tihvavy of t^he t:heolo0ical ^tmxnary 
 
 PRINCETON . NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 A. G. Cameron, Ph.D. 
 
 "89^/0 
 
A. REJOINDER 
 
 TO 
 
 THE PRINCETON REVIEW, 
 
 UPON 
 
 THE ELOHIM REVEALED, 
 
 TOUCHING 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION 
 
 AND 
 
 KINDRED TOPICS. 
 
 SAMUEL J. BAIRD 
 
 < 
 
 ^'(f 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 Joseph M. Wilson, No. Ill South Tenth Street, below Chestnut. 
 
 1860. 
 
A REJOINDER. 
 
 In the summer of 1854, a minister appeared at the bar of one 
 of our Presbyteries as an applicant for membership, having a cer- 
 tificate of dismission in good standing from a sister Presbytery. In 
 the course of the consequent examination, the question was asked, 
 «' What relation do we sustain to the sin of Adam ?'' Answer — 
 "We sinned in him and fell with him.'' "Do you mean anything 
 more than that we ai-e regarded and treated as though, we had 
 sinned in Adam?" "I mean that we sinned in him, and are there- 
 fore so treated." " But how did we sin in him ?" " We were in 
 him seminally, as our root and cause; and, as members, were intrin- 
 sically involved in a true and proper responsibility for the action 
 of our head." " How is this parallel with gratuitous justification ?" 
 *' In the first place, the parallel fails, by the whole extent of the 
 difference between law and grace ; since our relation to Adam comes 
 confessedly within the province of the legal covenant, and that to 
 the second Adam belongs to the covenant of grace. In the second 
 place, the parallel is sustained, in the mode in which Christ's 
 righteousness is bestowed upon us ; which is by our engrafting into 
 him in regeneration." "But Dr. Hodge teaches that we did not 
 really sin in Adam, but are only so regarded and treated." "I am 
 aware that such is his opinion; but I do not so understand the 
 Bible, nor our constitution." This avowal was the signal for a 
 storm of denunciation against the examinee, in which he was stig- 
 matized by leading members with almost every name of heresy 
 which is most obnoxious to the Reformed Churches. 
 
 Pending the discussion, the following paper was laid upon the 
 table by the party under examination : 
 
 "I hold (1.) That the covenant was made with Adam, not only for 
 himself but for his posterity. (2.) That the cause of Adam's federal 
 relation was the mere good pleasure of Grod. (3.) That the relation thus 
 ordained finds occasion and justification in the fact that we were present 
 
in Adam, (4.) That this presence in him is not physical, on the one 
 hand, nor merely putative on the other, but real ; and although beyond 
 our full comprehension, as are, in fact, all the ultimate phenomena of our 
 being, yet this much seems clearly ascertained by reason, and confirmed 
 by scripture ; to wit, — that we are not mere offshoots from Adam, formed 
 in the same mould ;. but by ordinary generation derive something real, the 
 germ of our being, upon which are predicated those attributes which 
 commonly pass under the name of nature. Levi was in the loins of 
 Abraham when Melchizedek met him. (5.) That hence the imputation of 
 Adam's sin is not merely legal, but the legal charge is based on the prior 
 fact, that we being really in him in his sin, were so justly condemned in 
 his condemnation. 
 
 " On the other hand I hold, (1.) That it was necessary for the Son of 
 Grod to assume human nature by generation, so as to be one with our 
 race, and so subject to the law of God for our sins ; whilst being begotten 
 by the power of the Holy Ghost, and not by ordinary generation, he was 
 free from the sinfulness of our nature. (2.) That the believer is, by the 
 communication to him of the Holy Spirit, dwelling in and proceeding from 
 Christ, united to him in a real union, expressed by the scriptures as 
 being 'members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones,' &c. (3.) That 
 this identity it is which entitles the believer to claim Christ's righteous- 
 ness as his, by virtue of which he is justified at the bar of God. (4.) 
 That hence it follows, that whilst the plan of salvation thus wrought is 
 altogether gratuitous, and hence of mere grace, — on the other hand, as by 
 the wonderful working of that free grace we are engrafted into Christ, 
 and he is made our Head, the law being satisfied, we may with reverent 
 boldness and adoring gratitude make the plea at the bar of justice of < Not 
 guilty,' since Christ and all he has done is not only putatively, but, by 
 free grace uniting us, really ours. 
 
 "P. S. — This paper having been written in great haste, during recess 
 of Presbytery, any verbal inaccuracy or inadvertent omission is thereby 
 accounted for. Samuel J. Baird." 
 
 Upon the reading of this paper it was remarked — " That is just 
 what you said before." The reply was — " It is what I meant to 
 say, and upon which I am ready to stand or fall." The ultimate 
 result was the adoption by the Presbytery of a resolution formally 
 expressive of confidence in my orthodoxy, and disavowing all 
 responsibility for the impeachments which had been urged by mem- 
 bers with so much violence. 
 
 Such was the occasion whence grew the publication of The Elohim 
 Eevealed. Three considerations impelled the author to write : His 
 
personal orthodoxy had been bitterly impeached, and he did not 
 choose to leave his character at the mercy of whispered rumors 
 which might steal abroad : doctrines which he felt to involve the 
 very marrow of gospel divinity, were assailed and denounced, and 
 he felt called upon to bear a testimony in their behalf: and the 
 mode of attack showed a spirit of haughty intolerance to which he 
 could give place by subjection, — no, not for an hour. That my 
 assailants were not unworthy representatives of the school of 
 opinions to which they belonged, the review of The Elohim Ee- 
 vealed in the April number of the Princeton Repertory is evidence; 
 and considerations very near akin to those which induced my former 
 publication, impel me again to trespass upon the patience of my 
 brethren. The authority of Dr. Hodge was the standard of appeal 
 by my assailants in Presbytery. The opinions which they embraced 
 it has been the cherished labor of his life to fortify and disseminate. 
 Those opinions, as set forth in his published writings, were, in The 
 Elohim Revealed, examined in a spirit of fraternal courtesy and 
 unfeigned deference ; but with the liberty which, on such a subject, 
 is proper to one who claims to be the Lord's freeman. Under 
 such circumstances, it was to be expected that the judgment passed 
 upon the book by the professor, if he saw fit to notice it at all, 
 would be condemnatory. And had such a decision been pronounced, 
 as the result of a calm, deliberate and candid examination, backed 
 by all the powerful and extended influence which the reviewer 
 enjoys, the effect, however detrimental, I was prepared to have met 
 in silence, awaiting the ultimate judgment of the church, when the 
 whole argument should have been maturely weighed, and prejudices 
 lost in the lapse of time. 
 
 But my reviewer has chosen a different course. In an article, — 
 the tone of which is condemned even by the author's returning 
 sense of propriety, before his ink was dry, or the last sentence had 
 been written, — an article confessedly immature and hasty, — con- 
 fessedly marked by irritatibn of feeling,* and which, as a neces- 
 
 * ''It is one of the infelicities of a review that it is commonly written currente 
 calamo, and sent piecemeal to the press before the ink is thoroughly dried. It 
 is, therefore, apt to bear the impress of the feelings which the book reviewed 
 makes at the time on the writer's mind. If it could be laid aside, and allowed 
 to cool, much might be softened or modified. It is possible that, when we come 
 to see this review in print, we may wish that some things had been otherwise 
 expressed,"' &c. — Princeton Review, April, 1860, p. 375. 
 
saiy consequence, is unjust to the work, both in respect to its style 
 and doctrines — the attempt is made by the mere force of scornful 
 denunciation, to trample opposition in the dust, and annihilate at 
 once author and book.* In these circumstances, I address my 
 brethren with confidence of an impartial hearing. "If I be an 
 offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not 
 to die ; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse 
 me, no man may deliver me unto them." Did the matters involved 
 merely concern personal interests and character, I should hesitate 
 to claim the attention of the church. But the whole question 
 relates to doctrines which are fundamental to the gospel scheme, — 
 doctrines, upon some of which, relating to the vital subject of jus- 
 tification, I did not imagine, until the appearance of the review in 
 question, there could be any difference among intelligent Pres- 
 byterians. Whoever, therefore, may be in error in the present 
 discussion, the importance of the issues cannot be questioned, and 
 the claim upon the attention of those who are set for the defence 
 of the gospel is invested with proportionate authority. It is proper 
 to add that if, upon the points here considered, it is my mis- 
 fortune to lie under the censure of the reviewer, I enjoy, on the 
 other hand, the approving suffrages of some of the brightest orna- 
 ments of the church of the present day. Theological professors 
 and distinguished divines of the United Presbyterian, the Reformed 
 Presbyterian, and the Reformed Dutch and other churches, as well 
 as of our own, have, in public and private, given their hearty 
 sanction, and bid me God speed in these labors. 
 
 The metaphysical aspects of the subjects involved are much 
 insisted upon by tlie reviewer. A series of philosophical absurdities 
 are attributed to the work, and represented as essential to its theo- 
 logical conclusions. The real questions; however, are purely theo- 
 logical, and admit of no solution, but by the appeal of faith to the 
 Word of God. The first of these is as to the moral relation which 
 we sustain to Adam's sin : — Are we therein criminals, or only vic- 
 tims? And like to it is the other: — How does Christ's righteous- 
 ness become ours in order to justification ? These are the questions 
 with which I am concerned, and in the presence of which mere 
 
 * With truly admirable ingenuity the review is so written as to avoid giving 
 its thousands of readers, on either side of the Atlantic, a hint that the peculiar 
 teachings of the reviewer are called in question in the bcok ! To them, his atti- 
 tude is that of lofty impartiality. 
 
metaphysical speculations are of secondary importance. In fact 
 
 n the lfn"r •*".?' '"' *''""''™' of philosophyare appropriated 
 m the book IS, to obviate objections arising from the oppositions of 
 false scence-to show that the deductions of a trni 'philosophy 
 harmomze w.th the teachings of God's word. Were every nrin 
 cjple of the philosophy utterly overthrown, still would I cleave to 
 the doctrines, to the illustration of which they are adduced- be- 
 eause those doctrines do not stand in the wisdom of men but in 
 the testimony of God. ' 
 
 ./ Z::Z" " '«' ''^e™"', necessary to notice the light in which 
 
 Revi.^ T" r" 'P'"'"'^"™ P"™ipk^ are exhibited in the 
 Keview as he assault upon them is designed and calculated to dis- 
 parage the doctrines with which they are associated. First amonl 
 aemist ecloctrineasto that which is designated the natu^eo' 
 
 "The word, nature, is that by which we designate the permanent 
 fTd™ tdTr'''' f «'^^8-"-«.--P0rated in the constitut on 
 and define the several species of living things. . The ,nh 
 
 stances were at the beginning endowed with forces, which are dis^ 
 mc ive and ab.ing, and which in organic nature flow distribi .very 
 m continuous order, to the successive generations of the creatures 
 Of these forces, the word nature is the expression. In its prope 
 use, It conveys the distinct idea of permanent indwelling force 
 expresses the sum of the essential qualities or efficienl principl 
 
 u:hir;''-f"'V"""'^ "'''"•'" '» "^ -bsi.„ce,as « 
 in which they reside, and from whence they operate. . The 
 
 word IS not, therefore, expressive of a mere abstraction, but'desig! 
 
 consists in the whole sum of the forces which, original in Adam 
 are perpetuated and flow in generation to his seed "* That tlS 
 definition should be the subject of such bitter attack as it hast 
 curred IS very surprising. That it is not new, it would be sup " 
 
 phers. That, in its relation to theology, it is not peculiar to me 
 wiU appear m the following quotation from a divine of the Ugh" t 
 
 *The Elohim Revealed, pp. 148^ 149, 150. 
 
authority. "By nature^^^ says Breckinridge, "we mean the sum of 
 all the forces, spiritual, moral, intellectual and physical, which 
 make up our being, and give it its peculiar character."* This defi- 
 nition is consistently followed throughout my work. Thus, in dis- 
 cussing the principle of the law of God, it is remarked, — "The 
 word nature we have formerly defined to be the designation of a 
 permanent force, dwelling in a substance. A moral nature is one, 
 the essential characteristics of which are reason, will, and the 
 moral sense or conscience. . . . The proper subject of a moral 
 nature is a spiritual substance. In no other mode have we any 
 reason to imagine it possible for it to exist."t And again, in another 
 place: — "The nature comprehends all the forces which are proper 
 to the person in which it subsists. Among these are not only 
 included those of which obligation or obedience may be supposed, 
 but those susceptibilities upon which may be predicated the realiza- 
 tion of suffering, the endurance of punishment. . . . Were it 
 possible to take away the nature, and yet the person remain; — were 
 it possible to suppose any other forces proper to the person than 
 all its proper forces," &c.:|: The definition thus so unambiguously 
 given and often reiterated, is by our reviewer entirely disregarded, 
 and the whole argument of the review goes upon the assumption 
 that I represent the nature of man as being a substance derived 
 from Adam and inhering in his seed. On this point two or three 
 remarks are submitted. 
 
 1. As between Augustinian realism and the nominalism of Ros- 
 celine and Abelard, the sympathies of the author are unequivocally 
 indicated in favor of tlie former. The fact is stated that the latter 
 was in its origin identified with the growth of Pelagianism in the 
 mediaeval church. And if by the charge of realism be meant no 
 more than acceptance of the doctrine of the illustrious father, we 
 should readily plead guilty. But not only is the assertion that the 
 realism of the Greek philosophy involved the substantial existence 
 of universals a very questionable assumption, but the pretence that 
 this idea is essential to or recognized in the doctrine of Augustine 
 on original sin, is altogether unwarranted, as any one may see by 
 reference to his statements quoted in our treatise. § The realism of 
 Augustine is that of causal forces, and not of universal substances. 
 
 * Knowledge of God, Objectively Considered, p. 498. 
 
 t The Elohim Revealed, pp. 236, 237. t lb. p. 250. ^ lb. pp. 19, 49G. 
 
Furtlier, the attempt to disparage by such an impeachment the 
 theology of Augustine, is significant. The Reformed church has 
 been accustomed to boast its Augustinian theology, especially on 
 original sin. 
 
 2. It is certain that a nature cannot exist nor act except in a 
 substance ; and so we have repeatedly stated in our treatise. It by 
 no means follows, however, that it may not be transmitted without 
 the transmission of substance. Momentum can only be predicated 
 of matter; and yet the familiar illustration of the series of sus- 
 pended balls proves its propagation from one to another, without 
 any transmission of substance. So the transmission of forces 
 through successive generations of living beings does not imply, as 
 necessary thereto, any conveyance of substance. The apostacy of 
 man's nature could not take place but by a personal act. The pro- 
 pagation of the nature conveys to other persons the responsibility 
 of the act, although not committed personally by them. 
 
 3. In The Elohim Revealed, the nature of Adam is spoken of 
 as " an objective reality," and not a mere abstract or subjective 
 conception. This phrase, which merely expresses the fact of the 
 real existence of the forces which the word, nature, designates, 
 seems to be interpreted by the reviewer as equivalent to an asser- 
 tion that the nature is a substance. The momentum which conveys 
 the planets through their orbits is not a mere idea in the mind, but 
 an objective reality in nature. Must it, therefore, of necessity be a 
 substance ? 
 
 4. That there should be some incautious expressions in a treatise 
 so extensive, is not surprising. Some of these, as the result has 
 shown, are susceptible of being tortured into a meaning which the 
 author never designed, and against which the context will be recog- 
 nized by impartial criticism as sufficient caution. 
 
 5. Although the manuscript was submitted to the examination of 
 eminent theologians before its publication, and the work has since 
 been reviewed and criticised by scholars of every class, no sus- 
 picion of realism (so-called) was suggested in any quarter, until it 
 was announced to the classes in the seminary at Princeton, by one 
 of the professors, as the discovery, elsewhere, of a distinguished 
 divine. Subsequently, the reviews at Princeton and Columbia made 
 their appearance ; in which, simultaneously, the charge was made ; 
 accompanied, in the former, by an abundant citation of passages 
 from the book, but without any indication of the mode in which 
 
10 
 
 the obnoxious doctrine was deduced therefrom ; in the latter, from 
 the pen of the original author of the impeachment, with aa explicit 
 statement of the ground upon which it was based. From a charge 
 thus originated in hostile criticism alone, we might claim immediate 
 acquittal. The proof, however, which is attempted in the Southern 
 Review, gives us the means of exposing its fallacy, and enables us 
 to appeal to the professor at Columbia, in refutation of the impeach- 
 ment, as endorsed at Princeton. 
 
 After full citations from our treatise, Dr. Thornwell deduces 
 the following as its doctrine: — "The substance of the soul, as 
 endowed with the forces which realize themselves in the faculties 
 and energies of the personal consciousness — of which these opera- 
 tions are the signs and characteristics — that substance as a causal 
 force, which underlies them all, and conditions and determines them 
 all, that substance is the nature. Or, if there be any distinction 
 between them^ the substance is the ground, and the nature, the causal 
 energies contained in it. That is, the soul, considered as simple 
 being, may be called substance ; considered as a cause, or endowed 
 with power, it is nature ; the loord, nature, expressing directly the 
 forces ; and, substance, that in which they inhere. But for all the 
 purposes of speculation, the difference is purely formal. A sub- 
 stance to human thought is only the correlative of the properties 
 which manifest it."* Such is the conclusion to which this wj-iter 
 comes, as the result of a careful analysis of the various statements 
 of The Elohim Revealed, on the subject. In the passages which 
 we have italicised, he represents clearly and correctly the doctrine 
 of the book. In the closing sentence, he states a postulate of his 
 own, in which a signal fallacy has eluded his acuteness. For some 
 of " the purposes of speculation, the difference between substance 
 and nature is purely formal." But it is by no means true in all 
 cases. It is not true when the question is asked whether the nature 
 is a substance. It is not true when the inquiry is as to the pro- 
 pagation of nature. Here we accept an argument of Dr. Hodge, 
 in which, aiming at us, he only exposes the error of our southern 
 reviewer : " There may be an immaterial principle which deter- 
 mines the species of every plant and animal, and secures its per- 
 manency ; but what necessity is there for assuming that principle to 
 be a substance numerically the same with the first of each kind ? 
 
 * Southern Presbyterian Review, April, 1860, p. 172. 
 
11 
 
 If the chemical properties belonging to an acorn, or the germ of a 
 nascent animal, may be the same in kind, from generation to genera- 
 tion, without assuming the transmission of a chemical substance 
 why may not the principle of life remain permanent, without any 
 such transmission of substance?"* Truly, we cannot see why. 
 And since it is so, our reviewer himself being judge, wc ask. Why 
 should the distinction between the nature and substance be oblit- 
 erated, as it is in the argument of Dr. Thornwcll ; if not for the 
 purpose of holding the obnoxious book responsible for absurdities 
 of which it is entirely innocent? It appears, then. Dr. Thornwell 
 being witness, that according to The Elohim Revealed, nature is not 
 a substance, but a force dwelling in a substance. And we have seen, 
 upon the authority of Dr Hodge, that the proposition is erroneous, 
 by which the southern reviewer confounds the distinction between 
 the nature or force, and the substance in which it inheres. And 
 yet this constitutes the only plausible pretext for charging the book 
 with the realism which is attributed to it by these writers. 
 
 tiv^TnTtTV' Hence the assertion, that upon this theory Adam and 
 rLs. '"""" his race are one substance. "According to this view 
 humanity is one substance, in which inhere certain forces. This 
 substance was originally in Adam, and has been by propagation 
 communicated to all his descendants, so that the substance with its 
 forces, which constitutes them what they are, is numerically the same 
 as that which was in him and made him what he was."t " The 
 assumption of a generic human nature, as an objective reality, con- 
 stituting all men numerically one in substance with Adam, is a pure 
 figment, unentitled lo any weight or authority in determining Christ- 
 ian doctrine. "I So it is; and in the same category is to be 
 included the pretence that this absurdity is taught in the book. 
 Besides passages which we have already quoted, the only proof 
 adduced by the reviewer, is the following sentences : — " The human 
 nature consists in the whole sum of the forces which, original in 
 Adam, are perpetuated and flow in generation to his seed. And 
 our oneness of nature does not express the fact, merely, that we and 
 Adam are alike ; but that we are thus alike, because the forces which 
 are in us and make us what we are, were in him, and are numeri- 
 
 * Princeton Review, April, 1860, p. 353. t Ibid, p. 352. | Ibid, p. 353. 
 
12 
 
 cally the same which in him constituted his nature and gave him his 
 likeness.'^ " This language is open to just exception, in so far as it may 
 seem to represent the forces which constitute the nature of an indi- 
 vidual of the posterity of Adam to be formally the same as those of 
 Adam's nature, and exhaustive of them. The intention of the writer 
 was merely to assert that although changed in form, the forces of 
 Adam's seed are transmitted from him — that forces which were in him 
 were the cause of those of his seed. Here we reiterate the admission 
 and challenge already quoted from our reviewer: — " There may be 
 an immaterial principle which determines the species of every plant 
 and animal, and secures its permanency; but what necessity for 
 assuming that principle to be a substance, numerically the same 
 with the first of each kind ? "f The reviewer does not then ven- 
 ture to deny the existence of such an " immaterial principle," the 
 very thing which is asserted in the passages which he quotes. But 
 he demands: — "Wherein does this assumed numerical identity 
 exist? Is it in the principle of life ? But can anyone tell what 
 that is? Is it a substance ? Has human skill ever yet discovered 
 what life is, whether in plant or animal ? And must a whole sys- 
 tem of theology be founded on a conjecture as to its nature ?":{: No, 
 it ought not. But in return, we venture one question, which may 
 complete the series. Hoes our reviewer found his theology in the 
 denial of the existence of such a principle? What it is, may be 
 hard to say. Hoes he therefore require us to forget that it is? 
 
 We do not propose here to defend our sentiments on identity and 
 the generic unity of the human race. Those who may be curious 
 on the subject, will find the discussion in the work in question. 
 Our present aim is to rectify the misapprehensions to which the 
 statements of the Review may give rise, as to what they are. To 
 this purpose a brief extract will serve : — 
 
 ^' We have bad occasion to observe a law of representation wbieb runs 
 through the Scriptures, and is developed especially in the cases of the 
 headship of Adam to the race, and the believer justified in Christ. That 
 principle we have stated to be, that community in a propagated nature 
 constitutes such a oneness as immediately identifies the possessor in the 
 relations of that nature in the progenitor whence it springs. This 
 principle seems to be but one particular, under the general proposition 
 that continuity of organic force constitutes identity, in any substance 
 
 * The Elohim Revealed, p. 150. t Review, p. 353. I Ibid, p. 352. 
 
13 
 
 whether material or spiritual. In this expression, we consider an organ- 
 ism as a substance, simple or compound, clothed with its distinctive forces, 
 constituting it an efficient cause ; and by the phrase, continuity of organic 
 force, we design to intimate that in whatever direction those forces flow, 
 and to whatever extent, they operate to bind the substances upon which 
 they act, in a relation of identity. By identity is of course not meant 
 absolute numerical oneness, in all respects ;. but that of which, to given 
 purposes, the same proposition may be predicated immediately and per se. 
 Thus, we have no assurance that the body of the aged man contains 
 among all its material elements, a particle which was in it in his infancy. 
 The identity is predicated upon the continuous operation of those vital 
 forces which have pervaded and built it up, repaired its breaches and 
 determined its character. So, too, of the tree or the rock, the star or the 
 system. Again, all identities are not of the same order ; as there is, 
 for example, a distinct identity belonging to each limb of the body, and 
 another of a higher grade common to them all in the unity of the body. 
 These grades of identity are determined by the degree to which the sub- 
 ordinate substance is pervaded and controlled by the organic forces 
 whence the identity is predicated. Thus, forces which are common to the 
 solar system give it an identity of one grade, comprehending in it not 
 only the planets in their mass, but every organism and every atom belong- 
 ing to any of them ; all of which are embraced in the common forces of 
 gravitation, repulsion, and so on. On the other hand, each particular 
 planet has its more intimate identity, constituted by the addition to the 
 forces which it possesses in common with the others, of those which 
 operate more immediately upon its own materials. So may we trace a 
 growing intimacy of identity, until we come to the indivisible molecules. 
 
 " So it is in the moral and spiritual world. By one Spirit are believers 
 all baptised into one body. By this baptism, no one loses the identity 
 of his own person : but ' by the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus,' 
 he is introduced into a higher identity — identity in Him < from whom the 
 whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint 
 supplieth, according to the eifectual working in the measure of every 
 part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.' — 
 Eph. iv. IG. It is thus, by the pervasive power of the Spirit of Christ, 
 moulding and controlling the whole that the identity is wrought, of which 
 Christ so remarkably says, ' That they all may be one, as thou. Father, 
 art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. . . . That 
 they may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and thou in me, that 
 they may be made perfect in one.' — John xvii. 21-23. 
 
 " Parallel to this is the identity which we sustain to the first Adam. 
 By birth we acquire a distinct and separate personality, having an identity 
 
14 
 
 of its own, of the same grade and degree as was that of Adam's person. 
 But with this distinct personality there is associated a community in 
 Adam's moral nature, by virtue of the continuity of forces flowing from 
 him to us, embracing us in an identity with his nature, and involving our 
 communion in his apostacy from Grod. Hence, the Scripture forms of 
 expression, of our being in him, sinning in him, and dying in him."* 
 
 On a subject so abstruse, it were futile to attempt such accuracy 
 of language as to prevent the possibility of misapprehension, or be 
 impregnable to hostile criticism. The statement — that the causative 
 principle which operates in generation constitutes a bond of identity 
 between the progenitor and those of whom he is the cause, such as 
 to involve them immediately in the relations and responsibilities of 
 his nature, to an extent proportionate to that in which they are 
 pervaded and controlled by that nature, — embodies with suflScient 
 distinctness and fullness the doctrine of representative union or 
 identity, as stated with perhaps less critical accuracy in the begin- 
 ning of the above extract, but distinctly developed in the subsequent 
 parts of it, and illustrated throughout the volume. 
 
 As relating to the body of which Christ is the head, we venture 
 to assert that this doctrine is not theory, but a most precious testi- 
 mony of the gospel. In the parallel case of the first Adam and his 
 seed, nothing but experience of the fact could persuade us that the 
 Scripture warrant for it is questionable. In its other relations it 
 would seem to be one of the plainest of the postulata of common 
 sense. And, in fact, it is not until a preposterous caricature has 
 been thrust into its place, that our reviewer ventures to assail it. 
 By taking advantage of the generality of the statement of the law 
 of representation with which the extract begins, and disregarding 
 the careful exposition of it which follows, and the abundant illus- 
 trations which the work exhibits, he finds it easy to demonstrate 
 against us the charge of excessive stupidity and folly, resulting in a 
 climax of revolting heresy. 
 
 In the first place, as we have seen, by nature the reviewer repre- 
 sents us as meaning a common substance, and not, as defined in the 
 book, an indwelling force. Again, whereas we state explicitly, 
 that " by identity is of course, not meant, absolute numerical one- 
 ness, in all respects; but that of which to given purposes the same 
 proposition may be predicated immediately and per se/' — it only 
 
 The Elohim Revealed, p. 494. 
 
15 
 
 requires the omission of a mere monosyllabic, to make us teach that 
 absolute numerical oneness is the very thing we do mean ; and such 
 is the light in which the reviewer presents us. Further, the causa- 
 tive principle which is characteristic of propagation, which is com- 
 mensurate with identity and determinate of it, and so represented 
 in the place above quoted as fundamental and essential to the whole 
 doctrine, is entirely ignored ; and the book held responsible for all 
 the consequences resulting from the omission. 
 
 Of the manner in which the case thus made out inures to the pur- 
 poses of the review, the doctrine respecting the person of Christ, pre- 
 sents a signal illustration. " If he was truly the son of David, accord- 
 ing to his human nature ; if he was, in the strict and proper sense of 
 the words, the seed of Abraham ; and if community of nature involves 
 community in the guilt and pollution belonging to that nature, how 
 are we to avoid the inevitable, although shocking conclusion, that 
 Christ was guilty and polluted ? ... If a man commits a crime 
 he is guilty, and even omnipotence cannot undo the deed. If it is true 
 that we apostatized in Adam, omnipotence cannot make it untrue. 
 And if it is true that all who partake of Adam's nature shared in 
 his apostasy, and are morally chargeable with its guilt, then it must 
 be true of Christ. That his human nature sinned in Adam is a 
 simple fact of the past, according to the theory of this book ; and all 
 the power in the universe cannot make it no fact," &c.^ 
 
 The points thus urged, so far from refuting the doctrine of the 
 book, serve to establish it. If the human nature were a substantial 
 entity which sinned in Adam, and that substance constituted the 
 human nature of Christ, then unquestionably would his humanity 
 have been guilty and corrupt. But, if, instead of this, the doctrine 
 of the book be truly taken and candidly traced, it solves every 
 difficulty suggested. As already shown, that doctrine is, that a 
 nature is a causative force inhering in a substance, — " that in what- 
 ever direction those forces flow, and to whatever extent, they 
 operate to bind the substances upon which they act in a relation of 
 identity," — and that there are various grades of this identity, " de- 
 termined by the degree to which the subordinate substance is per- 
 vaded and controlled by the organic forces whence the identity is 
 predicated." In the Lord Jesus there were two natures, human 
 and divine. In a lower degree, he was identified with the human 
 
 * Review, p. 366. 
 
16 
 
 race, in so far as the nature of Adam was the subordinate cause of 
 his humanity, his body and soul. But that nature was not the 
 cause of his moral attitude. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit was 
 the efficient principle of generative activity in the nature of the 
 virgin, producing his humanity; and his whole being was "per- 
 vaded and controlled " by the divine nature of the Son of God ; so 
 that upon the principles of the book, his entire person was natively 
 identified in the moral attitude of that nature, both as relating to 
 the sanctions and precepts of the law. 
 
 aiarge of Wc shall present but one additional illustration of the 
 materialism. ^^^^ ^^ justico which the representations of the review . 
 are calculated to do us, before passing to the more important ques- 
 tions of theology, which are at issue. On page 359 of the Review, 
 we are told that in The Elohim Revealed, "the immediate creation 
 of the soul, as opposed to the theory of propagation, is declared to 
 be ' the fundamental doctrine of the Pelagian system.' On page 
 364, he [the author] complains of orthodox theologians as uniting 
 ' with Pelagians in explaining away the teachings of the Scriptures 
 on the origin of the soul, in obedience to the dicta of an intru- 
 sive philosophy.' The doctrine that the soul is an immediate 
 creation, he says, 'introduces a gross and revolting dualism into 
 man's nature. As originally made, Adam comprehended in one 
 being the two distinct elements of soul and body. In the unity of 
 these elements there subsisted a common identity, a common con- 
 sciousness, common moral relations, and a common moral character.' 
 On the same page it is said, 'there is no distinct mention of the 
 creation of the soul at all ; but the whole style of the narrative (in 
 Genesis) seems to imply that it was created within the body, in an 
 original, perfect, and inseparable identification with it.' — p. 365. This 
 is as near materialism as any orthodox writer could well go. Here 
 is a denial of ' dualism ' in man's nature; and the assertion of ' a per- 
 fect and inseparable identification of soul and body.' Then, the 
 soul and body are one and the same thing, or at least inseparable, 
 incapable of separate existence. This is the doctrine, on the one 
 hand, of such materialists as Priestley, and on the other of the mys- 
 tical school of modern Germany, as shown in our last number."^ 
 
 Our statement that the creation theory was fundamental to the 
 system of Pelagius, is a very innocent allusion to a historical fact, 
 the proof of which is given in the book. Wiggers, the historian 
 
 * Kcvicw, p. 359. 
 
17 
 
 of tliG Pelagian controversy, thus states tlie first of the principles 
 of Pelag'ius' system: " 1. A propagation of sin by generation is by 
 no means to be admitted. This physical propagation of sin can be 
 admitted only when we grant the propagation of the soul by gene- 
 ration. But this is a heretical error; consequently, there is no 
 original sin.""^' But this is comparatively a trivial matter. We 
 ask the reader to weigh with candor the following extract from the 
 book, a few disjointed sentences of which constitute the ground of 
 charging the author with materialism. 
 
 " There are objections which appear insurmountable against the doc- 
 trine that the soul is an immediate creation. First, It introduces a 
 gross and revolting dualism into man's nature. As originally made, 
 Adam comprehended in one being the two distinct elements of body and 
 soul, joined together in a union, which was essential to their normal con- 
 dition and to the happiness of man — a union which nothing but the penal 
 curse could have dissolved. In the unity of these elements there sub- 
 sisted a common identity, a common consciousness, common moral rela- 
 tions, and a common moral character. And it is a fact not without 
 significance, that in the narrative of his creation there is no intimation of 
 an extraneous creation of the soul, and its subsequent insertion in the 
 body. ' The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man was a living soul.' 
 We behold the dust moulded into form and symmetry, but breathless 
 and lifeless. We look again, and the inanimate clay is warm with vital 
 heat ; the breath of life fills the lungs ; the light of intelligence beams 
 from the eye, and an immortal spirit dwells within. Thus, although 
 diverse elements enter into his being, there is nothing to suggest or coun- 
 tenance any conception at variance with the most perfect and insepa- 
 rable unity. We read nothing to sustain the assertion of Turrettin, that 
 Adam's ' soul came extrinsically through creation, and was infused into 
 his body by the breath of God.' It was not his soul, but his breath which 
 was breathed into his nostrils ; and of any extrinsic creation of the soul, 
 and its subsequent infusion into the body, we have no intimation. In 
 fact there is no distinct mention of the creation of the soul at all ; but 
 the whole style of the narrative seems to imply that it was created within 
 the body, in an original, perfect and inseparable identification with it. 
 But, on the contrary, by the doctrine which we here oppose, we are intro- 
 duced to man as comprehending in his person two distinct and separate 
 individuals, two several beings. They are described as independent in 
 the sources and even in the time of their origin ; as possessing severally 
 
 *The Elohim Revealed: p. 17 j which see for the evidence from the pen of 
 Pelagius himself. 
 
18 
 
 complete constitutions, prior to and irrespective of their connection with 
 each other ; as having originally distinct and contrasted moral characters ; 
 as bound to each other by a relation, not essential and ab origine, but 
 accidental and secondary, by virtue of a factitious and mechanical union ; 
 and when thus brought together, acting as distinct individuals upon each 
 other as extraneous and antagonistic influences ; so that in the process, 
 the soul, hitherto uncorrupted, is defiled and enslaved in sin, in conse- 
 quence of its connection with the body, which derives and conveys to it 
 corruption of nature from our apostate parents. 
 
 " It results from these views that Adam's soul and body were not 
 inseparably united ; that is to say, he was not created immortal ; and that 
 the separation which takes place at death, so far from being a penal condi- 
 tion — an unhappy effect of the curse against sin, should rather be regarded 
 as a desirable estate — the restoration of the soul to its native and normal 
 condition ; and that the soul, so far from anticipating the resurrection 
 with desire and joy, should rather recoil from it, as from the resumption 
 of broken and cast-off fetters," &c.* 
 
 Such and more to the same effect is the language from which the 
 reviewer culls an expression or two, which he declares are " as near 
 materialism as any orthodox writer could well go. Here is a denial 
 of ' dualism ' in man's nature ; and the assertion of ' a perfect and 
 inseparable identification ' of soul and body. Then, the soul and 
 body are one and the same thing ; or, at least inseparable, incapable 
 of separate existence." We pray the reader to observe what kind 
 of dualism it is that we deny to man, and with it compare the sense 
 in which the reviewer would have us understood. Observe the 
 manner in which our statement in reference to the original insepa- 
 rableness of body and soul, the native immortality of man, is mis- 
 applied to his present condition, as under the curse ; in order to 
 induce the impression that we represent body and soul as now 
 inseparable, " incapable of separate existence ; " although our ex- 
 press language to the contrary lay open before the writer's eyes. 
 And let our readers decide upon what principle to account for the 
 manner in which the revieAver seems to interpret the phrase, " in- 
 separable identification," as though it meant the contradictory of 
 distinct subsistence.f The last sentence of this extraordinary criti- 
 
 * The Elohim Revealed, p. 365. 
 
 t Webster defines "Identify: 1. To ascertain or prove to be the same. 2. 
 To make, to be the same ; to unite or combine in such a manner as to make one 
 interest, purpose, or intention." He quotes Dr. J. M. Mason as saying that 
 "Paul has identified the two ordinances, circumcision and baptism;" and the 
 British ministry in 1805, declaring that a certain treaty "identified Spain with 
 the republican government of -France." 
 
19 
 
 cism constitutes an appropriate and harmonious crown to the whole : 
 "Dr. Baird, however, is so characteristically incorrect and nndis- 
 criminating in his language, that it is by no means certain that he 
 intended, even when he wrote what has just been quoted, to assert 
 that the body and soul are identical, or even that they are insepa- 
 rable." We leave it to superior discernment to judge how the 
 writer of this sentence designed it to be interpreted by his thousands 
 of readers. Are they to understand that he was actually at a loss 
 as to the meaning of the book in the place from whence he quotes, 
 or even of the expressions which he cites? And if this be so, of 
 what value are the criticisms of such a pen ? In any case, what is 
 to be thought of the writer, who upon such grounds as these, does 
 not hesitate to stab the character of a minister of Christ, by the 
 charge of symbolizing with the materialism of Priestley and the 
 mysticism of Germany? 
 
 TJie Origin As to our doctrinc on the origin of the soul, we ven- 
 of the Soul. t^j,Q ^Q Qg-g^. i-i^g following, from The United Presbyterian 
 Review, as a contrast to the severity of this writer. It is from the 
 pen of the Rev. Dr. J. T. Cooper, of the United (late Associate) 
 Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia. The name is a suiEcient pledge 
 of the weight and value of the judgment : — 
 
 " We have never seen, and we question if there is anywhere to he 
 found a more able and thorough discussion of this abstruse point, than 
 the one with which we are ^jresented in this chapter. His reasoning on 
 this subject occupies no less than fifty pages of the book, and after giving 
 it two careful readings, we cannot refrain from expressing the feelings of 
 admiration with which the exhibition of the author's skill and logical 
 powers in the treatment of this subject has inspired us. All our precon- 
 ceived views and feelings were in direct antagonism with the position here 
 taken with relation to the origin of the soul ; but we have been forced to 
 yield. We are still conscious of a feeling of repugnance to the conclu- 
 sion here arrived at ; but the author has so fortified his position at every 
 point, by the inductive mode in which he has treated the subject, that we 
 see not how it is in the power of reason to overthrow it. We have sought 
 for some unguarded point on which to make out attack, but in vain."*' 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that in the able and extended review, 
 from which the above extract is taken, there is no trace of sus- 
 picion that the book is chargeable with the realism, materialism and 
 other atrocious heresies which are attributed to it by the Repertory. 
 
 * United Presbyterian Review, April, 1860, p. 245. 
 
ourDacirine ^^^^ ^G luust tum to tlic tliGological quGstioiis, wliich 
 ofhnputation. ^re tliG PGal issuGs bctwcGii us and our rcviGwer. 
 
 On imputation, tliG rcviGWGr says: — " TIig gGncral principlo is 
 laid down that nothing can bG imputed to a man which is not really 
 his own ; his own — that is, not on the ground of a legal relation, 
 but his own morally, as constituting his personal character."- In 
 support of this representation, he quotes two or three sentences 
 from a discussion respecting the doctrine of the covenant of works, 
 concerning which we shall have occasion to show that he confounds 
 tho principles of that covenant with those of the covenant of grace. 
 Neither, however, in those places, nor elsewhere, is the principle 
 to be found which is here charged upon us. In the very definition 
 of imputation, the reverse is expressly asserted ; and in the whole 
 doctrine of the book the principle of the definition is consistently 
 sustained. After a discussion of the nature of imputation, we thus 
 sum up the result: — "Imputation, then, is the finding of the facts 
 upon a judicial investigation — the entering of the verdict, by which 
 the case is defined in its true character; a comparison of wliich 
 with the requirements of the law constitutes the ground of the 
 decision of the judge, either of approval or condemnation. In this 
 imputation the case is never viewed or represented in any other 
 light than precisely as it is. For example: it does not consider 
 him as a personal sinner — an immediate transgressor — who is only 
 guilty in the person of another, his representative ; nor does it 
 account him to he righteous, who, though chargeable with no per- 
 sonal dereliction, has transgressed in the person of another. In 
 short, in imputation, a faithful record is made of the case, precisely 
 as it is, in all its aspects and elements."t 
 
 In respect to the imputation of Adam's sin, the reviewer says of 
 us: — "He devotes a Avhole section to prove that his view is not 
 identical with that of Placaius. Tliis was the more necessary as 
 he adopts all the princij^les on which that doctrine is founded, and 
 urges all the arguments against immediate imputation which were 
 ever advanced by Placasus, or by Pelagians, Socinians or Remon- 
 strants. His doctrine is neither the one nor the other," &c. And 
 yet, before the page is finished, we are told that — " Wherein he 
 differs, or supposes he differs from this doctrine, [that of Placasus,] 
 he deceives himself with words. He does not see that what he 
 says means nothing. He makes distinctions where there is no dif- 
 ference, and supposes himself to be saying sometliing when he is 
 
 * Review, p. 368. t The Elohim Revealed, p. 472. 
 
21 
 
 saying nothing," &cr If the reader should hesitate to accept, 
 in its whole sweeping extent, the assertion, that we have urged 
 "a// the arguments against immediate imputation which tt'ere ever 
 advanced by Placajus, or by Pelagians, Socinians or Remonstrants," 
 we can assure him that it is just as true as that we have assailed 
 the doctrine at all. The reason of our argument to prove that our 
 doctrine was not that of Placaeus was, that the periodicals of the 
 New School, seizing upon a hint in the Southern Presbyterian Re- 
 view, were ringing the changes upon the assertion that our doctrine, 
 as set forth in Breckinridge's Theology, was Placeanism. And the 
 argument of the " whole section," to which the reviewer alludes, 
 consists entirely in the quotation of certain passages from Breckin- 
 ridge, with parallel citations from De Moor's Commentary upon 
 Marck, and from Hoornbeek, who "plant themselves upon our very 
 position as the ground of defence against the objections of those 
 who denied immediate imputation. "f What that position is, we 
 cannot state more briefly and clearly than in the language of Samuel 
 Rutherford, a member of the Westminster Assembly. "We sinned 
 intrinsically in Adam, as parts, as members, as being in his loins ; 
 and we are thence, ' by nature, children of wrath.' " — Eph. ii : 3.J 
 Hence his sin is imputed to us, not contrary to, but in precise 
 accordance with the fact. " We sinned in him, and fell with him 
 in his first transgression." It is imputed to us in the very sense in 
 which it is, in fact, ours — by virtue of Adam's causative i^elation to 
 us, and the law of representative union, already considered. Thus, 
 ours in its penal demerit, it is equally ours in its criminal enormity, 
 which is the ground upon which the penalty is justly denounced and 
 enforced. 
 
 The Review- Thus far WO havc merely sought to rectify the false 
 
 «r confounds j o •J 
 
 Law §r Grace, imprcssions which the representations of our reviewer 
 are calculated to make. It is due, however, both to ourselves and to 
 the cause of truth, to call attention distinctly to the precise 
 theological position from which the professor assails us — to the 
 peculiarities of his own system, zeal for which has given the review 
 its hostile character. It may be, as the reviewer states, that the 
 author " makes distinctions where there is no difierence, and sup- 
 poses himself to be saying something when he is saying nothing." 
 In what follows, we shall point out what appear to us distinctions 
 
 *Kevicw, p. 346. tThe Elohim Revealed, p. 505. 
 
 t Rutherford, in The Elohim Revealed, p. 408. 
 
22 
 
 whicli are vital to the gospel sclieme, and which are disregarded or 
 obliterated by the reviewer. 
 
 That Adam was a type of Christ, Paul assures us ; and that the 
 parallel does not hold in all respects, he further testifies, (Rom. v : 
 14, 15,) and is also a necessary inference, from the fact that Adam 
 was a creature, — the second Adam, the coequal Son of God; and 
 that, under the covenant in which the former stood, the dispensation 
 is of debt under law ; whilst the covenant of which Christ is surety 
 is, in its relation to man, characteristically of free gift by grace. 
 The eternal covenant was prior to, and determinate of, the assump- 
 tion of humanity and actual headship to the elect by the Son of 
 God. The covenant of works was subsequent to, and predicated 
 upon the creation of Adam's person, invested with the office of 
 parental head of the race. The provisions made with the first 
 Adam had respect to a seed which were already in him intrinsically, 
 as the natural and involuntary fountain and cause of their being. 
 Those embraced in the covenant of grace had respect to a seed who 
 were not yet in Christ, and whose ultimate inbeing is consequent 
 upon the supernatural power of Christ's will, exercised in their 
 regeneration. The condemnation which passes on all, under the 
 violated covenant of works, passes, therefore, on none Avho were 
 not by nature in Adam in the transgression ; whilst the justification 
 which is bestowed under the covenant of grace is to those, none of 
 whom are in Christ otherwise than contrary to nature, by trans- 
 forming grace. The one awards sentence, according to the desert 
 of the creature. The other bestows salvation, according to the 
 goodness of God. The fundamental distinction between law and 
 grace, which is thus traceable in the whole doctrine of God, is, in 
 some of its most important points, obliterated in the criticisms and 
 excluded from the system of our reviewer. Of this the evidence is 
 abundant. In The Elohim Revealed, the ground is taken that, 
 since our relation to Adam and to the sentence of condemnation 
 for his sin, is under the covenant of works, the criterion of which is 
 the law, it follows, that we cannot be held responsible for the first 
 transgression, except on the ground that we are truly criminal in 
 that sin, — that God regards and treats us as sinners, because we 
 are sinners. Upon this our reviewer remarks : — " Then, by parity 
 of reason, he cannot regard the personally unrighteous as righteous; 
 he cannot justify the ungodly. Then, what is to become of us sin- 
 ners ? The objections against the imputation of sin bear with all 
 their force against the imputation of righteousness. ... A 
 
23 
 
 fourth objection to his doctrine is, it destroys the analogy between 
 Adam and Christ, or it necessitates the adoption of the doctrine of 
 subjective justification. We must either deny that the sin of Adam 
 (as alienum peccatum) stands in a rehation to our condemnation 
 analogous to that in which the righteousness of Christ, as distin- 
 guished from our own, stands to our justification ; or we must admit 
 the analogy to be, that as we derive a corrupt nature from Adam, 
 and are on that account condemned, so we derive a holy nature from 
 Christ, and are on the ground of that nature justified."* We do 
 not here pause to dwell on the error of the assumption that the 
 imputation of Christ's righteousness is made contrary to fact. We 
 are not "regarded and treated as righteous," in ourselves; but— in 
 precise accordance Avith the fact— as persons who, in themselves 
 sinners, are ingrafted into and one with their righteous Head. But 
 is it so, tliat our condemnation in Adam is as gratuitous as is our 
 justification in Christ? Is it so, that the cross of Christ sheds no 
 new light upon the government of God ; — that the covenant of 
 grace adds no new principles to those which were embodied in the 
 institutes of Eden ? Are we no more deserving of the death which 
 Adam incurred, than of the gift of life which Christ bestows ? This 
 doctrine is reasserted again and again by the reviewer. " The 
 main point," says he, "in the analogy between Christ and A_dam, as 
 presented in the theology of the Protestant Church, and as exhibited 
 by the apostle is, that as in the case of Christ his righteousness, as 
 something neither done by us nor wrought in us, is the judicial 
 ground of our justification, with Mdiich inward holiness is connected 
 as an invariable consequence ; so in the case of Adam, his offence 
 as something out of ourselves, a peccatum alienum, is the judicial 
 ground of the condemnation of our race ; of which condemnation, 
 spiritual death, or inward corruption is tlie expression and the con- 
 sequence. It is this principle which is fundamental to the Protes- 
 tant theology, and to the evangelical system, in the form in which 
 it is presented in the Bible, which is strenuously denied by Dr. 
 Baird."t Again : " Our author teaches that none but sinners can be 
 punished ; and by sinners he means those chargeable with moral 
 criminality and pollution." In proof, the reviewer cites several 
 passages, closing with the following : " The doctrine involved in 
 the justice of God, and proclaimed in his word, is, that every intel- 
 ligent creature shall be dealt with in precise accordance with his 
 works, [and yet the author expects to be saved !] under the provi- 
 
 *Review, p. 344. tibid, p. 341. 
 
24 
 
 sions of the law and the covenant therein incorporated. That law 
 provides that the sinner, [he who is chargeable with crime and 
 moral turpitude,] and the sinner only, shall be punished, and that 
 m precise proportion to the enormity of his sins."- The lauf'-uao-e 
 thus quoted from the book (p. 489) constitutes part of the cliscus- 
 sion of the doctrine of original sin imputed, which, of necessity, 
 comes under the provisions of tlie legal covenant, and is so treated. 
 Into an extract from this discussion does our reviewer interpolate 
 tlie exclamation, "and jet the author expects to be saved!" Yes! 
 he does cherish that blessed hope. But not by the works of the 
 law, nor at its bar. " Ye are become dead to the law by the body 
 of Christ, that ye should be married to another." Christ's people 
 will never appear before the tribunal of the law. 
 
 er^%he7rTof "^^^^ scntiments of our reviewer, which we have just 
 Original Sin. illustrated, are followed out by him to their legitimate 
 results in relation to original sin. " We sinned in Adam in the 
 same sense that we died in .Christ. "f His sin was to us alienum 
 peccafum—a foreign crime. " This doctrine does not include the 
 idea of a mysterious identity of Adam and his race ; nor that of a 
 transfer of the moral turpitude of his sin to liis descendants. It 
 does not teach that his offence was personally or properly tlie sin 
 of all men, or that his act was, in any mysterious sense, the act of 
 his posterity. Neither does it imply, in reference to the righteous- 
 ness of Christ, that his righteousness becomes personally and inhe- 
 rently ours, or that his moral excellence is in any way transferred 
 from him to believers. The sin of Adam, therefore, is no ground to us 
 of remorse ; and the righteousness of Christ is no ground of self-com- 
 placency in those to whom it is imputed. This doctrine merely teaches, 
 that in virtue of the union, representative and natural, between Adam 
 and his posterity, his sin is the ground of their condemnation,— that 
 is, of their subjection to penal evils. ".t The reviewer charges us with 
 joining with Placc^us, Remonstrants, Pelagians and Socinians, in 
 assailing the doctrine of immediate imputation. We pray the reader 
 to compare the above with the following statement of Turrettin. 
 " At first the Remonstrants spake ambiguously, so that it Avas un- 
 certain what position they assumed. But afterward, in their Apo- 
 logy, chapter vii., they plainly show themselves to favor the Soci- 
 nians ;^ retaining, indeed, the name of imputation, but taking away 
 the thing itself, whilst they declare 'the sin of Adam to be imputed 
 
 ^Review, p. 370. fibid, p. 340. 
 
 t Hodge on the Romans, 12mo. 1858, p. 135. 
 
25 
 
 by God to his posterity; not as tliongli he held them to be really 
 guilty of the same sin and crime with Adam, but as he willed them 
 to be born subject to the same evil to which Adam rendered him- 
 self obnoxious by sin.' ""^ The designation of Adam's sin, as, to 
 us, peccatum alienum, originated with Pelagius; in reply to whom, 
 Augustine says, that " it was, indeed, another's, when those who 
 when born, were to bear it, did not yet exist ; but now, by carnal 
 generation, it belongs to those to whom it has not yet been forgiven 
 through the spiritual regeneration."t The Pelagian phraseology 
 was adopted by the Eemonstrants (see their Apology, &c.) and 
 repudiated by the Reformed writers. According to the West- 
 minster divines, the sin is not peccatum alienum, but commune. 
 " We sinned in him." 
 
 The corruption of our nature was the consequence of Adam's 
 sin. But how? "Our depraved nature," says our reviewer, "is 
 the penal consequence of Adam's sin, not of ours; just as our holi- 
 ness is the gracious gift for Christ's righteousness, and not some- 
 thing self-originated and self-deserved.":}: Here the parallel is not 
 well sustained. Upon the principles of the Review, if depravity 
 is the puni:^,hment which we incur by being regarded and treated as 
 sinners, then the sanctification of believers is the reward to which 
 they become entitled by being regarded and treated as righteous; 
 the regarding and treating may be gracious, but the sanctification 
 is of debt. Not only is depravity represented as a penal conse- 
 quence of Adam's sin, but it is so represented to the exclusion of 
 the idea that it is a consequence naturally flowing out of the sin. 
 " The corruption of nature derived from Adam is not, as Dr. Baird, 
 with strange confusion of thought persists in regarding it, a physio- 
 logical fact, but a fact in the moral government of God. Our 
 author treats it as a question of physics, belonging to the general 
 category of propagation, to be accounted for on the ground of what 
 he calls 'the mysteries of generation;' ignoring the distinction 
 between physical laws§ and the principles of God's dealings with 
 rational creatures. "|| If the reader is startled at the seeming 
 indelicacy of the phrase "mysteries of generation," here attributed 
 to us, we are happy to assure him that he will not find it in the 
 book. It is of the coinage of our reviewer. But the important 
 
 *Turrettini Inst. Theol., L. ix., Qu. ix: 3. 
 
 tAug. Do Pec. Mer., Lib. iii: 7, 8. t Review p. 359. 
 
 ^ The reviewer writes as though physics and physiology were convertible 
 terms ! 
 
 II Review, p. 340. 
 
26 
 
 matter is, that the idea of native depravity being a fact in the 
 moral government of God, is here represented as contradictory to 
 the supposition that it is a physiological fact. How far this position 
 is consistent with the doctrine of Job's friends, who thouglit it 
 impossible to bring a clean thing out of an unclean — with the 
 lamentation of David in the fifty-jBrst Psalm — or with the testimony 
 of Christ to Nicodemus, (John iii: 6, 7,) we will not pause to in- 
 quire. We had supposed that the laws of nature were from that 
 same God who wields the sceptre of moral government ; and that 
 they are mutually adapted to each other, as parts of one great 
 whole. Further; we know of but two classes of causes of pheno 
 mena, to wit: natural laws, otherwise designated second causes, and 
 the immediate power of God. The moral government, therefore, 
 as contradistinguished from physiological laws, can be referred to 
 no cause other than the immediate power of God. Thus is he 
 made to be the author of our depravity. The process traced by 
 the reviewer is circuitous; but the result to which he comes is this, 
 as a few citations will show. Says he : " On the ground of the per- 
 sonal sin of Adam, as the representative of the race, God withdrew 
 from men his favor and spirit ; they thereby lost his image and 
 became inwardly depraved."" " It is enough for all the purposes 
 of his [Paul's] argument, that that sin [Adam's] ^vas the ground 
 of the loss of the divine favor, the withliolding of divine influence, 
 and the consequent corruption of our nature. "f "These [Reformed] 
 confessions teach that original righteousness, as a punishment of 
 Adam's sin, was lost, and hy that defect^ the tendency to sin, or 
 corrupt disposition, or corruption of nature, is occasioned. Though 
 they speak of original sin as being first negative, i. e., the loss of 
 righteousness, and secondly, positive, or corruption of nature, yet 
 by the latter they state is to be understood, not the infusion of any 
 thing in itself sinful, but an actual tendency or disposition to evil, 
 resulting from the loss of righteousness. . . . [Goodwin,] in 
 common with the Reformers, represents original sin as having a 
 positive as well as a negative side. This, however, results from the 
 active nature of the soul. If there is no tendency to the love and 
 service of God, there is from this very defect a tendency to self 
 and sin."§ 
 
 Here it will be seen that the withdrawal of the divine favor and 
 withholding of divine influence is viewed as the cause of tlie loss 
 
 * Review, p. 342. IHodge on the Romans, p. 135. 
 
 JThe italics are the Commentator's own. § Hodge on the Romans, p. 136. 
 
27 
 
 of original righteousness. " God withdrew from men his favor and 
 Spirit; they Merely lost his image." Further: original righteous- 
 ness is supposed to be of such a nature that its loss is not, of itself, 
 a depravation of the soul. It is but one of two causes of depravity, 
 of which the other is the activity of the moral nature. Prior to 
 the action of this cause there maybe no original righteousness; 
 but there is as little of corruption or moral turpitude. The soul 
 has no part in Adam's turpitude, and has yet generated none in 
 itself. Not until the activity of the moral nature comes into ope- 
 ration is depravity developed. Further: this cause is supposed to 
 lie in abeyance for a time, however brief. In order to establish 
 the doctrine that our relation to Adam's sin is merely penal and 
 not criminal, we are assured no less than three times in succession, 
 in the commentary on the Eomans, that the death of infants is not 
 demanded by the law of nature written in the heart. -The law 
 or covenant which brings death on all men," [according to Paul's 
 argument, in Rom. v: 12, &c.] "is not the law of Moses, because 
 multitudes died before that was given, (v. 14.) Nor is it the law 
 of nature written upon the heart, since multitudes die who have 
 never violated even that law, (v. 14.)" Again: "Neither is the 
 violation of the law of nature sufficient to explain the fact that all 
 men are subject to death, because even those die who have never 
 broken that law." '-This universality in the infliction of penal 
 evil cannot be accounted for on the ground of the violation of the 
 law of Moses, since men were subject to such evil before that law 
 was given ; nor yet on account of the violation of the more general 
 law written on the heart, since even they are subject to this evil 
 who have never personally sinned at all. We must conclude, 
 therefore, that men are regarded and treated as sinners on account 
 of the sin of Adam."* 
 
 Thus it appears upon the showing of our reviewer, that the 
 infants of whom he speaks, when called to the bar of God, are not 
 liable to any criminal charge whatever. The law of Sinai does 
 not condemn them. The law in their own hearts urges no accusa- 
 tion. The only charge against them is, of sustaining such a relation 
 to Adam as to be involved in his punishment, without sharing in the 
 turpitude of his sin. 
 
 A single additional citation will complete the view in this direc- 
 tion: — " As the term death is used for any and every evil judicially 
 inflicted as the punishment of sin, the amount and nature of the evil 
 
 * Hodge on the Romans, pp. 114, 119, 133. 
 
28 
 
 not being expressed by the word ; it is no part of the apostle's doc- 
 trine that eternal misery is inflicted on any man for the sin of Adam, 
 irrespective of inherent depravity or actual transgression."* Here, 
 be it observed, the question is not as to the extent to which the grace 
 of Christ has provided salvation for infant or adult ; but, What was that 
 deaifA which, by law, passed upon all, for Adam's sin — that death which 
 reigned from Adam to Moses, even over infants ? Dr. Hodge, being 
 interpreter, it is not eternal misery. What then is the situation of 
 those infants whom v;e have just traced to the bar of God, in a 
 state of freedom from all impeachment, except for Adam's sin? At 
 the tribunal to which they are called, there is no penal sentence 
 short of eternal misery. That is not denounced against them ; and, 
 in short, thus innocent of all real crime, and having left behind 
 them the inflictions imposed l)ecause of Adam's sin, they are under 
 no curse, — they need no Saviour! 
 
 In respect to our apostasy in the person of Adam, the reviewer 
 says: "Apostasy being an act of self-determination, it can be predi- 
 cated only of persons, and if the apostasy of Adam can be predicated 
 of us, then we existed as persons, thousands of years before we existed 
 at all. If any man says he believes this, then, as we think he 
 deceives himself, and does not understand what he says. Dr. Baird, 
 however, asserts that he did thus act in Adam, and that he feels 
 sorry for it. He teaches that we are bound to feel remorse and 
 self-reproach for this act of self-determination, performed so many 
 centuries before self existed. This is represented as a genuine form 
 of religious experience, an experience due to tlie teachings and 
 influence of God's Holy Spirit. This a very serious matter. To 
 attribute to the Spirit of God the mistakes and figments of our own 
 minds — to represent as a genuine form and manifestation of the 
 divine life, what is a mere delusion of our own imagination, or off- 
 spring of our pride of intellect, is a very grave offence, and a very 
 great evil."t On this place we make two or three remarks. 
 
 1. We have distinctly defined apostasy to be " the self deprava- 
 tion of a nature created holy," and stated as distinctly that the only 
 case in which the crime could have been personally predicated of 
 any of Adam's seed would be upon the supposition that he liad not 
 fallen, and tliey had been put on trial personally.."!: Further, we 
 have stated that " it would be a false and impossible remorse, which 
 should assume the apostasy of Adam to be a private, several and 
 
 * Hodge on the Komans, p. 135. t Review, p. 357. 
 
 t The Elohim Revealed, p. 509. 
 
29 
 
 personal sin of the several posterity of Adam, instead of being 
 common and native.""" In a passage already quoted (above p. 13) 
 we have carefully guarded against the supposition that our oneness 
 with Adam implies an obliterating of our distinctive personality, 
 or the idea that we personally sinned in the apostasy. These dis- 
 tinctions are recognized throughout the book. They are probably 
 among those which, in the reviewer's estimation, are without a dif- 
 ference. He altogether disregards them, and g\qyj where repre- 
 sents us as teaching that we, personally, sinned in Adam. 
 
 2. If the reviewer's argument be worth anything, we are not 
 Chargeable with apostasy at all. This, however, we have seen is 
 essential to his system. We are only punished for an apostasy in 
 which we have no criminal part. 
 
 3. Bj turning to The Elohim Revealed, page 499, the reader 
 will see that it is not Dr. Eaird, but Dr. Goodwin, whose confes- 
 sion of guilt and profession of contrition for the apostasy excites 
 the alternate sarcasm and indignation of the reviewer. And we 
 venture to advise the reader to be sure that he is at least as pro- 
 foundly versed in the deep things of God, as was that distinguished 
 member of the Westminster Assembly, before he admits, too readily, 
 the criticisms of the reviewer, on this point. 
 
 Tiie Review- j^ lespcct to thc csscntial depravity of man's nature, 
 
 ers Doctrine of ^ i. >/ i 
 
 Depravity. ^g contradistinguishod from active corruption and actual 
 sin, we state that, " the law demands holiness — a word which does 
 not express any form of mere action, but a state of all the powers 
 and of the nature itself, conformed to God's nature. To this law 
 Christ was conformed from his first conception, and in being so, 
 illustrated the extent of the requirements of the law, which says, 
 Be holy. He was in the womb, ' that holy thing.' To the law, thus 
 comprehensive in its demands; thus claiming the allegiance of the 
 soul and nature, as well as the actions and life, want of conformity 
 is sin."t And again, " The soul is that which in its substance and 
 powers intrinsically, as much as in their exercises, was created and 
 ordained to be the image and glory of God. Conformity of this 
 substance to this, its exalted office, is holiness, the reverse is sin."| 
 Here, the reviewer cannot find terms strong enough to express his 
 scorn. Not content with the assertion that he can discover no 
 meaning in our language, he declares that he does not believe the 
 author had a meaning at all. The reader who appreciates the 
 
 * The Elohim Revealed, p. 449. t Ibid, p. 254. Ilbid, p. 253. 
 
30 
 
 revie-n^cr's theory above indicated, will readily imderstand the sig- 
 nificance of this failure of comprehension. 
 
 And now let the reader glance over the theory here traced out 
 in its most conspicuous features, and ask himself, by what accom- 
 modation of language it can be called a doctrine of original sin. 
 Rather is it a theory of original punishment. Not only is it as- 
 serted that Adam's transgression is not our sin, — not only is it 
 denied that the depravity of man is a physiological fact, a phe- 
 nomenon of generation, but it is denied that in the earlier period of 
 infant existence any criminal charge is predicable at all, either 
 under the law written on the heart or that of Moses. The idea 
 that the law applies to the soul intrinsically as well as to its exer- 
 cises, — that sin may be predicated of its attitude as well as of its 
 actings, — is represented to be as absurd as to talk of " the moral 
 character of a tree, or the correct deportment of a house." At 
 best, the system resembles the "exercise scheme" of Hopkins. 
 Native depravity is not " anything in itself sinful." The earliest 
 moral responsibility, is based upon " the actual tendency or disposition 
 to evil," which is generated by the withdrawal of divine influence 
 and the activity of the soul — a tendency which, at least, so far as it 
 is sinful — is the product of personal activity, since it is not 
 predicable of infants, such as those of whom Paul speaks. 
 
 In respect to this whole scheme, the reader is requested to com- 
 pare the teachings of the professor with those of Whitby, in his 
 commentary on Romans, v. 19. He will find that they stand thus 
 related: — (1.) Whilst the former states that "the word translated 
 have sinned, may be rendered, have become guilty, or regarded and 
 treated as sinners."* Whitby interprets the language as meaning 
 that " we became obnoxious to that death which was the punishment 
 of his sin," — a phrase precisely answering to our reviewer's defini- 
 tion of his own word, guilty. (2.) In support of this interpreta- 
 tion of the word, sin, Whitby cites a number of passages from the 
 Old Testament. Our reviewer's evidence is selected from the same 
 passages ; with the exception that he takes Job ix. 29, instead of 
 Whitby's appeal to Job ix. 20. (3.) Whitby defines the penalty 
 incurred as being " death and temporal calamities ;" Avhilst Dr. 
 Hodge says it does not inflict eternal misery. (4.) Whitby, holding 
 that imputation implies a veritable charge, denies that Adam's sin 
 is imputed to us. The reviewer asserts that Adam's sin is imputed 
 to us, but denies this to imply that it is really ours. (5.) They both 
 
 * Hodge on the Romans, 8vo, 1835, p. 184. 
 
31 
 
 with one voice cry out against the absurdity of the idea that we 
 sinned thousands of years before we existed. How widely they 
 differ, the reader may determine. 
 
 It may be supposed that the statements of doctrine, which we 
 have quoted from the reviewer, are causal and inadvertant. On 
 the contrary, they result logically, and necessarily from his first prin- 
 ciples to which we have alluded. If the parallel between Adam and 
 Christ involves a gratuitous condemnation of Adam's seed, it be- 
 comes requisite, in order to apply this theory to the language of 
 Paul, to eliminate the case to which the apostle refers, of everything 
 which would constitute a ground of deserved condemnation. Paul's 
 argument is that infants die, therefore they sinned in Adam. Now, if 
 there be in them a corruption which deserves death, it must be 
 recognized as inseparable from, and the effect and terminus ad quern 
 of a crime of which we are really guilty in Adam ; else, the apostle 
 must have traced the death of all, not to that sin of Adam which is 
 denied to be their crime, but to the depravity thus recognized as 
 native in their hearts. 
 
 At length, as the infant faculties expand, depravity is developed 
 from the two causes already indicated — the withholding of divine 
 influence, and the activity of the soul. Of neither of these causes 
 can it be pretended that the individual is the criminal author. 
 They are both immediately from God. But they operate so as to 
 induce " the tendency to sin, or corrupt disposition or corruption 
 of nature." Here, the objection presents itself: How can tenden- 
 cies thus induced be charged upon us as our crimes? "This cor- 
 ruption of nature or want of original righteousness," says Goodwin, 
 "in such case would not have been nor could not have been 
 accounted a sin; a punishment it might."* We have the answer of 
 our reviewer. — "The n^iitov -^ii^o^ of such speculations is, that moral 
 principles or dispositions owe their character to their origin, and 
 not to their nature. It is assumed that innate hereditary depravity 
 cannot have the nature of sin in us unless it be self-originated. . . 
 Adam was created righteous. Original righteousness in him had a 
 moral character in the sight of God, although not self-originated. 
 It is a first principle of Pelagianism, that moral character can 
 attach only to acts of self-determination and their consequences. 
 All Pelagians, therefore, deny that Adam was created holy. He 
 could not be holy, they say, unless he originated his own character. 
 
 * Goodwin's Works, folio, vol. iii. p. 15, in The Elohim Revealedj p. 44. 
 
32 
 
 So, all these false theories assume that inherent corruption cannot 
 have the nature of sin unless self-orio-inated. If Ave are born cor- 
 rupt, that corruption must have sprung from our own act either in 
 a former state of existence or in the person of Adam. AVhen God, 
 by the almighty power of his Spirit, quickens the spiritually dead, 
 the holiness thus originated is none the less holiness."* Here we 
 have another illustration of the habitual confusion of law and grace. 
 — Because God may work in us holiness, therefore he may produce 
 depravity ! In fact, the whole argument results from the review- 
 er's contempt for some of those distinctions which seem to us impor- 
 tant. It is true Adam was created holy. But the question is 
 not whether holiness is good and sin evil, in itself: but, To whom 
 does the merit or demerit attach? Was Adam entitled to the merit 
 of his concreated holiness? Or, could he have acquired any merit 
 at all, had he been so constituted that he could not sin? That 
 freedom which was given him alike to holiness and sin constituted 
 an element in his moral agency without which neither merit nor 
 demerit were possible to him. The saints in heaven are holy. But 
 to whom attaches the merit of that holiness ? To them, or to that 
 blessed One who works in them both to will and to do of his good 
 pleasure? The very cases cited by the reviewer prove, therefore, 
 that the merit attaches not to the subject of the attributes, whether 
 holy or unholy, but to the intelligent author of them. If we are not 
 criminally responsible for the origination of our depravity, neither 
 are we for its existence and action. It may be our calamity, it 
 cannot be our crime. 
 
 the^'^My^ticfi The only other feature of this system which we shall 
 fification.'^"^' now mention, has respect to the mode in which the 
 righteousness of Christ becomes ours, in order to justification. We 
 have seen the zeal with which the position is maintained, that the 
 doctrine of imputation " does not include the idea of a mysterious 
 identity of Adam and his race." By parity of reason it should 
 not include the idea of a mysterious identity between Christ 
 and his people. And accordingly, in the system presented 
 in the review, the relation which in the Scriptures and our 
 standards, the mystical union sustains to justification is ig- 
 nored, and the doctrine represented as complete without it, and to 
 the exclusion of it. " Christ in the covenant of redemption, is con- 
 
 * Keview, p. 358. 
 
^ 33 
 
 stitutecl the head and representative of his people ; and, in virtue 
 of this federal union, and agreeably to the terms of the eternal 
 covenant, they are regarded and treated as having done what he 
 did and suffered what lie suffered in their name and in their behalf."* 
 According to our understanding of the Scriptures, it was provided 
 in the eternal covenant that the elect should be actually ingrafted 
 into Christ by his Spirit, and their acceptance and jnstification is by 
 virtue of this their actual union to him. " This principle is not to 
 be so understood as though the character thus conveyed were the 
 meritorious cause of the relations predicated; as if the believer 
 were justified by the personal righteousness which he receives 
 through the power of Christ's Spirit given to him. On the contrary, 
 the union, which is constituted by virtue of the transmission of the 
 nature, itself conveys a proprietary title in the moral and legal rela- 
 tions of the head; whilst the efficient principle which thus unites, is 
 also fruitful in effects appropriate to the nature whence it flows. 
 Thus, the sin of Adam, and the righteousness of Christ are severally 
 imputed to their seed, by virtue of the union, constituted in the one 
 case by the principle of natural generation, and in the other, by 
 ' the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,' the Holy Spirit, the principle of 
 regeneration. At the same time, the power by which the union is 
 in these cases severally wrought produces likeness to the head."t 
 This view is not only stated in specific terras, again and again, but 
 is wrought into the whole texture of tlie book, to wit : — that " the 
 matter of justification is that very, whole and entire righteousness 
 which the Lord Jesus wrought by his obedience and suffering;" and 
 that "the ground of the justification of the elect, the cause of the 
 imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ, is their actual 
 inbeing in Christ. They are ' accepted in the Beloved,' — Eph. i. 6, 
 because they really are in Him."j: This doctrine, our reviewer 
 persists in representing as undistinguishable from the Romish heresy 
 of justification by virtue of infused righteousness, the subjective 
 holiness of the believer ; and it is in opposition to it that he postu- 
 lates the statement above cited, of a '' constituted" headship and 
 " federal union." Whatever, therefore, is comprehended in the 
 meaning of these terms, they do not embrace but exclude the mysti- 
 cal union in its relation to justification. 
 
 How important this point is to the questions involved between us 
 
 * Review, p. 340. t The Elohim Revealed, p. 317. \ Ibid, p. 642, 643. 
 3 
 
34 
 
 is evident. If the imputation of Christ's righteousness be founded 
 in a real inbeing in him, wrought by the uniting power of his Spirit 
 in regeneration, — if it is thus that we are brought within the pro- 
 visions of the covenant of grace to our justification, it follows, (we 
 will venture the word,) incontestahly, that the imputation to us of 
 Adam's sin, is founded in a real inlieing in him, by natural genera- 
 tion, by virtue of which we come under the provisions of the cove- 
 nant of works, to our condemnation. But this, according to our 
 reviewer, is "simply a physiological theory," involving " a mysteri- 
 ous identity," which he cannot admit. Hence the necessity of 
 ignoring the doctrine, in its relation to justification. 
 
 And yet this writer does not, as far as we are aware, in terms 
 deny the doctrine in question, nor does he affirm it. He merely 
 in silence, excludes it. Such, however, is not the case with all the 
 disciples of his system. My examiners in Presbytery vehemently 
 protested that the mystical union had nothing to do with justifica- 
 tion, but only with sanctification. And a writer who in the 
 True Witness has devoted a series of numbers to misrepresen- 
 tation of me, is equally explicit. He declares his allegiance in the 
 first number : — 
 
 " I found him [Dr. Baird] attempting to tear up by the roots the 
 clearest aud most beautiful exposition of the 5th of Romans God ever 
 permitted any man to make. I had been really so simple, way out here 
 in the pine woods, as to think that no man in the church could for a 
 moment suppose any other exegesis of this great and important chapter 
 could be given, [than that of Dr. Hodge.] We had seen, with triumphant 
 exultation, how, with this interpretation of Paulism, he had leveled to 
 the dust the whole host of new school men ; how Stuart, aud Barnes, and 
 Tholuck, and Park, and all others appeared as mere babblers in compari- 
 son with the great light that shines in such glory on Princeton heights."* 
 In defence of the exegesis thus so enthusiastically embraced, he repre- 
 sents it as perfectly certain, from the tenor of Paul's argument, "that 
 God does account and accept our persons as righteous in him, as our 
 federal head, prior in the order of nature, to our real union with him as 
 our vital head ?"! " But Dr. Baird would have this imputation to pro- 
 ceed upon what he terms our inbeing in Christ. That is, after we have 
 been made holy through our vital union to him, then his righteousness 
 becomes ours, and is imputed to us as what is really ours, not forensically 
 so. . . . Now, I challenge the very first passage of sacred writ to 
 
 * True Witness, March 10, 1860. t Ibid. 
 
35 
 
 prove we have or can have our inbeing in Christ vitally and really, before 
 we have our inbeing in him legally or by imputation. It is impossible : 
 the one is the cause of the other. . . . So we conclude in respect of 
 Adam, or the apostle reasons illogically ; that, as we cannot be justified 
 in the sight of God, except by our federal union with Christ, nor have 
 our real inbeing in him before we have it legally ; so wc cannot be con- 
 demned in Grod's sight, except by our federal union with Adam, nor have 
 our real inbeing in him, before we have it legally. Hence the conclusion 
 to my mind seems inevitable, that, so far from the federal union being 
 dependent upon, and in consequence of the natural, the natural would 
 never have been but for the federal union."* 
 
 Such is the doctrine in vindication of which this writer is per- 
 mitted by the editor of the True Witness to write " heretic" against 
 1117 name. 
 
 Thus, then, stands the case. — The doctrine that we are clothed 
 with Christ's righteousness by being ingrafted into his mystical 
 person, is ignored and excluded in the reviewer's own exposition 
 and argument ; — as stated clearly in The Elohini Revealed, it is by 
 him persistently confounded with the Romish doctrine of infused 
 righteousness; logical consistency demands its rejection from his 
 system ; and by his disciples it is in terms repudiated and derided. 
 He may refuse to be held responsible for their representations. 
 They, however, none the less truly exhibit the logical result and 
 actual effect of his teachings. How important the consequences 
 involved it is for good men to consider. 
 
 o"//o^o"^ That the doctrine which is thus assailed and repudiated 
 Authorities, jg ^^r^^ ^f ^j^g Rcformcd Church we had supposed to be 
 unquestionable. Hence, in writing our work, attention was given 
 mainly to the subject of original sin; the correlative doctrine of 
 justification being merely sketched in a parallel to the other, with- 
 out entering into the argument or citing the standard theologians. 
 The present seems an appropriate occasion for a partial supply of 
 the latter omission. 
 
 Says Calvin : " That the cavils of Osiander may not deoeive the inex- 
 perienced, I confess that we are destitute of this incomparable blessing 
 [justification] till Christ becomes ours. I attribute, therefore, the highest 
 importance to the connection between the head and members ; to the 
 inhabitation of Christ in our hearts ; in a word, to the mystical union by 
 
 * True Witness, March 31. 
 
36 
 
 which we enjoy him ; so that, being made ours, he makes no partakers of 
 the blessings with which he is furnished. We do not, then, contemplate 
 him at a distance out of ourselves, that his righteousness may be imputed 
 to us ; but because we have put him on, and are ingrafted into his body ; 
 and because he has deigned to unite us to himself, therefore we glory in 
 a participation of his righteousness."* 
 
 Says Owen: "The foundation of the imputation asserted is union. 
 Hereof there are many grounds and causes as hath been declared. But 
 that which we have immediate respect unto as the foundation of this im- 
 putation, is that whereby the Lord Christ and believers do actually 
 coalesce into one mystical person. This is by the Holy Spirit inhabiting 
 in him as the head of the church in all fullness, and in all believers 
 according to their measure, whereby they become members of his mystical 
 body. . . . Upon supposition of this union, reason will grant the 
 imputation pleaded for to be reasonable ; at least, that there is such pecu- 
 liar ground for it as is not to be exemplified in any things natural or poli- 
 tical among men. . . . That which is imputed is the righteousness 
 of Christ. "t 
 
 Boston, in his Fourfold State, opens The State of Grace, Head 2, with 
 a full discussion of the mystical union in a parallel with the natural union 
 to Adam, and upon that union predicates all the blessings of salvation : — 
 justification, peace, adoption, sanctification, &c. "The first particular 
 benefit that a sinner has by his union with Christ is justification ; for, 
 being united to Christ, he has communion with him in his righteousness." 
 " Thus the person united to Christ is justified. You may conceive the 
 whole proceeding in this manner. The avenger of blood pursuing the 
 criminal, Christ as the Saviour of lost sinners does by the Spirit apprehend 
 him, and draw him to himself; and he, by faith, lays hold on Christ; so 
 the Lord our righteousness and the unrighteous creature unite. From 
 this union with Christ results a communion with him in his unsearchable 
 riches, and consequently in his righteousness, that white raiment which 
 he has for clothing of the naked. Bev. iii : 18. Thus the righteousness 
 of Christ becomes his : and because it is his by unquestionable title, it is 
 imputed to him ; it is reckoned his in the judgment of God, which is 
 always according to truth. "J 
 
 But why should we accumulate evidence on this point, on which 
 the reader will find the ready testimony of the first standard writer 
 to whom he turns ? We will only add the Confessions of the Scotch 
 Church and of our own. 
 
 * Calvin lust., L. III., cap. xi. § 10. tOwen on Justification, ch. 0. 
 
 I Fourfold State. Board of Pub., pp. 195, 19G. 
 
37 
 
 "It behooveth us," says the first Scotch confession, "to apprehend 
 Christ Jesus, with his justice and satisfaction, who is the end and accom- 
 plishment of the law, by whom we are set at liberty, that the curse and 
 malediction of Grod fall not upon us, albeit we fulfill not the same in all 
 points ; for God, the Father, beholding us in the body of his Son Christ 
 Jesus, accepteth our imperfect obedience as it were perfect, and covers 
 our works which are defiled with many spots, with the justice of his 
 Son."* 
 
 "We assuredly believe that by baptism we are ingrafted in Christ 
 Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, whereby our sins are covered 
 and remitted."! 
 
 Our next authority is the "Form of Examination before the 
 Communion, approved by the General Assembly of the Kirk of 
 Scotland, 1591, and appointed to be used in families and schools." 
 It is commonly called Craig's Catechism. 
 
 " III. Of our participation of Christ and his merits. Ques. How is 
 that wrought ? Ans. Through his continual intercession for us in heaven. — 
 Heb. vii: 25. Q. Declare how that is done. A. Hereby the Holy 
 Spirit is sent. — John xiv : 16, 26. Q. What doth the Spirit in this work ? 
 A. He ofi"ereth Christ and his graces, and moveth us to receive him. Q. 
 How doth he ofi'er Christ to us 1 A. By the preaching of the evangel. — 
 Rom. X : 13 ; xiii : 15. Q. How doth he move us to receive him 1 A. 
 Through printing in our hearts true faith in Christ. — Acts xvi : 14. Q. 
 What thing is faith in Christ 1 A. A sure persuasion that he is the only 
 Saviour of the world, but ours in special, who believe in him. — John vi. 
 Q. What doth this faith work? A. Our inseparable union with Christ in 
 his graces.— Eph. iii : 16-19. Q. What is the first fruit of this union ? 
 A. Remission of our sins and imputation of justice. — Rom. vi : 19." 
 
 We need not recite the various testimonies contained in the 
 Westminster standards. The Shorter Catechism embraces the 
 whole in a few words. " We are made partakers of the redemption 
 purchased by Christ by the effectual application of it to us by his 
 Holy Spirit. The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased 
 by Christ, by working faith in us, and therel)y uniting us to Christ, 
 in our effectual calling. They that are eflFectually called do in this 
 life partake of justification, adoption, sauctification, and the several 
 benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from tliem." 
 Baptism " doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and par- 
 
 *First Scotch Conf., Art. xv. tibid, Art. xxi. 
 
38 
 
 taking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement 
 to be the Lord's." 
 
 In Fisher's catechism tliis doctrine is fully unfolded. A single 
 sentence is a clue to his entire system. " What is the connection 
 between effectual calling and justiHcation? A. Ineffectual calling, 
 sinners being united to Christ by faith have thereby communion 
 with him in his righteousness for justification." 
 
 Personal At- ^^q jj^g^y ^ot closG witliout a word in respect to the 
 
 titude of the •' ^ 
 
 Reviewer. attitudc which, throughout, the reviewer assumes, and 
 the style in which he has thought proper to express himself, as 
 tpwards the author. That, in these respects, the article is indefen- 
 sible, the last paragraph is evidence, at the same time that it is one 
 of the most exceptionable passages in the entire review. Whilst it 
 reveals a consciousness of the improprieties already committed, it 
 attempts to weaken the force of public condemnation, by an addi- 
 tional wrong — by appeal to the lex talionis — accusing me of doing 
 violence to the rules of courtesy, in the book. In respect to that 
 charge, the evidence was some time since laid before the public ; 
 upon which a decisive verdict has been rendered. Impelled to the 
 })ublication of my treatise by a sense of imperative obligation — it 
 was written under an impressive apprehension of the responsibility 
 involved ; and with the most anxious endeavor to meet that respon- 
 sibility in a spirit of Christian charity and fraternal courtesy — speak- 
 ing what seemed to me the truth, irrespective of persons ; but speak- 
 ing the truth in love. Toward Dr. Hodge especially a heartfelt 
 respect dictated a style which has been criticised as too deferential 
 to accord with good taste. I was willing to err in that direction ; 
 and after the work was issued from the press, went out of the way 
 to give further expressions to feelings of sincere personal regard.* 
 
 * The following note accompanied a tinted copy of the book : — 
 
 Woodbury, N. J., Nov. 23, 1859. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir : — The failure of ray publishers has temporarily suspended 
 the issue of the accompanying work. A few copies having been printed on 
 extra paper, I have obtained some of them in advance, and venture to ask your 
 acceptance of this copy, as an assurance that if I have ventured in it to dissent 
 from some of your published opinions, it is in entire consistency with the most 
 cordial personal respect and esteem, with which I am Yours truly, 
 
 Samuel J. Baird. 
 
 Rev. Charles Hodge, D.D. 
 
 To this note no response has been received, except the notices of the book 
 which have appeared in the pages of the Repertory. 
 
'39 
 
 All this may have been misunderstood. The single object was, to 
 give such an impress to any discussions which might ensue, as to 
 prevent cause of exultation to the enemy, or occasion of grief to 
 the friends of peace. 
 
 In what manner these overtures have been met, the public is aware ; 
 in a style to which I can make no response. The design, however, 
 is manifest— by assuming the attitude of unapproachable superiority, 
 and adopting language of most contemptuous disparagement, 
 and a tone of uncompromising proscription, to startle discussion 
 into silence, stigmatize the doctrines which the reviewer opposes, and 
 enforce unquestioning acquiescence in his peculiar opinions. Perhaps 
 it is better so. It has rendered necessary a more distinct exposi- 
 tion, than might in other circumstances have been proper, of the 
 true character of those opinions ; contrary as I believe them to be 
 to the standards of our church, and of very serious import to the 
 system of grace.* Nor am I aware of anything which entitles the 
 reviewer to peculiar exemption from such criticism, or to recognition 
 as the gnomon of Old School orthodoxy. On the contrary, the his- 
 tory of the great questions which have been agitated in the church 
 within the last thirty years, from the issues raised by the Act and 
 Testimony to those of Romish baptism and the idea and constitution 
 of the church,— affords abundant illustration of the fact that 
 dissent from the reviewer's most cherished opinions may be per- 
 fectly consistent with unimpeachable fealty to the church, and even 
 essential to harmony with her sentiments on the most important 
 subjects. And a doctrine of imputation which comes to us boasting 
 the suffrages of Messrs. Stuart and Barnes,t and which is derived 
 from the fifth of Romans, by an exegesis of the word " sin," which 
 is essentially that of Whitby, in its argument, its proof texts and 
 its conclusion, is so far from being entitled to unquestioned cur- 
 
 *The reviewer seems to concede that his system does not precisely con- 
 form to the primitive standard of Reformed orthodoxy. "We find in the 
 history of Protestant theology much more inconsistency and confusion during 
 the sixteenth than during the seventeenth century. It was not until after one 
 principle had been allowed to modify another that the scheme of doctrine came 
 to adjust itself to the consistent and moderate form in which it is presented in 
 the writings of Turrcttin and Gcrh&vd.''— Review, p. 338. The close of the 
 sixteenth century was signalized by a revival of a philosophical spirit. The 
 theology of the sixteenth century,— of Calvin,— is characteristically Biblical, 
 that of the seventeenth, philosophical. The change was no improvement. 
 
 t Hodge on the Romans, 8vo., 1835, p. 107. 
 
40 
 
 rency, that it compels the inquiry whether our church was mistaken 
 as to the importance of the doctrinal issues which rent her asunder, 
 — whether there is nothing but words between her and those whom 
 she rejected from her bosom as derelict to the truth. -^ 
 
 Had duty permitted, I would gladly have avoided the present 
 discussion. But the repeated attempt to erect the peculiar opinions 
 of Dr. Hodge into a test of orthodoxy, to denounce and proscribe 
 the doctrine which our church in her catechisms taught me in child- 
 hood, and to compel my acceptance of those opinions and rejection 
 of that doctrine, under penalty of the ban of heresy, has left me 
 no alternative but to make an unequivocal statement of the reasons 
 which forbid the exchange, and induce me to regard with distrust 
 and apprehension the scheme which 1 reject. In making this expo- 
 sition, 1 have confined myself to a development, mainly in the 
 tlie reviewer's own language, of the systematic relations and logical 
 consequences of the principles in behalf of which he assails my trea- 
 tise. Many things of importance in the pages of the review and in the 
 reviewer's system have been left untouched. Enough, I trust, has 
 been said to convince every thoughtful mind that questions of pro- 
 found importance are involved; — and that it will require for their 
 solution something much more serious than is attempted in the 
 review. The whole subject is commended to the consideration of 
 the church, and to the determination of her glorious Head. 
 
 *'^ There is no mysterious oneness of the race, no transfer of moral character, 
 no assumption of the moral guilt of men for the sin of Adam, involved in the 
 doctrine. Professor Park knows this, for he himself makes the question on this 
 subject to be whether God exercises distributive justice, or sovereignty towards 
 us in causing us to suffer for the sin of Adam." Again,— " Professor Park him- 
 self says,—' Our calamities hang suspended on the sovereign purpose of heaven ; 
 we say directly, he [Dr. Hodge] says indirectly; we say, without any interven- 
 ing links; he says, with the intervening links of imputation, guilt, &c.' When 
 we first read this sentence we could hardly believe that Professor Park had 
 been given up to speak the truth thus simply and clearly. It is precisely as he 
 states it. A man is put to death, he says, by a sovereign act; we say, with the 
 trifling intermediate links of guilt and just condemnation. '^-i^e^jieri'ory, Oct. 
 1851, pp. 679, 680. If the reader will take into account the reviewer's definition 
 
 of guilt,— liability to evils which are penal although no real crime is charo-ed 
 
 he will be possessed of the precise extent of the issue on this point between 
 the two professors. 
 
o 
 
ICI