this, and stoutly 
 maintain, on the contrary, that there can be no 
 righteousness, or holiness, but what consists in 
 voluntary acts. They will not admit, that such a 
 thing as righteousness in principle is possible. 
 Accordingly, they deny, that Adam was either 
 righteous or unrighteous, holy or unholy, till once 
 he began to exercise his will, not being till then 
 morally different from the brute creation. Hence, 
 also, they deny the correctness of the view which 
 we take of the u moral image of God,” after 
 which man was originally created, when we refer 
 it to the principles of his moral nature, and not to 
 the voluntary acts of his life. But their philoso¬ 
 phy is vain and deceitful. For according to it, 
 man made himself in the image of God , inasmuch 
 as he was the author of those voluntary acts, 
 which, we are told, must always constitute right¬ 
 eousness or holiness : And according to it, man, 
 also, made himself upright , if his uprightness or 
 
 '* By a principle, we understand an inherent quality or power 
 naturally tending to its own developement:—“ a constitutional 
 propensity,”—“ a cause causing.” 
 
 12 * 
 
138 
 
 conformity to the moral law, in the first instance, 
 proceeded from the exercise of his own will. 
 This philosophy, therefore, is diametrically op¬ 
 posed to the plain declarations of the Spirit of 
 Truth, that “ God created man in his own image”—• 
 and that 11 God made man upright.” If it be ad¬ 
 mitted, that Adam’s first acts, as a moral agent, 
 were holy, it ought, also, to be admitted, that 
 they proceeded from holy principles implanted in 
 his nature. If it be asked, Why do not trees 
 walk and graze like cattle ? Why do not cattle 
 talk and reason like men ? Why do not sheep live 
 
 by catching their prey like lions ? Why do not 
 
 ► 
 
 thorns bear grapes, and thistles figs? We an¬ 
 swer, because such things are not agreeable to the 
 inherent principles of their respective natures. 
 
 Now, did Adam, as soon as created, perform 
 holy acts ? Then, surely, this happened in agree¬ 
 ableness to the principles of his nature. Conse¬ 
 quently he was indued with holy principles. The 
 fish of the sea, the fowls of the air, the beasts of 
 the field, and the creeping things of the earth, 
 were all found acting out the principles of their 
 nature ; and must we make man an exception to 
 this rule of action ? Must we say, that being in 
 possession of a nature which was neither holy nor 
 unholy, he was found, nevertheless, performing 
 
139 
 
 holy acts ? The thing is perfectly absurd. The 
 truth is, had not Adam been created subjectively 
 holy, or holy in principle, he would have been in- 
 capcitated for the performance of holy actions. 
 Had he been created neither holy nor unholy, and 
 had he acted agreeably to his nature, his actions 
 would have been neither holy nor unholy. The 
 act must be a developement of the principle from 
 which it proceeds, and partake of the same quality. 
 Accordingly, Adam was holy in principle, before 
 he was holy in act. And hence, his “ orignal 
 righteousness,” or, what is the same thing, “the 
 imaofe of God,” in which he was created, belonged 
 to his very nature, was essential to him as a com¬ 
 plete moral agent, and was not something acquired 
 by his after acts. And to assert the contrary, is 
 to destroy all just conceptions concerning the 
 creature man; as if it could be predicated of him, 
 in any individual instance, that he was neither a 
 saint, nor a sinner, neither a righteous nor an un¬ 
 righteous being, without, at the same time, anni¬ 
 hilating him as a man, and turning him over into 
 the ranks of the brute creation. Adam surely ex¬ 
 isted before he acted. But he could not have ex¬ 
 isted as a man, as a moral being , as a subject of 
 law , unless it could have been predicated of him 
 in his existence, that he was either righteous or 
 
140 
 
 unrighteous. Hence, as he was not, at the first, 
 unrighteous, but righteous, it follows, that he ex¬ 
 isted as righteous, before he acted righteously. 
 Accordingly, righteousness was inherent in the 
 principles of his moral constitution. And this 
 view of the matter is evidently confirmed by the 
 inspired declaration, that “God saw every thing 
 that he had made, and behold it was very good.” 
 Every creature was indued with a nature fully an¬ 
 swerable to the end of its creation. Man was 
 made for moral purposes, and was, therefore, 
 blessed with a moral nature, indued with those 
 principles, which in their appropriate develope- 
 ment, would necessarily result in the glorification 
 and enjoyment of God—thus was he created very 
 good. 
 
 Now, have the original principles of man’s moral 
 nature suffered any change 1 or, in other words, 
 Has the image of God been lost ? That it was lost, 
 in the case of our first parents, is evident: Because, 
 immediately after they had transgressed the cove¬ 
 nant, they found themselves naked , were seized 
 with fear, and shunned the presence of God. “ And 
 they heard the voice of the Lord God, walking- 
 in the garden, in the cool of the day. And Adam 
 and his wife hid themselves from the presence of 
 the Lord God, among the trees of the garden. 
 
141 
 
 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said un- 
 to him, Where art thou ? And he said, I heard 
 thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because 
 I was naked; and I hid myself. 5 ’ Gen. iii. 8—10. 
 Now, had their knowledge, righteousness, and 
 holiness, remained the same as before, such a re¬ 
 cord as this would never have been entered in the 
 book of God, concerning them. But, has this 
 loss, also, been extended to all their posterity that 
 have been called into existence ? We answer, 
 yes ; for the following reasons :— 
 
 After Adam had lost “the image of God,” in 
 which he was created, we find it written, that “he 
 begat a son in his own likeness, after his image ; 
 and called his name Seth.” Gen. v. 3.* Here 
 
 * “ Concerning this Seth it is said, Adam hegat him “ in his own 
 likeness,” after “his image.” It does not alter the sense of the 
 words, though we leave out the word own , and read them thus, 
 in his likeness, &c. Let us consider what must be the meaning 
 of this description, which is so emphatically expressed in hi& 
 likeness, in his image. I cannot think a bodily likeness is hereby 
 signified; as if the meaning of the language is, that Seth re¬ 
 sembled Adam, in the attitude of his body, or lineaments of his 
 face. There was no need for being so particular in declaring 
 this. All who should see these persons, would see this. This 
 would be viewing the language of the Divine Spirit in a very 
 trifling light. Neither would it be a treating Scripture style with 
 any tolerable decency, to understand them as testifying, that 
 Adam begat a creature of his own speciesthat the creature 
 he begat had a human body, and a rational soul. Was not this 
 
142 
 
 the “image of Adam,” stands in contrast with the 
 “ image of God.” What a marked difference be¬ 
 tween the moral nature of Adam and that of Seth, 
 
 likeness notour and obvious ? What room can there be to doubt 
 of this ? This likeness must be viewed in a moral light. Seth 
 was like Adam in his moral state. What was Adam’s state, 
 Seth’s was the same. What was Adam by this time ? was he 
 not a sinner,—a guilty and corrupt person? Yes; the likeness 
 Seth was begotten in, was that of Adam. That Adam was con¬ 
 sidered as a sinner, when the Spirit says, that Seth was begot 
 in “ his likeness,” is evident, not only from the account given of 
 his breaking the covenant, Gen. iii. 6., but also from what im¬ 
 mediately follows the history of his begetting this Son. What 
 that is, you have in verse 5, “ And all the days that Adam lived, 
 were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” Here is an 
 account of him, in whose likeness Seth was begot. What sort 
 of a man was this as to his moral state? Was he an innocent 
 or a guilty person? The determining this point will make it 
 easy to find whether Seth’s being begotten in this man’s likeness 
 was to his honor, or not. I think the Divine Spirit decides the 
 question in the verse now cited. If the third verse was now 
 read in connection with this one, the point would appear clearly. 
 “ And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son 
 in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. 
 And all the days that Adam lived, were nine hundred and thirty 
 years; and he died.” Here we may easily learn, what sort of an 
 image Seth was begot in. It is certain that it was that of 
 Adam’s image. But the question is, what sort of image was 
 Adam’s? Was it a holy or sinful one? What is said about 
 him in the 5th verse, may guide us here. Says the Spirit, “ do 
 any want to know what sort of a man Adam was by this 
 time ? why, follow him a little further, pursue his history, and 
 'before you go a great way, you will find him in a grave,—a 
 
143 
 
 in the first moments of their existence! The one 
 was created in the image of a holy God ; the other 
 was begotten in the image of a sinful man ! And 
 
 breathless and so a lifeless lump. This Adam, who begat a son in 
 his likeness, in his image, this much will I tell you here about 
 him, he was a dying man, he was on the road and had his face 
 toward a grave, when he begat this son; death, which is the 
 wages of sin, and a sure visible mark of it, was working then 
 with him \ and accordingly, after no very great number of years, 
 from his having this son, performed its last work upon him: and 
 he died. Adam then was a sinful man; and so his image be¬ 
 hoved to be a sinful one. Seth resembled a dying man; and a 
 dying man is the sure sign of a sinful one. 
 
 “ I might further notice, that light might possibly be borrowed to 
 this point, by comparing the last clause of the 1st verse, with 
 this 3d verse, “In the day that God created man, in the likeness 
 
 of God made he him.*” Verse 3. “ And Adam-begat a Son 
 
 in his likeness.” Observe, that it is not said, And Adam begat a 
 son in this likeness. Had it been the image Adam was created 
 in, which Seth was begot in, this would have been the native 
 way of expressing it. I say it is not said, Adam begat a son in 
 this likeness, but in his likeness. 
 
 “ Thus it is manifest, that Seth was corrupt from the womb. 
 Some object, Seth was begotten in Adam’s likeness; Adam was 
 created in God’s image; therefore Seth being begotten in Adam’s 
 likeness, was the same in his generation, that his father was in 
 his creation. 
 
 “ Ans. If Adam had retained the image given hi m in his crea¬ 
 tion, Seth would have received it in his generation. But we are 
 assured that it was long after he had lost the divine image, that 
 he had this son ; so it is observed that he lived a hundred and 
 thirty years before he begat him. Moreover, 
 
 “ It may be observed, that our likeness and conformity to God, is 
 
144 
 
 this being the case with one of Adam’s children, 
 no argument can be adduced to prove, that such is 
 not the case with all his children. Indeed, we are 
 said to be by nature the children of wrath , Eph. ii. 
 3. ; which could not be said, if by nature or birth 
 we bore the “image of God,” David says, “behold 
 I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother 
 conceive me,” Ps. li. 5.; which he could not have 
 said, in truth, had he been formed in the womb 
 “after the image and likeness of God.” 
 
 There is a restoration of the image of God to 
 the soul, in regeneration. “That which is born 
 of the Spirit is spirit.” John iii. 6. “If any man 
 be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things 
 
 never, in Scripture language, expressed by that of being made in 
 the image or likeness of any man, any mere man. This privi¬ 
 lege is expressed in a quite different manner, 2 Cor. iii. 18. 
 “ But we all with open face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of 
 the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, 
 even as by the Spirit of the Lord,” Eph. iv. 24. “ And that ye 
 put on the new man, which after God, is created in righteous¬ 
 ness and true holiness.” Col. iii. 10. * And put on the new 
 
 man, which is renewed after the image of him that created 
 him.’ 
 
 “ It is, then, certain that Adam, on the back of his transgressing 
 the covenant, came to have a seed corrupt and degenerate from 
 the womb. How came such a consequence to follow his so 
 doing, if he did not represent them? the question, I judge un¬ 
 answerable, and therefore shall not attempt it.”— Rev. R. Smith. 
 
145 
 
 are passed away; behold, all things are become 
 new.” £ Cor. v. 17. u Put /m the new man, 
 which after god is created in righteousness and 
 true holiness.” Eph. iv. £4. “Ye have put on 
 the new man, which is renewed in knowledge af¬ 
 ter the image of him that created him.’ 'Col. 
 iii. 10. Now, if the “image of God” be restored 
 to the soul, in regeneration, then, surely, it was 
 wanting there, before that work of grace was per¬ 
 formed. And if infants are capable subjects of 
 regeneration, and their baptism teaches this, then 
 are they by nature destitute of the “ image of 
 God.” 
 
 Again, the Apostle expressly declares, that 
 “ there is none righteous, no, not one.” Rom. iii. 
 10. It is said, indeed, that the Apostle, in this 
 place, only intends adults, or such as have crossed 
 the first point of moral agency. But where is the 
 proof for such an assertion? What right have 
 persons to restrict the meaning of the Apostle’s 
 language, unless the scope of his argument re¬ 
 quire'such restriction? On the subject of the 
 Atonement, when such universal terms are re¬ 
 quired, by the analogy of faith, to be restricted, 
 these same objectors will admit of no restriction : 
 But when the Spirit of God asserts, concerning 
 men, that “ there is none righteous, no not one;” 
 
 IS 
 
146 
 
 thrice repeating the negation, to put the matter 
 beyond the reach of all dispute, they throw in their 
 restrictions, although the subject requires no re¬ 
 striction ! This may justly be termed “ handling 
 the word of God deceitfully.” But does the Apos¬ 
 tle’s language require no restriction in respect of 
 the strong negation which he makes ? Look, for 
 a moment, to the nature of his argument. He is 
 endeavoring to convince the self-righteous Jews, 
 that they were no better than the Gentiles ; that 
 they also were unrighteous in the sight of God. 
 And how does he prove this ? Simply, by making 
 quotations from the book of Psalms, and that of 
 Isaiah. But suppose a Jew had objected to the 
 relevancy of his proofs, saying, that they only es¬ 
 tablished the wickedness of the people who lived 
 in the times of David and Isaiah ; how could the 
 correctness of the Apotle’s argument have been 
 defended? His argument, indeed, would have 
 been good for nothing, had it not assumed the 
 principle, that human nature, since the fall of 
 Adam, remains the same in all ao-es. Now, if 
 such was the state of human nature in the days of 
 David and Isaiah, that, in consequence of it, men 
 became wicked and ungodly in their lives ; then, ' 
 human nature remaining the same, it would be ac¬ 
 companied with precisely the same results in the 
 
147 
 
 time of the Apostle. Hence, he reasons from the 
 condition of human nature, to the condition of the 
 individuals of that nature. And his argument is 
 entirely conclusive ; for, the same cause always 
 produces the same effects. What, then, must 
 have been the condition of human nature in the 
 times of David and Isaiah 1 ? Unholy, most as¬ 
 suredly ; for, on the assumption that it remained 
 the same in his day, the Apostle argues the sin¬ 
 fulness of the then existing people of the Jews. 
 When he, therefore, declares, that “there is none 
 righteous, no not one ; he describes the true natu¬ 
 ral condition of every individual of mankind, with¬ 
 out exception, unless human nature has changed 
 for the better, since the writing of this epistle to 
 the church at Rome ; a thing not pretended. 
 Hence, men are born into the world destitute of 
 “the image of God.” For if otherwise, it would 
 not be true, that “there is none righteous, no, not 
 one.” 
 
 And the same is further evident from the fact, 
 that men possess no innate propensity to love, 
 seek, serve, or enjoy God. Man, as originally 
 created, was indued with such a propensity. His 
 being created in “the likeness of God,” implies 
 this. He could not have been pronounced to be 
 very good , he could not have been called upright , 
 
148 
 
 he could not have been truly fitted for the super¬ 
 natural work of glorifying his Creator, had such 
 a propensity of nature been foreign to his moral 
 constitution. Shall we suppose that all the other 
 creatures which God made possessed a natural pro¬ 
 pensity towards fulfilling the various functions 
 allotted them by infinite wisdom ? And must we 
 deny, that there was any propensity in man’s na¬ 
 ture towards doing that, for which God, in a very 
 peculiar manner, created him, viz : to glorify his 
 Creator and enjoy him for ever? Indeed, to sup¬ 
 pose that man was created with no more propen¬ 
 sity, or inclination, to serve God, than to serve the 
 devil, is to argue a radical defect in his creation, 
 and to cast reproach upon his Maker. And to as¬ 
 sert that such a propensity of nature in man, would 
 have destroyed the freedom of his will, is as great 
 folly as to assert, that God and holy angels, and 
 “the spirits of just men made perfect,” do not 
 possess a freedom of will; for, they are wholly 
 and totally inclined to that which is good. Man, 
 however, was able to counteract this propensity of 
 his nature, as his sinning against God mournfully 
 showed. 
 
 But it is entirely different with his childdren 
 from what it was with himself. They are born 
 into the world destitute of any innate propensity 
 
149 
 
 towards doing that which is good and holy in the' 
 sight of God. They possess a propensity the 
 very opposite. Hence, the first acts, which they 
 perform as moral agents, are sinful ones. Thus 
 the bitter fountain sends forth bitter streams 
 and the corrupt tree produces corrupt fruit. But 
 this order would be reversed, had men, as born 
 into the world, a propensity of nature to good. In 
 that case the sweet fountain would be issuing forth 
 in bitter streams, and the good tree would be pro¬ 
 ducing corrupt fruit! And that too, before there 
 could be any counteraction of such propensity by 
 deliberate acts of moral agency, as happened in 
 the case of our firsi parents. 
 
 Besides, we read, that “ it repented the Lord 
 that he bad made man upon the earthbut, if 
 infants, like Adam, possessed a propensity of 
 nature to good } if they bore the image of God 
 upon their souls, what more could he require 
 of them in their infantile state? Their relation 
 to the moral law would bear precisely the same 
 aspect as Adam’s when he was created ; and ac¬ 
 cordingly he would call them “ very good,” and 
 would delight in them, for, “ the righteous Lord 
 loveth righteousness, and his countenance doth 
 behold the upright,” and it would not “grieve 
 him at the heart,” that he had made them upon 
 
 13* 
 
150 
 
 the earth. But, when it is said without any limi¬ 
 tation, that “it repented the Lord that he had 
 made man upon the earth,” and that “ it grieved 
 him at the heart,” we must infer, that all , even 
 infants , are destitute of all such propensity of na¬ 
 ture to love, serve and enjoy God, as Adam re¬ 
 ceived in his creation ; especially since it is writ¬ 
 ten of fallen man, without any restriction, that 
 ‘ 1 every imagination of the thoughts of his heart 
 is evil continually.” And notice here, it is not 
 said, that his heart simply, is evil, or even the 
 thoughts of his heart, but the very imagination , 
 the first rise , formation , or budding forth of the 
 thoughts of his heart is evil. This surely be¬ 
 speaks a constitutional proneness to evil, or at 
 least a want of the opposite principle, a propensity 
 to good. 
 
 Thus we have proved, that a radical change has 
 taken place in the original principles of man’s 
 moral constitution—that the “image of God,” in 
 which he was, at first, created, has been lost, and 
 with it, all propensity of nature to “glorify and 
 enjoy God ;” and that this is the case with all the 
 descendants of Adam as they come into our world. 
 Now, it must be confessed, that this is truly an 
 inconceivable loss, an unspeakable evil. And how 
 is it to be accounted for ? This is the grand 
 
 
151 
 
 query. We unhesitatingly affirm, that it must be 
 accounted for, in one of two ways—either, has 
 God inflicted this evil on man, in the way of mere 
 sovereignty , or, in the way of righteous retribution . 
 
 But God never exercises his sovereignty, but in 
 consistency with the perfections of his nature. 
 Would it, then, be consistent with infinite good¬ 
 ness, holiness, justice and truth, to deprive inno¬ 
 cent , unoffending creatures of that divine image, 
 which he had originally enstamped upon their na¬ 
 ture, and thus visit them with such a great and 
 unutterable loss ? We cannot think so. Indeed, 
 would not such a procedure, on the part of Jeho¬ 
 vah, savor strongly of tyranny and oppression, 
 when it is recollected, that he still requires of 
 man, that he possess this image, and that he per¬ 
 form works, which never can be performed without 
 its possession'? A sovereign deprivation of this 
 image, then, cannot be maintained, without dis¬ 
 torting those views of God’s moral character, 
 which the Scriptures present to us. Hence we 
 are obliged to contend, that our loss of the “image 
 of God” proceeds from an act of vindicative or * 
 retributive justice, on the part of Jehovah ; or f in 
 other words, that this loss happens to men as a 
 punishment for sin. In this matter, therefore, the 
 sufferers are not regarded as innocent , but as guilty . 
 
152 
 
 But since this loss is sustained by them, as Imu 
 been proved, before they are chargeable with any 
 personal ill-desert of their own, it follows, that 
 God deals with them on the ground of the sin of 
 their representative, Adam. Having imputed his 
 sin to them, as a righteous Lord and Judge, he 
 does, on account of that sin thus imputed, punish 
 them with the deprivation of his own divine image* 
 And, hence, the w T ant of this image in man is both 
 his sin and his punishment—his sin, * as he wants 
 that which the law of God requires in all its sub¬ 
 jects—his ’punishment , as he wants that, without 
 which he cannot be happy, yea, the very want of 
 which renders him truly miserable. 
 
 * Regeneration, as we have seen, supposes the loss of the 
 image of God; and the great object of the Holy Spirit in the 
 work of regeneration, as Dr. Witherspoon truly observes, is to 
 restore to the soul the lost image of God. But regeneration is 
 required of us by the law of God; that is, the divine law re¬ 
 quires that we recover again the image of God which we have 
 lost. Its loss, therefore, is our sin, otherwise we might remain 
 unregenerate and destitute of God’s image, and thus resist the 
 demands of the divine law, without sin, which is absurd. In¬ 
 deed, if the law requires that we be found in possession of the 
 image of God, it is self-evident, that the want of that image is 
 sinful. But the law actually puts forth such a requirement, as 
 appears from the following scriptures—“ Make you a new heart 
 and a new spirit”—“Be ye transformed by the renewing of your 
 mind”—“Be renewed in the spirit of your mind”—“ Put on the 
 new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true 
 holiness.” &c. 
 
153 
 
 Sec. 2. —From the Innate Corruption of Human 
 
 Nature* 
 
 The innate corruption or depravity of human 
 nature proves the imputation of Adam’s first sin 
 to his posterity. Human nature as it exists in 
 every individual of Adam’s family, both old and 
 young, is not only destitute of the “image of 
 God,” but is, also, positively corrupt. This cor¬ 
 ruption of nature as necessarily follows the loss of 
 the divine image from our souls, as darkness fol- 
 lows the withdrawment of light. Now, by this 
 corruption, we do not mean, that any of the origi¬ 
 nal faculties of the soul are destroyed. All these 
 still remain. The soul is still capable of thinking , 
 and judging , and willing , and feeling. We only 
 mean, that all its faculties are in a depraved condi¬ 
 tion, in a disordered state, and are unfitted for an¬ 
 swering the primitive purpose of knowing, loving, 
 serving and enjoying God. Nor do we mean, that 
 any positive substance of a malignant and poisonous 
 nature is infused into the soul, as the cause of the 
 corruption of its faculties. The dead body needs 
 nothing to be infused into it to cause its putrifac- 
 tion. The absence of life is enough to produce 
 this consequence. So it is here; the want of 
 light and holiness in the soul is sufficient to pro- 
 
154 
 
 duce a universal corruption of all its faculties. 
 But although this corruption be negatively pro¬ 
 duced, it is nevertheless positive and real ; as 
 much so, as there is positively and really darkness 
 in the place from which all light is excluded ; or, 
 as there is positively and really coldness, where 
 all heat is excluded. We are not, then, to be 
 charged with holding to a physical depravity, if 
 by that expression be meant a change in the es¬ 
 sence of the soul. For we contend that the soul 
 still retains all the faculties that ever it had ; only 
 that these exist in such a corrupt and disordered 
 state, as totally disqualifies them for the perform¬ 
 ance of spiritual and holy exercises. 
 
 Now, is man’s moral nature thus depraved l 
 Are the faculties of his soul thus corrupted ? Even 
 the regenerated sinner, the saint of God, is not a 
 stranger to this moral corruption. For in him 
 “ the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit, 
 against the flesh ; and these two are contrary the 
 one to the other; so that he cannot do the things 
 that he would.” Gal. v. 17. The holy Apostle 
 Paul, relates his own experience, when he says, 
 “ I see another law in my members, warring 
 against the law of my mind, and bringing me into 
 captivity to the law of sin, which is in my mem¬ 
 bers. O wretched man, that I am! who shall de- 
 
155 
 
 liver me from the body of this death?” Rom. vii. 
 23, 24. And if this eminent saint was thus op¬ 
 pressed in spirit under a sense of the corruption of 
 his nature, who can lay his hand on his heart and 
 say, “I am clean?” But the Scriptures, in di¬ 
 verse places, do most explicitly teach us the entire 
 corruption of human nature . “ God saw that the 
 
 wickedness of man was great in the earth, and 
 that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart 
 was only evil continually.” Gen. vi. 5. “The 
 fool hath said in his heart. There is no God. 
 They are corrupt; they have done abominable 
 works ; there is none that doeth good,” &tc. Ps. 
 xiv. “The heart is deceitful above all things, 
 and desperately wicked; who can know it?” Jer. 
 xvii. 9. “ The carnal mind is enmity against 
 
 God ; for it is not subject to the law of God, nei¬ 
 ther indeed can be.” Rom. viii. 7. “From with¬ 
 in, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, 
 adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetous¬ 
 ness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil 
 eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness ; all these evil 
 things come from within, and defile the man.” 
 Mark vii. 21—23. Men, before regeneration, are 
 described as being “ dead in tresspasses and sins,” 
 as “ walking according to the course of this 
 world, according to the prince of the power of the 
 
156 
 
 air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of 
 disobedience :” as “ having their conversation in 
 the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the 
 flesh, and of the mind and as “being by nature 
 the children of wrath even as others.” Eph. ii. 
 1—3. Indeed, the Scriptures assure us, that all 
 the faculties of the soul of man are corrupted. 
 His conscience is defiled; his understanding is 
 darkened; his will is perverted , for it is written, 
 that “the heart [the will] of the sons of men is 
 fully set in them to do evil •” and his affections are 
 disordered and misplaced , “ set on things below,” 
 so that he loves what he should hate, and hates 
 what he should love. Such, then, is the language 
 which the Scriptures speak in relation to the moral 
 corruption of man. 
 
 But it may be said, that all this proves nothing, 
 unless it can be shown that this corruption belongs 
 to infants as soon as born. Be it so. Their cor¬ 
 ruption or depravity is susceptible of the clearest 
 proof, if the authority of the Bible be admitted, 
 and its declarations be received without perver¬ 
 sion. All must acknowledge, that immediately 
 upon his first transgression, Adam’s moral nature 
 became corrupted. Now, revelation informs us, 
 that “ he begat a son in his own image and like- 
 ness.” It surely follows, then, that this son 
 
157 
 
 (Seth) was born into the world in possession of 
 a morally corrupted nature ; if otherwise, it would 
 not be true, that he was begotten in “ the image 
 and likeness” of his corrupt and sinful father. But 
 as it happened in the case of Seth, so it happens 
 in the case of all the children of Adam. For, 
 “ who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? 
 Notone.” (Job.xiv. 4.) “How can he be clean that 
 is born of a woman?” (Job.xxv. 4.) To be born with 
 a nature morally clean can, therefore, belong to 
 none of the descendants of Adam. God has ordained 
 it otherwise. And hence says David, the man af¬ 
 ter God’s own heart, “Behold I was shapen in 
 iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” 
 (Ps. li. 5.) Some indeed tell us, that we must not 
 interpret David’s language literally, that we must 
 not “ cut it to the quick,” as he only means to 
 say, that he was a sinner very early, even as soon 
 as he was capable of committing actual sin. If 
 this be his meaning, why did he not tell us so him¬ 
 self? Surely it is taking a very unwarranted lib¬ 
 erty with his language, which was indited by the 
 Holy Spirit, and which declares, that he was sinful 
 and polluted from his very birth, to tell us that it 
 only means, that he made himself sinful and po- 
 luted some months or years afterwards. David is 
 speaking of sinful principles, and not of sinful acts* 
 
 14 
 
158 
 
 And although, in the latter respect, he was not a! 
 sinner from the womb, in the former respect he 
 was; otherwise he was guilty of uttering a vile 
 slander against himself. Why is it recorded with a 
 peculiar emphasis, concerning the glorious Son of 
 David, that he was born holy, (Luke i. 35.*) un- 
 
 * The above declaration of Scripture respecting the human na¬ 
 ture of Christ is worthy of very special consideration; because 
 it contains a most triumphant refutation of some erroneous po¬ 
 sitions, taken by the doctors and disciples of the New-Haven 
 School, as, that “holiness or unholiness cannot be predicated of 
 a nature,” and that, “ there is no difference, in a moral point of 
 view, between infants in their birth and the man Christ Jesus 
 in his.” The angel Gabriel said to Mary—“The Holy Ghost 
 shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over¬ 
 shadow thee v therefore, also, that holy thing , which shall be born 
 of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” Now, what was that 
 holy thing , which was conceived in the womb of the virgin 
 Mary and born of her? Was it the divine , or the human nature 
 of Christ? The latter, as our opponents themselves must admit. 
 Then, the human nature of Christ was born holy. We acknow¬ 
 ledge, that by reason of the hypostatic union of the two natures, 
 the person born was holy; yet it was not in his divine but human 
 nature that this holy person was born. Any assertion to the 
 contrary must involve the grossest confusion of ideas, if not 
 blasphemy. Accordingly, there can be no consistent interpreta¬ 
 tion of this text other than that, which maintains the inborn 
 holiness of the human nature of Christ. And if any emotion of 
 wonder rise up in the soul from the fact that a holy human nature 
 should be formed of the substance and born of a sinful woman, 
 the text referred to dispels the cause of such emotion, by assur¬ 
 ing us, that that nature was formed and purified by the over- 
 
159 
 
 less that a perfect contrast might appear between 
 what he was in his birth, and what his father David 
 
 shadowing power and influence of the Holy G host. This is the 
 reason, a supernatural reason indeed, why that which was born 
 of the virgin was a holy thing. 
 
 What then becomes of the assertions—that holiness cannot be 
 predicated of a nature ? and that Christ was born with a nature 
 neither holy nor unholy? If a person started out with the full 
 determination to contradict the Holy Ghost, we cannot see how 
 he could do so more palpably than by making such assertions. 
 But if human nature was holy in the person of Christ at his 
 birth, why may not human nature be unholy in us at our birth ? 
 it is surely as easy to predicate unholiness as holiness of a nature. 
 David thought so, when he confessed—“ Behold, I was shapen in 
 iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” And Job 
 thought so, when he asked the question and answered it—“ Who 
 can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not one ?” 
 
 Sound divines, whose labors have edified and comforted the 
 church of God, have uniformly maintained, that the holiness of 
 Christ’s human nature formed a part of his justifying righteous¬ 
 ness, and was necessary on account of the sinful corruption of 
 ours. The law finds us in possession of a sinful nature, but it 
 found him in possession of a holy one. He was no sooner made 
 of a woman than he was made under the law; and he met that 
 law with a holy nature and thus fulfilled its righteousness in that 
 important point. 
 
 From the foregoing considerations, then, it follows, in despite 
 of all the sneers and cavils of a vain philosophy, that the qualities 
 of a nature are as cognizable by the law of God, as the qualities 
 of an act. But let. not our meaning be perverted, as though we 
 were speaking of a physical and not of a moral nature. Man 
 viewed as a creature possesses a physical nature; and viewed as 
 a subject of God’s moral government he possesses a moral pa- 
 
100 
 
 was in his, and what all the children of Adam are 
 in theirs 1 
 
 But how conies it to pass, that the very first acts 
 performed by children, after they have attained to 
 what is called the period of moral agency, are uni¬ 
 versally sinful acts? Nobody pretends that there 
 was ever a solitary exception to this; and yet it is 
 pretended that the moral nature of infants is in no 
 respect corrupted ! This is infinitely absurd. 
 
 ture. We predicate neither sin nor holiness of his physical na¬ 
 ture 5 it is his moral nature only that is a proper subject of such 
 predication. And we contend, from the word of God, that the 
 moral nature of every human being as born into the world, is 
 corrupt , and consequently at variance with the requirement of 
 the divine law, whose unceasing and unalterable demand is, that 
 every son and daughter of Adam should possess the same holy 
 and uncorrupted nature, that was given to him in his creation. 
 But this demand of the law has never been fulfilled, except in 
 the case of our adorable Surety as born in our nature ; to which 
 fact, as “ a new thing in the earth,” Inspiration points the finger 
 of admiration, saying—“ That Holy Thing , which shall be born 
 of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” Hence, as to the as¬ 
 sertion, that human nature in the case of infants is, morally 
 speaking, precisely the same as in the case of “ the holy child 
 Jesus,” we have only to say, that it has been made foolishly and 
 thoughtlessly, if not blasphemously. For if there be, in the 
 whole Bible, a contrast plain, obvious and palpable, it is that 
 which the Holy Spirit draws-between the moral character of our 
 Saviour in his birth, and the moral character of all Adam’s children 
 in theirs. He was horn a holy thing —They are “ shapen jjg 
 iniquity and conceived in sin.” 
 
161 
 
 What? Does the sweet fountain universally send 
 forth bitter streams? Does the good tree univer- 
 sally produce corrupt fruit ? 
 
 Besides, did not the rite of ciicumcision, under 
 the law, point to the corruption of infants ? Was 
 not the thing sacramentally represented by it, a 
 change of heart ? It was said to Israel, “The 
 Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the 
 heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with 
 all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou 
 mayest live.” (Deut. xxx. 6.) Now, if the circum¬ 
 cision of the flesh represented the circumcision 
 of tire heart, infants, if holy, would have been 
 improper subjects of that rite. In their case, it 
 could have represented no spiritual benefit. The 
 outward circumcision of their flesh, therefore, 
 proved their need of an internal and spiritual cir¬ 
 cumcision of the heart. And lienee, the promise 
 of this blessing pertained to them equally with 
 their fathers. “The Lord thy God will circumcise 
 thine heart, and the heart of thy seed.” 
 
 An I under the New Testament dispensation, the 
 ordinance of baptism proves the same thing. This 
 ordinance has a primary respect to pollution .— 
 Hence, in allusion to the outward sio-n, the bless- 
 ing signified is called “the washing of reo-enera- 
 
 O O O o 
 
 tion.” Now, if it be not true that infants need “ frhe 
 
 14 * 
 
162 
 
 washing of regeneration,’' need a real change of 
 heart, their baptism must be a solemn mockery. 
 With the same propriety you might baptize angels. 
 And this incongruity actually takes place in the 
 case of those who baptize infants under the false 
 impression, that they are u little angels,” or pure 
 as angels. And an incongruity equally disgusting 
 takes place in the case of those who baptize infants 
 under the absurd belief, that they are neither holy, 
 nor unholy, but like the irrational creation! Such 
 might, with equal propriety, as far as themselves 
 are concerned, administer that holy ordinance to 
 the fowls of the air, or the beasts of the field ! 
 And, by the way, according to this Pelagian no¬ 
 tion, what must become of those human beings 
 who die in a state of infancy ? Not being holy , 
 they cannot be admitted into heaven : And not be¬ 
 ing unholy , they cannot be sent to hell! The por¬ 
 tion of brutes must, therefore, be their portion! 
 Let those who ccm, believe a conclusion so abhor¬ 
 rent both to Scripture and reason. And if none 
 are found willing to embrace the conclusion, then 
 let them reject, with a becoming indignation, the 
 premises from which it is legitimately drawn. 
 
 The foregoing considerations, then, fully es¬ 
 tablish the moral corruption of human nature in 
 infants. It only remains, now, to complete the 
 
163 
 
 argument, to show how this corruption takes place, 
 how this evil comes to be visited upon all the seed 
 of Adam ? And here we need only remark, as be¬ 
 fore, in relation to the loss of “the image of God,” 
 that this painful and highly calamitous dispensa 
 tion, has not been introduced by a mere act of ab¬ 
 solute sovereignty , but by an act of a righteous 
 Judge, duly inflicting punishment upon the ill-de¬ 
 serving But as infants are not ill-deserving , per¬ 
 sonally considered, they must be regarded in law, 
 as having the sin of their representative charged to 
 their account , and, therefore, obnoxious to the en¬ 
 durance of such a punishment. And here it may 
 also be remarked, that this corruption of nature is 
 to be regarded both as a sin , and as the punishment 
 of sin. It is a sin, as it is a want of conformity 
 to the law of God; and it is the punishment of sin, 
 as it is an evil inflicted by a judge in the due exer¬ 
 cise of justice. In the latter sense, it is to be 
 viewed as coming immediately from the hand of 
 God, but in the former, as conveyed from father to 
 son, in the propagation of the human family. 
 
 Nor are we, in this, to be understood as main¬ 
 taining, either that God' is the author of sin, or 
 that parents are capable of giving existence to a 
 sinful being. The human body, of itself, is not 
 an appropriate subject either of holiness or de- 
 
164 
 
 pravity. Holiness or depravity cannot be predi¬ 
 cated of mere flesh and bones. The soul is es¬ 
 sential to the constitution of a moral agent. The 
 union of soul and body, in a human being, consti¬ 
 tutes such an agent. But God is “the Father of 
 spirits ;” he is the immediate creator of the soul, 
 and he infuses it into a human body, instrumentally 
 prepared by parents for its reception. The soul, 
 however, is created destitute of its original glory ; 
 “the image of God”—destitute of “knowledge, 
 righteousness, and holiness.” This destitution is 
 the negative cause of corruption, as the destitution 
 of light is necessarily accompanied with darkness. 
 And the union of such a soul with a material body, 
 gives existence to a human being of a corrupt moral 
 constitution. So far, therefore, as God is immedi¬ 
 ately concerned in the production of such a being, he 
 acts righteously—acting in the character of a Judge, 
 he only withholds what he would have bestowed, 
 had the representative of the human race fulfilled 
 the condition of the original covenant. The evil, 
 then, of our being born with a corrupt nature is to 
 be charged to the sin of Adam, and to that sin as 
 imputed to us, otherwise it could not be attended 
 with such a punitive consequence. And human 
 procreation is the divinely established mode , by 
 which this punishment comes to be endured, this 
 
165 
 
 corrupt nature to be transmitted. Indeed, the 
 mere fact of parents being sinful, does not neces¬ 
 sarily imply that their progeny must also be sinful. 
 
 t 
 
 God could have ordered it otherwise. He could, 
 by the infusion of a holy soul, have sanctified the 
 propagated body. But he has constituted this 
 matter differently. Hence, we must regard the 
 procreation of the species as being the medium , 
 which God has established for conveying this penal 
 and sinful corruption of nature down to the last of 
 the represented posterity of Adam. 
 
1GG 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 
 
 Sec. 1 . —The Doctrine Proved from the Inability 
 of Adam's Descendants to keep the Command¬ 
 ments of God. 
 
 The imputation of Adam’s first sin to his pos¬ 
 terity is manifest from their innate and total ina¬ 
 bility to obey the commandments of God. This 
 argument is of the same nature with’ the last two. 
 It cannot be denied, that man was originally crea¬ 
 ted with a sufficient ability to do whatever God re- 
 , quired of him. But if men are now born into the 
 world under an utter inability to perform the re¬ 
 quirements of the divine law, it follows, that hu¬ 
 man nature has undergone an awful change—has 
 suffered a dreadful loss. And as it would be an 
 injurious reflection on the character of Jehovah, to 
 refer this to a mere act of his sovereign will, it 
 must have taken place in pursuance of an act of 
 justice; and hence the imputation of Adam’s sin 
 to his posterity, is established. To complete the 
 argument, therefore, we have only to prove the 
 existence of the inability alluded to. And as much 
 metaphysical dust has been blown upon this sub¬ 
 ject, it may be proper, in the first place, to brush it 
 away. 
 
1(57 
 
 A distinction, not only ambiguous but wholly 
 inapplicable, is made here between natural and 
 moral inability :* And it is contended, that only 
 
 * “ The learned Amyraldus, did no service to the cause of the 
 reformation by his distinction between a physical and moral • 
 power of believing in Christ. He supposed the sinner to have 
 the former, but not the latter. He held, that Christ died for all 
 men according to a decree of God, by which salvation was se¬ 
 cured to sinners upon condition of their faith; which general 
 decree, according to him, was to be considered as going before 
 the particular decree, about giving faith to the elect. When it 
 was objected to him, that his notion of the general decree now 
 mentioned was absurd, as it suspended the end of Christ’s death 
 upon an impossible condition;—he denied, that the condition 
 was impossible. “For,” said he, “though I do not, with the 
 Arminians, deny the impotence of fallen man, or his inability 
 to believe, (I allow him to be morally impotent;) yet I hold that 
 man has still a physical or natural power of believing; as he 
 possesses the natural faculties of the understanding and the will. 
 Herein Amyraldus has given a sad example of the abuse of great 
 parts. Shall we suppose, that when Christ undertook for sin¬ 
 ners in the covenant of grace, he considered them any otherwise 
 than as most miserable, lost, dead in sin, utterly impotent, 
 (Rom. v. 7, 8. viii. 3,) or that the wisdom of God gave Christ to 
 die for this end, that sinners might attain salvation by a natural 
 power of believing ; a power, which, Amyraldus confesses, 
 could never be exerted ? Farther* is not faith a most holy and 
 moral act, and, as it takes place in the sinner, purely supernatu¬ 
 ral? and shall we allow, that a principle which is not moral, but 
 merely physical, can be productive of such a moral and super¬ 
 natural act? Ought not an act and its principle to correspond 
 with one another? Let the same thing be said of love, which 
 Amyraldus has said of faith, and the Pelagians will triumph; 
 
the latter belongs to fallen man ; that he still pos¬ 
 sesses the former , a natural ability to do all that 
 God’s law requires. Yes, it is the unceasing cry 
 of certain theologians, that every child of Adam 
 is naturally able , though morally unable , to keep 
 the commandments of God. But what do they 
 mean by a natural or physical ability, for they use 
 these terms synonymously? Do they mean that 
 
 who used to speak so much about a natural faculty of loving God 
 above all things. Indeed upon this scheme, there will be no 
 keeping out of the Pelagian opinion about the powers of pure 
 nature , and about physical or natural faculties in man of doing 
 what is morally good. For, in confuting that opinion, our Di¬ 
 vines still maintained, that the image of God was requisite in 
 the first man, in order to his exerting such morally good acts as 
 those of loving and seeking true blessedness in the enjoyment of 
 him. But Amyraldus overthrows this doctrine, while he is led, 
 by the distinction he makes between natural and moral power, 
 to hold, that the conception of man’s rational nature necessarily 
 includes in it a power of exerting acts morally good, such as those 
 of desiring and endeavoring to obtain the restoration of com¬ 
 munion with the infinitely holy and.blessed God. The tendency of 
 this scheme became more manifest, when Pajonius, a disciple of 
 Amyraldus, began to deny the necessity of the Spirit’s work in 
 the internal illumination of sinners, in order to their saving con¬ 
 version. For, said Pajonius, nothing more is necessary to that 
 eqd, than that the understanding, which has in itself a sufficiency 
 of clear ideas, (according to the language of the Cartesian Phi¬ 
 losophy then in vogue,) should only be struck by the light of ex¬ 
 ternal revelation, as the eye is struck by the rays of light coming 
 from a luminous object .”—Lcydecker de Veritate Religionis Re - 
 formatx cl Evangeliccc, Lib. u. Chap. 6. Sect. 82. 
 
169 
 
 power in man, by which he is able to perform bodily 
 acts , such as ivalking , running , &tc. ? Then, what 
 has this to do on a point which relates exclusively 
 to mental acts , such as knowing and loving God , 
 believing , repenting , &c. ? What information 
 can an inquirer receive, when asking whether a 
 sinner be able to know and love God, to be told, 
 that he is able; because he can run and laugh , and 
 perform a great variety of mechanical operations ? 
 Or do they simply mean, by employing this term, 
 that man still possesses all the original faculties of 
 the soul; that he has an understanding, a will, a con¬ 
 science, &c.? But what has this to do with the ques¬ 
 tion respecting the exercise of those faculties in a 
 holy and spiritual manner f If I ask, can I exercise 
 my understanding in a holy manner, must I be in¬ 
 sulted with the answer—Yes, because you possess 
 the faculty of understanding? So may an old clock 
 possess all the faculties for keeping time, and yet 
 not be able to keep time, on account of the dis¬ 
 ordered and rusted condition of those faculties. 
 Or do they only mean by their natural ability , that 
 the soul is able to perform natural acts , that it can 
 think,und judge, and will, and love, in a natural way? 
 Still what has this to do with the question respect¬ 
 ing its ability to perform moral and spiritual acts ? 
 Js it not offering an insult to the inquirer, who 
 
 1 ^ 
 
170 
 
 asks, whether he be able of himself to perform 
 such moral acts, as knowing, believing in , and lov¬ 
 ing God, to be told—O yes, for you can demon¬ 
 strate a mathematical proposition, and you can 
 love natural objects, and you can perform a thou¬ 
 sand other mental operations of a natural kind ? 
 Thus natural and spiritual acts are confounded ; 
 and because we can perform the one, it is taken 
 for granted that we can perform the other. But 
 after all, perhaps, those who harp on this ambigu¬ 
 ous term, are only to be understood as maintain¬ 
 ing, that men are by nature or birth , able to do all 
 that God requires in his law, as they are said to be 
 by nature or naturally , that is by birth, “the chil¬ 
 dren of wrath.” If this be their meaning, the 
 sentiment is false, for in this sense of the term, men 
 are naturally unable to observe God’s law, as can be 
 easily shown. Or, it may be, that they simply in¬ 
 tend, by the use of this term, to assert, that there 
 is no defect about the faculties of the soul to hinder 
 their spiritual exercise. But if this be their mean¬ 
 ing, truth compels us to take the opposite ground, 
 and to maintain a natural inability. For although 
 men do still possess all the original faculties of 
 soul, it is not true that these exist without any de¬ 
 fect as to their moral operations. A man may 
 possess all his bodily members, and yet they may 
 
171 
 
 be sadly defective, as to any appropriate exercise 
 of them. His feet may be impotent, his arms may 
 be withered, his eyes may be visited with a cata¬ 
 ract, his whole body may be so completely para¬ 
 lyzed as to prevent the smallest motion. In pre¬ 
 cisely the same way, do we contend, that the 
 faculties of the soul are defective, when viewed in 
 relation to spiritual acts. There is a cataract in 
 the eye of the understanding, there is benumedness 
 in the heart, there is rigidity in the will, there is 
 lethargy in the conscience ; in a word, the whole 
 soul is in a paralyzed condition. It may, there¬ 
 fore, with the same propriety, be said, that the 
 paralytic is physically able to rise up and walk, as 
 that the spiritually paralyzed soul, is physically 
 able to keep the commandments of God. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that the term “natu¬ 
 ral ability,” as used in the present case, is quite 
 ambiguous. Nor is this all, it is wholly inapli- 
 cable. An ability for the performance of any 
 given act, must derive its character from the na¬ 
 ture of the act to be performed. If the act be 
 natural , the ability to perform it must be natural ; 
 and if the act be moral , the ability to perform it 
 must be moral. But the subject under considera¬ 
 tion relates exclusively to moral acts. To speak, 
 therefore, of a natural ability to perform these, is 
 
172 
 
 an abuse of terms. For a moral act can only be 
 performed by a moral ability. Hence the terms, 
 “natural ability,” and “natural inability,” should 
 be excluded from the discussion of this subject, 
 unless they be used with an entire reference to the 
 origin of that moral ability or inability, which the 
 case alone involves. In this restricted sense, the 
 epithet “natural,” merely expresses what is con¬ 
 nate to man, or possessed by him as born into the 
 world. And, as we maintain, that there is in 
 Adam’s children a moral inability to meet the re¬ 
 quirements of the divine law, we also contend that 
 that inability is natural to them. 
 
 In regard to the use of the term “ moral inabil¬ 
 ity,” a few words must also be said. If by this 
 term, were simply meant an inability to perform 
 moral acts, or to answer the requirements of God’s 
 moral law, it would be proper, and would express 
 a great scriptural truth. We are, indeed, pos¬ 
 sessed of a “ moral inability For we are unable 
 of ourselves to do any thing aright, which the 
 holy law of God demands. We cannot believe, 
 nor repent, nor perform any holy moral act, with¬ 
 out enjoying the supernatural aid of the Spirit of 
 God. This, however, is not the meaning of the 
 term, as used by those, who advocate the existence 
 of a “natural ability,” and “moral inability,” in 
 
173 
 
 fallen man. For by “ moral inability,” they tell 
 us, they mean an inability arising from the will . 
 According to them, the sinner can do every thing 
 which the law requires, but he will not: There¬ 
 fore, while he is naturally able , he is morally un¬ 
 able to do his duty: His inability arises solely 
 from a wrong choice —it is a voluntary inability ! 
 Such language appears to us to involve an absurd¬ 
 ity : For it supposes, that a poiver to perform our 
 duty can be either created or destroyed, at pleasure, 
 by a simple act of the will! That so great a mat¬ 
 ter as “power to keep God’s law,” can be deter¬ 
 mined by a mere volition! Yea, thaj; the sinner 
 chooses inability , when he might equally well 
 choose ability! Now, the truth is, that neither 
 ability nor inability, is an appropriate object of 
 volition. If a person possess the power of per¬ 
 forming some given action, he cannot, by a mere 
 volition, divest himself of that power ; and if he 
 do not possess the power of performing it, a mere 
 volition can never give him that power. A moral 
 agent, however, may have the power of obeying 
 God, and yet choose not to obey him. But this 
 cannot, with propriety, be called a “ voluntary in¬ 
 ability it is only a voluntary disuse of a possessed 
 ability . Perhaps some will say, that this is all 
 they intend by a “ moral or voluntary inability.” 
 
 15 * 
 
174 
 
 Let us inquire, then, whether there really be in 
 fallen man this power, which may be used or dis¬ 
 used, at pleasure ? This is the main question. 
 
 Now, that he possesses no such power or abil¬ 
 ity, is evident; because it has already been proved 
 that he has lost the “ image of God,” and is totally 
 corrupt; yea, that in regard to spiritual matters, 
 there is a real defect in all the faculties of his soul, 
 his understanding being blinded, his will perverted, 
 his conscience defiled, and his affections alienated; 
 so that he can no more yield a holy obedience to 
 God’s law, than the paralytic can rise and walk. 
 And to confirm this truth more fully, let the fol- 
 lowing passages of Scripture, among others, be 
 attentively considered. “ The natural man re- 
 ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for 
 they are foolishness to him ; neither can he know 
 them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 
 (1. Cor. ii. 14.) “The carnal mind is enmity 
 against God; for it is not subject to the law of 
 God, neither indeed can be.” (Rom. viii. 7.) “No 
 man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the 
 Holy Ghost.” (1. Cor. xii. 3.) “No man can 
 come to me, except the Father, which hath sent 
 me, draw him.” (John vi. 44.) “ You hath he 
 quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” 
 (Eph. ii. 1.) “The hour is coming, and now is. 
 
175 
 
 when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
 God ; and they that hear shall live.” (John v. 25.) 
 “ Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the 
 leopard his spots ? then may ye also do good, that 
 are accustomed to do evil.” {Jer. xii. 23.) 
 
 The above texts plainly teach us, that the ability 
 in question is not to be found in fallen man, that the 
 exercise of it should depend upon his will. And 
 who, believing those texts to be inspired of God, 
 can consistently maintain the contrary, that there 
 is a previous power in every man qualifying him 
 for the performance of holy acts, which may be 
 used by him, or not, according to the pleasure of 
 his will? Surely such a sentiment is no where 
 contained in the word of God. Hence, if the sin¬ 
 ner will not do his duty; if he will not love and 
 serve God ; if he will not come to Christ for life, 
 it is not because he refuses to exercise a possessed 
 ability, but because he has not the ability which 
 can be thus exercised. He cannot, by a mere voli¬ 
 tion, remove the blindness from his understanding ; 
 he cannot, by a mere volition, slay the enmity of his 
 heart; he cannot, by a mere volition, banish away 
 that disorder and corruption which have seized on 
 all the faculties of his soul. His inability, therefore, 
 is not seated in his will alone; it possesses a more 
 comprehensive sway; it resides in all his faculties. 
 
176 
 
 And those also who would confine it to a mere 
 “disinclination,” or “ indisposition,” egregiously 
 mistake the matter. For we find, that even in the 
 saints there may be an inclination , or disposition , 
 to do what is good, Mien the ability is wanting. 
 Said Christ to his disciples in the garden, “The 
 Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 
 (Matt. xxvi. 41.) Paul says of himself, “The 
 good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I 
 would not, that I do. Now, if I do that I would 
 not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwel- 
 leth in me. I find then a law, that when I would 
 do good, evil is present with me.” (Rom. vii. 19 
 ■—£1.) And he writes to the Galatians, “The 
 flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit 
 against the flesh ; and these are contrary, the one 
 to the other ; so that ye cannot do the things that 
 ye would.” (Ch. v. 17.) How, then, can it be 
 said, that the sinner’s want of inclination to do his 
 duty, is his only inability, when the saint, with 
 this inclination, is not unincumbered of all ina¬ 
 bility ? 
 
 Having proved, then, that man is unable to keep 
 God’s law, it may be inquired whether this inability 
 resides in him from his very birth, or whether it 
 becomes incidentally attached to him afterwards ? 
 Or, in other words, whether it be natural, or ac- 
 
177 
 
 quired? If it be said, that it is acquired; we 
 would ask, at what time did it begin to be acquir¬ 
 ed? And if it be answered, At the time the first 
 actual sin was committed; we would ask again, 
 how the ability, which must, in that case have ex¬ 
 isted prior to the commission of the first sin, could 
 consist with the “ want of original righteousness,” 
 and with the “ inherent corruption of nature,” 
 which we have before proved to exist even in the 
 case of infants? Indeed, mankind could not be 
 said to be “by nature children of wrath,” if they 
 were neither chargeable with sin, nor wanted 
 ability to observe the requirements of the divine 
 law : For this would be all that God could reason¬ 
 ably demand of them in that condition. Again, 
 the Apostle says, “ When we were without 
 strength, Christ died for the ungodly.” Now, 
 did Christ die for any infants ? Then they were 
 not only “ungodly,” but also without “strength.” 
 The inability, therefore, of which we are speaking, 
 is natural to man, it belongs inherently to our fal¬ 
 len nature. Since, therefore God has deprived the 
 descendants of Adam of that power, with which 
 he was endowed at his creation, we cannot possibly 
 avoid considering this as a punishment sent on 
 
 
178 
 
 them for his transgression.* But his transgress- 
 ion must be imputed to them, in virtue of a power 
 contained in the original covenant, before it could 
 be made the basis of a penal procedure against 
 them. Hence, in the infliction of this punishment, 
 God does not act merely as a sovereign, but as a 
 righteous Judge, dispensing justice according to 
 the penal sanction of the covenant of works. 
 
 * Man’s inability to obey his Creator is his si?i as well as his 
 punishment. This may be illustrated by the case of a convict in a 
 Penitentiary. His confinement there is his punishment for having 
 committed a criminal act; but it is also his sin, as he is thereby 
 disqualified for performing his natural obligations to society. We 
 will suppose him to be a husband and a father—and that his wife 
 and children are suffering through his non-performance, in con¬ 
 sequence of his imprisonment, of those duties towards them, 
 which the marriage covenant and the law of nature had made 
 obligatory upon him. Is not, therefore, his state of disability for 
 the performance of those duties his sin ? He is living in the 
 constant omission of duties, which he had most solemnly obli¬ 
 gated himself to perform. His punishment cannot cancel his 
 obligation to perform those duties. If otherwise, mankind, by 
 turning criminals, would have it in their power to disannul the 
 law of God and cancel all its preceptive claims; yea, to banish 
 that law entirely from the earth. The convict’s state of dis¬ 
 qualification for discharging the prior obligations of the law is, 
 therefore, a sinful state. And indeed he is laid under a necessity 
 of sinning. He would sin if he escaped from the prison, and 
 the fact of his being there, in a state of disability for performing 
 his duty towards his family and society, is also his sin. In like 
 manner, we hold, that man’s inability to keep the command¬ 
 ments of God is not only a penal infliction for sin, but is also in 
 itself a sin. 
 
179 
 
 Sec. 2 .—From the Sufferings and Death of In¬ 
 fants. 
 
 The sufferings and death of infants prove the 
 doctrine in question. That many of Adam’s chil¬ 
 dren suffer and die in infancy, before the commis¬ 
 sion of actual sin, is a fact which all are forced to 
 admit. Now, from this fact, the imputation of 
 Adam’s sin to his posterity, is easily inferred. 
 The argument is simply this:—Death is the pe¬ 
 nalty of sin, but infants, who are not chargeable 
 with actual sin, die, therefore, they must be re¬ 
 garded as having the sin of their representative, 
 Adam, charged to their account. To make this 
 argument conclusive, all that is necessary is to 
 prove that death is the penalty of sin. We know 
 that this is denied, with the greatest boldness, by 
 many ; but it is denied in the open face both of 
 reason and of revelation. Reason teaches, that suf¬ 
 fering and death are evils, and that innocent crea¬ 
 tures cannot be subjected to them, without being 
 chargeable with guilt, unless, what is blasphemous 
 to assert, God, who indicts these evils, is charge¬ 
 able with injustice. There is little need, however, 
 of appealing to reason on a point which revelation 
 so plainly inculcates. The three following propo¬ 
 sitions, laid down by the Apostle Paul, unequivo- 
 
18 a 
 
 
 cally teach, that sin is the meritorious and pro¬ 
 curing cause of death. “ Sin entered into the 
 world and death by sin;”—“death passed upon all 
 men, for that all have sinned,”—“the wages of sin 
 is death.” (Rom. v. 12, and vi. 23.) Temporal 
 death, although far from embracing the whole of 
 the death, of which the Apostle speaks, is never¬ 
 theless included in it. It is, therefore, a part of 
 the wages of sin, that is to say, sin is its meri¬ 
 torious cause. Does it not, then, inevitably fol¬ 
 low that death is the penalty of sin ? For what is 
 meant by the penalty of sin, but an evil suffered- 
 on account of sin, as its meritorious cause? And 
 in no other light do the Scriptures present death, 
 when viewed in its own nature, and as unaffected 
 by the mediation of Christ Jesus. Christ’s media¬ 
 tion has, indeed, changed the aspect of death- in 
 the case of all belivers ; and if the same be said in 
 relation to the death of infants, the point in debate 
 is yielded. For if Christ has interfered in their 
 behalf, and removed whatever is penal in death 
 relative to them, then this supposes them to have 
 been antecedently obnoxious to a penal death, and 
 consequently chargeable with sin. Scripture as¬ 
 sures us, that “the sting of death is sin,” and 
 that the removal of this sting is owing to the 
 mediation of Christ. (1. Cor. xv. 5a—57.) Hence, 
 
181 
 
 death, as befalling infants, is accompanied with 
 this sting, or it is not. If it be, it is a penal death ; 
 if not, there is an indebtedness to the work of a 
 mediator, and but for which, it would have been a 
 penal death, or a punishment for sin. If sin, which 
 is declared to be the u sting of death,” had no ex¬ 
 istence in the case of infants, they could have no 
 interest in the mediation of Christ, they could not 
 unite in the resurrection song of the just, “O 
 death, where is thy sting'? Thanks be to God, 
 who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.” It may be asserted, then, with the ut¬ 
 most confidence, that death, in itself considered, 
 and abstracted from all connection with the media¬ 
 tion of our blessed Redeemer, is an evil, a punish¬ 
 ment for sin. And this is farther confirmed from 
 what is declared to have been the end of Christ’s 
 incarnation. “The Son of God was manifested, 
 that he might destroy the works of the devil.” 
 (1. John iii. 8.) Death must be included among 
 the works of the Devil. “As the children are 
 partakers of flesh and blood, he (Christ,) also 
 himself likewise took part of the same; that 
 through death he might destroy him that had the 
 power of death, that is, the Devil.” (Heb. ii. 14.) 
 Now, wherever death comes to any of the children 
 of men, old or young, Satan either has the “power 
 
 16 
 
18 '2 
 
 of it,” or be has been dislodged from that power* 
 But it will be granted, that he has no power over 
 death, except by means of sin—surely he has no 
 power over it but what sin gives him: Hence, 
 the atonement which Christ has made for sin, 
 “through his death,” is that which has divested 
 Satan of his “power of death.” Let death, there¬ 
 fore, come in either of the ways above specified, 
 the case is precisely the same, so far as our argu¬ 
 ment is concerned. For it is obvious that sin and 
 death are legally connected, antecedently of all 
 consideration of Christ’s death, and the consequent 
 destruction of Satan’s power. In other words, 
 death, in its own nature, is the penalty of sin.* 
 Many futile attempts are made to invalidate the 
 force of the foregoing reasoning, as applied to the 
 death of infants. It is pretended that their death 
 is a chastisement , and not a punishment. But this 
 is yielding the point in dispute; for who does not 
 perceive that a chastisement always presupposes 
 some fault, some sin in the subject of it ? The 
 sufferings and death of infants are supposed, by 
 others, to form a part of a system of moral dis¬ 
 cipline , designed for the betterment of their con¬ 
 dition. But the application of such “moral dis- 
 
 * See chap. iii. Secs. 6 and 8. 
 
183 
 
 cipline,” without any sin in its subjects, appears 
 to be incompatible with the moral rectitude of the 
 divine government. It would resemble the case 
 of a parent giving his child a most unmerciful 
 beating, and at the same time telling him, “You 
 have never committed any wrong, you have never 
 offended me at all, I only inflict this salutary dis¬ 
 cipline upon you with the view of bettering your 
 condition, of rendering you more capable of enjoy¬ 
 ing happiness hereafter!” Such procedure in a 
 parent, would surely be regarded with abhorrence ; 
 and shall such procedure be ascribed to the God 
 of holiness ? Indeed, could we, when witnessing 
 the sufferings and agonies of the dying infant, be 
 persuaded of the entire innocence of the little suf¬ 
 ferer, in the view of the Divine mind, we should 
 esteem the author of its sufferings to be a Moloch, 
 instead of the “Holy One of Israel, who delight- 
 eth in mercy.” But it is further said, that inno¬ 
 cent brutes suffer and die, and why not charge 
 them with the sin of Adam, as well as infants? 
 We answer, that the brute creation was remotely 
 affected by the sin of Adam ; he was constituted 
 their lord ; he was appointed a head of dominion 
 to them ; and although he did not represent them in 
 the covenant, yet his fall disgraced them, and his 
 sin was remotely visited upon them. Any dis- 
 
184 
 
 grace or calamity, which befalls the head of any 
 government affects the whole body politic. “If the 
 head suffer, all the members suffer with it.” In 
 like manner, when “the lord of this lower crea¬ 
 tion” fell, by transgression, from his high dignity, 
 all the subjects of his dominion were involved, 
 consequentially, to a certain extent, in his disgrace 
 and ruin. The brutes suffer in the sense, in which 
 they are capable subjects of suffering. Their suf¬ 
 ferings cannot be penal , because they are not pro¬ 
 per subjects of sin, not being subjects of a moral 
 law. But it is essentially different with infants. 
 They stand related to Adam in a far more interest¬ 
 ing and exalted manner. They are related to him, 
 both as their natural and moral head. They are 
 also proper subjects of penal suffering. They are 
 human beings ; they bear the image and likeness 
 of fallen Adam : they, are, moreover, subjects of 
 the moral law of God, else they could not be re¬ 
 ceived into heaven, unless we suppose an absurdi¬ 
 ty, that there are some in heaven that are not sub¬ 
 jects of law.* Hence, it is unreasonable to com¬ 
 pare the sufferings of children to those of brutes. 
 But if they do not suffer and die like brutes, then 
 their sufferings and death, in their own nature con- 
 
 * See chap. iv. Sec. 8. 
 
185 
 
 sidered, must be the penal effect of sin, not, in¬ 
 deed, of their own personal sin, for they have 
 none, but of the sin of Adam imputed to them. 
 
 But we are told again, that the death of infants 
 can only be viewed as the consequence of Adam’s 
 sin, and not its penal effect. The Socinians for¬ 
 merly contended, that death was a “consequent 
 of nature,” and that men would have died, al¬ 
 though sin had never entered into the world. This 
 sentiment is found to contradict the Bible so glar- 
 ingly, that it is relinquished by those, who, in 
 many respects, coincide with the inventers of it; 
 and the ground, on which they would stand, is, 
 that death is in no case the penalty, but only the 
 consequence of Adam’s sin. And so it might be 
 said that the incarnation of the Son of God, was 
 the consequence of Adam’s sin; that the preaching 
 of the Gospel was the consequence of Adam’s sin ; 
 and that the singing of the redeemed, in glory— 
 “ Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our 
 sins in his own blood,” &c., was the consequence 
 of the sin of Adam. But has death, especially 
 in the case of infants, no other connection, than 
 instances of this kind, with the sin of Adam ? If 
 death be only a consequence of sin, how came the 
 Apostle to tell us that it is “ the wages of sin?” 
 Is it answered, that “the wages” of our personal 
 
 1G* 
 
186 
 
 sins “ is death V' The Apostle makes no distinc¬ 
 tion—death, wherever it appears, is lt the wages 
 of sin.” And does it appear among infants, who 
 have no personal sins of their own ? then it must 
 be the wages of Adam's sin as charged to their 
 account. 
 
 But to disprove our position, it is again assert¬ 
 ed, that death is a blessing to infants, as it is a 
 blessing to all believers. We answer, that death 
 is a blessing to believers only through the Media¬ 
 tion of our Lord Jesus Christ; and if it be a bless¬ 
 ing to infants in the same manner, then it follows, 
 that irrespective of his mediation, it would not be 
 a blessing to them, but a curse, and consequently 
 the penal effect of sin. But to avoid this con¬ 
 clusion, those whom we are opposing are obliged 
 to maintain, (what indeed is very absurd,) that 
 death comes to infants as a blessing in consequence 
 of Adam’s sin! We acknowledge that God, in the 
 exceeding riches of his wisdom and grace, has 
 overruled the sin of Adam and made it redound to 
 his greater glory, and to the greater happiness of 
 his redeemed people; but to convert death into a 
 blessing , coming in consequence of Adams sin , 
 sounds exceedingly strange ! This is to represent 
 sinning Adam as a head of blessing and not of evil 
 to his posterity ! Here is at least one blessing 
 
187 
 
 for which glorified infants are indebted to the first 
 and not to the second Adam, viz : the blessing of 
 death ! We do most heartly grant, that death is a 
 blessing to all those “who die in the Lord.” But 
 they enjoy it as a blessing, not in consequence of 
 Adam's sin, but as the fruit and effect of Christ’s 
 righteousness. There is, indeed, nothing penal 
 in death to a believer ; but this is because Christ 
 has died for him, and by means of his death has 
 robbed death of its sting. And the believer is 
 warranted to view death, as coming to him through 
 the death of his Saviour, and consequently as a 
 blessing. But at the same time, death, considered 
 in its own nature, and as “ reigning by the offense 
 of Adam” and as abstracted from all consideration 
 of the death of Christ, is a penal evil , is “the 
 wages of sin.” And hence the death of infants 
 conclusively establishes the truth of “ original sin 
 imputed.”* 
 
 In Chapter vi., Section 3., we have shown, that 
 Adam’s offense had procured a judgment, or sen¬ 
 tence of condemnation, against all mankind.— 
 There is, indeed, a difference between condemna¬ 
 tion, or adjudication to the endurance of the pe¬ 
 nalty of God’s law, and the actual infliction of that 
 
 Sep Ohnp. iii. See. 3. 
 
188 
 
 penalty. But in the arguments which have suc¬ 
 ceeded, we have proved the actual infliction of the 
 penalty, to a certain extent, upon all the offspring 
 of Adam ; we have proved that they are born into 
 the world destitute of the image of God, are pos¬ 
 sessed of a morally corrupted nature, and are dis¬ 
 abled for meeting the requirements of the divine 
 and unalterable law of God ; which evils consti¬ 
 tute the elements of spiritual death, and are, there¬ 
 fore, parts of the threatened penalty actually in¬ 
 flicted. And we have also proved the infliction of 
 another part of the penalty, or what is equivalent 
 thereto, in the temporal sufferings and death of in¬ 
 fants. But the penalty has been thus actually in¬ 
 flicted on Adam’s seed, on account of his “one 
 offense.” For says the Apostle, “through the 
 offense of one many are dead and again, “by 
 one man’s offense death reigned by one.” (Rom. 
 v. 15, 17.) Has the penalty, then, been inflicted 
 upon all, and that on account of Adam’s offense, 
 as the Apostle declares ? How is it possible, then, 
 to avoid the conclusion, that that offense has been 
 imputed to all 1 Does God inflict the penalty of 
 his law upon any of his creatures for an offense, 
 if that offense be not legally and judicially charged 
 to their account 1 To suppose such a thing would 
 be little short of blasphemy ; it would surely be a 
 
189 
 
 high affront offered to the character of the Holy 
 One of Israel. It is true the penalty is not in¬ 
 flicted upon all, in its full extent. This only takes 
 place in the case of those, who go down to the 
 pit of eternal destruction. In regard to all the 
 present generation of mankind, and in regard to 
 all the “spirits of the just made perfect” before 
 the throne, the penalty, so far as it embraces eter¬ 
 nal death, has not been inflicted; but as embracing 
 spiritual death, it has been experienced by all of 
 these. Consequently the argument holds good ; 
 for if, in any instance, the penalty has not been 
 fully inflicted to the whole extent of the threaten¬ 
 ing, this has been owing to the sovereign grace 
 and mercy of the Lord our God. On the whole, 
 then, if death, spiritual and temporal, according 
 to the proofs offered, has “reigned by the offense 
 of one,” over all, even over infants, who have com¬ 
 mitted no sin in their own persons, how can this 
 be reconciled to the justice of God, if there has 
 not been a universal imputation of the guilt of 
 Adam’s first sin? 
 
 Sec. 3.-< —From the Salvation of Infants. 
 
 The salvation of infants proves, that Adam’s 
 first sin is imputed to his posterity. This we urge 
 as our last proof of the doctrine, from the convie- 
 
190 
 
 ticn that any additional proofs would be unneces¬ 
 sary and superfluous. And here, we do not wish 
 to be understood as maintaining;, that all those 
 who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures 
 make a distinction between the seed of the ungodly 
 and the seed of believers. God is called the God 
 of the seed of the righteous, but he is no where 
 called the God of the seed of the unbelieving and 
 unholy. But why this distinction, if all infants, 
 dying in a state of infancy are saved? We can¬ 
 not believe, that the infants who perished in the 
 flood, when Noah only was found righteous before 
 God—that the infants who were consumed in 
 Sodom, when God declared, that if there had been 
 ten righteous persons in the city, he would not 
 have destroyed it for their sake—that the infants 
 belonging to the company of Korah, that were 
 swallowed up by the earth—and that the infants 
 of the daughter of Babylon, concerning whom 
 God said, “happy shall he be that taketh and 
 dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” were 
 all saved. The Scriptures do not direct us to be¬ 
 lieve any such thing. Are we not rather to be¬ 
 lieve that God displays his sovereignty in relation 
 to the salvation of infants, as he does in relation 
 to the salvation of adults ? Here we are willing 
 to leave the matter, believing that the “Judge of 
 
191 
 
 all the earth does right,” while he is not bound “ to 
 give us an account of any of his matters.” But, 
 .what is sufficient for the present argument, the 
 Scriptures, do expressly teach us the salvation of 
 some infants. Says our blessed Lord, “ Suffer lit¬ 
 tle children to come unto me, and forbid them not, 
 for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Now, the 
 salvation of infants presupposes them to be sub¬ 
 jects of guilt and pollution. Were they not charge¬ 
 able with sin, Christ could not be their Saviour. 
 This is evident from his name—“ Thou shalt call 
 his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from 
 their sins .” And to this corresponds that heavenly 
 song, “Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
 from our sins in his own bloodf &c. If infants 
 have any part in the redemption that is in Chrisfs 
 blood , and if they are adopted into God’s family, 
 they must be viewed as antecedently lying under 
 the curse of the law, and as belonging to the family 
 of Satan; for “God sent forth his Son, made of 
 a woman, made under the law, to redeem them 
 that were under the law, that we might receive 
 the adoption of sons.” (Gal. iv. 4, 5.) In a word, 
 if infants are saved by Jesus Christ, they must 
 originally possess the character of lost sinners: 
 for “the Son of Man came to seek and to save 
 that which was lost.” (Luke xix, 10.) “lain 
 
192 
 
 not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel.” (Matt. xv. 24.) Since infants, therefore, 
 are sinful , under the curse , and lost , and their sal¬ 
 vation presupposes all this, how can we avoid the 
 conclusion, that Adam’s sin is imputed to them, 
 inasmuch as they have never, in their own persons, 
 transgressed the law of God 1 Indeed, it is ut¬ 
 terly impossible to escape from this conclusion, 
 without denying the salvation of infants alto- 
 
 i 
 
 gether, or, what is equally unscriptural, denying 
 that their introduction into heaven is owino- to the 
 obedience and blood of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ.* And such is our confidence in the 
 convincing force of this argument, that we would 
 be willing to depend upon it alone for the truth of 
 the great doctrine, which we have been endeavor¬ 
 ing to establish. Hence this, in connection with 
 the other arguments advanced, if we are not 
 egregiously mistaken, most triumphantly sustains 
 the position, that Adam’s first sin is imputed to 
 
 ALL HIS POSTERITY. 
 
 * See Chap, iv. Sec. 9. 
 
193 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Such is the corruption of human nature, its per¬ 
 versity and opposition to the truth, that we know 
 of no doctrine of divine revelation, against which 
 objections have not been made. From the sub 
 lime doctrine of the Trinity to that of the Resur¬ 
 rection of the dead, every link in the golden chain 
 of revealed truth has been assailed by all the 
 power and ingenuity, that men of “corrupt minds” 
 have been able to command and exert. The doc¬ 
 trine of Original Sin, from its peculiar prominence 
 in the system of supernatural revelation, has re¬ 
 ceived its full share of inveteracy and opposition. 
 A host of sneers, cavils and artful objections 
 have been brought to bear against it. But it still 
 retains its place in the great system, and moves 
 on in its orbit of light. In its defence the friends 
 of truth may have to encounter trouble, obloquy 
 and much labor, but its destruction is impossible. 
 For sooner may heaven and earth pass away, than 
 one of the words or doctrines of “the Amen, the 
 faithful and true Witness.” 
 
 The objections at present made against the lead¬ 
 ing doctrine, defended in the preceding pages, are 
 all either of Pelagian or Arminian origin and have 
 
 1 ? 
 
194 
 
 been answered a thousand times ; yet as they ard 
 brought forward in something of a new dress, and 
 are urged with much confidence and complacency, 
 even to the subverting of souls , it becomes neces¬ 
 sary still to meet them, undress them, expose 
 and condemn them. In the progress of this Trea¬ 
 tise, we have already anticipated and removed the 
 greater part of these objections ; especially such as 
 are levelled against particular parts of the general 
 argument. There are a few, however, of a gene¬ 
 ral character, which have not yet been noticed, and 
 some of those that have been, require a more ex¬ 
 panded answer than was before given. To intro¬ 
 duce these and give them such answers, as we 
 hope will be considered satisfactory, is our design 
 in the present Chapter. 
 
 Sec. 1 . —The Objection , that the Doctrine is con¬ 
 trary to Common Sense , Answered. 
 
 It is objected to the doctrine of Original Sin, as 
 presented in the preceding pages, that it is con¬ 
 trary to the dictates of common sense. “The 
 doctrine of imputed sin,” says the New Haven 
 School, “is contrary to the decision of the compe¬ 
 tent unperverted reason of mankind ; i. e. contrary 
 to common sense, and as such to be rejected.” 
 Now 7 , there are three things wrong about this ob- 
 
195 
 
 jection.— First , there is a begging of the question , 
 or a taking- for granted the point in dispute. The 
 doctrine of Original Sin, as we hold it, implies the 
 corruption or perversion of human reason in spiritu¬ 
 al matters, yet the objection speaks of the “un¬ 
 perverted reason of mankind hence the objection 
 can have no other force than that of a bare contra¬ 
 diction. And, indeed, it is surprising to hear peo¬ 
 ple talk of the “ unperverted reason of mankind,” 
 after what the Apostle has said—“ The natural 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 
 for they are foolishness to him ; neither can he 
 know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 
 And Solomon says—“He that trusteth to his own 
 understanding is a fool.”— Secondly , there is in 
 the objection the setting up of a judge, whose com¬ 
 petency to decide the controversy we deny ; and ac¬ 
 cordingly from whose decision, if it be against us, 
 we have the right to appeal. Who made common 
 sense “a judge over us” in this matter 1 ? Does its 
 jurisdiction extend to matters of pure revelation? 
 And besides, is it not a prejudiced judge? Is not 
 the carnal and unsanctified reason of mankind 
 unfriendly, nay, positively inimical to the humbling 
 and self-emptying doctrines of the Holy Bible? 
 Granting that reason is a competent judge in mere 
 natural things, we can by no means allow it to 
 
196 
 
 possess this dignity in “ the things of the Spirit 
 of God.”—And Thirdly , there is in the objection a 
 falsehood , when it is asserted, that the doctrine in 
 dispute is “ contrary to common sense.” For it 
 is only contrary to the unsanctified common sense 
 of mankind, and not to the common sense of those, 
 who have been taught, by the Spirit of God, the 
 truth as it is in Jesus. This doctrine has never been 
 opposed by the sanctified reason of the thousands, 
 who have, in every age of the Church, embraced 
 it, as one of God’s truths, and some of whom have 
 died martyrs in its defence. 
 
 We protest, however, against the practice of de¬ 
 termining any doctrine of revelation by an appeal 
 to the common sense of mankind. By the Scrip¬ 
 tures, and by them alone, must we determine 
 “whether these things be so.” The doctrine in 
 question is one of pure revelation. Our reason 
 cannot be supposed to know any thing respecting 
 the federal representative character of Adam—the 
 hinge on which the whole controversy mainly 
 turns. That point may be true or false, for any 
 thing that reason knows to the contrary. But if 
 the Bible reveals it that is enough, and reason, 
 when sanctified by the grace of God, will never 
 be found entering a decision against it. The Deist 
 rejects revelation entirely, because it appears to 
 
197 
 
 him to be unreasonable : The Unitarian rejects the 
 doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, 
 because it appears to him to be unreasonable: Are 
 they therefore right? And if the Pelagian and 
 Arminian et omne id genus reject the doctrine of 
 Original Sin, because to them it appears unreason¬ 
 able ; must we, therefore, conclude that they are 
 right ? Must we oppose and reject every thing as 
 false , that is opposed by the corrupt reason of 
 some? Besides is it not grossly absurd and even 
 ridiculous , when we wish to ascertain whether a 
 particular tenet be a revealed truth or not, to for¬ 
 sake the Bible, where, if it be a truth, it ought to 
 be found, and go about and feel the pulse of com¬ 
 mon sense upon the subject ? The Bible Christian 
 will never be at the pains of enquiring after the 
 decision of the common sense of a blind and un¬ 
 godly race on any point, which he knows should 
 be determined by the Scriptures alone. “ To the 
 law and to the testimony, if they speak not ac¬ 
 cording to this word, it is because there is no light 
 in them.” 
 
 Sec. 2.— That it Militates against the Justice of 
 
 God , Answered. 
 
 The doctrine we maintain is objected to, on the 
 ground, that it militates against the justice of God. 
 
 17 * 
 
198 
 
 This objection proceeds upon the false assump¬ 
 tion, that Adam’s posterity were, in no respect 
 whatever, concerned in his sin. We grant, indeed, 
 that they had no actual agency in the commission 
 of that sin, which u brought death into our world 
 and all our woebut we hold, that they were 
 concerned in it, when viewed as the legal repre¬ 
 sentees of Adam. The objectors entirely over¬ 
 look this consideration. And it would become 
 them, before urging their objection, to disprove, 
 on solid scriptural ground, the representative char¬ 
 acter of Adam. But this it is impossible for them 
 to do.—Is it then, a shocking absurdity, or does it 
 imply an act of injustice in God, for him to treat 
 us as guilty, on account of the sin of our federal 
 representative? Then, is it as great an absurdity 
 for the Holy Spirit to inform us, that all the tribes 
 of Israel came to Hebron to make David king : 
 when we are assured, that it was only the elders, 
 the representatives of the tribes, that came. (2. 
 Sam. v. I. 5.) Although the great mass of the 
 people were actually at home, attending to their 
 own personal concerns, yet they were all present 
 at Hebron, in their representatives, and were view¬ 
 ed as concurring in the act of making David king. 
 And was there no injustice in imputing this act to 
 all the individuals of the different tribes, which 
 
199 
 
 was only personally performed by their representa¬ 
 tives? No more, then, is it unjust in God to 
 charge the sin of Adam to the account of all those, 
 whom he, by a divine constitution, represented in 
 the Covenant of works.—God imputes, for justifi¬ 
 cation. the righteousness of Christ to all those 
 whom he represented, when he fulfilled that right¬ 
 eousness. (Rom. iv. 11. £4. x. 3. 4.) Is it unjust 
 in God to make this imputation? No more, then, 
 is it unjust in him to impute, for condemnation, the 
 sin of Adam to those whom he represented, at the 
 time, when that sin was committed. Indeed for 
 God to pursue a contrary course, in either of these 
 cases, would, according to our apprehension of 
 things, savor strongly of injustice.—Is the sin of 
 the soul charged upon the body ? Yes. Why so ? 
 In virtue of the union subsisting between them. 
 In like manner, in virtue of the representative 
 union subsisting between Adam and his posterity, 
 his sin is imputed to them. Then, as to the want 
 of original righteousness and the corruption of 
 nature befalling them as a punishment of the sin 
 of their representative, there is no injustice in this. 
 Tf such procedure be viewed as unjust, who will 
 undertake to vindicate the justice of God, in visit¬ 
 ing the nation of Israel with three years of famine , 
 on account of Saul’s cruelty towards the Gibeon- 
 
&00 
 
 ites ? or in directing seven of his sons to be hung 
 for that sin of their father? (2 Sam. xxi.) This 
 case, and others of a similar nature, which might 
 be adduced, it would be well for the objectors to 
 consider, before they charge the doctrine of “ im¬ 
 puted sin” as being derogatory to the justice of 
 God. 
 
 The truth is, our doctrine vindicates the justice 
 of the divine government, while it is that of the 
 objectors, which militates against it. One class 
 of the objectors admit the fact , as clearly revealed 
 in the Bible and confirmed by universal experience, 
 that we are naturally corrupt and destitute of holi¬ 
 ness. Now this is an evil. And is it not more in 
 accordance with the principles of justice, to view 
 it as inflicted in the way of punishment for the 
 imputed sin of a legal representative, than as pro¬ 
 ceeding merely from an act of absolute sovereignty 
 in God ? To account for the existence of this evil, 
 in the latter way, is certainly to array the sove¬ 
 reignty against the justice of God. But one divine 
 perfection is never exercised at the expense of an¬ 
 other.—Equally at variance with the honor of di¬ 
 vine justice is the scheme adopted by another class 
 of the objectors—that mankind as born into the 
 world are neither holy nor unholy, but at the same 
 time placed under a divine constitution, that in- 
 
201 
 
 fallibly secures a sinful act as the frst to be per¬ 
 formed by them as moral agents. Now we ask 
 where is the justice (to say nothing of the good¬ 
 ness) of God in placing innocent beings under 
 such a constitution'? Can these objectors solve 
 the difficulty which their own system here creates? 
 Yet these are the persons, who are continually 
 crying out injustice , whenever the doctrine of im¬ 
 putation is mentioned* Were they to attend a 
 little more to the insuperable difficulties which 
 their own scheme involves, perhaps they might be 
 brought, in order to acquit the justice of God, to 
 see the necessity of embracing the very doctrine, 
 which they now endeavor to ridicule and calum¬ 
 niate. 
 
 But in connection with the present objection and 
 in support of it, it is urged, that God always in¬ 
 flicts punishment with exclusive reference to per¬ 
 sonal transgression; and consequently, that the 
 doctrine, which would represent the children of 
 Adam as involved in the punishment of his sin, is 
 false. And here, as usual, a confident appeal is 
 made to the “competent, unperverted reason of 
 mankind !” But let our appeal be to God’s infal¬ 
 lible word, in order to ascertain, whether it be a 
 fact, that “God always inflicts punishment with 
 exclusive reference to personal transgression.”— 
 
202 
 
 And what do we there discover concerning the na- 
 lure of Messiah's sufferings ? Were they not 
 truly a punishment for sin ? And if so, for what 
 sin ? Not surely for any personal sin of his own, 
 but exclusively for the sin of others. A bare de¬ 
 nial that his sufferings constituted a legal punish¬ 
 ment for sin will not be admitted, so long as the 
 Scriptures are so express and pointed upon the sub¬ 
 ject. “ Yea, let God be true, and every man a 
 liar.”—Isaiah, prophesying of the sufferings of 
 Christ, declares—“He bare the sin of many.” 
 Corresponding to this Paul says—“Christ was 
 once offered to bear the sins of many :” And Peter 
 —“ He bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” 
 To hear sin or iniquity is a legal phrase, used to 
 express the just punishment of sin, as is evident 
 from the manner of its application in the law of 
 Moses. How frequently there is it said of the 
 transgressor, “he shall bear his iniquity,” where 
 nothing else than punishment can be designed ? It 
 is manifest, then, from this single argument, that 
 Christ was punished; and it is equally as manifest 
 that he was not punished for personal sin, for he 
 had none, but for the sins of others. Yes, blessed 
 truth! “Messiah was cut off, but not for him¬ 
 self.” “He was made a curse for us.” “ He 
 suffered, the just for the unjust.” This 
 
203 
 
 single instance of distinguished punishment en¬ 
 tirely overthrows the above position ; and hence, 
 we ask, why may not the children of Adam suffer 
 punishment for a sin, which is not personally 
 theirs ? But it is said, for the sake of caution— 
 even if Christ ivas punished for the sin of others, 
 it was with his own consent; whereas the posterity 
 of Adam have never consented to be punished for 
 his eating of the forbidden fruit. Most cheerfully 
 do we admit, that Christ suffered the punishment 
 of our sins with his own consent; for in no other 
 way could he, being a divine person, endure suffer¬ 
 ing of any kind. But was there not something, 
 besides his own consent, requisite in order to ren¬ 
 der his punishment a just one ? Could a righteous 
 judge inflict punishment upon an innocent person, 
 merely because he consented to it? Would such 
 be a legal punishment—a punishment demanded 
 by law? or would it not be a mere gratuitous 
 punishment ? Ought not a person to be guilty, in 
 legal reckoning , before he can be justly punished, 
 even though his consent were obtained? Accord¬ 
 ingly, Christ not only consented to bear the punish¬ 
 ment of the sins of his people, but to bear that 
 punishment in their law-room, and stead; and 
 hence, in consequence of that consent, agreement, 
 or stipulation, those sins were judicially set over 
 
204 
 
 to his account, or imputed to him. Therefore, 
 Christ’s being punished for the sins of his people, 
 his representees, with his own consent, is so far 
 from overthrowing the doctrine of Imputation, that 
 on the contrary, it greatly tends to establish it. 
 
 But, because it behooved the divine Redeemer to 
 give his consent, in order to his being punished for 
 the sins of his people, must we, therefore, infer, 
 that God cannot justly punish mere creatures, 
 without first obtaining their permission or consent 
 to be punished ? Must his infliction of punish¬ 
 ment depend upon such an improbable circum¬ 
 stance ? It is not usual, we believe, for the court 
 to ask the criminal, convicted of a capital offense, 
 whether he will consent to be hung; but hung he 
 shall be, whether willing, or not; because law and 
 justice demand it. Now the case before us stands 
 thus,—Adam sinned, and by virtue of a representa¬ 
 tive union, all his posterity, were involved in his 
 guilt; and therefore, God ‘visits that guilt upon 
 them, in a penal manner, without condescending 
 to ask their consent. And we are not of those 
 who would arraign Him, for so doing, at their bar, 
 or who would say unto Him— u What doest thou? ” 
 
 Besides, where is the difference, in point of jus¬ 
 tice, between punishing persons for a sin, which is 
 not personally theirs, and justifying persons on ac- 
 
205 
 
 count of deeds, which are not personally theirs ? 
 But sinners, receiving justification before God, are 
 not justified on the ground .of their own personal 
 deeds—“ For by the deeds of the law shall no flesh 
 living be justified”—their justification is wholly 
 grounded upon the good deeds performed by an¬ 
 other, even their representative, Christ Jesus, the 
 Lord. Against this procedure on the part of God, 
 the cry of injustice may be raised with the same 
 propriety, as against the condemnation of men for 
 the sin of their representative. A righteous judge 
 will know no difference between these two cases, 
 so far as the principle of justice is concerned. 
 
 Again, if God may not ‘punish for acts, which 
 are not personal, why should he impute acts, which 
 are not personal? Some, indeed, deny that he 
 ever does so, but this only shows their reckless 
 disregard of the word of God : For, says the Apos¬ 
 tle Paul—“David also describeth the blessedness 
 of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righte¬ 
 ousness without works.” (Rom. iv. 6.) The 
 righteousness, here said to be imputed, does not 
 consist in a man’s own personal acts, for it is a 
 righteousness without ivorks on his part, but in the 
 personal acts which have been performed by an¬ 
 other, even Jesus Christ. But if God impute a 
 righteousness, which is not personal, for justifica- 
 
 18 
 
206 
 
 tion, may he not also with the same consistency, 
 impute a sin, which is not personal for condemna¬ 
 tion ? And now, we ask, where is the difference, 
 so far as justice is concerned, between the imputa¬ 
 tion of an act, which is not personal, and the in¬ 
 fliction of punishment for an act, which is not per¬ 
 sonal 1 We leave it to the objectors to answer. 
 And from what has been stated, the candid reader 
 will easily discover whose doctrine it is, that in¬ 
 volves contradiction and absurdity, and militates 
 with the justice of God. 
 
 Sec. 3 . —That it strips Man of a Free-will and 
 State of Probation , Answered. 
 
 Our doctrine is supposed to be erroneous, be¬ 
 cause it destroys man’s free-ivill and consequently 
 his present state of probation. It is true, the doc¬ 
 trine we maintain does all this. But before the 
 objection can in the least affect it, it must be 
 proved, not from common sense , but from Scripture 
 testimony, that unregenerated men do possess this 
 free-will and are placed by Jehovah in a state of 
 probation. By a free will is here meant a will 
 equally able and equally inclined to choose good 
 as well as evil; and by a state of probation , such 
 an arrangement of God concerning fallen men, 
 that their eternal condition depends upon the right 
 
207 
 
 or wrong exercise of this free-will. Now, we 
 have no hesitation in declaring, that there is no 
 such doctrine as this taught in the whole com¬ 
 pass of divine revelation—a doctrine entirely sub¬ 
 versive of all Christian hope.—We know, in¬ 
 deed, that Adam was created with a perfect free¬ 
 dom of will; that is, he had the power of choosing 
 to do good or evil, just as he saw fit—he could 
 either act in the capacity of a humble worshipper 
 and servant of the most high God, or he could 
 turn rebel and enlist in the service of the old Ser¬ 
 pent—he had sufficient power to have stood during 
 the whole course of his appointed trial, otherwise 
 his probation would have been a mere mockery, 
 and he had the power to fall from his allegiance, 
 as the event sadly demonstrated. It is true, the 
 Almighty, who created him, could have prevented 
 his fall—could, by the continual bestowment of 
 grace, have preserved him in the path of rectitude. 
 But it is also true, that such divine procedure would 
 have destroyed every thing like a probationary 
 state ; as it would have placed Adam in a state of 
 confirmation, rather than in a state of trial, where 
 perfect obedience, performed by strength already 
 bestowed, was set forth as the condition of the 
 everlasting continuance and increased enjoyment 
 of the divine favor, both to himself and his repre- 
 
208 
 
 sented posterity. However, when Adam sinned 
 and fell from his primitive glory, his state of pro¬ 
 bation came to an end, and with it all his original 
 freedom of will. For it will hardly be maintained, 
 that Adam notwithstanding his fall and forfeiture 
 of the divine favor, still retained the same power 
 as formerly of willing what was acceptable in the 
 sight of God ; especially too, when it is remem¬ 
 bered that he lost “the image of God,” and was 
 seized with a spiritual death. 
 
 But how stands the case with his descendants 1 
 Do they possess the same freedom of will, that 
 Adam had in his state of innocence ? And are 
 they, therefore, also placed in a state of probation 1 
 Certainly not. This would be a dangerous senti¬ 
 ment to espouse—a dangerous principle to act up¬ 
 on. Because, by placing fallen man in a state 
 of probation, you virtually deny that he has 
 sustained any loss by the fall; you still give 
 him the moral power of doing good as well as evil 
 —of obeying God as well as disobeying him—of 
 loving as well as hating him : And besides, you 
 overthrow the whole system of grace, exalt hu¬ 
 man merit, and give ground for boasting. For, if 
 you place man in a probationary state, if you mean 
 any thing, you mean that he can save himself— 
 that he can fulfill the conditions connected with 
 
209 
 
 that state—that he can attain to the blessedness 
 of heaven, otherwise than through the righteous¬ 
 ness of our God-man Mediator; and when you 
 get him to heaven, you most effectually seal his 
 lips when that adoring and everlasting thanksgiving 
 song passes through the entire circle of the Re¬ 
 deemed—“Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
 from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us 
 kings and priests unto God and his Father ; to him 
 be glory and dominion for ever and ever.” 
 
 It betrays, therefore, great ignorance of the 
 word of God to assert, that man is still in a state 
 of probation—that he still possesses a perfect free¬ 
 dom of will. The truth is, until regenerated by 
 the Spirit of God, he has no power nor inclination 
 to do any thing, that is holy and acceptable in the 
 sight of God: “To do good he has no know¬ 
 ledge “ Unto every good work he is reprobate 
 “It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps 
 1 ‘ Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart 
 is only evil continually:” “The things of the 
 Spirit of God are foolishness to him—and he can¬ 
 not know them :” “ He is dead in trespasses and 
 
 sins—his understanding is darkened—his heart is 
 fully set in him to do evil—he is far from right¬ 
 eousness—he is alienated from the life of God.” 
 What then becomes of the boasted free-will of the 
 
 18 * 
 
210 
 
 spiritually dead sinner, if we take the Scriptures 
 for our guide in matters of faith? Surely a free¬ 
 dom of will to what is good without the power of 
 willing what is good, is an absurdity, a contradic¬ 
 tion. But the scriptures just cited teach, as plainly 
 as language can do, that fallen, unregenerated 
 man possesses no power to will what is good and 
 well pleasing in the sight of God. Indeed, if he 
 had such power, hell would be comparitively 
 empty ; for all, unless they were perfectly dement¬ 
 ed, would exert their free will, in order to escape 
 hell and secure heaven ; since it is written—“He 
 that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned.” 
 
 But though fallen man does not possess the free¬ 
 dom or power of will to choose and pursue what 
 is good, he possesses it to choose and pursue what 
 is evil. Here he is perfectly free. Every sin he 
 commits is an act of choice, and not of constraint: 
 And though his will be-exclusively inclined to the 
 choice of evil, no compulsory power is exerted 
 upon him—he acts with the greatest liberty—he 
 sins because it is his pleasure to sin. 
 
 Thus, then it appears, that the objection is based 
 upon a false assumption, taking that for granted 
 which has no foundation in truth; and conse¬ 
 quently cannot in the least invalidate the doctrine, 
 
211 
 
 which asserts the entire corruption of human na¬ 
 ture, as flowing from the imputed sin of Adam. 
 
 Sec. 4. —That it divests Man of the Character of 
 a Moral Agent , Answered. 
 
 The doctrine of Original Sin, as we hold it, is 
 represented as divesting man of the character of 
 a moral agent; because it places him, as soon as 
 born, under a sentence of condemnation, ascribes 
 to him a corrupt moral nature, and withholds from 
 him a free-will. Although our doctrine, either 
 directly or indirectly, does all that is here charged 
 upon it in the premises, we nevertheless contend, 
 that man is still a moral agent and strictly account¬ 
 able to God for all his conduct. But we deny that 
 a free-will, in the sense before explained, is neces¬ 
 sary to constitute a moral agent; or that the con¬ 
 demnation, or corruption of man can divest him of 
 the principle of moral agency. The following re¬ 
 marks of the Rev. R. Smith, a Scottish divine of 
 the last century, whose name has already been in¬ 
 troduced to the reader, fully meet the present ob¬ 
 jection and destroy all its force:—“Our will is 
 naturally set upon, and bends to evil; yet we re¬ 
 main moral agents. Moral agency consists in act¬ 
 ing with a rational choice. An act is moral when 
 it proceeds from a will capable of rational acting. 
 
212 
 
 By reason of what is it that man is allowed to be a 
 moral agent, when it is refused that a beast is such? 
 Is it not, that the power of choice in the one, is 
 quite diverse from that power in the other ? That 
 by which man chooses, is a rational will: that by 
 which the beast makes choice, is instinct, or brutal 
 appetite. This instinct is suited unto the nature 
 of a creature without reason: the human will is 
 adapted unto, and made to answer a creature hav¬ 
 ing reason. The parts or shape of the carcase of 
 any beast, do not more differ from those of the 
 body of a man, than brutal instinct, and a human 
 will do. Who does not see a most glaring differ¬ 
 ence between brutal appetite, and rational volition! 
 This volition lies at the root of human agency, 
 therefore it must be moral; while the acting is 
 directed by a rational will, it must be, I say, mo¬ 
 ral. Now the rational nature of the will does not 
 perish in the sinner. If his will was not rational, 
 he would cease to be a rational being. I say, I 
 cannot see whence the morality of agency takes 
 its rise, if it spring not from the rationality of the 
 agent. It is not from the moral dispositions in 
 our nature, whether good or bad, that we are moral 
 agents ; but it is from the rationality of our nature. 
 A man will only cease to be a moral agent, when 
 he is strip! of a rational will. 
 
213 
 
 “ I have said, that our will is bended by sin, but 
 it is not destroyed by it. The Jews corrupted the 
 temple; but the Romans destroyed it. Sin de¬ 
 praves the will as to its moral disposition, but it 
 does not strip it of its essential form. The cor¬ 
 ruption of our nature affects the will, but in a way 
 suited to the nature thereof. I mean, it does not 
 destroy the being, but spoils the goodness of it. 
 Man becoming a sinner, loses no part of his na¬ 
 ture ; neither does the will lose any part of its 
 nature. It being the particular nature of his will 
 that renders him a moral agent, that nature of his 
 will continuing, he must remain such an agent. 
 
 “It is worth observing, that those who are 
 against us, say, that a person’s will may be biassed 
 to any evil, by acquired habits, and yet remain a 
 moral ageht. Now, since one remains a moral 
 agent, even when his will is biassed by acquired 
 habits, what is to hinder his being an agent of the 
 same sort when his will is biassed to evil from the 
 womb? The corruption of the will bends it, but 
 does not break it. The man who is under the pow¬ 
 er of uncleanness, is a slave to it; his will is bent 
 to it so that he cannot* turn his back on that lust, 
 yet we will not say, that he has not a rational 
 will.” 
 
214 
 
 Sec. 5. —That it is Contrary to the Divine De¬ 
 claration, that 11 the Son shall not bear the Ini¬ 
 quity of the FatherAnswered. 
 
 It is seldom, that attempts are made to over¬ 
 throw the doctrine of the Imputation of Adam’s 
 sin to his posterity, by arguments expressly drawn 
 from the word of God. There is one text, how¬ 
 ever, which the enemies of this doctrine claim in 
 justification of their opposition to it. It is this— 
 “ The soul that sinneth it shall die : The son shall 
 not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall 
 the father bear the iniquity of the son; the right¬ 
 eousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and 
 the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” 
 (Ezk. xviii. 20.) But a little attention to this pas¬ 
 sage, viewed in its connection, is sufficient to show, 
 that it entirely fails to answer the purpose for 
 which it is adduced. It must he interpreted in 
 consistency with plain and acknowledged facts. 
 But it is a fact, which few will be disposed to de¬ 
 ny, that sometimes God does visit upon children the 
 iniquities of their fathers. To do so, he claims as 
 his sovereign right, a right which he will never 
 relinquish ; for he has embodied it in the second 
 precept of his unchangeable law—“I am a jealous 
 God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the 
 
215 
 
 children, unto the third and fourth generation of 
 them that hate me.” And that he has exercised 
 this perogative in the infliction of sore judgments 
 upon children, on account of the sins of their 
 fathers is undeniable. Witness the case of Achan’s 
 children, the case of the seven sons of Saul, and 
 many others that might be specified. Nor was 
 this principle of divine government peculiar to Old 
 Testament times; it has been acted on since the 
 introduction of the new dispensation. Says Christ 
 to the Jews—“Behold I send unto you prophets 
 and wise men and scribes ; and some of them ye 
 shall kill and crucify ; and some of them shall ye 
 scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them 
 from city to city ; that upon you may come all 
 the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the 
 blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacha- 
 rias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the 
 temple and the altar.” (Matt, xxiii. 34. 35.)— 
 Hence the text under consideration cannot mean, 
 that the iniquities of fathers are never visited upon 
 children. 
 
 Again, what was the case of the Jews in Baby¬ 
 lon, who are addressed in the chapter, from which 
 the objection is taken ? They are represented, in 
 the second verse, as using the proverb—“ The 
 fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s 
 
216 
 
 teeth are set on edge.” Was this proverb totally 
 destitute of truth, in an unperverted application of 
 it to their case? No, surely : For they were now 
 actually enduring evils on account of the sins of 
 their progenitors of a former age. This is truly 
 acknowledged by the prophet Jeremiah in his La¬ 
 mentations. Personating the church he declares 
 —“ Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we 
 have borne their iniquities.” This confession was 
 unquestionably made under the influence of the 
 Spirit of truth and piety. Besides, the case must 
 have been so ; for so it had been predicted, with 
 respect, in particular, to the sins of Manasseh.— 
 “I will cause them to be removed into all king¬ 
 doms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son 
 of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did 
 in Jerusalem.” (Jer. xv. 4. See also £ Kings, xxi. 
 10—16.) It is undeniable, then, that the Jews in 
 Babylon were bearing the iniquities of their fath¬ 
 ers ; and therefore, that, the proverb which they 
 used was not wholly destitute of truth, in respect 
 to their miserable condition. Nevertheless in the 
 sense, in which they used the proverb, and accord¬ 
 ing to the application which they made of it, it had 
 no foundation in truth. For they suppcsed them¬ 
 selves to be entirely innocent; and that the evils, 
 they were groaning under, had befallen them ex- 
 
217 
 
 dusively on account of the sins of their fathers* 
 This they considered very hard treatment. And 
 hence they reflected on the equity of the divine 
 procedure towards them, saying “The fathers have 
 eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set 
 on edge,”—the prophets have told us, that the 
 flagitious crimes, committed by some of our fore^ 
 fathers, would, in a following generation be visited 
 upon the nation. And we are the unfortunate peo¬ 
 ple, on whom the threatened evil has fallen. Yes 
 our fathers, Manasseh and Amon, and those living 
 in their day, were abominable transgressors ; and 
 now, poor, innocent we, without the least fault to 
 be laid to our charge, have to bear their iniquities! 
 Now, it is against this false and impious view of 
 the case, that Jehovah, in this chapter, is found 
 vindicating the ways of his Providence. And we 
 must understand him in his vindication, as refer- 
 ing to what was wrong in their representation of 
 the matter, viz : that they, without any sin in 
 themselves, were suffering on account of their 
 fathers’ sins. This he expressly denies. Although 
 he does, as in the present case, visit the iniquities 
 of the fathers upon the children, yet it is not with¬ 
 out the consideration of sin being found in the 
 children. They are viewed as guilty indepen-- 
 
 dentlv of their fathers' sms. Hence “ The soil 
 «/ 
 
 19 
 
218 
 
 that sinneth it shall die : The son shall not bear 
 the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father 
 bear the iniquity of the son.” 
 
 Now from this view of the whole case, it appears 
 manifest, that this scripture is very far from assert¬ 
 ing 1 , that Adam's sin is not imputed to his posterity. 
 He is certainly not to be reckoned among the fath¬ 
 ers referred to by, the Jews,in the second verse, and 
 consequently he is not referred to by Jehovah, in 
 his reply, contained in the words of the objection. 
 And were it true, (as it is not,) that there is here 
 an express denial, that the persons addressed were 
 in any sense punished for the sins of their fathers, 
 it would not follow that Adam’s posterity were not 
 punished for his sin. For the argument would 
 only amount to this—because the sins of one part 
 of Adam’s children are not punished on another 
 part of his children, therefore, his sin, which he 
 as a representative committed, is not imputed to 
 his representees. Any person will see that the 
 conclusion is a perfect illegitimate. But should it 
 be maintained, that Adam is included among the 
 fathers referred to in this passage, and consequent¬ 
 ly that his children do not bear his iniquity ; we 
 reply, that the conclusion is not admissible, be¬ 
 cause, contrary to the spirit of the passage and 
 the whole word of God, it proceeds on the assump- 
 
219 
 
 tion of the innocence of his posterity. But their 
 innocence is a dream : Jehovah views them as 
 guilty ; yea, as having sinned in Adam, inasmuch 
 as he was their representative, at the time he sin¬ 
 ned. His sin is imputed to them as being virtu¬ 
 ally their own sin, it being the sin of their federal 
 representative. 
 
 And this leads to the remark, that the passage 
 from which the objection is taken furnishes a 
 strong proof in favor of our doctrine. For it must 
 be acknowledged, that [God, in his holy Provi¬ 
 dence, does visit the iniquities of fathers upon their 
 children; but, according to the Scripture under 
 consideration, he never does so without the exis¬ 
 tence of sin in the children themselves ; that is, he 
 views them as antecedently guilty, otherwise he 
 would not visit upon them the iniquities of their 
 fathers. Now mere infants are often sufferers on 
 account of their fathers’ transgressions. When 
 Jehovah, according to his threatening, visited the 
 sins of Manasseh upon the wicked Jews, their little 
 ones were involved in the awful calamity. Jere¬ 
 miah, most pathetically, describes the wretched¬ 
 ness of their condition—“The tongue of the suck¬ 
 ing child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for 
 thirst; the young children ask bread and no man 
 .breaketb it. unto them. The hands of the pitiful 
 
220 
 
 women have sodden their own children, they were 
 their meat in the destruction of the daughter of 
 my people.” (Lam. iv. 4. 10.) Terrible as were 
 the sufferings of these infants, the infliction of 
 them, we are assured, was not without the com- 
 sideration of sin being found in themselves, ante¬ 
 cedently to all consideration of the sins of their 
 fathers. But as they were chargeable with no actu¬ 
 al, personal sins, we ask, how could they be viewed 
 as guilty, as chargeable with transgression, unless 
 they had sinned in Adam, and were regarded as 
 having his sin imputed to them ? 
 
 Sec. 6 .—'jhat it makes God the Author of Sin , 
 
 Answered, 
 
 A very grievous charge is brought against our 
 doctrine, that it virtually makes God the author of 
 sin. This charge is utterly groundless. Those 
 who make it, “understand neither what they say, 
 nor whereof they affirm,” Surely to impute sin is 
 a very different thing from being the author of it. 
 Tire imputation of sin is the act of a judge declar¬ 
 ing, that the sin already exists. The representa¬ 
 tive of the human family sinned, and God judi¬ 
 cially reckons his sin to be the sin of his repre¬ 
 sentees : Is this to make God the author of that sin? 
 Then the judge, in reckoning the criminal to be 
 
221 
 
 guilty, becomes the author of his guilt! And as 
 to “oritrinal sin inherent,” so far as God has anv 
 agency in it, we hold, that it is strictly a punish¬ 
 ment on account of the imputed sin of our repre¬ 
 sentative. But surely to punish sin is a very dif¬ 
 ferent thing from being the author of it: Other¬ 
 wise the judge would be the author of all the 
 crimes, which he, as the executor of the law, finds 
 it to be his indispensible duty to punish. More¬ 
 over, if in the infliction of just punishment the 
 criminal be placed in a condition involving the ne¬ 
 cessity of sinning, even this necessity is a part of 
 his punishment and arises wholly from his own 
 fault. Hence the judge is not only just in inflict¬ 
 ing the punishment, but is also free from all blame 
 -of the authorship of the sinful consequences aris¬ 
 ing from that punishment. These few hints are 
 sufficient to show that our doctrine is infinitely 
 above the reach of the objection. And we hazzard 
 nothing in saying, that there is no other view taken 
 in respect of Original Sin, against which the ob¬ 
 jection may not be urged with far greater propriety. 
 For instance, let the New Haven School defend 
 their own system against this objection, when they 
 tell us, that our first acts as moral agents are ne¬ 
 cessarily sinful ones, in consequence of Adam’s sin, 
 and by a feed constitution of God ! 
 
 19* 
 
222 
 
 Sec. 7. — That it is Inconsistent with the Command¬ 
 ments of Cod , Answered. 
 
 According to the view, we have taken of Origi¬ 
 nal Sin, mankind have no power to obey the com¬ 
 mandments of God ; but it is objected, that the 
 very fact of their being still required to obey, im¬ 
 plies the possession of the requisite power, and 
 consequently, that our view of the doctrine must 
 be incorrect. In the preceeding pages, we at¬ 
 tempted to prove, with what success the reader 
 may judge, that mankind are punished with the 
 loss of ability to keep God’s law, on account of 
 the sin of their federal head. The present objec¬ 
 tion, therefore, only lies against that particular 
 argument. If, however, what is asserted in the 
 objection were true, we should feel disposed to 
 relinquish the whole doctrine. But is it true, be¬ 
 cause God enjoins duties upon men, that, therefore, 
 they must possess the power to perform them? 
 O yes, cries the objector ; for if they had not this 
 power, God would be dealing unfairly and unjustly 
 in demanding obedience of them,even as it would 
 be cruel and unjust for a master to command his 
 servant, who had lost his limbs, to arise and walk 
 and perform some impossible service! The objec- 
 thn simply amounts to this, God must always meas- 
 
 A - 
 
223 
 
 ure his commands by the creature's ability to obey 
 them. And if the creature has lost all ability to 
 obey holy precepts, then he must receive such as 
 are unholy ; for, it seems, it would be cruelly un¬ 
 just to cross his inclination and insult his corrup¬ 
 tion with such as are holy ! To suit his particular 
 exigency, the old precepts of the divine law must be 
 expunged and new ones, more congenial to his na¬ 
 ture and more within his power to obey, inserted ; 
 such as the following,—Thou shalt hate God ; 
 thou shalt hate thy neighbor; thou shalt Jove sin; 
 thou shalt serve the devil, kc.! But if it be im¬ 
 possible for the Holy One to give such commands 
 as these, it is also impossible for him to abdicate 
 his throne and retire from the moral government 
 of man. How then is he to act ? Precisely as 
 he has done—to give holy prcepts, even though 
 man has lost his abilty for obedience. For surely 
 this loss on the part of man, which was occasioned 
 by sin, cannot cancel Jehovah’s right still to claim 
 obedience, as the moral governor of the world. 
 
 Now, that the commands of God do not imply 
 the power of obedience in those to whom they are 
 addressed, is evident from this, that the perform¬ 
 ance of the things commanded is ascribed to God 
 himself. For example, the sinner is commanded to 
 “make himself a new heart;” but this is the work 
 
224 
 
 of God—“ The Lord thy God will circumcise thine 
 heart”— u A new heart will I give you.” Again, 
 the sinner is commanded to “awake from the dust 
 and arise from the dead;” but this spiritual resur¬ 
 rection is the work of God—“ You hath he quick¬ 
 ened who were dead in tresspasses and sins.” 
 Examples of this kind are numerous and do fully 
 establish the want of power in fallen man to “do 
 the commandments of God.” Nor can we per¬ 
 ceive any inconsistency in God’s requiring of apos¬ 
 tate sinners what they are unable to perform, 
 which may not equally be objected against our 
 Saviour’s commanding the marl with the withered 
 hand “to stretch it forth or the impotent man 
 “ to arise and take up his bed and walk or the 
 dead man lying in the grave “ to come forth.” 
 These commands may be charged with inconsis¬ 
 tency, with as much propriety as those contem¬ 
 plated by the objection, since there was no ability 
 in the subjects of them for the performance of 
 what was required. 
 
 Once more, among the commands laid on fallen 
 men, we find one enjoining 'perfection . “Be ye 
 perfect, even as your Father, who is in heaven, is 
 perfect.” (Matt. v. 48.) Does this command im¬ 
 ply, that we possess the power of becoming as 
 perfect as God ? Few, even of the objectors, will 
 
225 
 
 have the presumption to affirm it. Their whole ob¬ 
 jection, then, falls to the ground. And, by the 
 way, we have witnessed a most singular inconsis¬ 
 tency in some of the divines, who follow in the 
 wake of the New Haven School. They zealously 
 taught their hearers, that they could regenerate 
 themselves ; for God had commanded them to 
 “make to themselves a new heart,” which he 
 never would have done, were they not in posses¬ 
 sion of the requisite power. Some believed them, 
 and finding moreover that they were also com¬ 
 manded to be perfect , which implied, according to 
 their teachers, that they could do so, they went to 
 work and actually became perfect, as they sup¬ 
 posed. But behold, these perfect ones were soon 
 ex-communicated by those who had bewildered 
 them! And for what reason? Just, because, they 
 were simple enough to believe their ministers and 
 to act agreeably to their instructions ! Now this 
 glaring inconsistency on the part of the teachers, 
 and this horrible delusion on the part of the taught, 
 help to show, how groundless is the assertion con¬ 
 tained in the objection, and consequently, that our 
 argument remains unaffected by it. 
 
226 
 
 Sec. 8. —That it Contradicts the very Nature of 
 
 Sin which Consists in Voluntary Action , An¬ 
 swered. 
 
 Another objection, paraded forth with great con¬ 
 fidence, is, that “ all sin consists in voluntary ac¬ 
 tion.” Now were it true, that all sin consisted in 
 voluntary action, or proceeded from an exercise of 
 the will, our doctrine would shake to its very foun¬ 
 dation. But this assertion is not true. It is so 
 far from being true, that all sin consists in action , 
 that much of it consists in a. want of action. This, 
 we think, will hardly be disputed, after mature re¬ 
 flection. And that all sinful action must be volun¬ 
 tary, or flow from an exercise of the will, is what 
 can never be admitted. Surely an act of the will 
 is not necessary in order to originate evil desires 
 in the heart. These naturally arise from a false 
 and distorted conception of things, and not im¬ 
 mediately from an exercise of the will; because, 
 instead of being obedient to the will, they govern 
 the will. Nay, are there no sinful motives , which 
 influence the will and guide it in its operations ? 
 Or is there no such thing as sinful motives ? Or 
 will the absurdity be maintained, that motives de¬ 
 fend on an exercise of the will ? Indeed it is un¬ 
 questionable, that evil desires , sinful motives and 
 
 X 
 
227 
 
 unholy thoughts may arise even in the soul of a be- 
 liever, when his will stands in opposition to them. 
 But though they are thus involuntary, the believer 
 views them as real violations of “the command¬ 
 ment which is exceeding broad.” Hence his lan¬ 
 guage—“ The evil that I would not, that do I.” 
 
 Again, the word of God teaches us, that the 
 neglect of an unknown duty is a sin. The law of 
 God, which is perfect, requires of all its subjects 
 a knowledge of all the duties which it prescribes. 
 Yet through ignorance of those duties, they be¬ 
 come in many instances neglected. But all such 
 neglect is involuntary; for it cannot be said with 
 any propriety, that a person voluntarily neglects 
 to perform a duty, of which he is entirely igno¬ 
 rant : Nevertheless such neglect is sinful. For, 
 persons, under the law, offending in this manner, 
 were required to present a sin-offering to the Lord 
 to make atonement for their souls. (Num. xv. 27.) 
 It is very far, then, from being a universal truth, 
 that “ all sin consists in voluntary action.” And, 
 therefore the objection has no weight, when urged 
 against the doctrine of Original Sin, whether im¬ 
 puted or inherent .* 
 
 * See Chap, iii., Sec. 9, and Notes pp. 158 178. 
 
228 
 
 Sec. 9. —Tiie Objection , that Original Sin cannot 
 be Repented of, Answered. 
 
 The last objection, that we consider worthy of 
 notice, as made to the doctrine, which we have 
 been endeavoring to defend, is, that Original Sin 
 is something which cannot be repented of, and 
 consequently is no sin. To this objection we op¬ 
 pose, as a sufficient reply, the following extract 
 from a Sermon on Original Sin, by Dr. Thomas 
 Goodwin, a divine of distinguished learning and 
 piety, belonging to the puritanic school: 
 
 “We may, from what has been said, take an 
 affecting view of our state and condition by na¬ 
 ture : And as it is useful for us all, even those that 
 are by grace delivered from it, to be looking to it; 
 so it is necessary for them that are under it to be 
 fully acquainted with it. It is, at once, a state 
 full of guilt, and a state full of corruption and de¬ 
 filement : We are all of us guilty before God, 
 having the guilt of the first sin righteously imput¬ 
 ed to us ; and this renders us obnoxious to the di¬ 
 vine displeasure : and we are all polluted and un¬ 
 clean, having corrupted and defiled natures derived 
 to us. A spiritual leprosy has overspread all our 
 powers and faculties, and this renders us loatlie- 
 some to God, and puts us in a state of separation 
 
229 
 
 from him. What a fearful change has sin made 
 in us! The soul, that was made in the image of 
 God, is stript of its native righteousness and holi¬ 
 ness, and invested with contrary qualities :— 
 “There is as great a difference, says one, between 
 the corruption of the soul in its degenerate state, 
 and its primitive purity, as between the loathsome¬ 
 ness of a dead carcase, and the beauty of a living 
 body.” Sad change indeed ! and to be lamented 
 \vith tears of confusion : How should this humble 
 us before God, and hide pride forever from our 
 eyes ? How should it fill us with self-loathing and 
 self-abhorrence, affect our souls with shame and 
 sorrow, and cause us to repent in dust and ashes ? 
 especially when we repent of and confess our actu¬ 
 al transgressions, we should, in the first place, 
 confess and bewail this coffupt fountain of them : 
 So does David in my text. This Psalm is record¬ 
 ed as a public testimony to the church, and the 
 world, of his repentance of a great sin; and, we 
 see, he does, in a particular manner, bewail and 
 acknowledge this. And so did the church in 
 Isaiah’s prophecy, (Isa. lxiv. 6.) When they hum¬ 
 bled themselves, they not only acknowledged that 
 their righteousness was as a menstruous filthy rag , 
 but they chiefly complained of the uncleanness of 
 
 20 
 
 9 
 
then persons, and that with respect to their na ¬ 
 tures ; H c are all as an unclean thing. 
 
 “1 am sensible some have made it a question, 
 Whether we ought to repent of and be humbled 
 for our original sin ? But as the practice of the 
 church, and the penitent Psalmist, in my text, 
 shews they made no question of it, so we might 
 evince, from many considerations, that this is a 
 just ground of our repentance and humiliation. I 
 will only mention one, and that is, that this is not 
 only a sin in itself, but the fruitful parent of all 
 other sins: That it is a misery, all grant, who 
 acknowledge the thing itself; but that it is also 
 properly a sin, appears, I think, sufficiently from 
 the apostle John’s definition-, who makes the for¬ 
 mality of sin to consist in its opposition to the law', 
 
 (1. John iii. 4.) “ Sin is a transgression of the law.” 
 Whatever is contrary to the law of God, and forbid 
 in it, is a sin; but the corruption of our nature is 
 forbid in the law, and contrary to what God re¬ 
 quires therein : God requires “truth in the inward 
 part but original corruption is the want, or 
 rather the reverse of this. We are commanded 
 to be holy , and that not only in our actions, but in 
 our natures, for we are commanded to be “holy 
 as God is holyand so the want of holiness, which 
 is the privative part of this sin, is forbid : We are 
 moreover commanded to “love the Lord cur God, 
 
*231 
 
 with all our heart and so the heart’s inclination 
 to hate God, which is the positive part of this sin, is 
 forbid : In a word, there is in it a non-conformity to 
 the whole law of God ; and a nonconformity to, is 
 a transgression of the whole law. If therefore the 
 
 o 
 
 apostle’s definition is just, the corruption of our 
 nature is a sin; and accordingly it is frequently 
 called so in scripture, and acknowledged and con¬ 
 fessed as such, by the saints, both in the Old and 
 New Testament: So it is by David in our text; 
 and so it is by the apostle Paul, who bewailed and 
 aggravated it exceedingly, (Rom. vii.) He not 
 only complains of it as a misery, but he confesses 
 and bewails it as a sin ; and lest we should think 
 it a small peccadillo, a sin of an ordinary size, he 
 calls it a sin exceedingly , hyperbolically, sinful. 
 
 “ Against this it is frequently objected ; it is not 
 a sin, because it is not voluntary : But should we 
 admit this rule, that whatever is not voluntary is 
 not a sin, to be just, which will not hold true uni¬ 
 versally, and without limitation, even when applied 
 to actual sins; yet natural corruption is voluntary 
 in some respects ; it is voluntary in its principle 
 and cause : As it was voluntarily contracted by 
 Adam, so he therein being our federal head and re¬ 
 presentative, his will was the will of us all: But 
 this is not all, for this corruption is inherent in the 
 
232 
 
 will, as its subject. If Adam had derived a bodily 
 disease only to his posterity, it might have been an 
 involuntary evil, because the diseases of the body 
 may be foreign to the soul : But when the corrup¬ 
 tion invades the internal faculties, it is denominat¬ 
 ed from the subject wherein it is seated. What 
 though it does not proceed originally from any act 
 of the will in us? yet the consent of the will ac¬ 
 companies it, or rather it is itself the natural bias 
 or inclination of the will to evil, and therefore to 
 say that it is altogether involuntary, is no less 
 than a contradiction, However, it is, to be sure, 
 voluntary in us, with respect to an after-consent, 
 and in the effects of it: Who amongst us can say, 
 We never consented to our natural corruption, 
 were never well-pleased with it, never cherished 
 it by occasions of sin, never strengthened it by 
 acts of sin, and never resisted the means whereby 
 it should be mortified and subdued ? All which are 
 evidences of an actual consent. Now, if it is a 
 sin, we ought to repent of it, and be humbled for 
 it; for that we ought to be thus affected to, and 
 by every sin, no one will deny. And this would 
 further appear, if I could shew that this is not 
 only a sin in itself, but the fruitful parent of all 
 other sins: But, having hinted nt this before, 1 
 must not enlarge upon it now.’' 
 
233 
 
 The pious author of the foregoing- extract, relat¬ 
 ing the circumstances connected with his conver¬ 
 sion and particularly his strong natural bias to 
 Arminian principles, thus speaks, in his Memoirs, 
 of his own experience concerning the truth of 
 Original Sin : 
 
 “But next I was brought to enquire into, and 
 consider, what should have been the original cause, 
 at the bottom of this fore-mentioned sinfulness, 
 both in my heart and life. And after I had well 
 debated with myself, that one place, (Rom. v. 
 12:) “By one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all 
 men, for that all have sinned : that is, in whom , or 
 in that all have sinned; meaning, that it was in 
 him they all sinned ; for they had not, in and of 
 themselves, committed any actual transgression 
 (as those that die infants) after the similitude of 
 Adam’s transgression. Which limitation is cau¬ 
 tiously there added by the Apostle to shew, that 
 they had not actually sinned of themselves, but 
 were simply involved in his act of sinning. This 
 caused me necessarily to conceive thus of it, that 
 it was the guilt, or demerit, of that one man’s diso¬ 
 bedience, that corrupted my nature. Under such 
 like apprehensions as these, did my spirit lie con¬ 
 victed so strongly of this great truth, that being 
 
 20 * 
 
 r 
 
234 
 
 (rone to bed some hours before, and filled with these 
 meditations, I in the end of all rose out of bed being- 
 alone, and solemnly fell down on my knees before 
 God the Father of all the family in heaven, and 
 did of my own accord assume and take on me the 
 guilt of that sin, as truly as any of my own actu¬ 
 al sins 
 
235 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 Having, as we believe, fully established the 
 truth of the important doctrine, had under con¬ 
 sideration, and removed the principal objections 
 that have been urged against it, we shall now con¬ 
 clude the discussion by making a few practical re¬ 
 flections : And— 
 
 1. The subject discussed should lead to a pious 
 contemplation of the sovereign authority of God. 
 Man, in his innocence, was soon given to under¬ 
 stand that the Author of his being was a sovereign, 
 possessed of authority, absolute and uncontrol¬ 
 lable. And there was a noble congruity in this. 
 For, without being fully penetrated with such a 
 practical conviction, he was in danger of regard¬ 
 ing himself as independent. Hence, he received a 
 very lively display of sovereign authority, on the 
 part of the Lord God, in the positive precept given 
 him respecting “the tree of the knowledge of 
 good and eviland also in the fact of hig being 
 constituted the moral, representing head of all his 
 posterity. In the former case, a thing, in itself to¬ 
 tally indifferent, was made the test of man’s fealty 
 to his Lord ; in the latter, a relation of a super¬ 
 natural order, such as had no foundation in nature, 
 
23 G 
 
 was established. And neither the one nor the 
 other could be impugned as unreasonable. For the 
 ■ sovereign authority of God was equally the foun¬ 
 dation of both. And the mere will of God, how¬ 
 ever manifested, whether in the giving of precepts, 
 or in the constitution of relations, is an all-suffi- 
 cient reason for the existence of the thing, and 
 should eternally silence all the cavils of the crea¬ 
 ture and command his most implicit obedience and 
 faith. Hence, the divine procedure, in relation to 
 holy Adam, could not fail to discover to him the 
 sovereign and absolute supremacy of his Maker, 
 and teach him his own dependence, duty and in¬ 
 terest. And a consideration of that procedure 
 should still have the same effect upon us. In our 
 fallen condition we eminently need to be impressed 
 with a sense of the sovereign authority of the 
 Lord our God. This is necessary, in order, not 
 only to secure our obedience to him, but also to 
 lead us to acquiesce in those ways of his, which, the 
 short-sightedness of human reason cannot pene¬ 
 trate. Accordingly, let every whisper of carnal 
 reason against the performance of any commanded 
 duty, or against the belief of any supernaturally 
 revealed truth, be hushed into perpetual silence 
 by the thunder of Jehovah’s word— u Be still and 
 know, that I am Gor>.’ ; 
 
 ; 
 
237 
 
 2. In the federal headship of Adam, we may see 
 a display of the goodness of God. Considering 
 the infinite distance necessarily intervening be¬ 
 tween the Creator and the creature, the establish¬ 
 ment of a covenant with man and dealing with 
 him, in a pactional manner, about his eternal hap¬ 
 piness, was surely, on the part of the Most High, 
 an astonishing act of goodness and condescension. 
 This was conferring a dignity on man, to which 
 he had no claim ; and exalting him to a fellow¬ 
 ship with heaven, to which, otherwise, he could 
 not have aspired. But the divine goodness was 
 no less strikingly displayed in the representative 
 character, with which Adam was invested in that 
 federal transaction. Thereby all his posterity 
 were taken upon trial in him. And hence in that 
 supernatural investiture, the goodness of God was 
 displayed both towards him and all his represented 
 posterity,—towards him, as it held forth the most 
 powerful motives to obedience, and as it guaran¬ 
 teed to his obedience alone a reward, which would 
 redound to the eternal happiness of countless 
 millions,—towards his posterity, as their immortal 
 interests, from the nature of things, would be 
 more secure in the hands of such a representative, 
 than if placed in their own. They were to be 
 brought into existence in a state of infancy ; he 
 
238 
 
 was created in a state of perfect manhood. He, 
 therefore, was better qualified for the management 
 of their concerns, than they would have been 
 themselves. True, indeed, he failed in keeping 
 the covenant, but this only shows the greater 
 certainty of their failure, had they, as successively 
 brought into being, been placed upon trial in their 
 own persons. And for aught we know, in this 
 latter state of things, it might have been inconsis¬ 
 tent with the divine government to have admitted 
 the interposition of a Mediator—such gracious in¬ 
 terposition having found no place in the case of 
 the apostate angels, whose fall from their first es¬ 
 tate was not owing to the disobedience of a repre¬ 
 sentative. Hence, so far from regarding the fede- 
 ral headship of the first man, as an evil, a hardship , 
 we ought to consider it, as unfolding a bright dis¬ 
 play of the infinite condescension and goodness of 
 the High and lofty One, who has heaven for his 
 throne and earth for his footstool. 
 
 3. In the federal headship of Adam we see also 
 a complete vindication of the justice and holiness 
 of God, in his inflicting* sufferings upon infants. 
 There is scarcely any circumstance connected with 
 the lot of man, more painful, in its nature, than 
 the sufferings of infants. It is acknowledged, that 
 these sufferings come not of themselves, but are 
 
239 
 
 inflicted by the God of Providence. They often 
 arise, and they necessarily arrest the attention of 
 the thoughtful. But how are they to be reconciled 
 with the justice and holiness of God? The solu¬ 
 tion of this question is, in particular, deeply inter¬ 
 esting- and important to the believer. It would 
 greatly mar his Christian peace and comfort of 
 mind, were he here left to grope his way through 
 a labyrinth of doubt and painful conjecture. But 
 God has not relinquished him to darkness and wild 
 speculation, on a subject so deeply interesting. 
 Pie has revealed a sufficient reason to justify his 
 character and the acts of his Providence in the in¬ 
 fliction of infantile suffering—“ By the offense of 
 one, judgment came upon all men to condemna¬ 
 tion.” “As by one man sin entered into the 
 world, and death by sin, even so death passed upon 
 all men, for that all have sinned.” “Behold I was 
 shapen in iniquity j and in sin did my mother con 
 ceive me”—Hence, infants, in their sufferings, are 
 not to be regarded as innocent: their sufferings 
 are not inflicted in an arbitrary manner: they are 
 truly sinners—their representative sinned, and 
 they in him : his sin is justly, in virtue of the re¬ 
 presentative union, reckoned to their account ; 
 and one fruit of this is the corruption of their 
 nature, and another the sufferings which they en- 
 
240 
 
 dure. But overlook the representative character 
 of Adam and the consequent imputation of his sin 
 to his posterity, and you cannot satisfactorily ac¬ 
 count for the sufferings and death of your infants, 
 nor vindicate the justice and holiness, of your 
 God. 
 
 4. The subject teaches us the unspeakable loss 
 mankind have sustained by the fall of Adam. We 
 know, it is not congenial to the pride of the hu¬ 
 man heart to admit, that any damage has been in¬ 
 curred by the fall* Vain man would still arrogate 
 to himself all the dignity and glory that belonged 
 to the primitive state. But his boast is groundless 
 and vain. It is far otherwise than he imagines. 
 In the light of divine truth, and in perfect con¬ 
 sonance with the dictates of experience, we learn, 
 that the fall of Adam has affected the most grie¬ 
 vous loss—a loss sufficient to make angels weep. 
 By that dismal event our nature has been stripped 
 of its original glory—We have lost the image of 
 God ; we have lost the most delightful communion 
 with God ; we have lost that innocence and riodit- 
 eousness and immortality that were primitive with 
 our nature; we have lost all true happiness ; we 
 have lost all ability to serve God in a holy and ac¬ 
 ceptable manner ; and, in a word, we have lost all 
 spiritual desires after the enjoyment ol God as our 
 
241 
 
 eternal portion. Hence in the view of all this 
 loss, we may well exclaim in the language of the 
 mourning prophet—“ How is the gold become 
 dim! how is the most fine gold changed !”— u The 
 crown is fallen from our head ; woe unto us, that 
 we have sinned!” 
 
 5. How wretched and dismal is the condition of 
 men by nature ! They have not only sustained a 
 most grievous loss, but are also involved in evils 
 of a positive and most awful nature. They are 
 under the condemnation and curse of a broken 
 law ; their hearts are morally corrupt; they are 
 dead in sin; they are by nature children of wrath ; 
 they are exposed also to all the miseries connected 
 with a mortal nature, and all the evils incident to a 
 fallen state. And worse than all, they are obnox¬ 
 ious, after death, to the endurance of the unming¬ 
 led wrath of God, in hell, for ever and ever. Such 
 is the natural condition of all the descendants of 
 guilty Adam. Nor is this all, they have no ability 
 to better their condition. Their impotence is 
 commensurate with their guilt and wretchedness. 
 They can neither make satisfaction to the offended 
 justice of God for the guilt that lies already upon 
 them, nor prevent the future accumulation of that 
 guilt and consequent wrath, by acts of holy obedi¬ 
 ence. Indeed, were the eternal salvation of their 
 
 £1 
 
242 
 
 souls offered them, on condition of their perform¬ 
 ing a single act of holy obedience, such as the law 
 of God requires, the offer would be worthless, as 
 the condition could never be performed. Thus the 
 natural condition of all mankind is, in itself con¬ 
 sidered, if not as wretched, at least as hopeless 
 and desperate, as the condition of the apostate an¬ 
 gels. Whatever, therefore, the pride of the hu¬ 
 man heart may say to the contrary, and however it 
 may indulge in the Laodicean boast of self-suffi¬ 
 ciency, there is nothing more certain from the word 
 of God, than that all the children of Adam, are, 
 by nature, “ wretched, and miserable, and poor, 
 and blind, and naked.” 
 
 6. There is something awfully evil in the nature 
 of sin. This is evident from that loss and wretch¬ 
 edness, which it has introduced into the family of 
 man. When we consider that God is essentially 
 good, and infinitely disposed to communicate of 
 his goodness to the creatures of his power, we can 
 only account for the sad reverse that has taken 
 place in the condition of man, by having recourse 
 to the evil nature of sin. Surely it was sin, that 
 dried up those streams of divine benignity, which 
 flowed to man, while in his state of innocence; 
 that caused the woful deprivation which his nature 
 has experienced: and that has placed him in his 
 
243 
 
 present state of degradation and wretchedness. 
 Indeed, had it not been for the malignant influence 
 of sin, our earth would yet have remained an Eden, 
 and perpetual friendship and the most endearing 
 intercourse would have been maintained between 
 God and man. We have, therefore, learned to 
 our sad experience, “that it is an evil thing and 
 bitter that we have forsaken the Lord our God.” 
 The ruins of the fall are a monument, on which is 
 deeply engraven the evil and malignant nature of 
 sin. Hence we should count sin as our worst 
 enemy, fight against it, zealously study its exter¬ 
 mination, and pray the God of forgiveness for de¬ 
 liverance from its eternal and dreadful consequences. 
 
 7. How extensive also is the empire of sin! 
 Revelation informs us, that sin sways its iron 
 sceptre over two distinct classes of subjects, fallen 
 ano els and fallen men. The number of the former 
 we know not, only it is exceedingly great; the 
 number of the latter is equal to the whole posterity 
 of Adam, except where grace has interposed a 
 rescue. And even here, in the first instance, there 
 is no exception, since sin has reigned over all the 
 myriads of human beings that have already been 
 called into existence, and will reign over all that 
 are yet to be called into exisience. Mankind are 
 all born in the empire of sin, and are by nature its 
 
244 
 
 wretched subjects. And over all these subjects 
 the dominion of sin is most complete. It possess¬ 
 es and controls both soul and body. The under¬ 
 standing the will, the conscience, the affections 
 are all under its jurisdiction and influence ; and the 
 members of the body are become the willing “ in¬ 
 struments of unrighteousness unto sin/ How ex¬ 
 tensive, then, is the empire of sin, and how com¬ 
 plete the dominion, which it exercises ! Strange 
 attempts have been made to discover the reason, 
 why God has permitted the erection of this malig¬ 
 nant empire in our world. Thus, it has been main¬ 
 tained, that u the existence of sin is necessary in 
 a moral system,” that u God in adopting the best 
 moral sys.tem, could not prevent the existence of 
 sin,” and that “ sin is the necessary means of the 
 greatest cood of the universe. These and simi- 
 
 o o 
 
 lar positions have had, and still have, their zealous 
 and pugnacious advocates ; who, by the way^ in 
 supporting their respective hypotheses , are not a lit¬ 
 tle chargeable with what the Apostle calls “ vain 
 philosophy,” and with using what he also denomi¬ 
 nates “great swelling words of vanity. There 
 is great danger in curiously prying into the unre¬ 
 vealed reasons of the procedure of the great and 
 mysterious I AM, and in thus seeking to become 
 wise above what is written . 1 Job, in descanting 
 
245 
 
 upon the works of God, piously exclaims, “ Lo, 
 these are parts of his ways; but how little a por¬ 
 tion is heard of him !” But taking revelation for 
 our guide, we may safely affirm, that of all possi¬ 
 ble ends, Jehovah, in his infinite wisdom, has se¬ 
 lected his own glory as the best and most exalted, 
 and that all things are made, permitted, ordered, 
 and governed with a view to the promotion of that 
 end. Consequently it was for the manifestation of 
 himself, for the brighter display of his unrivalled 
 perfections, and for securing an eternal revenue of 
 glory from the mediatory work of Immanuel, that 
 he has permitted the existence of sin in his domin¬ 
 ion?. This consideration is entirely satisfactory 
 to every pious mind ; and beyond this it is arro¬ 
 gant in the creature, it is daring presumption to 
 penetrate, or even enquire. Let all then, with 
 Christian reverence and modesty, learn to adore 
 the wisdom and sovereignty of God displayed in 
 this matter, and to say with the inspired Apostle, 
 “ O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
 knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg¬ 
 ments, and his ways past finding out!” 
 
 8. It appears from what has passed under dis¬ 
 cussion, that the soul of man is of immense value. 
 Very wonderful have been the arrangements of God 
 respecting it. With the manifest design of secur- 
 
 £ 1 * 
 
246 
 
 ino- its welfare he condescended to enter into a 
 Covenant with Adam. And when that Covenant 
 was broken and the way of obtaining 1 life by it 
 forever lost, he revealed a Covenant which could 
 not he broken, even the Covenant of Grace, as 
 made with the Eternal Son in the name, and for 
 the salvation, of guilty sinners. Thus God has 
 always dealt with man, about his eternal interests, 
 in the way of solemn covenant transaction. And 
 this conclusively shows the great value that he 
 attaches to the soul of man. Indeed, all the most 
 interesting operations of his Providence in the 
 government of the world, have had an immediate 
 reference to the human soul: And so true is this, 
 that, if those operations had never taken place, 
 the glory of divine Providence would have been 
 greatly obscured—nay, all would be blank, where 
 now is beheld such an illustrious display of every 
 perfection. Hence a consideration of the stupend¬ 
 ous arrangments and operations of Heaven, in re¬ 
 lation to the subject of the human soul, tends to 
 illustrate the force of our Saviours words—“ What 
 shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole 
 world and lose his own soul I Or, what shall a man 
 give in exchange for his soul?” Hence, then, if 
 the soul of man possesses such an immense value, 
 
247 
 
 how diligent and careful should all be in seeking 
 its eternal welfare! 
 
 9. The subject teaches us the necessity of fleeing 
 by faith to the New Covenant for salvation. All 
 mankind are naturally in a state of condemnation 
 and fearful exposure to the wrath to come. And 
 as they have been ruined by the Covenant of 
 Works, they cannot be saved, but by the Covenant 
 of Grace. To show fallen man the impossibility 
 of obtaining life by the broken Covenant, Cheru¬ 
 bim, with flaming swords, were stationed at the 
 east of Eden to keep the way of the tree of life. 
 And corresponding to this emblematical intima¬ 
 tion, we read in language of the plainest import— 
 “By the deeds of the law, no flesh living can be 
 justified;” and again—“As many as are of the 
 deeds of the law are under the curse ; for it is 
 written, “ Cursed is every one, that continueth not 
 in all things, which are written in the book of the 
 law to do them.” Salvation, therefore, is only at¬ 
 tainable by the Covenant of Grace. The gospel 
 contains a revelation of this Covenant, assures us 
 that its condition has been fulfilled by the great 
 Mediator and Surety, and proposes all its gracious 
 blessings to sinners for their acceptance. “Ho, 
 every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, 
 and he that hath no money: come ye, buy and 
 
248 
 
 eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money 
 and without price—Incline your ear and come un ¬ 
 to me ; hear, and your soul shall live ; and I will 
 make an everlasting covenant with you, even the 
 sure mercies of David.” Let the needy and 
 perishing* sinner, then, take hold of this everlast¬ 
 ing Covenant and in the language of an appropriat¬ 
 ing faith, say with the typical David—“He hath 
 made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in 
 all things, and sure ; for this is all my salvation 
 and all my desire.” 
 
 10. We may learn from the subject the necessity 
 of regeneration. The imputation of Adam’s sin 
 to his posterity has been attended with the cor¬ 
 ruption of their whole nature. Hence, without a 
 spiritual renovation, without a new creation, with¬ 
 out a supernatural and gracious change effected in 
 them, they can neither enjoy God, nor perform 
 ■acts pleasing in his sight. “ That which is born 
 of the flesh is flesh;” and “they that are in the 
 flesh cannot please God.” “ A corrupt tree can¬ 
 not bring forth good fruit.” “Do men gather 
 grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” “We are 
 his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto 
 good works.” “If any man be in Christ, he is a 
 new creature; old things are passed away; be¬ 
 hold, all things are become new.” “ Verily, verily, 
 
249 
 
 I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he 
 cannot see the kingdom of God.” 
 
 11. We may see from the subject, that salva¬ 
 tion is wholly of grace. This necessarily follows 
 from that guilt, and corruption, and impotence, in 
 which, as we have seen, all the descendants of 
 apostate Adam have become involved. The jus¬ 
 tice and holiness of God would have been illustri¬ 
 ously glorified in the eternal destruction of them 
 all. And such destruction must inevitably have 
 taken place, but for the interposition of free and 
 sovereign grace. Accordingly the salvation of 
 sinners is laid in grace, and is carried on and per¬ 
 fected by grace. Grace has planned and grace 
 executes the whole work. “Grace reigns through 
 righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ 
 our Lord.” From this work, creature-merit is for¬ 
 ever excluded. “Not by works of righteousness, 
 which we have done, but according to his mercy 
 he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and 
 the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” If salvation 
 were not wholly of grace, there would be room 
 for boasting, contrary to the whole tenor of the 
 gospel. “ Where is boasting then? It is excluded. 
 
 ' By what law ? of works ? Nay ; but by the law 
 of faith.” Hence if salvation be not received as 
 the free gift of divine and glorious grace, it can 
 
250 
 
 never be enjoyed. “ For by grace are ye saved 
 through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is 
 the gift of God : Not of works, lest any man 
 should boast.” 
 
 1£. Finally from all that has been advanced, we 
 may learn the injurious tendency of denying the 
 doctrine of Original Sin. Our times are unhappily 
 characterized by a spirit of error and innovation, 
 in matters of religion. There are few of the doc¬ 
 trines of Christ, that are not openly and boldly 
 attacked. And against none of them does this at¬ 
 tack appear to be more successfully managed, 
 than against the one, which we have been humbly 
 endeavoring to vindicate. The establishment of a 
 covenant of works with Adam is denied : his re¬ 
 presentative headship is refused : the imputation 
 of his sin, beyond himself, is rejected : the loss of 
 the moral image of God and the entire corruption 
 of our nature is turned into mockery: and our to¬ 
 tal inability to love and serve God is laughed to 
 scorn. Now, the denial of these points and the 
 converting of them into ridicule, as is frequently 
 done, must exert an influence most injurious to 
 the salvation of souls. A denial of the Covenant of 
 Works naturally leads to a denial of the Covenant 
 of Grace: Adam’s representative character can¬ 
 not be denied, and Christ’s representative charac- 
 
251 
 
 ter maintained : If Adam’s sin cannot be imputed 
 to Ins posterity, there could be no imputation ef 
 our sins to Christ, nor of his righteousness to us: 
 To deny, that we are born destitute of the image 
 of God and are totally depraved, is to deny the 
 necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit: And 
 to deny the total inability of fallen man, in spiritu¬ 
 al matters, is to deny the necessity of grace in 
 order to the performance of good works. Thus, a 
 denial of the doctrine of Original Sin, either in 
 whole, or in part, draws excessively deep, and is 
 necessarily accompanied with danger, if not cer¬ 
 tain perdition. It not only leads, as just stated, to 
 a rejection of other fundamental truths of the great 
 evangelic system, but helps to foster the native 
 pride of the human heart, nurture an odious spirit 
 of legalism, and to overlook the glory of free and 
 sovereign grace, as reigning alone throughout the 
 whole of the sinner’s salvation. 
 
 Is it not, then, greatly to be lamented, that a 
 course, so dishonoring to God and so injurious to 
 the best interests of the immortal soul, as opposi¬ 
 tion to the great doctrine in question undoubtedly 
 is, should be so zealously persisted in 1 And alas ! 
 this is done, not by a few restless, theological 
 speculators only, but by multitudes in the church, 
 both of ministers and people. Indeed, this evil 
 
252 
 
 has become alarmingly epidemic, threatening the 
 heritage of the Lord with “blasting and mildew,” 
 and “perpetual desolation.” And if the friends 
 of Zion feel alarm, lest she be visited with sore 
 and destructive plagues, in consequence of the pre¬ 
 valence of these pernicious errors, let it not be 
 reckoned strange : For surely there is danger to 
 be apprehended, when the sacred ark of truth is 
 touched with such unhallowed rudeness and shock¬ 
 ing temerity. But, that threatened judgments 
 may be averted, let all the friends of truth rally 
 in its just and glorious defence, and observe with 
 perseverence the divine injunction— earnestly 
 
 CONTEND FOR THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIV¬ 
 ERED TO THE SAINTS. 
 
 THE END. 
 
„ • 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ • 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' . * 
 
 
 : - , 
 
 HAj * 
 
 r.. * 
 
 
 
 •* 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 % 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 • \ 
 
0 27 
 
 37 
 
 W 
 
 - il- 
 
 Date Due